Aha! So THAT's why military is unstoppable

[Slowpoke]

Besides the A.I. being borked, I think I figured out why a military rampage goes unchecked, and it's not war weariness.

It's the fact that they divided gold and science. Previously, in order to maintain units and newly gained cities, you had to tank your science rating in order to complete a war, eventually falling behind enough that you couldn't continue the war. Now your science increases as you fight, giving you stronger units to continue fighting.

 

[DrunkenPirate]

That's true in reality too though, technology has improved greatly as a result of warfare.

 

[Janig]

Its obvious that rapid growth is easier than before but I think that makes the game more fun, thats a good design choice. The main issue is the AIs stupidity and its a potentially huge task facing the developers to fix it. I won deity at my only attempt without reloading on normal settings purely because the AI sucked really bad at combat. Forget wonders, identify some horses settle them and then spam horsemen.

 

[Martin Alvito]

It goes unchecked simply because of the fact that more cities -> more Hammers -> more units. Even if Science were nerfed by war weariness, an AI with a commanding production lead could grind its victims into hamburger fast enough to keep researching. Once it eats the first victim, it has that lead.

 

[bluedevil99]

Its obvious that rapid growth is easier than before but I think that makes the game more fun, thats a good design choice. The main issue is the AIs stupidity and its a potentially huge task facing the developers to fix it. I won deity at my only attempt without reloading on normal settings purely because the AI sucked really bad at combat. Forget wonders, identify some horses settle them and then spam horsemen.

The problem is the AI sucks at both tactics and strategy. Yes, they leave ranged units exposed. But it's potentially even more problematic that even high level AI will spam early wonders at the expense of military. I've started next to Ramses twice on immortal and both times he had two multiple wonders... and one spearmen, two archers, and 3-4 warriors when my horsemen got there. Yes the AI has tactical issues but they could "fix" a lot of the unbalanced early horse rushes by making the AI build spearmen, or letting them upgrade warriors to spearmen with gold.

 

[Chibiabos]

More cities only -> hammers if you annex them. If you puppet them, they just drag down your economy. I've only recently found a use for enemy cities: AIs will pay through the nose for cities. So much, if I ask them what they'd give for a huge city that has hugely expensive buildings, they'll tell me they can't think of anything -- but if I propose they give me everything they have, they'll readily accept.

 

[Zhahz]

I wouldn't mind seeing a more complicated science system that was less tied to raw population and more tied to buildings with some diminishing returns so that small empires aren't totally crushed by sprawlers or so that sprawlers aren't rewarded with tons of free research. And it would encourage buildings, cause building maint, etc - something that sprawling AIs I think ignore when it comes to science because raw pop is so effective.

IMO buildings need to be a bigger factor, and to prevent THEM from just being an alternative to sprawlers getting an easy edge, put some diminishing returns in. So as a rough example that isn't how science works in civ. Say a library gives 10 sci/turn. But only your first library. Every additional library gives 2 less, down to a minimum of 2 sci. So your first few libraries have some impact, but there's diminishing returns. Sprawling empires can still get extra sci...but not so ridiculously excessive that they crush smaller empires by default. Research is usually based on the quality of your researchers, not raw population. The diminishing returns thing kinda models this better IMO. You could do similarly with % modifying buildings...start at 100% and drop by 20 to a min of 20.

 

[Monsterzuma]

I would put it like this: beakers are inflationary. You get punished for focussing on them too much. Teching further up the tree means techs become more expensive, so your beakers become worth less. Meanwhile the quality of techs does not significantly change (whether you're turning a str 12 unit into a str 18 one or a str 18 one into a str 27 one, the relative increase is the same).

In Civ4 there were still a lot of techs that provided an "interest" on your beakers, such as Currency (+1 trade route per city). In civ5 direct interest returns are almost entirely done away with beyond a certain point.

When you realize this, you end up trying to find other pursuits to focus on... what alternatives are there to war, really?

This is a structural problem in civilization.

 

[Celevin]

The # of cities in an empire isn't the science, it's the total population. And the total population is pretty much going to approach your happiness (sans a -100 unhappiness empire). A smaller empire will have more population in each of its cities.

This is balanced by giving a larger happiness penalty the more cities you have, but then giving you the advantage of having more luxury resources by expanding, as well as the chance to get more happiness buildings.

What this comes down to is a new city with no happiness buildings or luxury resources will actually *cost* your empire science, as you're lowering your happiness, and not letting your other cities grow.

 

[Bibor]

Besides the A.I. being borked, I think I figured out why a military rampage goes unchecked, and it's not war weariness.

It's the fact that they divided gold and science. Previously, in order to maintain units and newly gained cities, you had to tank your science rating in order to complete a war, eventually falling behind enough that you couldn't continue the war. Now your science increases as you fight, giving you stronger units to continue fighting.

A 6-city Siam with a horrible small continent (resource and tile-wise) discovered me with caravels and in endgame it built 2 spaceship parts before I ripped him apart with my stealth bombers. I had a 5-civ continent for myself and an adequate number of cities too. I also bulbed at least 6 techs (Oxford, scientists), so it's not entirely true that research rate scales directly with population. A single city can dish out over 200 beakers per turn when properly built up.

 

[Rittmeyer]

it`s not that they divided gold and science. it`s more that maitaince is now paid in happiness, not in gold.

yes, buildings cost gold. but what stops you growing is not that, it`s hapiness (IF it stops you - there`s another thread about it).

 

[Monsterzuma]

The issue is not that warring speeds up your research. The issue is that warring doesn't slow down your research by a significant amount. You can conquer non-stop while making decent technological progress. Any difference in tech between you and the Deity AI is made up for by general bonusses, the Honor line, sheer player skill and the power of Horsemen/Knights. Meanwhile the gap in tech doesn't grow bigger, because the Deity AI let their beakers inflate, where the player preserves their value.

 

[Slowpoke]

That's true in reality too though, technology has improved greatly as a result of warfare.

True but you have to look at it's effects on gameplay. Is it fun winning the game immediately at the point you can conquer 2-3 cities and get an advantage? That isn't realistic certainly.

 

[Zechnophobe]

The real issue is that there aren't any downsides to conquering people. No war weariness, no increased maintenance costs. New cities have a short revolt and go right back to full productivity. You even destroy most buildings on capture so it doesn't hurt your economy.

Even if you become very unhappy, this has little effect on a rampaging force. New cities will increase tech rate, and puppets like to build happiness and culture.

The -10 happiness combat penalty is decent, but just not enough, especially since it doesn't keep getting worse. You also don't need to leave garrisons in cities, so your full army keeps moving onward. In previous titles, even a large army could get spread thin by this if you production slowed down due to unhappiness. Cashflow remains constant, so you can still buy units/buildings with spoils of war.

I have a lot of instincts from 4 that make me want to declare peace during long wars, for a 'breather' and whatnot. But there isn't really any reason to do this. Might as well keep the units on the front lines killing bad guys.

 

[Monsterzuma]

Your entire empire should be up in flames at 10 unhappiness, imo. I'm talking cities that claim independence, units that abruptly disband, citizens that migrate to other empires, etc. They shouldn't just sit there while their emperor runs their country into the ground. REVOLUTION!!

My guess is this was the initial plan, but Firaxis couldn't get the AI to deal with the mechanism properly.

 

[Zenstrive]

When I hit -20 happiness, I simply stop warring, garrison my units on the cities, gift obsolete units to city states, and start building or purchasing happinesss buildings. This is usually when I got 20 cities where 60% of them are puppets. When it hit zero happiness, I start up the war machines again and when it hit positive happiness (around 10), the war begins again, usually almost unstoppable to the point of boring.

 

[Lyoncet]

Your entire empire should be up in flames at 10 unhappiness, imo. I'm talking cities that claim independence, units that abruptly disband, citizens that migrate to other empires, etc. They shouldn't just sit there while their emperor runs their country into the ground. REVOLUTION!!

My guess is this was the initial plan, but Firaxis couldn't get the AI to deal with the mechanism properly.

This please. The current very unhappy bonuses aren't enough to discourage "ignore happiness" playstyles, which in my opinion is garbage. Plus, it would be awesome to have that type of internal strife implemented in some way or form.

 

[Gath]

Your entire empire should be up in flames at 10 unhappiness, imo. I'm talking cities that claim independence, units that abruptly disband, citizens that migrate to other empires, etc. They shouldn't just sit there while their emperor runs their country into the ground. REVOLUTION!!

My guess is this was the initial plan, but Firaxis couldn't get the AI to deal with the mechanism properly.

If we're going to do that, then we need to go back to each city having it own happiness calculated. There's no reason my capital should be rioting because the evil russians have finnally been conquered.

 

[player1 fanatic]

It goes unchecked simply because of the fact that more cities -> more Hammers -> more units.

More Hammers is not more units if you puppet, which you need early in conquest. And sometimes later, if you want your policy gain in check.

But more cities does mean faster research.
You would think that creative though in occupied or puppeted areas would diminish, at least until the end of war.


P.S.
Hmm... what is puppeted cities gave 75% gold/science/culture revenue, while occupied ones (before courthouse) 100% gold/50% science/ 50% culture.

 

[Johan de Witt]

How about puppets giving no research? Would at least give you a reason to annex them.