Another thread about capturing cities..

[Txurce]

It’s pretty easy to see where the AI bonuses create an imbalance leading to annoyance (if not defeat). AI bonuses rarely result in late-game leads in science, military, or culture, compared a good human player focused on one of those victory conditions. They do result in huge leads in population and gold. As a result I’ve pushed for months to have both reduced, as long as the AI’s performance was favorably adjusted some other way.

Gold presently does the AI the least amount of good, since it just sits there, but I don’t think there’s a way to redirect the AI away from focusing on it as intently. The ideal would be for the AI to do much better in science, since this would lead to a tech edge applicable to all Victory Conditions. Unfortunately, raising their pop is the single easiest way to do this. That’s why I agree with those who want the AI pop buff restored, unless they are given a compensatory boost via some other mechanic.

I think this entire issue would be addressed when Thal has a chance to explore my proposal for AI bonuses to be time-released by era so that they become stronger as the game progresses, rather than the current booster shot that puts the human at an options-limiting disadvantage at the start.

With regard to city capture I agree that – regardless of difficulty level – having to stop cold for happiness issues isn’t fun, because there aren’t enough available solutions. For this reason I found Sneaks’ suggestion that gold replace happiness as the primary cost of occupation to be a fantastic idea. Yes, it also more closely mirrors RL… but the best argument for it is that in theory the human player can always raise more gold and deal with the issue. The same is not true of happiness. Perhaps an even better argument is that it finally gives the AI something to do with its gold, giving it an advantage it doesn’t presently have.

 

[Ahriman]

The ideal would be for the AI to do much better in science
...
Unfortunately, raising their pop is the single easiest way to do this.

It is not at all clear to me that this is true. Can't you just have a global science yield modifier for AI players, based on difficulty levels (and maybe, as you suggest, by era)?

It seems foolish to me by trying to adjust scientific performance by adjusting population, since population is tied into so many other mechanics (happiness, city defense strength, specialist slots, tiles to be worked, etc.).
And then to try to change around with conquest mechanics because population affected happiness.

It just seems bizarre that a perceived need to boost AI science would lead to changing how occupation mechanics work.

 

[Txurce]

It is not at all clear to me that this is true. Can't you just have a global science yield modifier for AI players, based on difficulty levels (and maybe, as you suggest, by era)?

It seems foolish to me by trying to adjust scientific performance by adjusting population, since population is tied into so many other mechanics (happiness, city defense strength, specialist slots, tiles to be worked, etc.).
And then to try to change around with conquest mechanics because population affected happiness.

It just seems bizarre that a perceived need to boost AI science would lead to changing how occupation mechanics work.

I said that boosting science by pop is the easiest way to accomplish this, but also said that a mechanic like the one you mentioned would definitely be preferable.

My view on city capture has nothing to do with shifting anything regarding pop, though - it's essentially trading the happiness hit for a gold hit (% TBD).

 

[Ahriman]

I said that boosting science by pop is the easiest way to accomplish this, but also said that a mechanic like the one you mentioned would definitely be preferable.

Just to clarify here:
What you said originally was "raising their pop is the single easiest way to do this", which I interpreted as "letting the AI have higher population cities (from food bonuses) is the best way to let them have more science".

But now you say "boosting science by pop is the easiest way to accomplish this".
Do you mean: changing the AI modifier so that rather than 1 beaker per population point, they get more than 1?

Those are quite different.

It still seems easier to just increase AI science across the board.

My view on city capture has nothing to do with shifting anything regarding pop, though - it's essentially trading the happiness hit for a gold hit (% TBD).

But if AIs have smaller cities (because of the removed food boost), then capturing them will cause less unhappiness.

I am strongly against the idea of trying to move away from using happiness as the check on expansion and conquest. The whole game is designed around happiness as being the combination of maintenance costs/heath/happiness from Civ4.
Trying to dilute that will mess up all kinds of things (like: how valuable various sources of happiness are, how easy it is to go on conquering rampages, etc.).

 

[Sneaks]

I think the very problem with happiness, and why it currently fails as a mechanic in its current form in vanilla, is that it tries to take the roles of health, happiness, maintenance, and war weariness from past versions.

 

[Txurce]

Just to clarify here:
What you said originally was "raising their pop is the single easiest way to do this", which I interpreted as "letting the AI have higher population cities (from food bonuses) is the best way to let them have more science".

But now you say "boosting science by pop is the easiest way to accomplish this".
Do you mean: changing the AI modifier so that rather than 1 beaker per population point, they get more than 1?

Those are quite different.

It still seems easier to just increase AI science across the board.

I meant the same thing both times, but the bottom line is that I agree increasing AI science via something other than pop would be optimal.

But if AIs have smaller cities (because of the removed food boost), then capturing them will cause less unhappiness.

I am strongly against the idea of trying to move away from using happiness as the check on expansion and conquest. The whole game is designed around happiness as being the combination of maintenance costs/heath/happiness from Civ4.
Trying to dilute that will mess up all kinds of things (like: how valuable various sources of happiness are, how easy it is to go on conquering rampages, etc.).

I wouldn't worry about having to reconsider just how valuable a happiness source is for me. More important for me is whether it would make it too easy to go on conquering rampages. The game was designed for happiness to be the limiter, and a conqueror isn't meant to take a bunch of cities - that's why it's about taking capitals, not land. But it's pretty clear that a lot of people find having no choice except to wait out resistance boring. That's why I think Sneaks' proposal is definitely worth trying. If it proves too easy, the gold hit can be raised. If it fails altogether, we could return to a version of the present system.

 

[Ahriman]

I think the very problem with happiness, and why it currently fails as a mechanic in its current form in vanilla, is that it tries to take the roles of health, happiness, maintenance, and war weariness from past versions.

To me, this is why it succeeds. There was no value added in having multiple separate mechanics all designed to do the same thing, it just became very clunky, and the happiness and health systems were failures because extra health and happy over and above the cap in each city were useless.

More important for me is whether it would make it too easy to go on conquering rampages.
...
But it's pretty clear that a lot of people find having no choice except to wait out resistance boring.

There seems to be tension between these two statements. Yes, we don't want it to be easy to go on conquering rampages... which basically means that we want conquest to be a slow thing where you take a bite and digest it before moving on. Which means some waiting will be involved. I'm not sure that you can prevent conquering rampages *without* waiting.

Trying to make gold directly the limiting factor on expansion seems odd; that is not what gold is for.

It seems to me that what you really want is a way to convert gold into happiness. The mod has moved away from the ability to do this, by shifting happiness towards social policies and away from buildings (which can be purchased with gold) and away from luxuries (which can be purchased with gold, or you can give up some gold by trading your luxuries for other luxuries).

 

[EsoEs]

But it's pretty clear that a lot of people find having no choice except to wait out resistance boring.

It has nothing to do with resistance times being boring and everything to do with the population "limiter". The AIs cities WERE too populous to make conquering manageable. This problem has been fixed.

I have no issues with AI science, it feels fine to me. If you think your game is too boring cuz the AI sux, play a higher difficulty.

I'm not opposed to switching to a gold based conquest limiter, but that would involve a pretty big change to limiting certain happiness sources in order to rebalance the change. If something isn't broken, dont fix it comes to mind here.

 

[Txurce]

It has nothing to do with resistance times being boring and everything to do with the population "limiter". The AIs cities WERE too populous to make conquering manageable. This problem has been fixed.

It wasn't manageable for you, and now it's fixed for you. Like a few other posters today, I have theoretical issues with the changes to AI pop growth that Thal instituted. I'd rather find a different mechanic (if one is needed) for the not-fun delay after conquering a city, where the delay boils down to cooling your heels until the game lets you out of the penalty box.

I have no issues with AI science, it feels fine to me. If you think your game is too boring cuz the AI sux, play a higher difficulty.

That makes as much sense as my telling you to drop down a level if you couldn't handle Conquest on Immortal. Thal has no problem with it at all on Emperor, so you should be okay there.

I would rather have the science adjusted than a broad-reaching mechanic like pop slashed.

 

[Txurce]

There seems to be tension between these two statements. Yes, we don't want it to be easy to go on conquering rampages... which basically means that we want conquest to be a slow thing where you take a bite and digest it before moving on. Which means some waiting will be involved. I'm not sure that you can prevent conquering rampages *without* waiting.

It's more how long you have to wait, and whether there should be some flexibility to what you (and especially the AI) can do about it. Some gold can almost always be raised, at the expense of something else. Happiness cannot. (I don't worry about clunkiness very much in this game, because I haven't encountered a lot of it.)

Trying to make gold directly the limiting factor on expansion seems odd; that is not what gold is for.

It seems to me that what you really want is a way to convert gold into happiness. The mod has moved away from the ability to do this, by shifting happiness towards social policies and away from buildings (which can be purchased with gold) and away from luxuries (which can be purchased with gold, or you can give up some gold by trading your luxuries for other luxuries).

You could, but they often aren't available. (And on a side note, I wonder if Continents-Plus further limits the variety of CS luxuries, because more CS are on islands.)

 

[EsoEs]

It wasn't manageable for you, and now it's fixed for you. Like a few other posters today, I have theoretical issues with the changes to AI pop growth that Thal instituted. I'd rather find a different mechanic (if one is needed) for the not-fun delay after conquering a city, where the delay boils down to cooling your heels until the game lets you out of the penalty box.

It has nothing to do with resistance times being boring and everything to do with the population "limiter". The AIs cities WERE too populous to make conquering manageable. This problem has been fixed.

My issue wasn't resistance times, it was the unhappiness hit.

That makes as much sense as my telling you to drop down a level if you couldn't handle Conquest on Immortal. Thal has no problem with it at all on Emperor, so you should be okay there.

I had/have no problems with conquest, this thread is about IS IT POSSIBLE TO WIN A DOMINATION VICTORY, and the answer in my mind is on Immortal/Deity it is not possible, or so terribly unlikely as to not be possible. So far the ONLY person on this thread to claim they have won a victory in this manner is Sneaks, who said it was by far and away the most difficult of all victories. The whole point of this thread was to get some much needed love for a victory condition.

 

[Txurce]

I had/have no problems with conquest, this thread is about IS IT POSSIBLE TO WIN A DOMINATION VICTORY, and the answer in my mind is on Immortal/Deity it is not possible, or so terribly unlikely as to not be possible. So far the ONLY person on this thread to claim they have won a victory in this manner is Sneaks, who said it was by far and away the most difficult of all victories. The whole point of this thread was to get some much needed love for a victory condition.

No need to shout. You are the only person who thinks this thread is about the possibility of winning a Conquest Victory." As I learned after reading the entire thread this morning, its subject is a lot broader than that.

 

[Sneaks]

Actually, this really does boil down to conquest and its viability in any way on high difficulties given the insane happiness hit.

 

[Txurce]

I don't think that's the focus of most players posting here, since only two of you regularly play on Immortal and Deity. For me it boils down to the best way to capture cities, and how I feel about the change in AI pop growth (which was apparently a result of this thread).

 

[Ahriman]

It's more how long you have to wait

This has already be adjusted, and it could conceivably be adjusted further. I wouldn't mind a lower cap on resistance times, as long as it is still significant (ie at least 10 turns, probably 15).

and whether there should be some flexibility to what you (and especially the AI) can do about it.

I don't think there should be flexibility. I think you should have to just wait through resistance times. New conquests are never economically profitable, I think resistance times are an important part of preventing steam-rolling conquest.

Happiness can be raised by buying happiness buildings. Again, if you want to be able to buy happiness more easily, then the answer would be to shift happiness back towards buildings and away from policies.

You are the only person who thinks this thread is about the possibility of winning a Conquest Victory." As I learned after reading the entire thread this morning, its subject is a lot broader than that.

Right.
I'm also a bit bothered that everyone seems to be ignoring what I think is the critical point; ease of conquering and domination victory are not the same thing.
As I said before:

I don't find a Domination victory particularly easy, but I find warmongering to be very powerful, because it weakens the ability of the AI to achieve any other victory type, and so makes it much easier for me to achieve a science victory (or diplomatic victory).

I think we need to break the idea that conquest/warmongering and domination victory are the same thing. Making conquest easier doesn't just make Domination victory easier, it makes science-victory-through-conquest and diplomatic-victory-through-conquest easier too, and shifts us back to the Civ4 paradigm where it is far easier to win a science victory through war (capturing lots of cities, beating up on the other science frontrunners) than through peace.

It would be very bad if we made warfare and conquest the dominant strategy again.
Balance in playstyles is more important than balance in victory conditions.

 

[Txurce]

This has already be adjusted, and it could conceivably be adjusted further. I wouldn't mind a lower cap on resistance times, as long as it is still significant (ie at least 10 turns, probably 15).

I don't think there should be flexibility. I think you should have to just wait through resistance times. New conquests are never economically profitable, I think resistance times are an important part of preventing steam-rolling conquest.

Happiness can be raised by buying happiness buildings. Again, if you want to be able to buy happiness more easily, then the answer would be to shift happiness back towards buildings and away from policies.

I'll have a better opinion after my next game, which will be with 108.6. I find the idea of a gold mechanic interesting, but you could very well be right, and this is not a big deal for me regardless. In terms of the issues that have arisen in this thread, I'm more interested in improving the AI by (optimally) directly raising Science , or (fallback) reducing the pop nerf they just took.

 

[Atlas627]

There is so much in this thread I don't even know where to begin. We seem to be discussing several things

1.) Is conquest VC viable? Too easy? Too hard? (in comparison to other VCs)
2.) Is conquest in general viable? Too easy? Too hard? (as opposed to peace)
3.) In order to find the right difficulty for conquest (and everything else in the game) we should switch difficulty levels. But are the difficulties effectively doing this? (Are they intuitive, fun, and most importantly successful)

In order to determine these things, we have to compare to everything else in the game. That's a lot of stuff. Which means that this thread more or less boils down to balancing everything in the game.

And if you want to avoid sounding like you are getting angry, I recommend use of the underline, italic, and bold features. Though I am sure you are only emphasizing with those caps, it may be misinterpreted as anger. And that never helps in convincing others of your opinion.


EDIT: I'll actually post my opinions on these issues later, but for now I think it will be helpful to remind people of what we are discussing, and so hopefully we can start making progress again.

 

[tlaurila]

I'm also a bit bothered that everyone seems to be ignoring what I think is the critical point; ease of conquering and domination victory are not the same thing.

I don't find a Domination victory particularly easy, but I find warmongering to be very powerful, because it weakens the ability of the AI to achieve any other victory type, and so makes it much easier for me to achieve a science victory (or diplomatic victory).

This is the core of the problem here, as I see it.

But the answer isn't to screw the happiness limits so tight it's all but impossible to conquer more than a couple cities. If you do so, warmongering becomes irrelevant, and war has always been crucial, probably the single most important factor, in Civ. Furthermore, severe happiness limits makes the game feel like you're playing against your own people and bureaucracy in the form of happiness, not against the other Civs. A game where happiness is the only thing that keeps you from overrunning the competition is a boring, silly game.

The only possible answer I see to keep domination victory relevant, but not making war-mongering the trivial route to other victories, is to de-couple conquering and dominating. By conquest I mean taking over enemy lands and governing them so that they help you towards the other victory conditions. By domination I mean destroying opponents. The distinction would keep domination a separate victory condition: Building an army and warmongering should be a drain on your resources, costing you the opportunity to boost culture, gold or science, even if you are succesful in war. You might have knocked one contestant off the race, but others would have gained relative to you. If domination is without governing, that is.

A big step towards this direction was made with the latest VEM release: Razing causes less unhappiness now. Also puppeting is much less profitable per city, but you can puppet more cities due to less unhappiness. Can puppets with colosseums and theaters now give a net positive happiness, by the way?

Domination really needs to be liberal with razing. Perhaps a less-unhappiness-when-razing policy could be there. Also, razing could lead to units being created to attack you, some way or another, to make successful wars sweeping across continents harder.

 

[Sneaks]

I have mixed feelings about decoupling conquest from domination. The reason I love the idea of using gold as the primary horizontal limiter rather than happiness is that an increasing gold deficit would start disbanding your army while not causing some bizarre slowdown of population growth in core cities. Again, the AI could handle this relatively easily as it has the funds to absorb the costs, and as it is a passive mechanism, it also would not require really any work in terms of coding AI behavior.

That being said, I think it is a bit incorrect to say that warmongering is too powerful because it makes science and diplo victories easier as well. The opposite is also true. A strong science or gold empire makes warmongering easy. The only victory type that is more disconnected is culture, simply due to the difference in empire sizes. Otherwise, I am absolutely of the belief that warmongering should help you in science, diplo, etc.

 

[EsoEs]

A big step towards this direction was made with the latest VEM release: Razing causes less unhappiness now. Also puppeting is much less profitable per city, but you can puppet more cities due to less unhappiness. Can puppets with colosseums and theaters now give a net positive happiness, by the way?

Domination really needs to be liberal with razing. Perhaps a less-unhappiness-when-razing policy could be there. Also, razing could lead to units being created to attack you, some way or another, to make successful wars sweeping across continents harder.

Good thoughts, the only issue is that the Domination Victory requirements were changed recently (108.2) so that in order to win a Domination Victory, you need to be the only civ in possession of its capital (no change) AND you need to own 30% of the world's land.