BOTM03 Final Spoiler

[da_Vinci]

Shame on both of my Gypsy King teammates! You both know better than to try that tactic at those odds. OVERWHELMING numbers if you are under powered is the only way.

I agree in general, but some mitigating circumstances were ...

At the point I attacked, he could add defenders faster than I could add attackers, so it was the best chance I was going to get.

And since I was already being hemmed in by the AI, it was either break out or die, (and RL was squeezing my time), so the longshot was my best chance, despite its length. If the first two or three had not done ZERO damage, I would have taken the city.

(Or if I had been faster to get the attack going ... my perpetual problem Doing better with this since, however).

dV

 

[Thrallia]

hm...and I DID outnumber him...4 warriors vs 1 archer. Second time, 9 warriors vs 2 archers....I never did kill either archer, so there's the story of yet another failed BtS war lol.

 

[da_Vinci]

@Ronnie1: I have yet to perform a successful war in BtS, other than on Settler level. It worries me that the AI is smarter than me at warring

Hmm ... what is your definition of a successful war? Destruction of the attacked AI? Or just taking a significant number of his cities?

I find that WW seems to ramp up faster in BtS, which I now think is due in part to the changed siege combat ... since siege can't kill units, you may find that you have more attacks, and more WW points taking each city. That and sometimes it seems AI has more defenders in BTS than previous versions (but not always, maybe that is leader dependent?)

Faster WW may be causing you to make peace sooner than you planned?

I think it may have been jesusin who observed that in BtS, with no kill option, the siege tend to survive a lot more (they stop once they reach their damage limit). I tend to use that to get a lot of CR3 siege, and then use them to pound the defenders so my infantry losses taking the city are negligible. Which leads to lots of CR3 infantry (grens eventually). Only problem is all of this is happening after 1000 AD! And you have to be able to manage the WW.

And you have to have counters to horse in your stack, or the flank attack damage to siege can kill them off!

dV

 

[Ronnie1]

hm...and I DID outnumber him...4 warriors vs 1 archer. Second time, 9 warriors vs 2 archers....I never did kill either archer, so there's the story of yet another failed BtS war lol.

When I saw the promoted/hilled archers, I exited and did a WB test to see how that battle might go. The test was very discouraging from the standpoint of causing ANY damage. I think my test showed an average of 7 warriors per archer would be required to be succesful. That's why I didn't even try. I never considered trying to draw the archers out as Ribannah proved was possible.

 

[Thrallia]

Hmm ... what is your definition of a successful war? Destruction of the attacked AI? Or just taking a significant number of his cities?

dV

Other than on settler, I have yet to actually take a city in war against an AI in BtS lol

I'd say that's not a successful war no matter how you define it.

edit: forget that...I did have 1 successful war on Prince in a recent Gauntlet attempt..took out Justinian, but then got killed by a Monty/Darius combo dogpile.

 

[greatbeyond]

Is there a loser award for not being able to figure out that the 16th comes right after the 15th of March? I was cruising along, building up the score and was just finishing off the Vikings and within 2 1/2 % of the Dom limit when RL got in the way and I forgot to finish and submit by the 16th, not noticing it until it was about 8 hours too late. This was by far my best BOTM game and even though I didn't get close to ~1000AD figure I saw in someone's post, I had a very nice score and was set to finish by 1900. The key for me was a very early warrior rush with no workers or Settler built by me until after I took out Japan, England. It seems that I must learn to go for the Conquest and not waste time building infrastructure and expanding into a huge unwieldy empire that takes forever.

Details:
Started with a worker steal on Turn 18,3550BC then get peace on Turn 24, 3400BC to get some of the three warriors out of Kyoto. Redeclare in T39, 3025BC and capture Kyoto, losing 3 Warriors in the process. I get Archery around here and start cranking out Archers. Move immediately to London and on T78 2050BC steal an English Worker and then kill 4 Warriors and capture London. Captured Workers Chop numerous Archers who head for Monty. On T109 1275BC, attack and on T114 1150 BC capture Tlatelolco and it is autorazed, next Teotihuacan and on T117 1075BC capture it but it is also autorazed Move deeper in to Monty's Territory but take peace in T123 975BC to allow my other forces to catch up, Swordsmen on the way Redeclare T128 800BC on T135 625BC capture Tenochtitlan and Monty is gone, the only one left that we know of are the Inca and we have found their island, it takes awhile to get Galleys together but then we invade on Turn 192 280AD and on T228 820AD the Inca are gone. At this point I estimated tiles and realized I could not get a Dom win without a piece of someone else's land so I expanded to cover most of my continent and eventually ended up having the Vikings DOW on me T430 1840AD they never got a unit onto my continent but it took little bit for me to get my units to him, end was very close in 1894 when I forgot to finish and submit. I was not at war with any of the other Civs after I met them, good relations all around, and I was ahead of them in techs and bigger than all of them combined.
What really bugs me is that no matter how badly I am beating a Civ I have never been able to get any of them to be my vassal in any of the WOTMs or BOTMs I have played. What is the secret?

 

[Thrallia]

hm...and I never even met the Incans or Monty...all I ever met was England and Toku.

 

[da_Vinci]

Other than on settler, I have yet to actually take a city in war against an AI in BtS lol

Two words: Powell Doctrine.

dV

 

[jesusin]

What really bugs me is that no matter how badly I am beating a Civ I have never been able to get any of them to be my vassal in any of the WOTMs or BOTMs I have played. What is the secret?

Maybe Feudalism is the secret.

 

[greatbeyond]

Maybe Feudalism is the secret.

After acheiving Feudalism, I have never been able to get any AI to throw in the towel. Invariably they become a vassal of some other Civ. Does anyone know how the AI makes the Vassalage decision?

 

[Jasonc]

I just finished BOTM03 this weekend, so I won't be submitting a game. But, I just had to write in to say that this was a VERY TOUGH and VERY FUN game!!!! I ended up with a Space Win in 1988 with a final score of 9800 or so. Since I can almost always win on Prince and consider myself competitive at Monarch, I went into this game thinking I would do much better. I had a hard time beating down Monty and this really slowed my game down. I've never enjoyed the early rush strategy, but now I think that would have been better. I ran over Toka just after 0 ad or so, and he immediately became Monty's vassel. I had a superior tech advantage, so they never really threatened me, but Monty's just kept throwing swarms of mounted attacks at me and it really slowed my progress down. I think his starting position was a particularly nasty surprise. He had so many resources and plenty of room to spread out that he was able to generate (from whipping I bet) hordes of forces. Even though I knew I would never finish this game in time, I kept playing because it was so much fun. Thanks to the organizer for putting together such an enjoyable game. Keep up the good work!!

 

[da_Vinci]

After acheiving Feudalism, I have never been able to get any AI to throw in the towel. Invariably they become a vassal of some other Civ. Does anyone know how the AI makes the Vassalage decision?

Some other civ has to WANT them for a vassal, right? If you are the power leader, maybe no civ wants them for a vassal, and you can kill or capitulate them without interference.

But if some other civ, on the same continent (if that matters) has more power than you, perhaps thats sets up the voluntary vassalization to a third party?

And are you wating for them to make the offer, or are you asking them what the price of peace is each turn?

dV

 

[MarkM]

After achieving Feudalism, I have never been able to get any AI to throw in the towel. Invariably they become a vassal of some other Civ. Does anyone know how the AI makes the Vassalage decision?

Make sure you check their willingness at the END of your turn, especially turns you capture a city. When I have been looking for capitulation, I have never not seen an opportunity to have them become my vassal, before they became someone else's. It has happened though, that you can check at the beginning of your turn, see them not be willing to capitulate, then you do your actions & at the end of the same turn they will be willing to.

Mind you I very rarely look for capitulation any more though (i hate teh happiness penalties in captured cities & cultural border issues), so this is a somewhat dated observation ...

 

[Rashiminos]

MarkM's observation is still true, as I found out repeatedly in this game. The only vassal that was not mine was Saladin, who was a colony of Darius.

Vassals also make excellent airbases...

 

[DRJ]

Excuse my noobish question, but I wonder, why the results of this BOTM aren't out yet.
When will this happen? It's been a while now since I submitted my BOTM3 save and I even completed BOTM4 allready, plus I can't find a date yet when the results of BOTM3 are out. Can somebody help me?

As this is my first BOTM I competed in, I really want so see how much better I have to get to get awards...

Vassals also make excellent airbases...

I noticed, in another game, I was able to put 8 aircrafts in a friendly city, it had no airport though (screenie1)
Another time, as another civ had allready 4 aircraft in a city, I was not able to upload 4 more units in there (screenie2)
Can somebody explain this?

 

[Rashiminos]

I think in the second case there can only be 8 total aircraft. I'm not sure how the first case could have happened...

 

[greatbeyond]

Some interesting thoughts about the Vassalage decision. I can't say for sure if I ever checked just after capturing a city, and the point about other AIs being more powerful is very true. In some other games I have seen the AI that I asked to become a vassal say " We are afraid of your enemies"
Perhaps I'll waste some time poking into the code to see if I can tell anything. Just like a human Civ player, always looking for the hidden advantage!

 

[blastoidstalker]

I find that once you take over half of a ciuv's city it may capitulate. exactly when it does depends on the civ, some capitulate earlier than others. Taking their capital helps as well. In another came I vassilized 4 civs through conquest..

 

[mabraham]

After acheiving Feudalism, I have never been able to get any AI to throw in the towel. Invariably they become a vassal of some other Civ. Does anyone know how the AI makes the Vassalage decision?

It does seem to depend on your relative score, relative power and relative happiness. A third AI that has a higher score than you and/or has better relations with your intended vassal can have a lower vassalage threshold than you. So, try to minimize your negative diplomatic modifiers against the intended vassal, by not declaring war multiple times, and/or trying to provoke them into declaring on you! The latter is not worthwhile if it costs you more than three -1 modifiers, of course!

There is a proviso about that third AI needing to have done significant damage to your intended vassal if the vassalage is to be a capitulation, rather than voluntary. This stops the AIs capitulating to just anybody when they're on the ropes.

Different civilizations also have different tolerances for vassalage. Mansa lives to be your vassal.