Current v1.13 Development Discussion

[calad]

I don't think anyone is asking for a nerf. All I'd like to see is Babylon heavily discouraged from teching Bronze Working, because that means a pretty much automatic reset for any Persian player.

And there should be more room how to play Babylon. Maybe it is time to revive their UHV and make Ishtar gate part of it?

 

[VGL]

Maybe do a Iraq re spawn? That will be great and will cause the Iran Iraq war. The longest war in the 20th century

 

[Leoreth]

The Vietnam war lasted almost 20 years and this is just the first example I could think of.

 

[VGL]

well,it was the second. And i meant wars between countries. not civil wars

 

[BenZL43]

Actually, North Korea and South Korea is technically still at war right now, there's no peace agreement yet, so it's been maybe 60 years long or more? Definitely longer than the Persian Gulf War or Vietnam War

 

[Shadow Merc]

Please don't nerf Babylon...

In all seriousness, Hammurabi may be the smartest AI out of all of them, because he knows exactly how to screw you over.

Are you playing as Greece? Are you taking every step to get the Oracle built ASAP? Nope, Babylon built it 5 turns after you spawned.

Are you playing as Persia? Are you hoping to steamroll through Mesopotamia to get that 8% territory? Nope, Hammurabi murders your massive army with an axeman and a spearmen (or in my example, Longbows).

In the few starts I've had, apparently the Babylonian AI knows what to do depending on which civ you, the player, are playing as. The one time recently that I haven't seen Hammurabi have bronze-working by the Persian spawn was when I was playing as Phoenicia, a civ that didn't pose a threat to them.

The main issue with Babylon is that they appear to beeline certain techs and ignore others. So i suggest that maybe we need some more tech pre-requisites. Example: Feudalism only has writing as a pre-req, so once you have Monarchy you can ignore everything else and jump to the middle ages and superior defenses. That definitely needs to be addressed.

 

[VGL]

Actually, North Korea and South Korea is technically still at war right now, there's no peace agreement yet, so it's been maybe 60 years long or more? Definitely longer than the Persian Gulf War or Vietnam War

I meant war between existing countries not civil war

 

[mrrandomplayer]

In all seriousness, Hammurabi may be the smartest AI out of all of them, because he knows exactly how to screw you over.

Are you playing as Greece? Are you taking every step to get the Oracle built ASAP? Nope, Babylon built it 5 turns after you spawned.

Are you playing as Persia? Are you hoping to steamroll through Mesopotamia to get that 8% territory? Nope, Hammurabi murders your massive army with an axeman and a spearmen (or in my example, Longbows).

In the few starts I've had, apparently the Babylonian AI knows what to do depending on which civ you, the player, are playing as. The one time recently that I haven't seen Hammurabi have bronze-working by the Persian spawn was when I was playing as Phoenicia, a civ that didn't pose a threat to them.

The main issue with Babylon is that they appear to beeline certain techs and ignore others. So i suggest that maybe we need some more tech pre-requisites. Example: Feudalism only has writing as a pre-req, so once you have Monarchy you can ignore everything else and jump to the middle ages and superior defenses. That definitely needs to be addressed.

Yeah, them getting the Oracle a little too early is the only problem I can think of off the top of my head that happens frequently.

 

[Theodorick]

VGL is right, that is considered the longest conventional war of the 20th century. North and South Korea don't count here since they signed an armistice and stopped hostilities after 3 years, while the Iran-Iraq war went on for practically 8 years straight of brutal warfare.

 

[VGL]

Does Iraq using biological and chemical weapon makes it another kind of war?

 

[Theodorick]

Does Iraq using biological and chemical weapon makes it another kind of war?

Nope. Conventional warfare requires open fighting between two or more states on an actual battlefield, and there was plenty of that. Remember biological and chemical weapons were used in a lot of wars that are considered conventional wars. WW1 is a big example.

Conventional wars are getting rarer these days, due to nuclear weapons. Call it a 'nuclear peace', but world powers are less likely to go into full blown conventional wars anymore since nuclear warfare isn't exactly encouraged. So the Iraq-Iran war is a strong exception to 2nd half of the last century.

 

[VGL]

Well, i read in Wikipedia that a conventional war doesn't use biological,chemical or nuclear weapon

 

[Theodorick]

Well, i read in Wikipedia that a conventional war doesn't use biological,chemical or nuclear weapon

It normally doesn't. I explained it a bit more in my edit. 'Conventional wars are getting rarer these days, due to nuclear weapons. Call it a 'nuclear peace', but world powers are less likely to go into full blown conventional wars anymore since nuclear warfare isn't exactly encouraged. So the Iraq-Iran war is a strong exception to 2nd half of the last century.' The same can be said for biological and chemical weapons. But if it still was basically a conventional war it's considered that.

To elaborate, the reason that is, is because conventional warfare might escalate into nuclear warfare between two nuclear powers, which is a terrible thing that we thankfully haven't seen yet. Iraq and Iran weren't nuclear powers.

 

[Leoreth]

Asymmetric warfare is the better term to frame this discussion in I would say.

 

[Theodorick]

I definitely wouldn't describe the Iran-Iraq war as asymmetric warfare, despite Iraq using chemical and biological weapons.

Asymmetric warfare refers to wars where the powers are uneven or whose strategies differ greatly, and overall involve less conventional warfare strategies, like guerrilla warfare. The majority of conflict during the Iran-Iraq war was conventional warfare, with even trench warfare making a comeback; and the powers were mostly even with no side clearly winning in the end.

Asymmetric warfare would work when referring to the Vietnam war, or even the Iraq war in 1991 and 2003. Many civil wars also fall into this category. Neat thing about asymmetric warfare is the dominant power with the most resources doesn't always win! This is something I've often seen TBS games failing to display, maybe because it would be a nightmare to balance?

Anyways sorry if I came off a little too strong. I can get way too much into semantics for stuff like this.

 

[Leoreth]

Yes. I meant that the difference between the Iran-Iraq War and the Vietnam War is better characterized in that the former was symmetric while the latter was asymmetric.

The term conventional invokes the antonym non-conventional, which again invokes ABC weapons. Which were used in both of these wars.

 

[Tigranes]

Yeah, them getting the Oracle a little too early is the only problem I can think of off the top of my head that happens frequently.

Examples of historically notable marble varieties and locations do not indicate Mesopotamia. Nor does Architecture of Mesopotamia depend on Marble in any way. Remove the marble from Mesopotamia, give Ziggurat Artist slot (for humans to chose between Monarchy bulbing or culture). Greece needs to compete with China and India in Oraclizing some breakthrough tech, not with Babylon.

 

[citis]

That sounds good. let Sphinx, Pyramids, hanging gardends, Istar Gate to doyble production with stone.

However, Greece might face some competition except Egypt. Maybe give marble near Carthage?

 

[Theodorick]

Yes. I meant that the difference between the Iran-Iraq War and the Vietnam War is better characterized in that the former was symmetric while the latter was asymmetric.

The term conventional invokes the antonym non-conventional, which again invokes ABC weapons. Which were used in both of these wars.

Ooh non-conventional is a whole new ballgame, and I think it's really interesting. It's best shown in civ by espionage. Stuff like poisoning the water supply, causing revolts, destroying production, and so on, is all non-conventional warfare. I believe the US military has its own special definition of this, that deals with overthrowing governments without resorting to war, that... it has been using for a while now.

 

[Novicenoble]

Is current Central Asian Civ topic is for 1.13v?