De Gaulle (Industrious-Deity Series)

[Dirk1302]

I'll add some of my recent games in my sig. The Liz thread that i revived (ultimate challenge 2) will be a domination game as there's no way i can win space there. It's somewhere on page 1 or 2 now.

I also like Obs's comments, had to get used to them at first. Here's a very original approach to the game.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

We get a random event... and an option to pay 83g for +3 to Churchill, I do it, but I stop to wonder. For those who are going for UN victory, isn’t this a seriously broken event as well?

No use wondering, you know as well as I do how broken + 3 diplo potentially is. You only need a net +8 to win diplo votes.

As for vassals, they were buffed severely in 3.19 in that they are *always* willing to trade irrespective of the trade caps. When their culture is an issue, you can actually see the city's revolt chances by going into the city screen and mousing over the % culture bar. If there's a chance of revolt, it will display there. If there isn't it won't revolt. That allows you to use the minimum # of units to prevent revolts in the city, if you care.

The capitulation mechanics in this game are a total joke and the peaceful vassal AI decisions are also questionable, but using the vassals themselves tends to be fairly easy.

 

[Kesshi]

The capitulation mechanics in this game are a total joke and the peaceful vassal AI decisions are also questionable, but using the vassals themselves tends to be fairly easy.

They're only easy to use once you discover all of the broken and hidden things about them. Until then vassals only end up hindering your chances of winnig with each and every turn.

 

[Dirk1302]

Agree with TMIT, Obs. +3 relations for some gold is overpowered. I prefer to play with events off and work on relations with ais myself.

Capitulations are a headache too. I saw a civ who lost 2 cities to another ai, it recaptured 1 city and the stronger ai hadn't a chance in the word at that moment to capture more cities. Still after "refuse to talk" period expired the weaker civ capitulated immediately while there wasn't any direct threat and it's core city base was intact.

In another game i saw typical civs like Ghandi/Mansa vassal voluntarily to Zara who was only slighter stronger than them, where's the logic here?

I think firaxis made a good call by forcing vassals to trade with you, otherwise they tend to be completely useless, only buffer fodder between you and the enemy. It's not as if it's overpowered, i still rather not take vassals as it has many disadvantages diplomatically but you're sometimes forced to do it if there's a threat of them vassalizing to someone else.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Combined with easily killing AI troops in vassal territory, the "vassals bordering target speeds up further caps" still probably remains the most useful aspect. You can cap civs that are otherwise too strong relative to average power that way. I guess kesshi is right though, it only seems easy now that I know all the stupid underlying mechanics.

 

[Dirk1302]

I don't know the underlying mechanics very well but i know from experience that some civs cap really fast, often after losing 1 city. Actually vassals are necessary, if you play without them domination takes longer but there's never the threat of your target vassalizing to a big ai so you can just steamroll on and on. The vassal mechanism probably helps the ai more than the human player so it makes the game harder. The mechanics behind it could have been worked out better though.

In defense of firaxis though, if you let ais capitulate later than they do now they'll become completely useless and are out of the game effectively. So it's not that easy to get it right.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I don't know the underlying mechanics very well but i know from experience that some civs cap really fast, often after losing 1 city. Actually vassals are necessary, if you play without them domination takes longer but there's never the threat of your target vassalizing to a big ai so you can just steamroll on and on. The vassal mechanism probably helps the ai more than the human player so it makes the game harder. The mechanics behind it could have been worked out better though.

In defense of firaxis though, if you let ais capitulate later than they do now they'll become completely useless and are out of the game effectively. So it's not that easy to get it right.

I take issue with the cap mechanics because sometimes they *do* lead to having to beat an AI down to 2-3 cities, even if you have 5x its power. Other times, they lead to nearly instant caps. I think voluntary vassal decisions need a look, and the cap mechanics that determine when an AI gives up need a total overhaul. This "we're doing fine on our own" based on the average power of all civs is completely off base. If someone is out-powered 2-1 or 3-1 and losing units fast w/o inflicting many casualties, that is *not* doing fine on your own, but to the AI it is as long as there's a sissy crap AI or two out there somewhere.

World builder deleting your own vassal should not make a civ capitulate that otherwise would not...

Anyway I disagree that it makes the game harder. I think it's more of a wash. It makes domination harder possibly (definitely makes conquest harder), but farming vassals for cap votes and then winning a diplo victory isn't very challenging, and it can go quite fast. You don't even need to build the UN under current AI strategies since someone will always do it (and you can prevent it from being your vassals).

Also, the AI in no way uses its vassals strategically, and the power is divided/uncoordinated in AI hands (in our hands it's just divided). I'd much rather see a continent with 10 city shaka with a 6-8 city mansa than a continent with an 18 city shaka and no mansa (with multiple peace deals involving techs forked over).

 

[DaveMcW]

This "we're doing fine on our own" based on the average power of all civs is completely off base. If someone is out-powered 2-1 or 3-1 and losing units fast w/o inflicting many casualties, that is *not* doing fine on your own, but to the AI it is as long as there's a sissy crap AI or two out there somewhere.

World builder deleting your own vassal should not make a civ capitulate that otherwise would not...

If I saw that capitulating would turn me into another one of your sissy crap vassals, I would rather die than surrender too.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If I saw that capitulating would turn me into another one of your sissy crap vassals, I would rather die than surrender too.

You're no AI. I'd probably be the one in war danger instead unless the map gave you one hell of a bad draw .

 

[Fluxx]

I would always vassal to TMIT, then go for a culture victory

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I would always vassal to TMIT, then go for a culture victory

Spies can be a @#%$, you know. Like so:

a) poison water
b) destroy granary, harbor (if applicable), aqueduct, and all other health buildings
c) sabotage production as they try to rebuild health buildings
d) poison water again.

Rinse and repeat. The EP cost on this is not exactly staggering, and I've used it to drop even the heavily-bonused AIs to 1 pop .

The other issue is that the game can end before culture is completed, but at least with a human player it will actually backstab rather than just wait for the loss unless it's a capitulation.

I wouldn't vassal to human players though. One of my friends vassaled to me once and I used that to force him to vote me winner .

 

[obsolete]

Final Stats:

Spoiler :

 

[oyzar]

Spies can be a @#%$, you know. Like so:

a) poison water
b) destroy granary, harbor (if applicable), aqueduct, and all other health buildings
c) sabotage production as they try to rebuild health buildings
d) poison water again.

Rinse and repeat. The EP cost on this is not exactly staggering, and I've used it to drop even the heavily-bonused AIs to 1 pop .

The other issue is that the game can end before culture is completed, but at least with a human player it will actually backstab rather than just wait for the loss unless it's a capitulation.

I wouldn't vassal to human players though. One of my friends vassaled to me once and I used that to force him to vote me winner .

That's when you find some other friendly guy (who is also your vassal) whom you can swap cities with to totally negate all poison/unrest. Or you just turn EP against you and run enough counter espionage that you don't actually manage to do that many missions.

Those heavily-bonused AI's didn't have a clue how to use espionage defensivly, humans do...

 

[DMOC]

Wow, Obsolete has incredible luck with those events. Nice job.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That's when you find some other friendly guy (who is also your vassal) whom you can swap cities with to totally negate all poison/unrest. Or you just turn EP against you and run enough counter espionage that you don't actually manage to do that many missions.

Those heavily-bonused AI's didn't have a clue how to use espionage defensivly, humans do...

That's probably why you have to sack a culture city or two first, in the excessively odd scenario in MP where vassal states are on and any human would possibly be willing to CAP.

 

[Melior Traiano]

Wow, that was some impressive gameplay. Even more impressive whining about the game. Seriously though, random events aren't well implemented. But obstructionist vassals aren't so much beyond the pale, if you consider that they're like a people whose land is being occupied by a conqueror. History is replete with examples of occupied peoples resisting the occupiers, which the game does a decent job of reflecting with the concept of culture, revolts, etc.

 

[Freedom]

Thanks for an entertaining series, Obsolete. You sure are one of a kind.

 

[linfeixb27]

good game, thanks.

 

[obsolete]

Ahh, don't even get me started on how poorly heros are implemented. Halfway through my warring escapade, the silly system decided to make my super-medic actively take part in the battle, despite there were other units of similar strength capable of doing the job. Well, you guessed it... my Super Medic dies. Yup.... no protection for him in the back-ranks, not even an escape to capital route, nothing. Just gets chosen and dies.

Yeah, I really love dis gimmick!! Worked great for getting more sales out of WarLords, was never fully tested, and never really fixed. Another brainiac idea...

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

Ahh, don't even get me started on how poorly heros are implemented. Halfway through my warring escapade, the silly system decided to make my super-medic actively take part in the battle, despite there were other units of similar strength capable of doing the job. Well, you guessed it... my Super Medic dies. Yup.... no protection for him in the back-ranks, not even an escape to capital route, nothing. Just gets chosen and dies.

To be honest - I'd have been really impressed with the developers if they had managed to correctly implement an opportunity cost mechanism for choosing defenders.