Have they killed the fun for warmongers

[insydr]

At the moment, yes. I'd like to explain why, but it's a big subject.

I'd be very interested in knowing why. I'm no stranger to programming myself, and I'd love to tear into the SDK to find out what makes the AI tick, but you've obviously been there and done that. Any explanation from you would let the rest of us know if these kinds of AI modifications are in the realm of possibility or just pipe dreams.

 

[darko82]

Yeah, the AI attacks very rarely. I ticked the 'aggresive AI', but it doesn't help.

 

[handy900]

FYI - This is coming from the Handy 22 AWN thread. The WW discussion seemed more appropriate over here since we were talking about an SP game, not the Handy 22 SG. The screenshots are from a solo AWP game handy stumbled through.

You mean even when you used all those anti WW measures? How bad was it?

Well, handy is still learning about WW, and needs to look for an article that explains it more fully. In my SP game as China on an Inland Sea Game Mount Rushmore was not even attempted since at higher levels it may not be possible to build it. So this was something of an experimental game. China also did not attempt the pyramids but rather went on a UU rush – which was quite effective in taking cities. The Pyramids and Rushmore were unfortunately not in cities I could easily capture. [Is there a way to tell what cities they are in? F11 tells you the civilization that owns a wonder but not the city.]

The civics I had are shown below, and of course I did adopt hereditary rule. Take a look at the number of units I has to keep in Beijing near the end in the screen shot. 10 units are tied up on MP duty. Imagine how many more are tied up in other cities.
Facism is way down the tech tree, so I never got there since I was after fighters and bombers. Fighters allowed me to win the game [you can use them in a similar fashion to the way you would use artillery in C3].

It may be that the Pyramids and Rushmore can determine the outcome of a higher level C4 AW game in a similar way to the Glib determining AWE and higher C3 games. Perhaps even more.

WW 1997 - AWP China. Culture slider is @ 70% and Beijing has 10MP.

WW 2032 - WW has increased.

Beijing 1997 WW is 53 with 10 MP and 70% culture slider. We are beating the AI with cavalry and fighters. Fighters wound a unit and cav finish them off. Taking cities is a very slow process. I kept cities because domination was the only hope to win before time ran out. I made it by 7 turns.

Beijing 2032 WW has grown to 60. 70% Culture Slider no longer able to solve the issue.

1997 Civics

 

[ThERat]

thanks handy for the info, maybe I can add to this from my current SG, called Rat09

the unhappiness caused by WW and emancipation are hard to handle.

of course, there are nice suggestions like the one from vmxa...only issue here is we are several techs away from those like facism and don't have democracy...
It's not as if we wouldn't change if we could, but there are NO civics for us currently to address this.

Something needs to be fixed here. And by the way the suggestion to get jails in about every town is no solution, we only fall behind in the game even further. I guess we will not be able to win this game unless we get some very fast units and victories.

I really hope someone at Firaxis picks this up and gives us people a chance to properly play the game. This is not balanced at the moment. Your example, handy is even more scary

 

[handy900]

Facism is way down the tech tree. If I had gome for that over fighters I feel sure I would have lost. I assumed that the AI would use fighters and bombers very well in C3 just as it did in C4. I did not want to find out!

I think a blend of civics that adresses WW early in the game would make the AW variant more fun - but it would offend the

god of balanced games

- so I don't expect it.

I wonder if it would be worth it when you capture a holy city to switch out of theocracy - spread the new religion all over the empire and build temples - then go back to theocracy.

 

[Aeson]

It's possible to play AW Noble and not have much WW concerns even without the Pyramids. How you go about the fighting plays a huge role in how the WW builds up.

You've identified a possible solution already, Religion. It can do wonders for your treasury (Shrines) and Happiness (Temples/Cathedrals).

Free Market is not really designed to be useful in AW. +1 trade routes are easily covered by any Specialist, so Mercantilism is almost surely the better Civic. Mercantilism and Caste System go well together too. Serfdom is good for building infrastructure, but tends to be lagging later in the game, except for a brief period around Railroads.

HR might seem necessary, but it's tying up your units which could be sacking cities, pillaging improvements, and making sure you don't lose more units than you should by supporting the units that are fighting. Representation will help address WW indirectly by allowing a higher Culture slider at the same research rate, especially combined with Mercantilism.

Nationhood is ok for a time(if you are Drafting, but the unit support cost relief of Feudalism plus the higher XP units, might generally be enough to justify it's High Civic cost. Nationhood's Happiness from Barracks is a rather insignificant effect IMO. When possible, it's generally better to circumvent WW from forming than try to address it. This would apply more for ORG Leaders who don't take the High Civic upkeep hit as hard though. But I'd rather have Feudalism and not Theocracy, than Theocracy and Nationalism.

Liberalism is also something to prioritize in regards to Civics. if you can get there first and take something like Nationalism, Astronomy, Chemistry, or Military Tradition with it, that really helps. Should be doable on Noble.

By running the proper Civics and using Religions to their fullest, you can free up further use of the Culture slider while still having good Gold and Research potential. It's possible to be teching fast due to Specialists and Great People, have positive income due to Shrines/Specialists, and be running 100% Culture rate... though it's better to try to minimize WW along the way.

------------------

If you look in the ..\Assets\XML\GlobalDefines.xml file all the WW modifiers are listed. You can see how to best go about minimizing the impact of WW from that.

I know there is resistance to the idea of modifying values... but if you don't, how will you be able to find out what settings you know are fun for AW to suggest them? And even if it never makes it into the core game, having a AW mod the SG community likes can be used for AW games, and the base game used for others.

	<[i][/i]Define>
		<[i][/i]DefineName>WW_UNIT_KILLED_ATTACKING<[i][/i]/DefineName>
		<[i][/i]iDefineIntVal>3<[i][/i]/iDefineIntVal>
	<[i][/i]/Define>
	<[i][/i]Define>
		<[i][/i]DefineName>WW_KILLED_UNIT_DEFENDING<[i][/i]/DefineName>
		<[i][/i]iDefineIntVal>1<[i][/i]/iDefineIntVal>
	<[i][/i]/Define>
	<[i][/i]Define>
		<[i][/i]DefineName>WW_UNIT_KILLED_DEFENDING<[i][/i]/DefineName>
		<[i][/i]iDefineIntVal>2<[i][/i]/iDefineIntVal>
	<[i][/i]/Define>
	<[i][/i]Define>
		<[i][/i]DefineName>WW_KILLED_UNIT_ATTACKING<[i][/i]/DefineName>
		<[i][/i]iDefineIntVal>2<[i][/i]/iDefineIntVal>
	<[i][/i]/Define>
	<[i][/i]Define>
		<[i][/i]DefineName>WW_UNIT_CAPTURED<[i][/i]/DefineName>
		<[i][/i]iDefineIntVal>2<[i][/i]/iDefineIntVal>
	<[i][/i]/Define>
	<[i][/i]Define>
		<[i][/i]DefineName>WW_CAPTURED_UNIT<[i][/i]/DefineName>
		<[i][/i]iDefineIntVal>1<[i][/i]/iDefineIntVal>
	<[i][/i]/Define>
	<[i][/i]Define>
		<[i][/i]DefineName>WW_CAPTURED_CITY<[i][/i]/DefineName>
		<[i][/i]iDefineIntVal>6<[i][/i]/iDefineIntVal>
	<[i][/i]/Define>
	<[i][/i]Define>
		<[i][/i]DefineName>WW_HIT_BY_NUKE<[i][/i]/DefineName>
		<[i][/i]iDefineIntVal>3<[i][/i]/iDefineIntVal>
	<[i][/i]/Define>
	<[i][/i]Define>
		<[i][/i]DefineName>WW_ATTACKED_WITH_NUKE<[i][/i]/DefineName>
		<[i][/i]iDefineIntVal>12<[i][/i]/iDefineIntVal>
	<[i][/i]/Define>
	<[i][/i]Define>
		<[i][/i]DefineName>WW_DECAY_RATE<[i][/i]/DefineName>
		<[i][/i]iDefineIntVal>-1<[i][/i]/iDefineIntVal>
	<[i][/i]/Define>
	<[i][/i]Define>
		<[i][/i]DefineName>WW_DECAY_PEACE_PERCENT<[i][/i]/DefineName>
		<[i][/i]iDefineIntVal>99<[i][/i]/iDefineIntVal>
	<[i][/i]/Define>

Also, Civics can be fooled around with too. The idea for 20% reduction in WW from base Civics just needs to change a few values in ..\Assets\XML\GameInfo\CIV4CivicInfos.xml to do so. Then it can be tried out, and if it's what the AW community likes, made as a more convincing case having been verified to be what it's intended to be.

		<[i][/i]CivicInfo>
			...			
			<[i][/i]iWarWearinessModifier>-20<[i][/i]/iWarWearinessModifier>

 

[MeteorPunch]

Just curious Aeson, do siege units dying count towards WW? I don't think they should, considering the way they are used as suicide units (which is just wrong), and that they have a much smaller percentage of human loss of life when compared to other units (the artillary operators vs. losing a whole division of foot units).

Also those WW figures you've posted Handy, are shockingly high. It just seems wrong.

 

[handy900]

Also those WW figures you've posted Handy, are shockingly high. It just seems wrong.

Well, it could just be due to poor [uninformed] play on my part. I was just trying to beat the clock to conquest and eventually did with 7 turns to spare. I would not have made it in time by conquest.

I really do not want to play a special AW mod in SG's. Any victory would just not feel like a "real" win. The joy of beating AWD or AWS on C3 would have been diminished if it had not been the "real" game. When (IF) the Grumpy Old Men beat AWE C4 I prefer it to be "legit".

Next AWP solo I think I will try a different approach along the lines of Aeson's ideas posted above. Perhaps I was placing too much emphasis on the +2 happy rax from Nationhood [I never did draft anyone]. Once AWP is a breeze it will be time to move up.

Thanks for the AW programming above! Can you explain the difference between the 2 and the 3 in the code below? Thanks.

EDIT - Never mind, I see it now.

<DefineName>WW_UNIT_KILLED_ATTACKING</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>3</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>WW_KILLED_UNIT_DEFENDING</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>1</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>WW_UNIT_KILLED_DEFENDING</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>2</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
<DefineName>WW_KILLED_UNIT_ATTACKING</DefineName>
<iDefineIntVal>2</iDefineIntVal>

 

[handy900]

Aeson - is appears that WW is cummulative over the course of a game. Do the # of turns you are at war count, or just the results of battles you fight?

 

[Aeson]

Seige units will count. I think it's necessary. Losing seige units will allow you to have much better chances of not losing the rest of the units.

I don't think just being at war makes any difference. You could test by being at war with someone who is incapable of reaching you and see if WW ever rises. I've never noticed any passive WW occuring, and tend to fight lots of "fake" wars. So I'd guess there isn't, or if there is, it's very very slight.

There may be other factors involved that I've missed. I was suprised to see no WW for units in enemy territory, or for enemy units in your territory. Also being pillaged was something I expected to increase WW.

Here are a couple of other things I just stumbled over in GlobalDefines.

	<[i][/i]Define>
		<[i][/i]DefineName>BASE_WAR_WEARINESS_MULTIPLIER<[i][/i]/DefineName>
		<[i][/i]iDefineIntVal>5<[i][/i]/iDefineIntVal>
	<[i][/i]/Define>
	<[i][/i]Define>
		<[i][/i]DefineName>FORCED_WAR_WAR_WEARINESS_MODIFIER<[i][/i]/DefineName>
		<[i][/i]iDefineIntVal>-50<[i][/i]/iDefineIntVal>
	<[i][/i]/Define>

As to what those numbers mean, or apply to, I don't know. I think forced war is just cutting all WW in half in AW games. Not sure on the multiplier.

 

[handy900]

I think forced war is just cutting all WW in half in AW games. Not sure on the multiplier.

Are you saying AW under the "custom" menu offers 50% less WW than AW under the "Main" Menu?

In my solo I played AW, but did not use the custom AW button. I played the "C3" way and declared on them as I met them. The reason for this is... I can't figure out how to enter a player name in the custom section. "Just Qin Baby" sounded better than "A6F2329D1B7259598357134687". If WW is 50% less under the custom menu, well that is a BIG deal.

EDIT Okay - I found the button that let's you enter your name in the "custom" section.

Seige units will count. I think it's necessary. Losing seige units will allow you to have much better chances of not losing the rest of the units.

This makes sense. I don't like the new Siege unit rules, but you would have to count them. I assume bombers and fighters lost count against you also.

 

[Aeson]

Are you saying AW under the "custom" menu offers 50% less WW than AW under the "Main" Menu?

In my solo I played AW, but did not use the custom AW button. I played the "C3" way and declared on them as I met them. The reason for this is... I can't figure out how to enter a player name in the custom section. "Just Qin Baby" sounded better than "A6F2329D1B7259598357134687". If WW is 50% less under the custom menu, well that is a BIG deal.

Any special rules the game has for AW would surely only be triggered if the AW option was selected. Just delcaring war and not making peace wouldn't apply for any exceptions.

I'm not sure if that's what "forced war" is though. Could start a game, give yourself and an opponent a bunch of units, and compare with the AW selected or not to be sure.

 

[corruptionsucks]

I'm going to try to make a constructive suggestion here for combatting WW. Why not give "flavors" to the religions, one of which would have no fear of their warriors dying in combat? The other religions could favor other aspects of gameplay.

As it stands now, there is no particular advantage to discovering one religion over another except that you "hope" your allies will have the same one or attempt to convince them to adopt it.

I understand the designers were trying to be PC about religion, but giving flavors does NOT have to be all about "my god is better than your god", though it may have that effect, with the no WW religion being the choice of AW players.

I have no idea how difficult this would be to implement, but I haven't seen it addressed.

I think this is a great idea. Here's some further non-PC suggestions to add for our warmongering folk.

Bonuses to religions:

Hinduism - Having the resourse cows gives your units a 30% chance to be reincarnated upon dying in battle.
Buddhism - Each unit has a chance of a kamikaze attack, whereupon death, the unit has a 30% chance of inflicting a dying blow to the attacker.
Christianity - With the resource sheep, your units have a 30% chance of shedding more blood in each attack, but also a 30% chance of giving your own life in return.
Islam - A special 'jihad' warrior can be created at Scotland Yard that allows it to enter a city and destroy improvements and population. A spy/nuke unit, but one that enters paradise with 70 virgin brides

Confucianism/Taosim - don't know enough about either religion, sorry, maybe someone can help. Maybe all units have the drunken monkey kungfu ability, that allows them to mimic a weakened unit when in reality it's full strength?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

So, hang on, does this mean you gain war weariness even if YOU are doing the killing and capturing? If so, then that is something which needs to be addressed, perhaps by giving a negative WW modifier to units killed by you-especially if YOU are defending. Same with cities captured.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Salarakas]

This is an excellent thread and took me ages to read! Both sides have good points but I tend to agree more with the "pessimists" - Civ4 just doesn't seem that fun to play. I've been playing the Civ series since the early 90s and love it to death. I preordered Civ4 and have since tried different landtypes (archipelago, pangaea etc), map sizes, variants and game speeds. I have started at least a couple of dozen games that I've played to at least the renaissance era.

To best describe how disappointed I am with the game so far I'll say this: I've yet to finish one game! I usually get so bored by the time you get railroad that I just abandon the game. Usually I start a new one right away hoping that the different tactics and "mods" (AW, OCC...) make it more fun but like I said - I've yet to finish one game.

As for warmongering... The best way to make good use of your precious military units before they go obsolete seems to be playing with epic speed. Your units are still good when they have been transported to the other continent and the AI doesn't have rifles defending against your brand new knights yet. But this in turn makes the whole game even more tedious. You end up pressing the enter key (at least in the early stages of the game) so often that it's difficult to stay awake. "Yay.. only 20 more turns for that worker."

I also definately agree with the late game tech overflow... what's the fun in getting a new tech every couple of turns? I understand that at least some of the DYP/RaR developers helped out as (at least) beta testers but it seems that many features (like huge amount of techs and slooow early start) of those mods were incorporated into Civ4. These were, unfortunately, the biggest reasons why I kept on playing C3C instead of RaR and I'm sad to see them in Civ4.

Artillery... Yes, it was hugely over-powered in Civ3 but turning it to a suicide unit is not any better in my opinion. Keeping the unit bombardment but lowering its strenght (i.e. catapults can only reduce the unit's strenght to e.g. 60%) and upping the cost would have worked much better. And like has been said the AI in Civ3 knew how to use bombers, surely they could have improved the AI in Civ4 to use cats/cannons in the same way too.


I had something else to say too but for the love of me can't remember it right now. But anyway, the game is much less fun than I hoped it would be. I can't understand how it seems to get nothing but praise from reviews. And this from a guy who was much more a builder type than a warmongerer in the previous Civ games! I really hope future patches or at least expansion packs will improve the game because right now I'm almost as disappointed as I was when I tried Doom3

 

[Halberd]

Lots of good points...

Sorry to bump this thread, but I've been away from Fanatics for a while.

I totally agree with Salarakas - and have had the same experience with CIV. While I think it's got the potential to be the best Civ when it's finished, I'm finding it well boring... just because the AI doesn't play to win (expressed in this thread and numerous others).

I'd really like to know - despite indications to the contrary earlier by Sirian - why can't this be patched easily? I always play huge, max # civs and I'm fed up of being the only one trying to take over the world (and failing in the attempt). There's no element of liebenstraum at all from the AI's.

I really miss the comedy value of making one of the AI's a pariah state from Civ3 and seeing them get gang-duffed up. Or getting invaded and bringing in my friends. Or bringing in my friends after invading! Or even hearing about wars kicking off the other side of the world.

It's a very peaceful, dull world in CIV.
"Us AI's are all concentrating on building our spaceships."

 

[Guagle]

So, hang on, does this mean you gain war weariness even if YOU are doing the killing and capturing? If so, then that is something which needs to be addressed, perhaps by giving a negative WW modifier to units killed by you-especially if YOU are defending. Same with cities captured.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I agree, it seems just plain wrong to gain WW when you are crushing your opponents and not taking losses!

 

[ThERat]

bumping this thread one more time...

having played handy22 this afternoon a few thoughts about the state of the game.

First off, Harkonnens patch has made the game surely more playable in the modern age. And while I am at the modern age...

Flight:
for a warmonger, flight is the tech that one needs since it gives bombers. Bombers are Civ4's artillery. they can nicely bombard any units to 50% strength. They can also bom the city defense, surely the modern artillery. Unfortunately the unit comes very late in the game.

Airlift:
If I am not wrong the game allows only 1 unit per turn to be lifted to the target city unless the city has an airport. This is tough for a beachhead, since it will take a while to build an airport there. Airfields are no longer available, making it tougher. I think airfields should come back.

Gamespeed:
In order to enjoy the units for a longer time, I feel epic is the gamespeed for a warmonger. Currently at rat09, we seem to lose the game simply because moving units to fight off others took too long.

AI
Sometimes the AI acts pretty smart with what Greebley calls 'hornets nest'. This means that the AI will sit in their city until it gets stung. This is usually once your units arrive directly at the gates of the enemy. It makes for a nice surprise. It will take us warmongers some time to figure out how to beat that feature.
In handy22, Japan was holed in with around 15-20 defenders, but taking another of their cities broke that behaviour. They came out and started to attack (which was their downfall since we are technologically superior)
I would like to see more AI's to attack, espeically when they are technologically even or better. This makes the game more exciting

comments, anyone?