Heroic Epic + Ironworks = Overkill?

[MestreLion]

Imho this needs a fix, either / or both:-

a) If you attack a civ, then you ONLY get a penalty with its "friendly" civs, its vassals, and those who share either a perm alliance or defensive pact, NOT those who are pleased and definitly not those who are "cautious"

Getting -1 for a "cautious" civ should definately get fixed, but i think its fair to get the penalty from "pleased" civs...

b) The "you attacked our friend" penalty should disappear over time

Yeah, that sucks. But, are you sure it does not dissapear? Im quite sure it does, but it surely lasts much longer than it should.

 

[a4phantom]

Getting -1 for a "cautious" civ should definately get fixed, but i think its fair to get the penalty from "pleased" civs...

Yeah, that sucks. But, are you sure it does not dissapear? Im quite sure it does, but it surely lasts much longer than it should.

I don't know, these may be necessary balances on the unfair human advantage of not being programmed to respond in fixed ways to certain aspects of the game. If a civ that I've traded well with for years, have no negative history with, and share a religion with, is vulnerable and I think I would gain by attacking it, I'll do so. I really don't care about what factors should influence our relationship, I care about which civ it would advantage me the most to attack. This is a huge advantage to human vs. AI civs, and having harsh (though they're not usually that big) diplomatic penalties for warmongering only begins to balance the matter.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

I don't know, these may be necessary balances on the unfair human advantage of not being programmed to respond in fixed ways to certain aspects of the game. If a civ that I've traded well with for years, have no negative history with, and share a religion with, is vulnerable and I think I would gain by attacking it, I'll do so. I really don't care about what factors should influence our relationship, I care about which civ it would advantage me the most to attack. This is a huge advantage to human vs. AI civs, and having harsh (though they're not usually that big) diplomatic penalties for warmongering only begins to balance the matter.

No, because the penalties become utterly ridiculous after a while, I'm almost 100% sure they don't go away. Current game, I've got 9 minus one penalties with Gandhi, who I have never been in conflict with, even though he seems to consider everyone else in the world his "friends". Its now the 17th century, and some of these modifiers go back to 2500bc, when I got a boxed in start, and repeatedly had to fight my way out.

The problem lies in the AI's unwillingness to fight short "border encroachment wars", and its general unwillingness to fight anyone which is necessary for the player to have a large enough chunk of land to counter all the higher lvl bonuses the AI gets......

Anyways guys, we are so far off this thread topic now, I had to look up what is was supposed to be So enough from me...

 

[Eqqman]

No, because the penalties become utterly ridiculous after a while, I'm almost 100% sure they don't go away. Current game, I've got 9 minus one penalties with Gandhi, who I have never been in conflict with, even though he seems to consider everyone else in the world his "friends". Its now the 17th century, and some of these modifiers go back to 2500bc, when I got a boxed in start, and repeatedly had to fight my way out.

I agree. Either they never go away or the delay time is so long they practically never go away. In my last game I picked up a -1 penalty on Cyrus because another civ asked me to cancel treaties with him, it was still there when I won the game in 1941 even though I picked up the minus in the BCs.

 

[yavoon]

if I dont want a civ attacking me I give it 5 to 9 resources. usually works. otherwise I'm not sure what good diplomacy is because they're pretty hard headed about most other things.

 

[Zombie69]

No, because the penalties become utterly ridiculous after a while, I'm almost 100% sure they don't go away. Current game, I've got 9 minus one penalties with Gandhi, who I have never been in conflict with, even though he seems to consider everyone else in the world his "friends". Its now the 17th century, and some of these modifiers go back to 2500bc, when I got a boxed in start, and repeatedly had to fight my way out.

All that means is that Ghandi likes peaceful civs and you're not peaceful! I agree with the other guy that this is needed just to bring a semblance of balance.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

All that means is that Ghandi likes peaceful civs and you're not peaceful! I agree with the other guy that this is needed just to bring a semblance of balance.

As I said in a post slightly higher up, I can understand the modifiers, except they should disappear over time, which they don't, resulting in ridiculous situations like the above where diplomacy becomes all but impossible.

The example above is on marathon speed, which I always play, so its well I can't be bothered to work it out, but a lot of turns (and I also reasoned recently since there are so many more turns on marathon, the player has to suffer even more from the minus modifiers "you refused this, you refused that etc.).

I still think a counter of some sort is needed to track modifiers, linked to a leaders personality, causing previous indiscretions, conflict modifiers and the like to gradually disappear over time. No-one holds a grudge for That long.

Well, this is more off topic stuff, which I said I wouldn't so enough again...

 

[a4phantom]

You could try to get your first round of wars over before anyone gets Astronomy, then the only people who would be mad about them would be your victims? Basically Gandi is unfriendly with you because he knows you're likely to attack him. Is that unfair?

 

[DrewBledsoe]

You could try to get your first round of wars over before anyone gets Astronomy, then the only people who would be mad about them would be your victims? Basically Gandi is unfriendly with you because he knows you're likely to attack him. Is that unfair?

Well ok if you bait me Why am I likely to attack him? Just because I attacked a few other nations (who are all still alive btw), which happened to be a long time ago too. At the point mentioned we've had contact for almost 4200 years, and I haven't attacked him in all that time, so its just as logical for him to think that if I haven't attacked him by now (when my power graph has been huge compared to his for most of history) then I'm not going to.

And as to the first part, nations unknown to a civ in conflict with another, will receive no modifiers. Thats in place already, You do not receive "retrospective modifiers" with a civ that didn't know about a war taking place in an unknown land.....

Gandhi "Oh btw Cyrus, did you know Drewski's Vikings attacked the Egyptians 2000 years ago"
Cyrus " Really, heck I'd better run off and cancel all deals with them, If they attacked The Egyptians 2000 years ago, we might be next! at any minute"

 

[a4phantom]

Well ok if you bait me Why am I likely to attack him? Just because I attacked a few other nations (who are all still alive btw), which happened to be a long time ago too. At the point mentioned we've had contact for almost 4200 years, and I haven't attacked him in all that time, so its just as logical for him to think that if I haven't attacked him by now (when my power graph has been huge compared to his for most of history) then I'm not going to.

Fair enough, I guess you're not as bloody a warmonger as I am, because I would definitely be coming after Gandi when everyone above him was toast Still, a general diplomatic penalty for disturbing the peace doesn't seem unfair to me, especially if it's only -1. If it endures practically forever, you might have a point there.

And as to the first part, nations unknown to a civ in conflict with another, will receive no modifiers. Thats in place already, You do not receive "retrospective modifiers" with a civ that didn't know about a war taking place in an unknown land.....

Gandhi "Oh btw Cyrus, did you know Drewski's Vikings attacked the Egyptians 2000 years ago"
Cyrus " Really, heck I'd better run off and cancel all deals with them, If they attacked The Egyptians 2000 years ago, we might be next! at any minute"

But that was exactly my point. If you go around maiming or robbing or whatever it is you do to your neighbors (I do both, and try to kill them as well, but only in Civ of course) before Astronomy the rest of the world shouldn't know until it's long over, and thus not care.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Fair enough, I guess you're not as bloody a warmonger as I am, because I would definitely be coming after Gandi when everyone above him was toast Still, a general diplomatic penalty for disturbing the peace doesn't seem unfair to me, especially if it's only -1. If it endures practically forever, you might have a point there.



But that was exactly my point. If you go around maiming or robbing or whatever it is you do to your neighbors (I do both, and try to kill them as well, but only in Civ of course) before Astronomy the rest of the world shouldn't know until it's long over, and thus not care.

I'm really not these day (a single minded warmongerer that is) some games are pretty much over by the 16th century, and the only ones I really play out to a literal finish, are ones that are still undecided (which of course are far more entertaining).

The Astronomy bit, we seem to be in agreemnet over Interesting discussion (as they should be)...bet you're looking forward to Homan coming back soon

(Mental note to self absolutely no more thread hijacking)

 

[a4phantom]

I didn't use to be a constant warmonger, but I kept getting attacked because I wouldn't invest in a huge military until maces or rifles (wanting to reap the 'peace dividend' by focusing on peaceful building projects and running Pacifism). So I started building up a strong military early, then figured why the hell not use it.

Do any leaders seem to care more (than -1) about you attacking a friend, as some are more upset than others by your heathen religion? I don't think so, but that seems wierd. I'd think Gandi and maybe Roosevelt would be especially pissed, although Gandi should hate anyone starting a war with anyone. As for thread hijacking, the original topic of this thread seems played out so the current discussion seems reasonable. As for the other thing, I'm not responding to him anymore. Anyone who wants to know why can read the musketmen thread. Hopefully he will feel the same way and not address me, but if not I'll just have to ignore it.