New Version - September 7th (9-7)

[Beniito]

Ok here is what happened:
Mongolia and America both declared war on me on the same turn. They declared war on me, so it wasn't the result of a defensive pact triggering. Also none of them are someone else's vassal. I couldn't make peace with either of them. However, America made peace with me after a while. So I'm guessing Mongolia paid America to go to war with me. However I still can't make peace with Mongolia, even though he is suffering so much from this war. My war score is not that high as I don't like to capture cities, but his happiness is -20. He really can't afford this war

 

[Jordan Benjamin]

Ok here is what happened:
Mongolia and America both declared war on me on the same turn. They declared war on me, so it wasn't the result of a defensive pact triggering. Also none of them are someone else's vassal. I couldn't make peace with either of them. However, America made peace with me after a while. So I'm guessing Mongolia paid America to go to war with me. However I still can't make peace with Mongolia, even though he is suffering so much from this war. My war score is not that high as I don't like to capture cities, but his happiness is -20. He really can't afford this war

Is it possible that America actually paid Mongolia to go to war and can't declare peace because he's still under contractual obligation? Finish out the 15 turns or so?

 

[Beniito]

Perhaps! It feels longer than 15 turns, but maybe I'm wrong! I'll keep playing to see what happens

 

[Jordan Benjamin]

Perhaps! It feels longer than 15 turns, but maybe I'm wrong! I'll keep playing to see what happens

Later the game is the longer the turns take. Including your own what with diplomatic choices, unit actions and such

 

[infidel88]

My war score is not that high as I don't like to capture cities, but his happiness is -20. He really can't afford this war

This is typical AI from recent patches. If you meet civs from other side of the world before all useful buffs to embarkation, it makes them available to hire as kind of mercenary. I had this situation in couple of my lst games, where I was friendly with AI, then suddenly it declares war on me for no reason whatsoever (clearly brokered) and sends a lonely swordsman/trireme or couple of them that land in middle of my land among my troops just to be insta slaughtered. And then after those casulaties they come and ask for peace (without any conditions).

 

[Y.O.]

Ok here is what happened:
Mongolia and America both declared war on me on the same turn. They declared war on me, so it wasn't the result of a defensive pact triggering. Also none of them are someone else's vassal. I couldn't make peace with either of them. However, America made peace with me after a while. So I'm guessing Mongolia paid America to go to war with me. However I still can't make peace with Mongolia, even though he is suffering so much from this war. My war score is not that high as I don't like to capture cities, but his happiness is -20. He really can't afford this war

Wars will last a long time unless you're capturing and harming cities, or war weariness becomes a big enough issue for the AI. I've seen AI fight with -20 happiness with "peace blocked," so I don't think it's a big deal to them. It wouldn't be to me at least. There's a post that explains what causes the AI to surrender or keeping fighting, and IIRC cities factor big into it. Take a few cities, puppet them, and attack others, but don't take them. After a while, the AI will eventually want peace. Worst case, you an sell those cities off, but wars always seem to last longer for me when I only focus on killing units, rather than going on the offensive and actively trying to war a war (best defense is a good offense). War score affects war weariness, and that seems to what makes the AI eventually want peace. Usually if my war weariness is climbing, and I'm winning the war, that tells me peace will soon be an option, just need to wait it out.

Also I wouldn't be so sure to assume that Mongolia paid America to war against you. What's the relationship between them, and how do they feel about you individually? Did they denounce? I've seen notifications of which civs specifically brokered war against me; might be due to the spy I had in the city. America simply being recruited to war is also an option. Definitely had moments where the a civ had enough of me.

 

[Txurce]

To me, all tall vs wide describes is the number of cities. You can play with a small number of cities but not focus growth (Korea or Arabia). You can play with a small number of cities, but not focus on specialists (Assyria or India). You can play very wide and focus science (Babylon). And you can play in between the two as well. If you play smart, most combinations work, but not every combination. Something like Rome played with a tall great person focus makes no sense at all (I'm not saying its impossible to win like this, but its not a good strategy). Several civs have bonuses that pull them in different directions for tall or wide (Assyria and Russia).

According to Enginseer's description, it sounds like thick is wide. It has a few other ideas, like focusing specialists early and overlapping tiles (which are both fine ideas), but I don't really see how its an alternate strategy. I would just call it "I picked progress but ran out of land".

I agree. To me, "thick" is where I end up regardless of whether I play 4-6 Tradition or 8-13 Progress. It's basically classic "Tradition" play, but with more cities.

I'm tempted to go Imperialism given how much the other Civs on my continent hate me so much (partially because I DoW'd Korea and China in the Ancient Era to capture their Settlers so they couldn't forward settle me, and they never, ever forgave me for it). I've been permanently denounced (as in, they renew the denouncement as soon as it expires) by 4 out of 6 other Civs on my continent since the Ancient Era, but have been on a rotating schedule of regular DoW's from these Civs all game despite my only truly aggressive action having been capturing those Settlers from Korea and China right at the very beginning of the game.

I can't resist stealing workers if I'm playing Tradition -- never mind settlers, regardless of what my opening branch is. It undoubtedly helps me and hurts the AI. But as you point out, there is a price to be paid that's pretty similar to England spying: someone's going to hate you, and it's going to lead to fairly constant hostilities that may eventually derail your (non-domination) game. I've even wasted Pacifism by being constantly forced into war with a neighbor who would otherwise be giving me lots of happiness.) You have to be pretty careful whom you provoke -- with England, I try to spy on someone non-adjacent whenever possible.

 

[neo_arcadia]

This is just my observation but I am sure that when you enter another civ screen you're at war with (civ A) and there are no PEACE button it means that civ A is currently in a deal with someone else (civ B). It means civ B paid civ A to declare war on you. That's why you cannot even have that PEACE button so that civ A cannot break its deal in whatever way with civ B except those two civ wage war with each other, which, as far as I know, the only way to break any deal.

So, there are two conditions about inability to negotiate peace, either the button is not there or the button is there but it's "impossible" to negotiate peace. When you have that negotiate peace button on the screen it means that those civ you're at war with is not paid by someone else. Other than deal like gold per turn, any civ can go diplomatic way to declare war on you, in which they have 4 options: declare war, give me 10 turns to prepare, impossible you have gone too far, and I'm not interested. This one, I think, is not binding in number of turns so they can peace out any time they want but most of the time AI will keep fighting you for some turns.

 

[Gazebo]

This is just my observation but I am sure that when you enter another civ screen you're at war with (civ A) and there are no PEACE button it means that civ A is currently in a deal with someone else (civ B). It means civ B paid civ A to declare war on you. That's why you cannot even have that PEACE button so that civ A cannot break its deal in whatever way with civ B except those two civ wage war with each other, which, as far as I know, the only way to break any deal.

So, there are two conditions about inability to negotiate peace, either the button is not there or the button is there but it's "impossible" to negotiate peace. When you have that negotiate peace button on the screen it means that those civ you're at war with is not paid by someone else. Other than deal like gold per turn, any civ can go diplomatic way to declare war on you, in which they have 4 options: declare war, give me 10 turns to prepare, impossible you have gone too far, and I'm not interested. This one, I think, is not binding in number of turns so they can peace out any time they want but most of the time AI will keep fighting you for some turns.

Could also be a 'coop war request.'

G

 

[tu_79]

Could also be a 'coop war request.'

G

Let's include this in the 'deals', for simplicity sake.

 

[doublex55]

Yep. Minimal unhappiness for wars, super-duper cities, growth from trade routes, more yields from trade routes...not to mention the security that a large tourism buffer offers against ideological pressure.

G

I think part of the reason players underestimate the effects of tourism is because they arent stated in civilopedia. Where can i find a list of the effects and at what influence breakpoint?

 

[matlajs]

all efects you can see in cultural influence overview.

 

[Gokudo01]

all efects you can see in cultural influence overview.

does tourism affect war weariness ?

 

[Txurce]

does tourism affect war weariness ?

War weariness is affected only by war length. Their only connection is that in the late game, both affect happiness.

 

[allstarever]

Could I request that you change the ability of the Moai for Polynesia? I change between a modified communitas and PerfectPlanet, and I noticed that after playing several games with them that the landmass designed to make the Moai shine is too rare and inconsequential to Polynesia's play style. They seem to be designed to settle in islands, but these are usually 2 to 3 tile lands, while the Moai needs to have a small continent to start becoming useful. Often times it is better settling shorelines on the mainland than scouting out at sea, which feels wrong for this civ. Instead, is it possible to have the Moai gain more culture per adjacent coastal tile? That way, one tile islands can be useful and encourage Polynesia to keep setting islands. Thanks

 

[Enginseer]

Does City-State Influence decay scale at all? I would have swore they scaled in decay, but they're all at -0.75 and -1.12 now when I'm 500+ influence with them already.

 

[tu_79]

Could I request that you change the ability of the Moai for Polynesia? I change between a modified communitas and PerfectPlanet, and I noticed that after playing several games with them that the landmass designed to make the Moai shine is too rare and inconsequential to Polynesia's play style. They seem to be designed to settle in islands, but these are usually 2 to 3 tile lands, while the Moai needs to have a small continent to start becoming useful. Often times it is better settling shorelines on the mainland than scouting out at sea, which feels wrong for this civ. Instead, is it possible to have the Moai gain more culture per adjacent coastal tile? That way, one tile islands can be useful and encourage Polynesia to keep setting islands. Thanks

The Moais are best for peninsulas, 2 tiles wide. Even then, you might break some clusters in order to get the resources. The other bonuses work great for settling in islands. If everything was geared towards islands, then we would have a big problem. If the map is heavy on islands, Polynesia would be overpowered, and the opposite. By not synergizing completely, it's more flexible.

 

[doublex55]

Does City-State Influence decay scale at all? I would have swore they scaled in decay, but they're all at -0.75 and -1.12 now when I'm 500+ influence with them already.

I also feel dubious that the decay is working properly.

 

[Y.O.]

War weariness is affected only by war length. Their only connection is that in the late game, both affect happiness.

There's more to war weariness than war length:

• Ideological Pressure.
• Length of your current war.
• The largest amount of damage your cities and armies have sustained in a single combat against your opponent you are currently fighting.
• Unit and Cities lost in War.
• Negative War Score
• Cultural Influence of the Enemy over Yours
• Technological Levels
• Fighting versus a Civilization with a much larger tourism level over you.
• Adopting certain policies and tenets can reduce war weariness.

http://civ-5-cbp.wikia.com/wiki/War_Weariness

IMO It doesn't seem to take long for war weariness to kick in when you're fighting in the industrial or modern era, especially if you're losing the war. Also, I agree with influence decay not scaling. Very much feels the same to me.

 

[Gokudo01]

There's more to war weariness than war length:

• Ideological Pressure.
• Length of your current war.
• The largest amount of damage your cities and armies have sustained in a single combat against your opponent you are currently fighting.
• Unit and Cities lost in War.
• Negative War Score
• Cultural Influence of the Enemy over Yours
• Technological Levels
• Fighting versus a Civilization with a much larger tourism level over you.
• Adopting certain policies and tenets can reduce war weariness.

http://civ-5-cbp.wikia.com/wiki/War_Weariness

IMO It doesn't seem to take long for war weariness to kick in when you're fighting in the industrial or modern era, especially if you're losing the war. Also, I agree with influence decay not scaling. Very much feels the same to me.

so tourism influence war weariness, good to know