In BOTM 241, @Noble Zarkon had this introduction for Clash of the Titans Part 1:
Forum member @drewisfat recently stated "I'm familiar with std/normal/deity non-cheese victories, as that's what I always play. Rome is strong there. I think a perfect Rome game outperforms a perfect Inca game." So I thought we should test this hypothesis We discussed it on Staff and decided the best way to do it would be to play the same map twice, once as Inca and once as Rome. My feeling is nothing can compete with the Inca not even the mighty hordes of Rome so we will play as the Inca first then Rome next month - this means Rome will be played with map knowledge, if that turns out to be too easy then we will do this again in 6 months and swap the order! In order to avoid cheesy victories only Conquest and Domination victories are enabled.
I've tried to remove luck as far as possible - there's a strong hint as to what direction to head in from the position of the Quecha and all the AIs are very similar so it shouldn't matter too much which order you find them.
Real life interfered with the original schedule, but now we will continue with Clash of the Titans Part 2. We have the same map and the same AI, but this time you play as Augustus of Rome. How will Augustus fare compared to Huayna Capac?
Game settings: Playing as: Augustus of Rome Rivals: 6 AIs Difficulty:Deity
Starting Era: Ancient Speed: Normal Options:No goody huts, no random events
Victory Conditions: Conquest, Domination
Map settings: Map: Custom World Wrap: None Mapsize: Standard Climate: Temperate Sea level: Medium Map latitudes: -90°S to 90°N
Augustus is Imperialistic and Industrious, and you start with Fishing and Mining.
The Imperialistic trait gives +100% great general emergence and +50% production of settlers
The Industrious trait gives +50% wonder production and double production speed of Forge
Unique unit: Praetorian (replaces Swordsman)
Enemies fear the praetorian! It is extremely powerful for such an early unit, having a base strength of 8. It does however lack the +10% city attack of the swordsman.
Unique Building: Forum (replaces Market)
Besides the benefits of a market, the forum gives +25% great person birth rate in its city.
Starting screenshot
This is the start of the game (click for a bigger image):
Adventurer Class bonuses:
You play on Emperor level, but the AI still have Deity level starting units.
Challenger Class Equalizers:
No Challenger class needed this time!
To Enter the Competition:
This competition will open at 00:01 am on 12 Jan 2023, server local time (UTC-6:00). From that date and time, you'll be able to get your chosen starting save >>>here<<<.
Submit the save after your victory (or defeat) here, by 15 Feb 2023 15 Mar 2023.
Here is a link to a list of the differences between Vanilla, Warlords and BtS.
Software Versions
Windows: This game MUST be played in Beyond the Sword (NOT Civ4 Vanilla or Warlords), patched to version 3.19, and with the BUFFY mod version 3.19.005 installed. You can download the BUFFY mod here. Players using Windows Vista or Windows 7 are encouraged to read the notes on Vista fixes here.
Macintosh: This game MUST be played in Beyond the Sword (NOT Civ4 Vanilla or Warlords), patched to version 3.19, and with the Mac BUFFY mod version 3.19.003 installed. You can download the Mac BUFFY mod here.
While playing...
Remember - for your entry to be accepted, it MUST be your first attempt to play this game, and you MUST NOT replay any turns. If you make a mistake while playing, you have to live with it, learn from it, and carry on the game without replaying.
We will open 'spoiler' threads during the month for players to discuss what happens in their games. Do not discuss any details of your game outside those threads. @The_J@Blake00
Real Life events, particularly the recent series of server crashes, have delayed some of our BOTM games, but this one essentially returns us to our standard schedule of having the easy games (Noble, Prince, Monarch) starting on the 1st of the month, with the hard games (Emperor, Immortal, Deity) starting on the 15th. Because this game presents some challenges that might take longer to play out, I'm starting this game three days earlier to give you a bit more time.
The big difference between this game and others is that this one is reusing exactly the same map, with the same AI, as in BOTM 241. There were very few players who completed that game, and they obviously will start this one with information that is not generally available. I want to make it clear, therefore, that it is perfectly legal to go back and research that game by any or all of the following means.
You can see and compare graphic replays of all the submissions here.
You can download the starting save for BOTM 241 and play part of that game for fun. I'd recommend at least playing far enough to familiarize yourself with the AI and the terrain beyond the starting screenshot.
In BOTM 247, I was the only player to submit an Adventurer save. In an attempt to attract more non-Deity level players to this game, I've set this Adventurer save to Emperor difficulty, instead of leaving it at Deity and trying to guess at a comparable bonus for the 8 Quechua and 500 gold that was offered in BOTM 241. I may be a generous mapmaker, but there's no way I was going to give you 8 Praetorians!
I also want to call your attention to the victory conditions. As in BOTM 241, only Conquest and Domination are enabled. Because there is no Time victory, that means the game will not automatically end on Turn 500. If no civilization achieves the victory conditions, the game can conceivably go on...forever? [Fortunately or unfortunately, there's still a real life submission deadline.] For the Deity-level players in BOTM 241, that was not a problem. For the rest of us mere mortals, take heed!
I was pretty darn surprised--nay, astonished!--that Kaitzilla and Jovan managed to get Deity victories with the Incas. I really can't imagine how we're supposed to do it as Rome. No quechuas this time (so even harder to capture cities) and the nearest iron for praets is in America (how you gonna get that iron except by capturing an American city or two? ). [Thanks, Frederiksberg (#7), for correcting my faulty memory.]
(BTW, the 241 Final Spoiler link points to First Spoiler, and it would be good to put this thread up top in the yellow section.)
Oops! The link has been fixed. Pinning a post (moving it to the yellow section) is one of those powers I don't have. But just in case it's necessary again, humble staffers can now edit a game's end date on our own!
An ice start (shown on the starting screenshot so not a spoiler) on the previous Botm (I hate ice) and a deity war game (Con and Dom aren't really peaceful options on deity). At least I won't need to waste any time on Civ in the foreseeable future. I guess for those who love deity wars it's a win-win.
I was pretty darn surprised--nay, astonished!--that Kaitzilla and Jovan managed to get Deity victories with the Incas. I really can't imagine how we're supposed to do it as Rome. No quechuas this time (so even harder to capture cities) and the nearest iron for praets is in America (how you gonna get that iron except by capturing an American city or two? ).
(BTW, the 241 Final Spoiler link points to First Spoiler, and it would be good to put this thread up top in the yellow section.)
An ice start (shown on the starting screenshot so not a spoiler) on the previous Botm (I hate ice) and a deity war game (Con and Dom aren't really peaceful options on deity). At least I won't need to waste any time on Civ in the foreseeable future. I guess for those who love deity wars it's a win-win.
I believe Romans have been better than HC ever since the AGG AI worker stealing trick was discovered, because HC benefits much less from that compared to everyone else.
I think that longer term approach, and settling your own cities with IMP, became much stronger when it was discovered how AGG AI lets you easily (by HoF standards) steal multiple workers
Theorycrafted for conquest, you build oracle -> feudalism. IMP/IND the best traits you can have for that since the capital is literally building like settler, settler, oracle, settler at the critical point. And feudalism is a big way Rome can catch up to the rushboys. They have to conquer every city at least of the initial targets, Rome takes 1-2 and it's onto the next. Probably fail on getting feudalism ~60% of the time, but the early wars are a lot more consistent because vassalage + ignoring hill cities. Praets very good for capitulating, since you'll take fewer casualties (-warscore) and have higher military power (so keeping a bunch of 1-2 city vassals doesn't make the last AI resistant to capitulating).
Being a hub map over 1000 tiles instead of a 300 something pangaea also destroys any plan for capitulations, because you can't get land target with a single AI nonetheless all of them lol
The Aggressive AI setting lets the human player in war get Cease Fire and Peace Treaty with the AI a lot easier.
Just have to threaten their city by moving a war unit to within 2 tiles so that more of their cities are threatened than yours.
In my experience, the fort will allow CR promotions to work, not nullify them. Yes, I think Tachy has the wrong end of this. I tried in my original post to point out that the fort is a two-edged sword, as it enables both city attack and defence promotions to work.
forums.civfanatics.com
I think the first time it became popularized for fast wars to steal workers was using Manco Capac's worker stealing guide.
Select your target -> Aggression of the Target -> Aggressive AI is on
V1.3 Updated from an older article. Since the dawn of civilizations, enslaving minor nations has been a cheap method to boost one's economy or simply batten on the weaker. Sadly, many modern nations, nowadays grown powerful, have a flood of drippling blood on their hands. Nonetheless, it had...
forums.civfanatics.com
In Hall of Fame games, it improved worker-stealing powered games tremendously for me anyway.
Thanks Kovacsflo for the write up. Looking at it i see my error: teching to jumbos before striking. I start attacking at around 100AD, instead i should try to pin down a couple AIs camping their metal and HA them in the BCs. Also i should NOT include mansa in this, the bastard advance everybody...
While the general Hall of Fame is an ongoing competition, we are running a series of ten games called the Hall of Fame Challenge Series. Standard Hall of Fame rules (*) still apply, but any games meeting the settings of one of the games will be counted towards the Challenge. (*) Please read...
forums.civfanatics.com
My brain melted the 1st time I tried to calculate precise endwar values.
What did make you think so? You put all 4 spy points on him? Of course, everybody does that. T144. The Oracle. Currency. First tech sellout nets 960:gold:; trading resources for 9gpt. T145. Captured Philadelphia. No granary, again. RNG is determined to ruin this game. Atlanta is a foodless...
forums.civfanatics.com
Almost always, threatening the AI city with Aggressive AI turned on will compensate for the lower power rating of the human player vs. Deity AI.
It will allow an early Cease Fire or Peace Treaty which is usually almost entirely determined by power ratio and war success.
I'll try the EndWarValue calculation one more time.
The BetterAI Mod can do it by holding Alt and then mousing over the Scoreboard in cheat mode I think, but in regular Civ 4 it can only be calculated by hand.
Here is the code description for EndWarValue that Lustus posted in the BetterAI forum 15 years ago.
My guess on the Machine Gun things is thats its because MGs are classified as 'Siege Weapons'. Perhaps the AIs are even upgrading older units into MGs 'by mistake'.
AI_endWarVal
{
EndWarValue = 100
EndWarValue = EndWarValue + (CountOurCities + CountTheirCities) * 3);
EndWarValue = EndWarValue + (CountOurPopulation + CountTheirPopulation);
EndWarValue = EndWarValue + (WarSuccessThemVsUs * 20)
EndWarValue = (EndWarValue * (TheirPower + 10)) / (OurPower + TheirPower + 10)
if (weAreNotHuman and our power is at least 20% higher)
{
if DaggerStrategy then reduce EndWarValue to (90% * TheirOurPowerRatio)
if We Own 20% more Land than Them then reduce EndWarValue by (90% * TheirOursLandRatio)
if we in financial trouble // warmonger war to solve finances factor
{
if TotalWar and (Dagger or (maxWarRand < 100)) reduce EndWarValue by (70% * power ratio factor)
if LimitedWar and (limitedWarRand < 100) reduce EndWarValue by (70% * power ratio factor)
if DogpileWar and (dogpileWarRand < 100) reduce EndWarValue by (70% * power ratio factor)
}
}
if total war and the aggressor is non-human, double EndWarValue
if total war and the aggressor is non-human, increase EndWarValue by 50%
round to the nearest 10 (actually using "DIPLOMACY_VALUE_REMAINDER" from GlobalDefines.xml)
if human and less than 10, set it to 10.
}
I made a deity difficulty game with Aggressive AI turned on, started a war Darius, and waited 11 turns.
No military wins or losses on either side. (war success)
Human: 1 City, 3 Population, 7k Soldier
Darius Deity AI: 3 City, 8 Population, 41k Soldier
Human EndWarValue:
Start -> 100
City Adjustment -> 100 + 3*(1+3) = 112
Population Adjustment -> 112 + (3+8) = 123
War Success Adjustment -> None
Soldier Power Adjustment -> 123*(41+10)/(7+41+10) = 123*51/58 = 6273/58 = 108.155 = 108
Final step is to round down to the nearest unit of 10 -> 108 = 100 Human EndWarValue is 100
Darius EndWarValue:
Start -> 100
City Adjustment -> 100 + 3*(3+1) = 112
Population Adjustment -> 112 + (8+3) = 123
War Success Adjustment -> None
Soldier Power Adjustment -> 123*(7+10)/(41+7+10) = 123*17/58 = 2091/58 = 36.05 = 36
Forum migration to a new version a few years ago messed up Lustus' code a bit.
if (weAreNotHuman and our power is at least 20% higher)
If Toku threatens more than one city it could be bad or if he starts pillaging. Maybe you should stop WW and we should consult If the go for CowTown from the Goldtile we really can't do much about. If he moves past we are screwed. Yeah, there is no safe reinforcement route for cowtown. EDIT...
forums.civfanatics.com
Darius is eligible for additional bonuses to his End War calculation since he is non-human and has greater than 20% more soldiers than the human player.
The human player needs to get above 5/6 or 0.83333 power rating with Darius here to avoid giving him extra benefits. 7/41 = 0.1707 Power ratio, ugh
Since Darius qualifies as stronger than the human player, let's adjust his EndWarValue down even more after the Soldier Power calculation.
Dagger Strategy Adjustment -> None
Land Ownership Adjustment -> Darius does not have 20% more land tiles than human in my test because I don't want to calculate this, so his EndWarValue does not shrink down.
Financial Trouble Adjustment -> None I think?
Total War Adjustment -> None, the human started the war
Final step is to round down to the nearest unit of 10 -> 36 = 30 Darius EndWarValue is 30
Darius is 70 End War Points below the human player, so a Cease Fire or Peace Treaty is off the table unless the Human can sweeten the pot.
2 End War Points = 1, so he will want 35 + Peace Treaty to end the war right?
Yup!
Now for the last step.
Since Aggressive AI is turned on, any side that threatens more of the other side's cities gets their EndWarValue divided by 3
The order of operations matters though, so what is the actual code in Civ 4 Beyond the Sword 3.19 that governs EndWarValue? Actual EndWarValue Code:
Spoiler:
int CvTeamAI::AI_endWarVal(TeamTypes eTeam) const
{
int iValue;
FAssertMsg(eTeam != getID(), "shouldn't call this function on ourselves");
FAssertMsg(isAtWar(eTeam), "Current AI Team instance is expected to be at war with eTeam");
// if we not human, do we want to continue war for strategic reasons?
// only check if our power is at least 120% of theirs
if (!isHuman() && iOurPower > ((120 * iTheirPower) / 100))
{
bool bDagger = false;
bool bAnyFinancialTrouble = false;
for (int iI = 0; iI < MAX_PLAYERS; iI++)
{
if (GET_PLAYER((PlayerTypes)iI).isAlive())
{
if (GET_PLAYER((PlayerTypes)iI).getTeam() == getID())
{
if (GET_PLAYER((PlayerTypes)iI).AI_isDoStrategy(AI_STRATEGY_DAGGER))
{
bDagger = true;
}
if (GET_PLAYER((PlayerTypes)iI).AI_isFinancialTrouble())
{
bAnyFinancialTrouble = true;
}
}
}
}
// if dagger, value peace at 90% * power ratio
if (bDagger)
{
iValue *= 9 * iTheirPower;
iValue /= 10 * iOurPower;
}
// for now, we will always do the land mass check for domination
// if we have more than half the land, then value peace at 90% * land ratio
int iLandRatio = ((getTotalLand(true) * 100) / std::max(1, GET_TEAM(eTeam).getTotalLand(true)));
if (iLandRatio > 120)
{
iValue *= 9 * 100;
iValue /= 10 * iLandRatio;
}
// if in financial trouble, warmongers will continue the fight to make more money
if (bAnyFinancialTrouble)
{
switch (eWarPlan)
{
case WARPLAN_TOTAL:
// if we total warmonger, value peace at 70% * power ratio factor
if (bDagger || AI_maxWarRand() < 100)
{
iValue *= 7 * (5 * iTheirPower);
iValue /= 10 * (iOurPower + (4 * iTheirPower));
}
break;
case WARPLAN_LIMITED:
// if we limited warmonger, value peace at 70% * power ratio factor
if (AI_limitedWarRand() < 100)
{
iValue *= 7 * (5 * iTheirPower);
iValue /= 10 * (iOurPower + (4 * iTheirPower));
}
break;
case WARPLAN_DOGPILE:
// if we dogpile warmonger, value peace at 70% * power ratio factor
if (AI_dogpileWarRand() < 100)
{
iValue *= 7 * (5 * iTheirPower);
iValue /= 10 * (iOurPower + (4 * iTheirPower));
}
break;
Ya, threatening cities with Aggressive AI option is processed right before the final rounding to nearest 10.
Move the Warrior to within 2 squares of Darius' city to "threaten" it.
Human EndWarValue:
Start -> 100
City Adjustment -> 100 + 3*(1+3) = 112
Population Adjustment -> 112 + (3+8) = 123
War Success Adjustment -> None
Soldier Power Adjustment -> 123*(41+10)/(7+41+10) = 123*51/58 = 6273/58 = 108.155 = 108 Aggressive AI Setting (Threatening more AI cities than AI is threatening player cities) Adjustment -> 108/3 = 36
Final step is to round down to the nearest unit of 10 -> 36 = 30 Human EndWarValue is 30
Darius and the Human Player are tied with 30 End War Points.
It should be possible to sign a Cease Fire or Peace Treaty, but getting any from Darius in the Peace treaty is impossible without more Power Rating or War success on the Player's part. So he will want 0 + Peace Treaty to end the war right?
No!
Spoiler:
This is the insane logic that we know and love from Civ 4, but the refusal is because we asked "Let's bury the Hatchet. What is the Price for Peace?" and he can't add 0 to the Peace Treaty.
If we ask "Would you accept this deal?" he takes it as expected.
Spoiler:
**Edit**
Ya, it was a bit lazy for me to bail out on any land tile ownership adjustments when the AI has more land than the player AND x1.2 or more soldiers.
I gradually reduced the player to 1 Land tile, and the Peace Treaty price went from 35, to 40, to 45, and finally 50
Clearly Darius' EndWarValue adjusted down from 36 down to the single digits and then got rounded to 0.
That is a difference of 100 End War Value Points with the Human Player and is worth 50
War Success Mechanic - Getting the AI to talk and capitulate during war Fully 1/3rd of getting an AI to capitulate involves "war success". A few people have tried to explain it before. EmperorFool mentioned it Kossin mentioned it Tachywaxon (Manco Capac) mentioned it Tachy's explanation seems...
forums.civfanatics.com
Stealing a lone Worker from the AI counts as +4 War Success and greatly inflates their EndWarValue by +80 as the 3rd adjustment
This worker steal, not losing any units in a counter-attack, and threatening a Deity AI city with Aggressive AI game option is what gets the fast no-cost Cease Fires and piles of Workers.
If the Deity AI gets a huge power spike from teching Bronze Working or finding it in a goody hut, they might not accept a Cease Fire or a Peace treaty without , tech, or a city.
I've done everything right and not gotten a Cease Fire because my Warrior-based army was too pathetic compared to the Deity AI I was at war with.
Pretty rare to see that though.
Usually it is losing a fight, or a wandering Archer threatens my city and I can't threaten 2 of theirs at the same time.
Perhaps the AI had a huge amount of land tiles compared to me.
I need to be more careful if my capital is mostly water tiles.
I have noticed that there has been a fair amount of argument about the Demographics screen, both with how they get the numbers and what they mean. So I decided to do a little digging through the code and do some experiments to see how it all worked to see if the Demographics can be
www.civfanatics.com
Attachments
Aggressive AI Peace Treaty Test.CivBeyondSwordSave
The Aggressive AI setting lets the human player in war get Cease Fire and Peace Treaty with the AI a lot easier.
Just have to threaten their city by moving a war unit to within 2 tiles so that more of their cities are threatened than yours.
In my experience, the fort will allow CR promotions to work, not nullify them. Yes, I think Tachy has the wrong end of this. I tried in my original post to point out that the fort is a two-edged sword, as it enables both city attack and defence promotions to work.
forums.civfanatics.com
I think the first time it became popularized for fast wars to steal workers was using Manco Capac's worker stealing guide.
Select your target -> Aggression of the Target -> Aggressive AI is on
V1.3 Updated from an older article. Since the dawn of civilizations, enslaving minor nations has been a cheap method to boost one's economy or simply batten on the weaker. Sadly, many modern nations, nowadays grown powerful, have a flood of drippling blood on their hands. Nonetheless, it had...
forums.civfanatics.com
In Hall of Fame games, it improved worker-stealing powered games tremendously for me anyway.
Thanks Kovacsflo for the write up. Looking at it i see my error: teching to jumbos before striking. I start attacking at around 100AD, instead i should try to pin down a couple AIs camping their metal and HA them in the BCs. Also i should NOT include mansa in this, the bastard advance everybody...
While the general Hall of Fame is an ongoing competition, we are running a series of ten games called the Hall of Fame Challenge Series. Standard Hall of Fame rules (*) still apply, but any games meeting the settings of one of the games will be counted towards the Challenge. (*) Please read...
forums.civfanatics.com
My brain melted the 1st time I tried to calculate precise endwar values.
What did make you think so? You put all 4 spy points on him? Of course, everybody does that. T144. The Oracle. Currency. First tech sellout nets 960:gold:; trading resources for 9gpt. T145. Captured Philadelphia. No granary, again. RNG is determined to ruin this game. Atlanta is a foodless...
forums.civfanatics.com
Almost always, threatening the AI city with Aggressive AI turned on will compensate for the lower power rating of the human player vs. Deity AI.
It will allow an early Cease Fire or Peace Treaty which is usually almost entirely determined by power ratio and war success.
Ya, that's right.
'Aggressive AI' game option is the ultimate worker stealing boost.
Ragnar vs. Gandhi would be about some of the more subtle points of Worker stealing.
Fast Workers are harder to catch since they move around farther and faster.
But Ragnar is more likely to have a higher power ratio with cheap barracks and the desire to pursue military tech.
He also will have more units wandering around to kill and achieve war success that have a bit higher odds of attacking.
Huayna Capac has a very easy time stealing workers because Quechuas don't have to worry about being attacked by Archers as much as Warriors do and can threaten cities and get war success easily.
The Caesars also have an advantage because they can gift a cheap 67 city for a peace treaty no matter how bad the war is going as long as the AI has 3 cities or less.
If 4+ cities, the city for peace has to be within 9.5 tiles of their city.
Then after watching the AI build a road to that peace treaty city for 10 turns, war with unstoppable Praetorians to take back what is theirs.
@MarleysGh0st Leif mentioned that the previous GOTM gets used as a template of sorts for future ones so The_J has added tags for himself and me (as a backup) to your top post, please ensure these tags stay in for future GOTM so we don't accidentally miss them and can share them getting more eyes on your hard work!
As of today, only two players have submitted their games. Obviously, this is not one that can be completed in a quick session or two. I've received one request for an extension of the deadline. Since that requested extension would end when I'll be doing some traveling, I've decided to give even more of an extension than was asked for, to March 15. The Ides of March--a date that should be significant for all the Caesars!
Hopefully, the two of you who have already submitted your games won't be too upset about waiting another month for the published results. For everyone else, I hope the extra time lets you finish your game without too much of a rush. And then I can hand out a few more medals and awards!
BOTM 248 starts tomorrow and I'll be posting something for BOTM 249 soon. That will give us three active games at once. Everyone will have to make their own decisions about what to concentrate on first.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.