Nukes and capitulation mechanics

[TheMeInTeam]

Alright, so I've been offlining a bit to see how effectively nukes can be used on higher levels after seeing mirthradir talk about how much they own. They absolutely do in practice, especially the ridiculously cheap tactical nukes.

But, that's not why this post is here. I want to know why my target capitulated to someone else, and how much nuking the bejeezus out of it hurt me:

Here we have pericles, who vassaled to Mao:

Mao declared on him first, and GK was also dogpiling. I joined in the war late, but not so late that I was still in "refuses to talk". So, why would he cap to mao?

Is it because I'm more powerful?

Or because I did more war damage easily?

Normally, those things are supposed to work in my FAVOR!

But in this case, after pericles left RTT he was "doing fine on his own" the turn before he capitulated to mao. I said "like hell you are", nuked the 2 cities shown and captured them both, losing 1 infantry to back luck in the process (maybe 2). So I captured 2 cities at minimal expense.

Doing so put pericles BACK into refuses to talk, and he capitulated to Mao the next turn.

Is the game trying to spite me, or does using nukes mid-war arbitrarily incite RTT even with favorable kills? I don't get it.

View attachment Lonely Catherine AD-1870.CivBeyondSwordSave

View attachment AutoSave_AD-1868.CivBeyondSwordSave

 

[DanF5771]

It was close -- the first/main problem was that you lost two Infantries which gave Pericles a war success of 6 (global define WAR_SUCCESS_DEFENDING = 3).

He has a RTT = 8 --> on the second turn of the war (1868 AD, getAtWarCounter = 1) you would have needed a war success of 225 to keep him at WillingToTalk after these two casualties.

The second problem was/is that enemy units killed by your nukes don't contribute to your war success at all (no regular combat), instead the game gives you a flat war success of 10 per fired nuke (WAR_SUCCESS_NUKE = 10). But since you started with a war success of only 36 during that turn, you couldn't have reached the necessary 225 anyway, even if you had killed all units "regularly".

If instant WillingToTalk of an AI is critical, it is absolutely important to avoid the loss of any units. Thus 1 or 2 more nukes would have done the trick (I tried it, did not lose a single unit and Pericles was willing to talk and capitulated to me).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Oh, wow. Thanks as always. I wasn't aware that nukes worked that way for war success.

Counter-intuitive as usual but at least this makes sense (nukes self-destruct after all, so they could count as a death or all kinds of stupid things if they were to be coded differently than @ present).

Since guided missiles can also kill but are used up automatically, do they function similarly?

Also, nukes don't seem especially balanced...I'd have beaten cyrus completely even if he had access to them. War weariness is a bit harsh though .

 

[DanF5771]

Since guided missiles can also kill but are used up automatically, do they function similarly?

speaking of counter-intuitive:
Guided Missiles are engaging air combat, even if they kill land units or boats. AFAIK all results of air combat (units killed or lost) neither change war success nor war weariness...

I can somewhat understand the flat WS = 10 for nukes. On the higher levels with the huge AI-stacks it would otherwise be too easy to "harvest" enormous WS with only a minimal hammer investment which might be exploited in blitz-nuke-wars (negotiations/capitulations).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'd say it'd be "too easy". It's already too easy, IMO. I don't know if you went far enough back to see the war w/ cyrus...but THAT was abuse. In 1 turn every coastal city he had switched sides...!

Tacticals > ICBMS by far, so much easier to spam .

 

[DanF5771]

I figure that tac nukes likely suit your playing style --> they should easily reduce your average game time by another 5...10 minutes compared to the late mass/brute marine force...

OT: got your laptop fixed again? how about a nuke-showcasing video (on immortal), I bet lots of people would love to watch that.

I myself have yet to fire my first nuke in a regular (non-test) game (some sort of inner semi-ethical barrier I don't like to cross)...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I figure that tac nukes likely suit your playing style --> they should easily reduce your average game time by another 5...10 minutes compared to the late mass/brute marine force...

OT: got your laptop fixed again? how about a nuke-showcasing video (on immortal), I bet lots of people would love to watch that.

I myself have yet to fire my first nuke in a regular (non-test) game (some sort of inner semi-ethical barrier I don't like to cross)...

My laptop wasn't under warranty, but I played with it and it's going tentatively ok so far. Therefore a 3rd let's play IS in the works, and of COURSE it will be on immortal, the viewers want to see me struggle .

I need a little more experience w/ nukes before I'd showcase them in a game like that though. The AIs seem to have a completely illogical aversion to teching fission so far, but I want to see how many games in a row I experience that.

 

[DanF5771]

Therefore a 3rd let's play IS in the works, and of COURSE it will be on immortal, the viewers want to see me struggle.