1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

OMG, I was attacked!

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Uncle_Joe, Jul 30, 2013.

  1. njmfff

    njmfff Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2013
    Messages:
    452
    I have an idea. Play on higher difficulty, have The Celts as your neighbor, settle your city next to them, ask them not to settle near you, denounce them. Just for fun. Then, watch Boudicca declares war on you few turns after that, sending dozens of units, slipping settlers to "that" empty space right next to your cities.

    Not kidding, happen to me. Even her missionaries were involved in war. :lol: She send lots of missionaries\prophets to convert my cities so I wouldn't get all that extra happiness from my religion (+1 hap from shrines, +2 hap from temples) :lol:

    Oh yeah, and then The Huns decided to randomly declare war on me, even if Attila was on the other side of the map. :lol::rolleyes:
     
  2. JustinianIV

    JustinianIV Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2013
    Messages:
    245
    Hah, I just had the same feeling. I'm on my 5th BNW game. Immortal, pang, standard as Pedro.

    Rolled a map with Alex. He quickly sent a huge contingent of his UUs and artillery to my boarders. It looked like the Shuffle-of-Doom at first, then the shuffle attacked me! Finally! Although I thwarted him off easily at first, he began to play surprisingly well defensively when I pursued his retreat. If I wasn't able to trap him in between my dwindling troops and a newly allied CS as he was on the run, the war would have been a stale mate.

    I just barely captured one of his pop 17 cities that he built in a jungle area. Now I will let the culture roll!
     
  3. Uncle_Joe

    Uncle_Joe Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Interestingly, I started a new game on Emperor to try a few things out (mostly trying Liberty rather than my usual Tradition) and as soon as built my 6th city, both France and Indonesia attacked me and threw themselves at me forever. The diplomacy malus that appeared to trigger it was "You are building cities too aggressively"....

    That makes me wonder if that is a huge factor in DoW decisions and if other people are expanding. In general, I keep to 3-4 cities until maybe late Medieval to early Industrial (depending on the map) and I was generally never bothered. So maybe the AIs are just keyed to go after expanders a bit more? If so, I consider that a rather large flaw because there are already plenty of reasons NOT to go Wide vs Tall. Do we really need to have the AI punish Wide as well?

    At the very least, there should be an AI trigger of 'You're growing too prosperous while we languish in poverty' which can hit Tall empires earlier if they are making too much money/science/whatever while the AI are behind (probably due to building excess military). Doing that would even things out again.

    Because yeah, based on that experience, I don't see any real need to expand faster in the early game. There doesn't seem to be a huge payoff for it and why risk constant aggression (which is expensive to resist) when you can gain just as much or more by staying at 3-4 cities and just econ booming?
     
  4. Gucumatz

    Gucumatz JS, secretly Rod Serling

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,181
    ^

    That I believe is why people aren't getting attacked as much. Having a small compact empire which subsequently avoids war and with the science penalties on expanding being huge (It takes a while to have a city built up into a decent science center, meaning for the time you wait until it becomes a decent city you are effectively running a science deficit on that city) there are a few problems from BNW

    I think they could easily be fixed though:

    - Add in a policy somewhere that reduces resistance by 75% :: This is so that a size 20 city that you capture won't take an entire 20 turns before it can produce any science. In the meantime for 20 turns it just simply raises your tech costs by 5% and effectively hinders you with happy penalties and science (with science being the most important)

    - Add in a policy that reduces technology costs for forming new cities by maybe half. Similar to the liberty policy that reduces culture costs of forming new cities by 1/3, this would be a way to make it so that wide empires have a point again while still leaving tall empires preferable it at least leaves a viable pathway open
     
  5. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    ^ tech boost policy already exists in Rationalism.

    I worry that attempting to fix one thing is going to break another, mainly the science game.
     
  6. Uncle_Joe

    Uncle_Joe Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    True, but Tall civs get the same boost.

    Something in Liberty to counter-act some of the penalty might help encourage Wide (which currently I'm not seeing as much of a benefit).

    In general, if I go Tradition/whatever/Rationalism and stay to 3-4 cities in the early game and maybe add a few later it's more or less an easy win.

    If I diverge from that formula, things become much harder because the AI actually try and stop me.

    But it seems that that formula works perfectly well even on difficulties higher than on G&K where the same formula was NOT any sort of guarantee.
     
  7. Roboe

    Roboe Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    16
    Location:
    Denmark
    Perhaps to be expected, seeing as it was Zulu...
     
  8. Cleavage7

    Cleavage7 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2013
    Messages:
    3
    Location:
    Arizona
    I've been playing a warmonger game as Attila, (Pangaea/Standard Pace/Standard Size/King), after breaking Egypt's knee's by storming and taking their capital, I backed off the warpath to stabilize my economy and population happiness. It took me 20-30 turns to get everything rolling again and ready for war again, but I decided to science focus and rush to minutemen to get more pushing power. During the 50 or so turns leading up to this, I noticed two civs(Morocco & Iroquois) moving a ridiculously large number of units past my weak & unguarded puppet city and towards the borders of my fortified capital. I killed somewhere around 20-30 units between the two of them with two trebuchets and one CompBowman. Between city damage and my three ranged attacks, nobody even got in range to counter attack. At one point, I had to buy a horseman to handle the barbs invading from the south, but going with what I've seen some people saying, the AI DO attack but it almost seems like they have no idea what they are doing. Morocco lead their charge with their archers in front and their warriors(yes, un-upgraded base level warriors) from behind.
    It was refreshing to see someone actually fight back during my warpath, but then extremely disappointing because during a war with two civ's at the same time, they only pillaged one tile and neither of them even hit my city.
     
  9. Uncle_Joe

    Uncle_Joe Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Yep, just more evidence that if you fight or expand it's a good chance you'll be attacked.

    If you just sit back and grow tall and win that way it's a good chance you can just cruise to an easy victory.

    I don't think that it can be any more clearly demonstrated that something is wrong....
     
  10. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Clearly slower early expansion means less border conflicts and malus like 'expanding too quicky' 'covets land' 'don't settle near me'

    You had me there. and it's actually a good explanation for apparently reduce agression. Those factors certainly had an impact on agression.

    Then you had to go and make a sweeping statement like that. No, just sitting there and growing won't guarantee that you won't be attacked.
     
  11. njmfff

    njmfff Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2013
    Messages:
    452
    Yeah, in GnK I usually played ICS or at least spamming lots of cities. but in BNW, I tend to play with three, maybe four tall cities, then expand by beating up my neighbors, especially the ones that have nice wonders in their capital. :lol:

    I still prefer my 20 city spam gamestyle, but culture is much much more important here, so that one will hurt alot. :(
     
  12. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    Uncle_Joe:

    In general, going Wide already has benefits that were classically employed as late as vanilla Civ V to completely curb-stomp Tall players into the ground. This is only now being addressed. It's not an imbalance yet. If anything, it's only very slightly in favor of Tall setup, if it is at all.

    It's no coincidence that many, many, many wins before BNW were Pangaea Doms - that's one of the easiest and fastest wins - classically THE easy way to win Civ.

    Currently, I still see many bonuses to Wide Civs. For instance, Food Caravans are very good for Tall Civs at the start of the game, but by mid game, the food bonus has to be large in order to keep growth strong. That same food (and production) can be redirected to new cities to get them up faster. The science penalty is barely a check.

    AI's coming in to attack is actually both a detriment and a benefit. It's a detriment because they destroy improvements and require hammers to generate units, but at the same time, they feed Great General points and XP into your empire.

    In the early game, the chief barrier I see is the NC. After the NC is built - that's nearly the mid game by then. Your Capital is already large. Time to redirect that food somewhere else.
     
  13. Miravlix

    Miravlix King

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2012
    Messages:
    645
    I've lost my last two immortal games to early war.

    When they attack it's with armies you can't defend against even if you spend all your time on combat units.
     
  14. Uncle_Joe

    Uncle_Joe Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Of course it's not a guarantee. But it's certainly far less likely you'll be attacked and you aren't really losing anything to grow taller in the early game.

    If it was a big sacrifice to try going tall rather than wide, then sure I can see it being a bigger factor in the AIs willingness to attack. But if the AI hates my expansion and will counter me if I expand, it should ALSO look to 'counter' me if I just sit back in my corner and tech up and win.

    I think a part of the problem is that Trade Routes are unlimited per city so it's just as easy for a tall empire to make massive amounts of money in trade as a wide empire. Add to that not need as much of a military (let's face it, even if you DO get attacked it's a hell of a lot easier to defend 3-4 cities than 6-7) AND you are paying less upkeep overall for buildings/roads etc.

    So income is proportionally higher in a tall empire (at least early on), threat is lower, need to build workers/settlers is lower, science is cheaper, policies are cheaper, etc etc. Kind of looks like there is no really disadvantage to a tall early/mid game and all sorts of penalties for expansion.

    It would be one thing if the larger empires eventually overtook me and could win but that hasn't been the case at all. If anything the larger empires in my games have had massive SCORES but their tech tends to lack, they don't get many RA's, and in general they are not as efficient as my small, tall empire so again, I cruise to an easy win.

    This isn't about difficulty level at all. It's about the AI categorizing one type of behavior as a threat while ignoring an equally powerful behavior that wins out over them in the end.
     
  15. dexters

    dexters Gods & Emperors Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2003
    Messages:
    4,182
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    You also don't want to create a situation where a human player is attacked in every game just because. Especially if they go out of their way to go tall and play the diplomacy game. The builder penalty so to speak.

    They can make it so warmongers and ci a with early uus will sometimes be more likely to go for an early attack right when they get uus.

    This will ultimately be tweaking and steering the AI to do some things more frequently. I just find comments that assume things can be easily changed kind of missing the point. Not everyone agrees and it assumes the fix won't anger others and create unintended consequences
     
  16. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    Uncle_Joe:

    There are several disadvantages to a tall early and mid game. You're not listing them or appreciating them. Can I assume that you don't know?
     
  17. Uncle_Joe

    Uncle_Joe Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    Of course not everyone agrees because people all have different play styles.

    But that is EXACTLY the point IMO. My 'play style' has been rewarded in BNW to the point where I have to move up multiple levels of difficult just to have a challenge? And that 'challenge' comes in the form of massive artificial bonuses and/or attacks by militaries the size that I can't hope to match?

    I would just like to see my play style (ie, usually non-aggressive tall growth and teching) draw some of the same threat that other play styles might see. And I don't necessarily mean all-out military invasion every game but other Civs SHOULD take some of sort of 'counter-measure' even if it's just maluses to diplo so it's not so easy for me to sit back and trade resources and get RAs left and right and be happy happy with everyone.

    I seem to recall an old modifier (Civ4 maybe?) of 'we fear you are becoming too advanced' or somesuch. IMO there needs to be similar things here to curb unchecked tall growth/teching/CS-grabbing.

    So again, I'm not looking for constant attacks. But when the AIs are mostly ACTIVELY HELPING me achieve my goals by continuing to trade and RA and trade routes etc etc even when it's clear that I'm an economic/political/whatever threat I see it as a major problem and the primary reason why BNW is so much easier.

    Add in (or tweak) the "We fear you are too advanced", maybe add a "We are jealous of your economic standard of living", maybe add "We fear that your culture is encroaching on our society's values!" etc etc.

    Just something so as to not further reward me (and players like me) for kicking the econ/tech machine into overdrive and totally eclipsing them.
     
  18. Roxlimn

    Roxlimn Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    3,526
    Say rather that before BNW, the war machine and the expand machine were always that strong. Now, peaceful play is competitive with that. Is it too easy? Congratulations. You are now experiencing something the war mongers have been playing with all along.

    Peaceful relations and easy diplomacy have always been a strength of small Civs and it makes sense that this is an advantage given to them. Nonexpansionists shouldn't be treated like expansion-mongers, and high techers give science leaks to everyone they trade with. Why should the AI get angry at you? Your rabid teching is giving them science!

    What you seem to be advocating is that the AI should treat the game as a game and then play accordingly. Civ V used to be like that. CivFanatic forum goers complained loudly against it.
     
  19. Uncle_Joe

    Uncle_Joe Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    476
    No, Not at all.

    I'm expecting a neighboring Civ to act in what should be it's own self-interest. And that generally doesn't include actively allowing a militarily weak but economically powerful neighbor to continue unchecked.

    This is ESPECIALLY true in the pre-modern eras where warfare throughout history was quite commonplace. 'Live and let grow' is NOT a motto from much of mankind's history...

    In reality, great powers do indeed rise and fall. In Civ, they just rise and continue to rise because there is nothing to check them. If the AIs continue to reward that growth by further supporting that very growth then it's not a competitive game at all. Its just SimCiv and I feel that is not exactly what Civ has always been about.

    But whatever. This is going too far off on a tangent. Suffice it to say that IN MY OPINION, it's far too easy to just sit back and tech and reap the rewards of a peaceful game (and again by peaceful I mean 'actively cooperating to help extend my lead').
     
  20. Unthinking Pain

    Unthinking Pain Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    83
    Huh, in some way, it only partly used to be like that and now isn't. The AI always didn't like it when the player expanded "too much" or went war-mongering. The difference is the AI used to start thinking about keeping a boomer in check, too, but now doesn't. It seems like the AI now is totally geared to, in some way, always be on board with what the player wants. Want to be expansive and get into wars? Some AI's band together and give you a fight! Seems like the players who are in for warlike games like that anyway - just makes it easier to farm AI armies for XP before conquering them.

    Want to just play simcity? AI often leaves you alone now.

    Probably none of this would be as annoying if the AI was just smarter. I mean, why the hell can I conquer Delhi in the 1900's and there's not a damn farm in sight on a wide expanse of totally unupgraded grassland?
     

Share This Page