Shocked, and suddently hating the patch

[No_such_reality]

Just note the cities, quit the negotiation, investigate the cities, the re-initiate the peace negotiations. I do this all the time.

I don't see how that deal is possible

Seriously, AI offers X, you quit the deal, and X is no longer possible when you go back. Happens all the time.

 

[seasnake]

I think that if the U.S. and Canada were at war and the U.S. ceded Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont to the Canadians then there would be a ton of unhappiness in Canada as you now have a conquered populace to absorb.

 

[MadRat]

That's false. War is an always-win strategy for the human player because the AI is so bad at tactical combat.

So what you are saying is that happiness is valid game cheat for the AI because it sucks at combat???

Yet, you are right on one aspect, because the best way to overcome the entire problem is to just go gong-ho for war - happiness becomes irrelevant especially once you have a lot of cities. It just degenerates every game down essentially into a domination game. You're proving that by your examples. What many of us are saying is that short of being a total warmonger - the happiness system basically makes playing as a builder, culture vulture or science win so much harder because in the end to overcome the AIs cheats, horrid diplo is going to rquires warfare. CiV v isnt about building civs it is a wargame - period.


Rat

 

[Rohili]

So what you are saying is that happiness is valid game cheat for the AI because it sucks at combat???

No. I'm saying that war is favourable to the human player, not the AI. As for what constitutes a "valid game cheat", that is entirely within your control. You can choose to play on Prince-Emperor where the AI doesn't cheat that much.

Yet, you are right on one aspect, because the best way to overcome the entire problem is to just go gong-ho for war - happiness becomes irrelevant especially once you have a lot of cities.

You are contradicting yourself. First you said that "If an AI DoWs on you and you essentially cant take cities or screw yourself". Now you're saying that taking lots of cities will overcome your happiness problem? How is that logical? If taking one or two cities will "screw yourself" (because of unhappiness), won't taking more cities "screw yourself" even more?

It just degenerates every game down essentially into a domination game. You're proving that by your examples. What many of us are saying is that short of being a total warmonger - the happiness system basically makes playing as a builder, culture vulture or science win so much harder because in the end to overcome the AIs cheats, horrid diplo is going to rquires warfare. CiV v isnt about building civs it is a wargame - period.

I agree with this. Civ V is definitely geared towards warfare, though the latest patch improved that by making it much more difficult to conquer cities and making smaller empires/vertical growth a more viable strategy (with more National Wonders and the happiness cap on cities). So the game designers are making some efforts to address this.

But again, you doing a 360 degree turn here. First you claim that "the game punishes you for being successful at anything you do", with specific reference to warfare. Now you are saying that warfare is too rewarding and other peaceful strategies too hard? What exactly is your argument here?

Please, if you want to criticise the game, at least get your story straight.

 

[Pazyryk]

Um, I hate to state the obvious.

You don't have to take the offer as given by the AI. You can "de-select" anything they offer. (Just click on the item in the diplomacy window, it will go away.) The civ is basically surrendering to you. If you can manage the whole darn thing at once, then go for it. If not, don't.

 

[bonafide11]

Um, I hate to state the obvious.

You don't have to take the offer as given by the AI. You can "de-select" anything they offer. (Just click on the item in the diplomacy window, it will go away.) The civ is basically surrendering to you. If you can manage the whole darn thing at once, then go for it. If not, don't.

We know, but the point is there's really no reason to make peace now. You can almost never accept more than one city at a time without a massive happiness hit. So if my enemy surrenders to me, I want to profit from it. I want something that will give me some incentive to make peace with him. As it is now, there's no reason to make peace because I'm just better off conquering all of his cities. It would be nice if there were some incentives to make peace with someone.

 

[Buccaneer]

Dralix, I am finding myself agreeing with everything you have wrote, for you and I seem to be of one mind. I look forward to reading your posts, esp. among a sea of OMGWTF reactionaries and extremists ("may as well be game over"). But even at that, I chalk it up as a learning experience instead of blaming something else.

 

[MadRat]

Rohilli, I dont think I am being contradictory. You are merely using ONE example (your 60+) city game. That play style and experience are not atypical. There is reason your happiness is that high - you conquered the world. This may not be typical Civ Play. Conquering all those cities can be seen as a losing proposition you because you effectively always have to end up playing the same way. The game effectively degenerates into domination. Short of doing that. If one is trying to win by other means you will have given up that path. You have in fact forced to destroy your original strategy into the same boring end game.

For example If I am playing for culture win but forced into a war, the only way for me to get back on track is to win; but to win (because of the dumb diplo AI) requires me to essentially clean house. This destroys any chance of culture win as each city will up my culture threshold. Hence by winning the I have "screwed myself", but if instead continue the war I'll have to keep pumping out troops, and ignore culture buildings, happiness and civ growth. Either way the game is essentially over unless you decide to go into total war mode for domination. This is the same for other paths.

The bottom line is unless you are going for domination win - winning or surviving a war appears to have no real benefit only a cost; but the AI doesn't share that cost (sci boosts, free units happiness bonus).

Rat

 

[neptune2000]

Rohilli, I dont think I am being contradictory. You are merely using ONE example (your 60+) city game. That play style and experience are not atypical. There is reason your happiness is that high - you conquered the world. This may not be typical Civ Play. Conquering all those cities can be seen as a losing proposition you because you effectively always have to end up playing the same way. The game effectively degenerates into domination. Short of doing that. If one is trying to win by other means you will have given up that path. You have in fact forced to destroy your original strategy into the same boring end game.

For example If I am playing for culture win but forced into a war, the only way for me to get back on track is to win; but to win (because of the dumb diplo AI) requires me to essentially clean house. This destroys any chance of culture win as each city will up my culture threshold. Hence by winning the I have "screwed myself", but if instead continue the war I'll have to keep pumping out troops, and ignore culture buildings, happiness and civ growth. Either way the game is essentially over unless you decide to go into total war mode for domination. This is the same for other paths.

The bottom line is unless you are going for domination win - winning or surviving a war appears to have no real benefit only a cost; but the AI doesn't share that cost (sci boosts, free units happiness bonus).

Rat

You could just adopt a scorched earth policy, which while not benefitting you directly knocks down your enemy allowing you to pursue culture, right? I still agree that domination seems too often to be the best strategy.

Upthread I suggested, and I still think it's a good idea, that newly acquired cities should add their unhappiness over a period of turns (0,1x,2x etc up to whatever # of unhappies). This reflects the initial triumph of your people followed by "hey, we have to take on all this maintenance? We're not so happy now!", and more importantly it gives you some time to absorb the new cities into your empire. You might have to divert production/gold into building happiness, but that's a fair and imo fun tradeoff.

One thing missing here is the old concept of switchable civics which allowed you (among other things) to move to a war footing. You can argue whether it was too easy to switch back and forth but as a game concept it made sense.

 

[MadRat]

Upthread I suggested, and I still think it's a good idea, that newly acquired cities should add their unhappiness over a period of turns (0,1x,2x etc up to whatever # of unhappies). This reflects the initial triumph of your people followed by "hey, we have to take on all this maintenance? We're not so happy now!", and more importantly it gives you some time to absorb the new cities into your empire. You might have to divert production/gold into building happiness, but that's a fair and imo fun tradeoff.

I think this is a nice idea; the notion that some kind of assimilation takes place over time. Just as your CS influence rating drops I think unhappiness should also over time change - perhaps even diplomatic rating. each of those should change over time, especially if nothing untowards happens.

As others have mentioned in this, and other threads, it just gets old going for either genocide or domination every game to get around the silly happiness.

Rat

 

[Islet]

This destroys any chance of culture win as each city will up my culture threshold

You could puppet them for a zero increase in culture threshold levels, similar to what Rohili did in his game.

Although, IMO, it just further shows that CiV's design is mediocre; where your 40-city "empire" has only 3-cities available for direct control.

I didn't buy Duke V or Governor V, I bought Civilization V.

 

[Rohili]

Rohilli, I dont think I am being contradictory. You are merely using ONE example (your 60+) city game. That play style and experience are not atypical. There is reason your happiness is that high - you conquered the world. This may not be typical Civ Play. Conquering all those cities can be seen as a losing proposition you because you effectively always have to end up playing the same way. The game effectively degenerates into domination. Short of doing that. If one is trying to win by other means you will have given up that path. You have in fact forced to destroy your original strategy into the same boring end game.

For example If I am playing for culture win but forced into a war, the only way for me to get back on track is to win; but to win (because of the dumb diplo AI) requires me to essentially clean house. This destroys any chance of culture win as each city will up my culture threshold. Hence by winning the I have "screwed myself", but if instead continue the war I'll have to keep pumping out troops, and ignore culture buildings, happiness and civ growth. Either way the game is essentially over unless you decide to go into total war mode for domination. This is the same for other paths.

The bottom line is unless you are going for domination win - winning or surviving a war appears to have no real benefit only a cost; but the AI doesn't share that cost (sci boosts, free units happiness bonus).

Rat

I'm not sure if we are even playing the same game. I chose to "dominate the world", so to speak, because that is my preferred playstyle; I find diplo, science and culture victories very boring in Civ V. They consist merely of clicking Next Turn over and over again, waiting for the next SP or technology. But that doesn't mean I couldn't have won by those other means if I wanted to - as Islet points out, culture costs don't increase if you puppet (or raze) all the cities you capture.

Nor does this mean that there is no use to warfare if you want to win by non-conquest means. Of course there is! By taking cities from the AI, you are crippling them. You reduce their score, their research pace, their gold and culture generation rate. This will be a great help in whatever victory path you desire.

In fact, I would say that the main flaw of Civ V is the exact opposite of what you are arguing - it is that warfare is too rewarding! Everything in the game depends on your population/city count, so it is paradoxically easier to win culture, science and diplomatic victories by adopting a warmonger's strategy. This makes the game very one-dimensional.

 

[bonafide11]

Everything in the game depends on your population/city count, so it is paradoxically easier to win culture, science and diplomacy victories by adopting a warmonger's strategy.

I agree with this, but don't see how it's a problem either. Warfare is extremely rewarding in Civ V, but it has been in every version of Civ, and I don't think that's a problem. Population has always increased production, research, and gold, making it beneficial to get as large of an empire as possible while maintaining your economy (or happiness now), and that has always made each victory type easier. In Civ IV, you could win a diplomatic victory just by voting for yourself if you were large enough! I don't think it's a problem though, large empires should be beneficial.

 

[MadRat]

In fact, I would say that the main flaw of Civ V is the exact opposite of what you are arguing - it is that warfare is too rewarding! Everything in the game depends on your population/city count, so it is paradoxically easier to win culture, science and diplomacy victories by adopting a warmonger's strategy.

I agree. I wasn't actually arguing the opposite. I was just coming from a builder stand point and you were coming from a domination standpoint. To a builder, war essentially is a no win scenario in ciV. Yes you can still "win" by using degenerate strategies like domination, mass raze and mass puppetting; but that to me was akin to giving up the game as I'm just going through the motions; my game is over I am playing someone else's. By game over I didn't mean unwinnable - It just becomes not worth continuing.

As you correctly pointed out even tech culture and diplo wins degenerate into the same thing.

Rat

 

[MadRat]

I agree with this, but don't see how it's a problem either. Warfare is extremely rewarding in Civ V, but it has been in every version of Civ, and I don't think that's a problem. Population has always increased production, research, and gold, making it beneficial to get as large of an empire as possible while maintaining your economy (or happiness now), and that has always made each victory type easier. In Civ IV, you could win a diplomatic victory just by voting for yourself if you were large enough! I don't think it's a problem though, large empires should be beneficial.

I guess that is the connudrum. Basically every win is essentially a domination win. So why bother with trade, diplomacy, happiness at all?? I guess my concern is that the game has become so utterly one dimensional whereby you may as well take the historical context away and just set it on an alien planet Just knowing that in every game you were going to "conquer the world" every time to win. It takes away a lot of the challenge and a heck of lot of replayability.

I like to have some variety in how I win - beyond what order the cities I conquer.

Rat

 

[eric_]

The problem is that in CiV the hit for winning a war is can be so crippling it may as well be game over.

Totally disagree, you just have to war in a way that doesn't overwhelm your infrastructure, and, again, PAY ATTENTION during peace negotiations. I have never experienced a war where accomplishing my goals hurt my game, unless my goals were unreasonable in the context of my current infrastructure. As a result, my wars in domination games are quite often on-again-off again affairs with alternating periods of expansion and consolidation.

If an AI DoWs on you and you essentially cant take cities or screw yourself

How so? I've frequently taken cities from an aggressor AI. If I take it too far, I get the 'bloodthirsty' diplo hit with others, but c'est la vie. If I have the military and infrastructure to support being an aggressor, who cares? If I don't, the mistake was turning the tables in the first place.

Seriously, AI offers X, you quit the deal, and X is no longer possible when you go back. Happens all the time.

Not to me it doesn't. Just last night, in fact, I quit a peace offering from an AI civ. On my next turn, I explored the cities they offered, deemed them desirable, even in the face of a large happiness hit (Cerro was involved). So, I reopened and asked what he would give me for peace. Initially, only one of the two cities he originally offered were there, but I took some stuff off his side, added the second city back, added a little gold to my side, and it was a done deal.

To a builder, war essentially is a no win scenario in ciV.

Totally disagree, you just have to use war in a much more circumspect fashion. Take one or two cities that you truly *need* to maintain an advantage, and then just take up defensive positions until your enemy's army is depleted enough that they'll take peace. I love doing this in diplo or science victories, where building is by far my primary focus. For cultural victories, it's good to stay small, so I avoid war as much as possible and trade like crazy.

 

[Pazyryk]

We know, but the point is there's really no reason to make peace now. You can almost never accept more than one city at a time without a massive happiness hit. So if my enemy surrenders to me, I want to profit from it. I want something that will give me some incentive to make peace with him. As it is now, there's no reason to make peace because I'm just better off conquering all of his cities. It would be nice if there were some incentives to make peace with someone.

There is very often reason to make peace. If the AI is offering 500gp and 40gp/turn + 6 cities, then take the money and as many cities as you can handle (and the best most strategic cities). Take the time to regroup. Go fight someone else for a while. Then return 500 yrs later, rinse and repeat.

I don't think it should always be the case that a conquering empire can swallow another empire whole. Maybe sometimes. I like that the diplo system gives you that opportunity with (essentially) a "full surrender" (i.e., offering so many cities). But again, I don't think this is so easy in the real world.

 

[Pazyryk]

I guess that is the connudrum. Basically every win is essentially a domination win. So why bother with trade, diplomacy, happiness at all?? I guess my concern is that the game has become so utterly one dimensional whereby you may as well take the historical context away and just set it on an alien planet Just knowing that in every game you were going to "conquer the world" every time to win. It takes away a lot of the challenge and a heck of lot of replayability.

I like to have some variety in how I win - beyond what order the cities I conquer.

Rat

Don't really understand this. Yes, every domination win is a domination win. However, you can go for space victory with lots of wars (lots of land and high science) or very little warfare (full benefit from equitable resource trade and research pacts). Lots of different ways to go about this. Culture is probably best striving for peace, but some war might still be useful (or unavoidable if you don't understand the diplo system).

 

[Dralix]

I don't think it was uncommon at all in history for the victor to accept less territory in a peace treaty than it actually occupied in the war. This is modeled quite well in Victoria I/II, but the Civ series never had a concept of occupied vs controlled territory. City/tiles are either yours or they aren't.

 

[SuperJay]

Although, IMO, it just further shows that CiV's design is mediocre; where your 40-city "empire" has only 3-cities available for direct control.

That's my problem as well. "Look, I have no happiness problems in my one game under certain specific conditions, so thus there is no problem with global happiness (oh but I only control 3 cities of the 60 I possess)" is pretty telling. Somehow that's supposed to "prove" that global happiness is just fine, but really, does anyone WANT to play a Civ game where you're forced to "Puppet an empire to stand the test of time?"