Subtle changes from 1.61 to Warlords

[Aneurism]

- Retreat Odds.
- Fixed the red team color units (longbowmen, etc.)
- Chariots 100% against Axemen.

I'm glad they decided to make a counter to axemen

 

[Chillaxation]

Civ 4 does has culturally connected starting locations.

If you did not notice it yet, but it is easy.
On standart scripts civs will tend to start georgaphically in simular position as there earth prototipes.

For example:

Russia, Germany, England will tend to start north, allmost in tundra.

England, Spain, Egipt will more lickly start near ocean and with sea food resources.

If you pay attention you will notice this.

I have noticed it and appreciate it - but how about "Culturally Connected Opponents" as an option?

 

[Fosse]

I don't think that Civ 4 actually puts civs in that sort of place like you're suggesting. Unless I'm completely unaware of a flag in XML of the civs that marks them as "Mediteranian" or "African" or something. I imagine that noticing civs where they "belong" is just a result of instances sticking out in our minds and making us imagine a pattern where there is none.

I've had enough Egyptian Jungle and English sub-arctic starts to last a lifetime and to anecdotally refute the times I've started with American on the western continent with the Incans to my south and everyone else in the east.

 

[Mutineer]

No Fosse, Please, do experiment.

Create 10 games wth continent script with Egypt. I would bet that 8 of them you will be on peniscila with 2 sea resources and a food resource.
I am not saying that there is a teretory linked flag, I am saying that scripts have something in them that create this sityation. It might be linked to statrting tech or something else.

 

[Enkidu_Warrior]

There have been several threads where people suggested that the AI is smarter in Warlords. I believe a Firaxian posted in one to confirm that, indeed, there were tweaks (and he seemed quite pleased at our collective dismay, too )

EW

 

[Chillaxation]

There have been several threads where people suggested that the AI is smarter in Warlords. I believe a Firaxian posted in one to confirm that, indeed, there were tweaks (and he seemed quite pleased at our collective dismay, too )

EW

A writer friend of mine wants to write a movie about the sometimes-friendly rivalry between war/strategy game developers and the player base that I sometimes describe to her.

I'm always "happy" to see a stronger AI.

 

[bennos76]

A writer friend of mine wants to write a movie about the sometimes-friendly rivalry between war/strategy game developers and the player base that I sometimes describe to her.

I'm always "happy" to see a stronger AI.

Ditto. I think that Civ is a rather impressive example of AI, for its part. I love it when you think you have everything under control only to discover that your computer has been just a bit more clever than you thought it could be. It lets your imagination run away with the game and lets you think of the other leaders as being almost human ('now just what does Montezuma think he's trying to do by moving that sub next to my destroyer, what's he planning.....'"

Nothing beats that feeling of, "damn, now that's something I would do...."


I recently had the experience of Louis declaring war on me and my vassals. He's nuts, I thought. He hasn't got a hope of survival, let alone any chance of threatening me. Ah well, meet the price of foolishness.

Just as my navy had finished setting up position on all sides of France, Louis showed me that he too had a navy. In one turn it appeared, out of nowhere. 5 fleets, each with a multitude of complimentary units, carriers loaded with jet fighters, protected by battleships and cruisers, and subs making for my sea resources, and the biggest fleets protecting transports full of marines, tanks etc. And they arrived in formation around a very valuable island of mine, forming a line with each stack just far enough apart that I couldn't nuke more than one at a time, and ensuring my bombers had a difficult task ahead of them. I crap*ed myself. It was like D-Day. His navy was just as well organised as mine was. That's great.

It's been posted elsewhere about people being deeply offended when the computer pulls off a 'sneaky bastard' attack. I reckon those moments are the best.

 

[pixiejmcc]

I'm glad they decided to make a counter to axemen

Me too. But I'm not sure the chariot should have been it. In terms of cost to strength the chariot was already much more preferable than the HA. To make matters worse HA's now have 10% deduction when attacking cities.

 

[Admiral Kutzov]

Russia, Germany, England will tend to start north, allmost in tundra.

England, Spain, Egipt will more lickly start near ocean and with sea food resources.

interesting. I was too stupid to notice.

anectdotally, I find warlords plays more like civ3. or am I just an idiot who can't spell?

 

[Meatbuster]

Yeah, make Horse Archers counter Axemen (+50% attack vs. axe will do) and give chariots immunity to first strike while having a good retreat chance?

 

[Chillaxation]

Yeah, make Horse Archers counter Axemen (+50% attack vs. axe will do) and give chariots immunity to first strike while having a good retreat chance?

It would restore a point to researching Horseback Riding before Knights.

 

[wioneo]

Has anyone else noticed that the AI will immediately stop what they are doing to pursue workers? I once started a war against Ragnar, and a few turns later, I saw a stack of 3 archers and an axe(strange combo) coming from the center of an unsettled hole in my empire and heading towards a brand new, VERY low production, city that was gaurded by a single axeman...and a worker. I knew that I would lose the city, so I used my workers last mp to lstart leaving. I notticed that the stack changed direction as well. I led them around in circles, two tiles ahead, starting tile improvements, for 9 turns. By then I had 5 axes from around the country hacking away at that relatively pathetic stack. I think that I'll keep an extra worker in border cities from now on...

 

[drkodos]

Has anyone else noticed that the AI will immediately stop what they are doing to pursue workers?

Yes. That is why they are so good for using as bait to lure the enemy into an area designed to act as a slaughterhouse.

I believe workers to be most underrated when it comes to warfare.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

Oh wow, this new worker strat sound really promising!

 

[Innawerkz]

Oh wow, this new worker exploit sound really promising!

FIXED.

.............

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

Me too. But I'm not sure the chariot should have been it. In terms of cost to strength the chariot was already much more preferable than the HA. To make matters worse HA's now have 10% deduction when attacking cities.

I think they chose the chariot because it's a cost-effective counter that is warded off by spearmen. HAs aren't cost-effective and still easily spear'd...

 

[Meatbuster]

Shh! Quiet people! They might increase the cost of the chariot in the next patch.

 

[MrAnon]

It actually makes good sense for the charioteer to be strong against axemen if you recall how the chariots were used. They weren't melee units; they were essentially mobile archers/javelineers (at least as used by the Egyptians/Sumerians/Babylonians, et al).

The chariot was manned by (usually) 3 men: a driver, weaponeer and reloader/lookout/guard. The driver would stop at weapons range from the enemy. The weaponeer would shoot/throw and the reloader would keep him supplied and deal with any skirmishers that might be nearby. Spears were carried to fend off enemy troops and keep them away from the horses while the driver got them out of Dodge.

It was NOT used as a "crash into the enemy formation" unit like cavalry - the chariots were too easily upset for that. It was a standoff weapons platform that was able to move quickly around on the battlefield to pour large volumes of fire on the enemy at a decision point. The advantage it had over a horse archer was that the teamwork of the charioteers allowed more firepower downrange (the weaponeer only had to do his thing, not do his thing AND drive AND watch for nearby enemies), the ability to carry larger versions of the weapons (longer javelins, bigger bows = more hurt on target) and larger quantities of ammo than a horseman could.

Axemen traditionally had no shield (the battle axe was a two-handed weapon, not the smaller hand axe of the Franks and Celts) and were vulnerable to arrows and javelins - the weapons of the charioteer. Swordsmen and pike/spearmen usually had shields as did SOME of the other polearm troops.

Hence, the chariot is an eminently reasonable weapon system for use against axemen. We're just used to seeing Sword and Sandal movies where the chariots are portrayed as cavalry variants.

 

[Meatbuster]

I see. I didn't know that! Guess it makes sense now.

 

[50_dollar_bag]

The Drill Promotion tree now adds reduced damage for collateral starting at -20% for Drill II, another -20% Drill III and a further -20% for Drill IV.