Sweden

[L29Ah]

I believe it's the same as vanilla http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Experience_(Civ5)

Your link doesn't mention war weariness.

 

[Voker57]

Your link doesn't mention war weariness.

Does it affect experience?

 

[CrazyG]

He usually plain disregards any infrastructure, annexes all cities he can grab and goes straight for gunpowder, then whines a lot that his tercios don't win the day.

Wait was he Ethiopia?

If I had to write a guide on the absolute worst possible way to try and win a game against Zulu and Sweden, it would be to ignore infrastructure and wait until Tercios to attack.

 

[tu_79]

Wait was he Ethiopia?

If I had to write a guide on the absolute worst possible way to try and win a game against Zulu and Sweden, it would be to ignore infrastructure and wait until Tercios to attack.

Yeah, Mehal Sefari, the 'come for me if you have guts' guy. With Haile Selassi, the guy with free techs if you play the religious and cultural game, rushing techs like crazy. Certainly best strategy is to turtle and let Sweden make her movement. Or make some pillaging wars like I suggested before, if Sweden does not move.

Have you ever fight against a Mehal Sefari with Defender of the Faith in his territory? It still makes me shiver...

 

[L29Ah]

Does it affect experience?

Read my original question. I need the formula to be able to estimate the amount of experience i can get w/o incurring massive war weariness penalties.

 

[matlajs]

Have you ever fight against a Mehal Sefari with Defender of the Faith in his territory? It still makes me shiver...

yeaa, + with Himeji is impenetrable at all. it was a nightmare even on king difficulty when i played japan.

 

[nj666]

Problem was, @nj666's empire was already crumbling from unhappiness, so he got pushed back into the ocean.

No, this wasn't the reason for pushback.
My army outnumbered him like 5 to 1 when it arrived. I managed to capture two cities without much problems, but then he got one general and his army (which still small) healed. My army was partially injured but I still managed to push him back, killed some units and damaged most of them. But then he got another general, fully healed and I was caught by surprise as I wasn't expecting another general so soon. So I lost some units to it, but then attempted to hold these 2 cities. It was okay until he got his third general, my army didn't have time to heal so I was forced to fallback. Some of my fresh reinforcements were on their so I was going to capture these 2 cities again.
But then he started exploiting nasty city trade bug.
He captured city with his unit, then immediately gifted it to vassal ( and his unit was moved away ). I recaptured city but my unit remained in it and it was lost when he captured city again ( and again gifted to vassal ). I didn't have power to clear out his army and there was no way to hold any city without losing units to it ( while he never lost unit because city was given to vassal and his unit removed ). So I couldn't do anything there.
So, two reasons: overpowered generals and exploiting city trade bug.

You seriously claim that it is impossible to ally agains Sweden and kill it in Human vs Human game?

I seriously claim that it will only help Sweden, as more wars = more generals = more healing of everything ( and healing is not limited by units count or total HP count or anything ). So with growing army and war activity the overpoweredness will grow exponentially.

If I dont play a warmonger, I wouldnt attack Sweden.

Yes, your tactic may work.
But:
1) managing to build Great Wall ( or any early wonder ) is mostly a lottery, esp. on Emperor diffuculty
2) you won't have enough generals to build enough citadels ( unless you are lucky to spawn in area covered by mountains and tight passways )
3) you will surround yourself with cage and be unable to expand ( or at least expanding will be very slow and inefficient )
4) you will have to spend lots of industry, gold and maybe even culture ( policies ) and faith on military, so it will slow down your peaceful development. you will have to always expect Sweden attack, and Sweden is warmonger civ so it will always have many war units, so you will have to have similar ( or even larger ) number of units to hold the line
5) if somehow the 'high-security line' is broken and Sweden went through - its mostly over
6) while you are defending your territory, Sweden will conquer other parts of world and then crush you anyway

The only cases when Sweden can lose is when its:
1) exceptionally unlucky starting conditions
2) exceptionally bad skill

Even alliance vs Sweden wouldn't work as then Sweden will make more generals, so more healing will occur on both fronts, so alliance will just benefit it

 

[Owlbebach]

I seriously claim that it will only help Sweden, as more wars = more generals = more healing of everything ( and healing is not limited by units count or total HP count or anything ). So with growing army and war activity the overpoweredness will grow exponentially.

If you really think so - there is probably nothing else to discuss...

 

[nj666]

If you really think so - there is probably nothing else to discuss...

Have you played against Sweden human player at all? If not - there's probably nothing else to discuss.

 

[matlajs]

Have you played against Sweden human player at all? If not - there's probably nothing else to discuss.

in short translation, you have played Ethiopia badly. Ethiopia isn't really a civ, which need to attack anyone in a terms to catch in most cases. It should be absolutely inverse case.

 

[nj666]

Ethiopia isn't really a civ, which need to attack anyone in a terms to catch in most cases.

War was required in this game. It's often required. Basically, in Civ you usually can't just choose if to war or not to war. Often you must do what you must.

 

[matlajs]

War was required in this game. It's often required. Basically, in Civ you usually can't just choose if to war or not to war. Often you must do what you must.

i don¨t your rules, but i am sure that unless you spawn in absolutely garbage area which slows you down, you should expand and try to do everything which helps you develop and synergize with your UA. also, it seems to me fair, that civ with cs bonuses is able to win a war, even more the naval one. and from what i read, you attacked him in a times in a best era for him. GG healing is not a problem rather that his units will hurt you with all his bonuses much more than you do. you should both attack him first time in same area to create proper check point which a zulu player would not have problem defend on his own later. i don't know all your situation, but whatever happend, it is not a reason claiming that something is OP in a case of not ideal playing.

 

[Paramecium]

War was required in this game. It's often required. Basically, in Civ you usually can't just choose if to war or not to war. Often you must do what you must.

In a game if you guys didnt even reach industrial era to say that there was no other way to stop Sweden is in my opinion debatable.
Secondly, you attacked him, so he was the defender which gave him an advantage from the start. You just attacked as 2 players, before it sounded like the whole world declared on him and attacked at once.
Third, if I understood correctly, both of you had to do a naval land invasion? Very hard to achieve in general even in SP if you compare it to other wars.
Fourth, you attacked Sweden during its UU window which is just a bad idea, if you are Ethopia. The Zulus should give a fair fight to sweden, but Zulus still have their problems with naval invasions.
Fifth, like I already said, you should discuss before hands or pause if sth like this happens. If he can give the city away to save its unit, you should come to an understanding if it should be allowed. In an purely MP game, that wouldnt be possible or just if two players exploit it.
Sixth, Ethopia is no early Renaissance Warmonger. You should really give infrastructure a try to have an awesome late game.
Seventh, what did you do with your great generals during the invasion?

 

[matlajs]

Fifth, like I already said, you should discuss before hands or pause if sth like this happens. If he can give the city away to save its unit, you should come to an understanding if it should be allowed

that sound like he tried capture that city from a sea, and opponent could defend just with one cavalry unit + blockers.

 

[CrazyG]

Have you played against Sweden human player at all? If not - there's probably nothing else to discuss.

War was required in this game. It's often required. Basically, in Civ you usually can't just choose if to war or not to war. Often you must do what you must.

I have played against human Sweden. I won won against human Sweden. I did so by playing well. It seems like you lost because you had a terrible strategy. Feel free to debate this as long as you want, you are only going to find more people saying this even more bluntly. War is often a great idea. Attacking a very heavy warmonger at the peak of his power is a horrible idea, especially if you yourself don't have significant military bonuses.

Keep in mind that Ethiopia has enormous economic bonuses compared to the Sweden, provided that the Skola hasn't been built yet. This means that if upon reaching tercios, the Swedish empire is equal to yours or stronger than yours, he played better or had a better start. He was already winning the game by a huge margin when the war began, he has military bonuses, and he continued winning. I do not see what made this such an unfair series of events

If you want to resolve this issue, I suggest let all players ban one civ before the game begins. You can ban Sweden if you wish. Another great way to avoid these type of problems, play a map with just one continent, such as oval or pangea. So often one player starts on a separate continent and snowballs, then everyone has a bad time, I just try to avoid it from happening.

 

[nj666]

both of you had to do a naval land invasion? Very hard to achieve in general even in SP if you compare it to other wars.

Naval invasion is not a problem at all. I managed to disembark most of my army and take 2 cities without any effort. Then I was fighting on his territory without much effort.
The problems started when:
1) he got first general, I was surprised but my army was still pretty healthy so I continue to push him back
2) he got second general, my army was half-injured so I took defensive position
3) he got third general, my army was badly injured so I had to fallback behind these 2 captured cities
4) he exploited city trade bug and I had nothing left to do there

The GREAT GENERAL HEALING is a goddamned problem. Everything else was piece of cake actually. Sudden mass healing for free looks ridiculously unfair. You can't stop an army which fully heals every 5-10 turns while performing actions.. It's impossible..

If we do simple math it would turn out Sweden got about 3000 FREE HP OUT OF NOWHERE. OK? How is that fair?

 

[nj666]

Seventh, what did you do with your great generals during the invasion?

I bring them together with army, but that does not matter.
Because Sweden Great General is unlike Great General of any other civ, it's like instant win ticket.

 

[nj666]

Sixth, Ethopia is no early Renaissance Warmonger.

I could be any other civ and got nearly same result vs Sweden, due to free unforseen insta-healing of tens of units ( and they have free attack after this healing because we play in Hybrid Mode ).
If I was Zulu? So what? As I said, typically armies are in half-injured state during war, so if one of them suddenly gets full HP it will attack and kill some units and damage to the brink of death most of remaining ones.
You seem to not understand at all for some reason, idk.

 

[matlajs]

when you did have so many units, that actually defeating sweden ones( i don't believe it absolutely) was piece of cake, why you still pushed him? if i saw a things going to go bad for me, i would fortify and little stabilize situation. i think you are just accustomed to steamroll everything in just one war. that is not possible in some situations, get used to it.

 

[CrazyG]

If I was Zulu? So what? As I said, typically armies are in half-injured state during war, so if one of them suddenly gets full HP it will attack and kill some units and damage to the brink of death most of remaining ones.
You seem to not understand at all for some reason, idk.

If you leave half of your opponents army at half healthy you are playing badly.

The situation as I understand it was that a very powerful warmonger had a massive lead and was able to win a 2v1 war. Nothing about that sounds game breaking. The healing is really powerful, but you have done nothing to establish to others that you are good at this game. Its a huge difference trying to war between Zulu or Ethiopia, claiming otherwise makes it really hard to take any balance suggestion you make seriously, because you clearly aren't being fair or accurate in your judgements. (Along with other outright incorrect claims, like suggesting all early game wonders are a lottery on emperor difficulty)