The "OMG! Look what happened in DoC!" Thread

[iOnlySignIn]

the chinese arent aryans

Oh but they are. This is a picture I took of a couple of Chinese girls I know when they were relaxing during spring break:

 

[civ_king]

the chinese arent aryans

Reread the first sentence very carefully and then the second.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

China is the real OP AI in this game, not any of the Europeans. I don't understand why people pretend it's otherwise. The Europeans cancel each other out so that they either all remain small, or one of them over-expands and collapses. There is nothing, nothing to hold back China. Mongolia is supposed to but it fails miserably, and even then we still keep nerfing Mongolia.

I'd be very surprised if I don't see AI China wipe out Mongolia with a giant stack of Cuirassiers. Before TD says "it's the Epic speed", I mostly play on Emperor/Normal these days.

I really would like to contest this.
Mongolia failing miserably?
Even after nerfing Mongolia, they still do incredibly well, as others like dmitrytrue and Hightower have pointed out.
If you don't believe me, here's proof, and I didn't want to publish this either (publication bias, as Barbuesque said about failed Domination games)



This is failing miserably?
(The context of this screenshot is from a failed Turkish Domination game on the latest SVN; 3000BC, Monarch, Normal)
Mongolia is in the Top 5 bracket, they cover a large territory from Corea to Samarqand and they've got Beijing and Hangzhou.
They are fairly Stable as well and have a huge army of Curs, Grenadiers and Bombards.

Even vassalizing China, which I thought would be a good idea because it would increase my land area by a lot, wasn't enough to save them, because even though I was #1 in Power,
it didn't stop Mongolia from repeatedly DoWing me just to get to China.
No matter what I did, I still could not goad Hongwu to build troops to defend himself and it is still the same sight in almost every game of Monarch/Normal I've played thus far.

 

[hoplitejoe]

The problem is nerfing them the right amount, a super week mongols may even be worse than a super string mongols ( a china with no check sounds scary to me)

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

The problem is nerfing them the right amount, a super week mongols may even be worse than a super string mongols ( a china with no check sounds scary to me)

The Mongols usually do their job in collapsing China the first time around.
The problem is that after the China respawn, it should be able to reasonably do okay after that, but the issue as I've stated in SVN is two things:

1. Thai/Portugal snags one of their most productive cities far too early.
In the former case, which is more prevalent now, it's because southern China is a Foreign region, rather than a Foreign Core region and after the first collapse,
the Mongols don't push hard enough to take it, so the Thais get it (as we know, Indy cities are attractive to the AI) and hang onto it in perpetuity.

2. The Mongols UP not obsoleting is a key here.
The Chinese as my vassals were able to retake Beijing occasionally because of Mongol negligence,
but the Mongols would always bring their main stack back and retake it, often having larger stacks than before after the fact.
Why? Because they were getting new Keshiks that they were upgrading into Curs.
I initially did not want to think that it should obsolete, as I really dislike obsoleting UPs;
it means you're stuck without a power and at a comparable disadvantage for the rest of the game,
but at the very least Keshiks should be replaced with something else.

The other thing is that the AI should probably not receive free upgrades to their troops; as this is how it seems, anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
They should be made to pay the same amount of gold as any human player, barring the Prussians of course.

EDIT: 3. Mongols don't conquer enough in the first stage, after the Chinese collapse.
That's why they stay so stable, because they're able to gradually expand and prey on Hongwu's lethargy
as opposed to immediate over-expansion and collapsing as a result.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

I really would like to contest this.
Mongolia failing miserably?
Even after nerfing Mongolia, they still do incredibly well, as others like dmitrytrue and Hightower have pointed out.
If you don't believe me, here's proof, and I didn't want to publish this either (publication bias, as Barbuesque said about failed Domination games)

Spoiler :

This is failing miserably?
(The context of this screenshot is from a failed Turkish Domination game on the latest SVN; 3000BC, Monarch, Normal)
Mongolia is in the Top 5 bracket, they cover a large territory from Corea to Samarqand and they've got Beijing and Hangzhou.
They are fairly Stable as well and have a huge army of Curs, Grenadiers and Bombards.

So you're saying that a civilization achieving slightly less than half of its historical extent (as explicitly defined by its UHV) half a millenium too late is doing well?

Fascinating.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

The Mongols usually do their job in collapsing China the first time around.

If China collapses around the time of the Mongol spawn (which very rarely happens for me btw, even on Normal speed), it's because it has overextended itself/got unlucky with barbs, and it would have collapsed without the Mongols anyway.

The Mongols never "do their job". You can keep pretending it's otherwise but that won't change the facts.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

a china with no check sounds scary to me

Well then you should have built a panic room by now.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

So you're saying that a civilization achieving slightly less than half of its historical extent (as explicitly stated by its UHV) half a millenium too late is doing well?

Yes.

Although my metric for determining the power of a civilization is probably quite different than yours in that regard.

1. What is the typical median for their stability?
If it is usually stable+ across many games, then +1.
If it is usually shaky- across many games, then -1.

2. How large is their territory, including colonies?
If they usually reach 10+ cities, then +1.
If they usually fall below 10 cities, then -1.
A variable of land quality will be included (based on AI performance).
Good areas or access to good areas results in a +1, like in the case of Mughals.
Bad areas or being limited to a bad area results in a -1, like with Iran & Ethiopia.

3. How large and modernized is their army?
Self-explanatory, large, modern each grant +1.
Small, obsolete each grant -1.

4. What is the typical median for their scoreboard performance (which is related to several of the above factors)?
This is for relevant time periods of play, pertaining to Domination, Space, etc. wins and late UHVs. So, 1700s onward.

If they are usually found in the upper half of the scoreboard, then +1.
If they are usually found in the bottom half of the scoreboard, then -1.
An additional -1 if that civilization happens to be a vassal, regardless of position on the scoreboard.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

If China collapses around the time of the Mongol spawn (which very rarely happens for me btw, even on Normal speed), it's because it has overextended itself/got unlucky with barbs, and it would have collapsed without the Mongols anyway.

The Mongols never "do their job". You can keep pretending it's otherwise but that won't change the facts.

I'm not opposed to reviewing your own relevant data.

As it stands, dmitrytrue, Hightower, and myself have presented our findings.
Even the screenshot that therox posted before the Mongol-death on spawn showed a large Mongolia.

EDIT: Upon looking over therox's screenshot again. It seems that China doesn't flip back the cities in southern China for whatever reason.
I think this is definitely a big part of the reason why it's been so weak lately after the respawn.

 

[Bair_the_Normal]

If China collapses around the time of the Mongol spawn (which very rarely happens for me btw, even on Normal speed), it's because it has overextended itself/got unlucky with barbs, and it would have collapsed without the Mongols anyway.

The Mongols never "do their job". You can keep pretending it's otherwise but that won't change the facts.

I find that Mongolia consistently collapses China, but I play on Marathon only, so...

 

[iOnlySignIn]

I'm not opposed to reviewing your own relevant data.

As it stands, dmitrytrue, Hightower, and myself have presented our findings.
Even the screenshot that therox posted before the Mongol-death on spawn showed a large Mongolia.

A large Mongolia in the 1700s, 1800s, or 1900s means absolutely nothing to me. In those cases, China collapsed on itself due to a combination of Inflation, Stability "Normalizations" (accumulating Stability hits for older civs as time goes on), and other accumulating factors that collapse older civs in general (such as accumulating Anarchy turns and Economic Stability hits), and Mongolia merely wipes up the Independents (something even the worst and weakest AIs in this game are good at, as this thread demonstrates).

The large late game (post 1700) Mongolia is also a trivial problem to solve. Just hit them with a forced collapse some time past their UHV date, like the forced collapse of Byzantium. Done.

The only point I am making is that Mongols seldom (with less than 30% probability) causes China to collapse, or even take more than 1 single city from China during its historical time frame (1190 AD to 1368 AD). Instead, more often than not it gets wiped out by China. I have yet to see any of your findings regarding that. If you want to do this rigorously, load up 10 or 20 Ottoman/Thai spawns on whatever game setting. See how the Mongols are doing. The result should be obvious.

I feel a civ should be balanced so that it has the potential to achieve its historical extent during its historical period. If it consistently fails to do that, it is too weak. But that's just me.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

A large Mongolia in the 1700s, 1800s, or 1900s means absolutely nothing to me. In those cases, China collapsed on itself due to a combination of Inflation, Stability "Normalizations" (accumulating Stability hits for older civs as time goes on), and other accumulating factors that collapse older civs in general (such as Anarchy turns), and Mongolia merely wipes up the Independents.

The large late game (post 1700) Mongolia is also a trivial problem to solve. Just hit them with a forced collapse some time past their UHV date, like the forced collapse of Byzantium. Done.

The only point I am making is that Mongols seldom (with less than 30% probability) causes China to collapse, or even take more than 1 single city from China during its historical time frame (1190 AD to 1368 AD). I have yet to see any of your "findings" regarding that.

I feel a civ should be balanced so that it has the potential to achieve its historical extent during its historical period. If it fails to do that, it is too weak. But that's just me.

Okay, I'm glad we clarified that.
But that's what I feel is a big issue; the large, stable Mongolia in the relevant period for advanced play.
Because even though Mongolia doesn't do quite as well as it should in the corresponding historical period,
it does far better than IRL in the centuries after, and the endgame is always more important than the midgame with regards to sizing up opponents.

China does collapse as a result of Mongol incursions, but it's true that Mongolia doesn't clean up quite enough.
They don't go after enough cities after the collapse. That's also my point. It's too stable as a result of not committing enough.
As for me, there are quite a few civs that don't reach their historical extent, and that couldn't matter less for me,
because as long as they've maintained good stability and a strong, modern army, then they're doing well by my book.

But I see where you take issue with current England now (apart from Mongolia).
In my eyes, it's great. It appears in the Top 5 with great frequency, usually has Redcoats/among the first of the AIs to get Infantries/Machine Guns,
Stable+ and has a far-reaching maritime empire, even if it's not its "full" historical extent.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

Again, a lot of the problem about slow AI conquests (a problem that plagues AI Mongolia and Prussia more than any other) can be fixed by Influence Driven War.

To improve the Mongols to make them more realistic:

Nerfs:

- Make China's respawn (Ming) stronger (with a Gunpowder army) and more stable. Currently it becomes Unstable/Collapsing right after respawn - needs a base Stability reset to levels comparable with Japan.

- Forced complete collapse of the Mongol civ around 1600 (rise of the Manchus).

- Keshiks don't upgrade (no more free Cuirassiers/Cavalry).

Buffs:

- More Roads along the Silk Road appear automatically to facilitate Mongol travel.

- Keshiks start with Formation.

- Remove Ger (useless UB given the Mongol UP). Instead add Siege Engineer (Timurid UU from SoI) as 2nd UU, a Bombard with 2 Movement (also don't upgrade).

- Implement Influence Driven War so that Mongol AI no longer keep giant stacks in cities doing nothing but hold back revolts. And/or increase the Foreign Culture threshold for Mongol cities to revolt.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Again, a lot of the problem about slow AI conquests (a problem that plagues AI Mongolia and Prussia more than any other) can be fixed by Influence Driven War.

To improve the Mongols to make them more realistic:

Nerfs:

- Make China's respawn (Ming) stronger (with a Gunpowder army) and more stable. Currently it becomes Unstable/Collapsing right after respawn - needs a base Stability reset to levels comparable with Japan.

Actually, this should be applied on all respawning civs.
I see the same problem plaguing Egypt & Iran.

- Forced complete collapse of the Mongol civ around 1600 (rise of the Manchus).

I want to avoid forced collapses as much as possible but
if we have it in place for Rome & Byzantium,
I suppose it wouldn't hurt to hit Mongolia with it as well.

- Keshiks don't upgrade (no more free Cuirassiers/Cavalry).

I still think Keshiks should be able to upgrade.
However the issue is that the AI doesn't pay costs for the upgrade.
As no one has corrected me, it really does appear that the AI gets the benefits of the Prussian UP for free because
I often see large swathes of the enemy stacks newly upgraded to the next tier of unit after they've reached a relevant tech.
And it can't be that the AI is just really good at saving money.

Buffs:

- More Roads along the Silk Road appear automatically to facilitate Mongol travel.

Agreed.

- Keshiks start with Formation.

Agreed.

- Remove Ger (useless UB given the Mongol UP). Instead add Siege Engineer (Timurid UU from SoI) as 2nd UU, a Bombard with 2 Movement (also don't upgrade).

A Kharash would make more sense.
A Worker than can bombard city defenses.

- Implement Influence Driven War so that Mongol AI no longer keep giant stacks in cities doing nothing but hold back revolts. And/or increase the Foreign Culture threshold for Mongol cities to revolt.

I have not heard of Influence Driven War before.

 

[iOnlySignIn]

I see the same problem plaguing Egypt & Iran.

Their Stability is much better for some reason. AI Iran has little problem to survive till the 20th century since I have to kill them in all my American games (and I like it this way).

I want to avoid forced collapses as much as possible but
if we have it in place for Rome & Byzantium,
I suppose it wouldn't hurt to hit Mongolia with it as well.

If any civ in this game needs a forced collapse it's the Mongols.

I still think Keshiks should be able to upgrade.

Won't be very relevant anyway with a forced collapse date of 1600. Also given the free Formation it would be really OP if upgraded.

However the issue is that the AI doesn't pay costs for the upgrade.

They receive a huge (like 90% as I vaguely recall) discount especially on Emperor.

A Kharash would make more sense.
A Worker than can bombard city defenses.

The idea is the same. A fast Siege unit. It could replace Guided Missile for all I care.

Instead of redesigning the AI to teach them to use Siege weapons effectively (which is too difficult as the K-Mod disaster has proven), just dumb it down a little bit. Watching AI Mongolia move its Trebuchets one step at a time across Eurasia only to spend 10 turns Bombarding a city's Defense all the way down to 0 is saddening.

I'm tempted to say just make Keshik ignore city Defense and be done with it.

I have not heard of Influence Driven War before.

One of the best designed modcomps for Civ IV that features in many successful mods, at least one of which you've already played.

 

[Bair_the_Normal]

Oh, is it that feature in SoI that makes me cry whenever rebels win battles inside my territory and raze my improvements and gain culture because I'm too busy building culture and infrastructure?

 

[iOnlySignIn]

Oh, is it that feature in SoI that makes me cry whenever rebels win battles inside my territory and raze my improvements and gain culture because I'm too busy building culture and infrastructure?

Yep.

It makes the Lovecraftian abomination that is the Culture mechanism of Civ IV slightly more tolerable IMO.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Ah, that's right.

I do remember that now in a few mods, the one that stands out the most being Sengoku Jidai.

 

[Lone Wolf]

- Forced complete collapse of the Mongol civ around 1600 (rise of the Manchus).

No forced collapses, thanks.

And it isn't exactly true that Byzantium has a forced collapse - I've seen it occasionally survive. I've even seen a surviving Rome once.