War after the fall patch

[Cromagnus]

You think different forum will have people that are drastically different from people on this forum?

Both of them back stabbing you simultanesouly probably means one of them bought the other one to declare on you, or Venice payed them both, or they came to an agreement to DoW, or some mix of the above. Which means that you haven't managed your diplomacy too well. If you payed Hiawatha (who is easy to bribe) to DoW Willy, things might have gone your way. I tend to sponsor few wars early on in my games and it really sets me back most of the time, cause they usually want a lot. Still, it's better to have NC @ t.120 than end up with 3x DoW. Sometimes it's hard to part with cash.

Little things like that can cost a game, or set back heavily.

Personally, i feel that deity has become a LOT easier, specifically, after vanilla BNW release. In G&K they all launched into space around t.260, or even earlier. After introduction of science % penalty, all sorts of cultural/religious stuff you find yourself well set for any kind of victory well after t.300. (watch deity youtube) That's, like emperor, pre BNW.. Not that i am complaining, just a fact. AI now perform "stunts" like full piety + 3 in honor = hard to lose to that..



You can still start fine. Don't go DoW'ing a CS + completely destroy a whole civ before turn 70 and you'll be OK.

It's only because Venice was OCC that it happened. Everyone else was my Friend, and they weren't friends with Venice, who I had denounced. He didn't pay them off, because he was entirely gone by then or this wouldn't have happened anyway. I thought being friends with people and denouncing was supposed to be enough to reduce the warmonger hit. I'm just frustrated that apparently, *taking someone's last city is no longer a viable option*... I wish they would have just said that in the patch notes. Prior to the patch I did it all the time and only suffered denouncements. Now I consistently get chain-DoW'd. Even if it's the only city I've ever taken. I find that *excessive* and *unbalanced*.

With the new rules, if you take someone's only city, you're an instant pariah. You have to understand though, I didn't know for sure it was Venice's only city. I hadn't explored the whole continent. And I went straight for his capital because in my last game as Assyria I got chain-DoW'd for taking Shoshone's last city, his capital, after his other cities. (Because they were in the way)

So I went straight for the most exposed capital this time, hoping it would result in a less harsh result. No. Same result. Admittedly, it was because I nuked his only city. But, the bottom line is, I had Friends who backstabbed me purely because I took one city.

I DID try bribing them to DoW each other, and neither would go for it, despite me having well over 500g. Despite them not being friends with him, and being friends with me. And it all happened immediately, which is exactly how my last few games have gone:

turn X: Cap AI's only city
Turn X+1: everyone denounces
Turn X+2: everyone DoWS (including "Friends")

This happens to me *every time* now.

Yes, I can still start fine, yes, I can still win (and almost did despite having to fight a war against the rest of the world)... I'm just angry that early warmongering is so nerfed. It's like "yes you can take a city, but don't do this, and don't do that, and especially don't do this, and only if you're friends with everyone else, and only if they've denounced him too, and only if it's a frickin' blue moon".... you know what I mean? They're making it virtually impossible to *benefit* from early warmongering, which, as I keep saying, *devalues* the civs with early UUs.

That's alright, I'm going to solve this the only reasonable way: I'm going full Honor with Shaka and DoWing *everyone* I meet. Because screw it, that's why.

 

[ToodleElNoodos]

I don't care that Venice only had one city, it's FREAKING VENICE. He has one city until his Merchant finds a second one... so I'm supposed to wait indefinitely?

Yes. You killed a civ, no one trusts you. It's simply part of the rules that existed in Vanilla, G&K, and BNW. There's nothing wrong with the developers finally making you accountable to your actions. This is NOT an opinion, this is a RULE!

Also, you made a mistake. To beat Venice, you use containment, not conquest. Sack their trade routes, blokade their entrances, execute their merchants, pillage their lands. Venice can NEVER recover once that happens. Stay at war with them indefinitely to ensure they are contained. When all other civs have fallen to you, perform the coup de grace and take Venice as your prize.

And chillax man, really consider the point-of-views that everyone is mentioning.


*Edit: What would you consider "Early Warmongering"? If you think "Early Warmongering" = Early Domination win...I think you're missing something.

If you think "Early Warmongering" = "Early Capturing City", then ya, you'll have to pay more attention to the diplomatic side of everything. If you want to capture that city, can you handle the risk of war for a few turns? If you're the military powerhouse by capturing, why can't you handle everyone coming after ya and wasting their military with the better UU?

 

[Cromagnus]

Yes. You killed a civ, no one trusts you. It's simply part of the rules that existed in Vanilla, G&K, and BNW. There's nothing wrong with the developers finally making you accountable to your actions. This is NOT an opinion, this is a RULE!

Also, you made a mistake. To beat Venice, you use containment, not conquest. Sack their trade routes, blokade their entrances, execute their merchants, pillage their lands. Venice can NEVER recover once that happens. Stay at war with them indefinitely to ensure they are contained. When all other civs have fallen to you, perform the coup de grace and take Venice as your prize.

And chillax man, really consider the point-of-views that everyone is mentioning. Clearly people don't agree with how you feel and it's because they've had the same experiences, and learned from their mistakes. If you want a circlejerk, sure feel free to find another site to go on, otherwise, a forum is a place to hear and to be heard. You've been heard, so please hear.

This is not the way the game used to function. It's *clearly* different post-patch. If you aren't noticing it, it's because you aren't warmongering. It wasn't this way in vanilla, or G&K, or BNW pre-fall-patch.

This isn't about accountability, this is about the fact that the new rules *punish* civs with early unique UUs. You can't get away with early warmongering anymore. Only once the stage is set, alliances have been made, etc. unless you get lucky and can bribe everyone, then you can take cities.

It's very simple: Take 1 of an AI's 3 cities, it's a "Minor" penalty. Take 2, it's a major. Take 3, it's an Extreme. Or, if you take an AI's *only* city, it's an Extreme. This is a *completely new thing as of the fall patch*. I get it, fine, I won't try to take that juicy capital with multiple wonders on T80 anymore, unless it's right in front and he has 3 other cities. But that's a very awkward restriction to add to the war aspect of the game. And it doesn't feel like Civ. There has *never* been such a downside to capturing a city early on as there is now, not in any version or flavor of Civ.

I'm not blowing off people's opinions. If you disagree with me, and you're doing early warmongering, share what it's like for you, because if you look around these forums, the people who are capturing cities early are all making posts like mine, because they're all frustrated.

What I hear is that you *don't engage in early warmongering* and so *don't understand how the fall patch has changed things*.

 

[Moriarte]

That's alright, I'm going to solve this the only reasonable way: I'm going full Honor with Shaka and DoWing *everyone* I meet. Because screw it, that's why.

That's the spirit! It would be interesting to see some screens of that blunt plan of yours. Sounds reasonably close to suicide.

 

[ToodleElNoodos]

Ah ok I see the point you're trying to make. And ya, I was wrong on some of my claims.

The case is: that's how things are patched. Currently there are no solutions to that. Truthfully, other than a "Fair Warmonger" mod, it is apparent that the developers are changing the formula of the game.

And yes: I too approve of Honor+Zulu+Scourge of the Game!

 

[Cromagnus]

Ah ok I see the point you're trying to make. And ya, I was wrong on some of my claims.

The case is: that's how things are patched. Currently there are no solutions to that. Truthfully, other than a "Fair Warmonger" mod, it is apparent that the developers are changing the formula of the game.

And yes: I too approve of Honor+Zulu+Scourge of the Game!

Well, now I *have* to do it then! Time to Impi up or shut up.

 

[joshua43214]

I feel your pain...
I was refining early domination strategies and now they are all useless...
Firaxis has been invaded by the "War is not the Answer," "Give Peace a Chance" crowd. It seems that we do not want to teach our children that ruling the world is actually fun...

 

[TLHeart]

Yes the game changed, in many ways with the fall patch. Now it is up to you to adjust. Going genocide on any civ should get you hated. The fall patch has done that. It is an adjustment. On my current game, I have taken 3 capitals, 5 satellites, taken and lost 1 capital, and I still can trade with other civs, just not equal trades. And the last capital taken, eliminated the celts.

And the funny part, assryia try's to bully me saying my military is pathetic. He is my next target.

Side note. The RAs got nerfed too, but nobody is complaining about that being unfair, broken....

 

[Cromagnus]

Yes the game changed, in many ways with the fall patch. Now it is up to you to adjust. Going genocide on any civ should get you hated. The fall patch has done that. It is an adjustment. On my current game, I have taken 3 capitals, 5 satellites, taken and lost 1 capital, and I still can trade with other civs, just not equal trades. And the last capital taken, eliminated the celts.

And the funny part, assryia try's to bully me saying my military is pathetic. He is my next target.

Side note. The RAs got nerfed too, but nobody is complaining about that being unfair, broken....

I've been 100% Domination for a while now, since before the patch, so I haven't had much use for RAs, or maybe I'd be whining about that.

And, like Joshua, I was refining an Honor-based early Domination strategy which is now pretty much unworkable because of the patch. Yes, we'll have to adjust. But, seeing as I spent most of my time in Civ 5 doing peaceful tall victories, now is a particularly bad time for them to nerf warmongering... right when I start caring.

 

[Pysces]

I think there is some aspect of not 'playing' the map in this complaint.

Having Venice in your game simply changes the strategy you needed to do.

The right strategy was not to declare on Venice until you could secure your allies in a war against him as well, or where losing your allies didn't matter.

It's no different then having to adapt your strategy to other civs which present challenges. E.g. Shaka being a close neighbour, or Egypt sitting safe on another continent eating up every wonder.

 

[Pembroke]

I don't care that Venice only had one city, it's FREAKING VENICE.

And there's your problem. You should care.

That is, you manipulated the situation the wrong way round. Aim and plan for a situation where your friends and allies are the smaller ones and where your first victim is a bigger civ. Then you can leave him some leftovers and move on to the next target.

With only scrap cities your first victim is as good as eliminated and more than likely someone else will finish him off after which you can take the rest assuming you want them. Or leave them to your second victim after you take his best cities. Rinse and repeat.

You actually have warmongering easier with the new sliding scale system based on cities taken. You just have to be smart about it and work the system, not against is.

 

[Callonia]

I like targeting the big fish with occasional shrimp when they're in my way. Venice can't really hurt you. Just kill him if you suspect he's beginning to gun for diplomatic victory. Or if he's right next to you. Wait for some wonders and kill him then tell the whole world to screw off venice is yours and they'll have to deal with it.

They probably was coveting venice's territory too. <.< and finally got that convenient excuse to grab Venice.

 

[katfish]

That's alright, I'm going to solve this the only reasonable way: I'm going full Honor with Shaka and DoWing *everyone* I meet. Because screw it, that's why.

Thats what i actually did when i was mad few days ago. And it was huge TSL earth map. And i actually won.
No one bothers you with their unfair trades and chattiness and you just kill everyone on sight like a barbarian.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Possible exploit on how to deal with one city civs in war:

Gift then some minor city, out of the way, before the war.
Conquer their main city -> warmonger penalty halved.


Anyway, what is relevant is that size or power of the city does not matter from warmongering perspective. Both large and small cities contribute in same way.

 

[Mesix]

The warmonger penalty really aught to scale by era. In the early eras, taking over another civ should not have the severe diplomatic penalty which it does in the modern era. Really, the war monger penalty should be almost nothing until the Renaissance and then scale up from there.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Well, that is sort of true already when playing continents.
New continent civs will know nothing about your warmongering ways.

Of course, old civs will still know this in modern era, even if cities were taken in classical.

 

[Fraulzar]

Early warmongering such as the OP describes should not be punished so harshly. Ancient civilizations played for keeps -- wiping each other out in the bloodiest manner imaginable considered fair and proper behavior. It seems rather inauthentic that Mongolia gets in a snit that the Huns might wipe the Greeks off the map. The game mechanics should incrementally reflect changing attitudes about brutal conquest as the game progresses rather than simply (lazily?) having ancient civilizations embrace 21st century values regarding warmongering. Let's be consistent then. What's next? Maybe Montezuma is troubled that Oda isn't providing his citizens an adequate social safety net in 800 B.C. as well?

 

[Avatan]

Although I do like the idea of AIs being more proactive in stopping a player from running away, I too feel like they went overboard with this.

In my last game I played the German, and start close to the Shoshone. Sure enough they aggressively forward settle me with their giant city border (touching my capitals border at turn 50). At this turn the Shoshone had already 4 cities and showed hostility, so I did the only sensible thing and took the city, and also another one (that might have been my mistake). I got a fourth one in the peace treaty. At this point I had 6 cities at turn 80 and the NC and felt quite confident.

Sure enough I get chain denounced and then the WHOLE world Dow me (Pangea). At first I was very pleased with this, AIs trying to stop a run away is always good. Only problem the wars never stop until I have up, on turn 300. I had at least 2 frontline at all time and could barely trade with anyone. It was fun to overcome adversity but this went a little too far in my opinion. What would you have me do differently?

Should a 10 turn war turn 60 should doom me for te next 250 turn?

 

[Wodan]

Should a 10 turn war turn 60 should doom me for te next 250 turn?

It wasn't the war, it was taking the cities.

The way to deal with the Shoshone as your neighbor is to be ready / scout borders and DOW them as soon as you see workers / settlers. Take them for your workers as a bonus. No need to take any of their cities, no need even to build up your military.

 

[Civking5]

It is quite simple. AI in this game plays to win. Hiawatha and William are watching you getting strong on their back door and just eliminated Venice. In their logic, they must act now before it gets too late. Beautiful? Isn't it?