1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

War... good for... absolutly nothing...ugh!

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by yoshi74, Nov 8, 2005.

  1. yoshi74

    yoshi74 Tourist from Mars

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,197
    Location:
    Halle/Germany
    Seems like the firaxians are big fans of the boss, not only quoting him, but also designing the game in this spirit. At least the limeted war seems to dead. Dead and rotten. Here a example from my latest game:



    Standard size, prince level, 18 nations (pretty crowded ;) ). I'm Roman, at the point of this shot at position 2 in score.

    I decided that my 5 cities on my island are'nt enough, build quite a bunch of troops and were able to take two cities from greece before war weariness brought my production down to almost nothing. I made peace and tried to build some culture in this cities. Both cities now have over 100 culture (two border expansions!), but are still often in revolt and without land to work and now down to one pop point.

    Getting Athen and Sparta, his remaining cities who do this culture pressing would surely help, but this is would require many more rounds building units ignoring city improvement.

    So here i am: I won a limeted war, took two cities, which are worth nothing at all. I lost my tech leading position, lost strength and therefore got several extortions and two war declarations and sunk a lot of production.

    So IMO two thinks make wars extremly useless and unenjoyfull:
    1. War weariness is much to strong. I'am in the renissance, its not the time of vietnam were people in democratic nations protested. I made good progress, conquered two cities and the only reason i had to end the war were my people not liking to war anymore. Not only extremly unrealistic (ww was afaik never a big trouble before the 20th century, even during ww1 and ww2 they were not a big problem), but its also a fun-killing game element.
    2. Culture borders stick much to strong. I got the city, great. But i don't control a tiny bit of my surroundings because the second close city still presses too much.

    I really hope the are some changes due in future patches. I really don't like to play builder games only at higher diffs, and don't really know how to make succesfull war without losing too much ground to all other (not in the war involved countries).
     
  2. al_thor

    al_thor Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Messages:
    595
    Location:
    Wisconsin, USA
    I've had this happen too. I ended up just giving the damned cities back. The only thing to help this would be a Great Artist (or two). I have used those in situations like this, and let me tell you - BANG!!! instant culture. It was pretty cool.
    But, yeah, if you don't have any GA's just laying around, the culture pressing seems almost insurmountable.
     
  3. Eisernes

    Eisernes Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    26
    You should have a nice foothold if you can take Athens. You won't be able to stay at peace with him. Either you take Athens or he'll take his cities back.
     
  4. yoshi74

    yoshi74 Tourist from Mars

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,197
    Location:
    Halle/Germany
    Yes, total war. Unfortunatly this is all the cIV designers allow. Where is the fun when i can only wage a succesfull war when i can overwhelm the enemy completly. Especcialy with this annoying way too strong war weariness.
    Eighter i have enough military at the beginning of the war to overrun him (because ww will slow down unit production too much), or i should stay on my island, go peacefull (yawn, not every game...). There is not much in between these two options. :(
     
  5. Eisernes

    Eisernes Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    26
    It's hard to justify a limited war when your enemy only has 5 or 6 cities to begin with. If you were on a huge map and your enemy had 12-15 cities then yes, limited war is a great strategy. In your case, if it were me, I would have taken the capital first and foremost. 9 times out of 10 it will be the center of his culture. You would have been much better off taking Athens and Thermopylea if you just wanted to hurt him a little. Now, you have to finish the job.
     
  6. LoneWolf5050

    LoneWolf5050 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    214
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    In one game that I ended up losing by a few turns (spacerace, damn Persians finished their engine first, I didn't have enough money for my spies to sabotage all their production), I just about the ran the Indians off my continent in the early to mid game.

    Most of that war was prosecuted with capatults and horse archers, with knights coming in at the end after he upgraded to longbows in his last city (man that took a long time to finish the seige -- not enough catapults).

    By taking over six Indian cities, I solidified my position and certainly would have been swamped by the Persians a lot sooner otherwise.

    Much later in the same game, the neighbouring Mongolians that had been best buddies for most of the game after switching to the same religion as me, decided that their only option for victory was attacking me. This was in the late game and they came knocking with artillery, infantry, riflemen and cavalry. Thankfully I had just started building a few machine guns to defend some cities in the unlikely event of an attack (unlikely, or so I thought).

    So after quickly moving pretty much all major defensive units from across my empire to the one city they had decided to concentrate on, I was able to beat them back, and after completing a few tanks, I was able to take two cities from them before suing for peace.

    But that second war was a much larger drain on resources and a lot harder to take cities, and once I took them their borders were pressed right up against them on one side.

    So I think the key to war in the game is timing, and if that fails you, then simply have an overwhelming force! Without a ton of units it is impossible to do anything but harass enemy forces in the late game.

    I think a lot rests on making proper use of technologically superior units, ie: rushing in the tanks before mechanized infantry, or using the horse archers to pummel the archers. Since every unit has a counter-unit within its own era, you pretty much have to have some kind of superior unit, or a ton of units, in order to beat down the other guy.

    --Julian
     
  7. al_thor

    al_thor Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Messages:
    595
    Location:
    Wisconsin, USA
    Siege weapons are generally devastating do cities. Soften them up with 3 or 4 cats/cannons/arty, then hit 'em with your attackers. Works great.

    But, you still have that "culture stick", keeping your newly conquered city limited to like 2 squares, even with a couple of cash-rushed culture buildings. Seems a bit much. Too difficult to push that culture back.
     
  8. Jedoc

    Jedoc Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Messages:
    157
    Location:
    Norman, Oklahoma
    The main problem I see here is that both of the cities you took are within spitting distance of his capital. If you'd lead off by taking Athens, the cultural pressure would not be nearly as severe. Consider: the capital city gets an automatic culture bonus from the Palace, it has had the longest to build culture, (and population, making culture-building specialists more likely) and is the most logical choice for at least the civilization's early wonders. All in all, it is rare to see a situation where the capital is not at least a cultural level or two above its satellites. I would suspect that Sparta is contributing very little to your problem.
    So yes, culture is an important consideration in a limited war. Taking highest-culture cities first can help. Though it seems paradoxical, when assaulting a new continent, you should start with the cities with the highest defense bonus, as this is a reflection of their cultural development. That's why you've got seige weapons. Saving up a Great Artist for just such an eventuality, instead of wasting him in one of your home cities with no cultural problems, can be an immense help. Consider taking missionaries along with your overseas assault force, as planting your state religion can help ward off those unpleasant revolts. And while it's an elementary point, don't neglect your cultural slider in these situations.
    That screenshot represents very close to the worst-case scenario in waging a limited war, so I wouldn't base your future strategies too firmly in it. Just remember: aim for the stars. With a limited force at your disposal, it is much more helpful to take one capital instead of two lesser cities.
    Hope this helps.
     
  9. yoshi74

    yoshi74 Tourist from Mars

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,197
    Location:
    Halle/Germany
    With 18 civs on a standard map 5-6 cities is a pretty big empire. He had only 4 cities, but i had only 5 to produce units for war. While i can win this war, it would seal my fate in the tech race completly. One more thing to note:



    Six turns later, revolt has endet. The city has 116 culture points (two expansions), still is does not only has no greek land exept the northern tile, but all the former greek western tiles are now under persian control. Do i have to take on persia too after winning against greece? And then on the next? Only one more neighbor?

    You just cant stop a war with taking a city. If you take the city you have at least raze the neighborhood cities. Or take them, but then you have to take their neighbors. Thats pretty easy a low diffs, with tanks vs. longbows. But with a slight tech lead or even match this is a long war (and long wars are losing wars, thanks to war weariness).

    Taking in Athen would not very helpfull at all. It was a pretty close call at the northern town, where he sends a lot of forces from the south. Even when succesfull i still had to take the other two at least (as you see at parsagadae, even normal cities do a lot of culture pressure).

    Its not only the culture borders who make war hard. Or war weariness. But they together are a real killer.

    And why make war in the first place when there is nothing to win from?
    Thats the point i argue here after all.
     
  10. atc_chief

    atc_chief Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2005
    Messages:
    105
    Location:
    CT
    I think the issue you raise actually reflects the ravages of war. Cities overrun, libraries, markets, and other works destroyed. The population cowed into submission, just waiting for the occupying forces to leave or be overthrown.

    Think of the cities across Europe that were trashed during WWI and WWII. Production was crushed, infrastructure was destroyed, and rebuilding took years.

    I know the scale of the game makes it hard to completely embrace this idea (i.e. a turn can = 5 yrs, so after 4 turns I should see 20 years worth of progress). Remember though, the game emulates the concept of creating a civilization and the challenges in doing so, it's not supposed to be a complete historical simulator.
     
  11. Dida

    Dida YHWH

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,426
    Persian should not gain tiles as result of your war against Greece.
     
  12. sturmtrupp

    sturmtrupp Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    76
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    This is a custom game, Firaxis did not ship the game so that you can play 18 civs on a standard map. Hence, don't complain, if you get crazy unexpected behavior. The fact is that there is a plethora of ways you can play and not all custom games can be balanced.

    I think a lot of posters hit the nail on the head. You created a game where taking any civ's cities will be with firing range of the cultural mecca. The bottomline is that if you do not want this problem you should have taken the cultural mecca.

    As far as limited wars not being useful. This could not be further from the truth. I have found limited wars. to be especially useful for other Civillization to hinder you. Not to mention that regardless of you score, which is rather something exterior to the game, Greece is virtually wiped out. Your limited war has essentially destroyed the greeks, bringing them down to only one, maybe two strong production centers. They are essentially worthless now. So stop thinking about yourself and start thinking about the poor greeks.;)
     
  13. MeteorPunch

    MeteorPunch #WINNING Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2005
    Messages:
    4,830
    Location:
    TN-USA
    Even if you were able to take Greece completely, cities near Persia (Sparta and Thermoplyae) would be under a heavy cultural burden and will likely flip.
     
  14. yoshi74

    yoshi74 Tourist from Mars

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,197
    Location:
    Halle/Germany
    Everyone knows that its more beneficial in real world to sit peaceful together. But thats pretty boring as a game theme ;).

    I agree that the setting increase these problems, but its not the first time i encounter them (but my first game with such a extreme setting).

    But still, the persian city is not their capital. Old, sure. But sitting in a normal game till 1700 next to your neighbor the result would be the same. Whenever you come to cities sitting there for a few thousend years it would not be any better.

    As for the result, the greek broken... they never were a big competitioner anyway. I took on them because they were pretty week to gain an advantage over the other. But in the result i lost in comparition to anyone but the greek.
     
  15. Countmonte8242

    Countmonte8242 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    177
    If you could get the Pyramids in a game like this, going with representation early on would wipe out a lot of your war weariness when your own civ is so small (from the +3 happy in 5 largest cities). Then later on you could switch to facism during short war periods if you wanted.

    But yeah, just cause you didn't find a succesful way to wage war in this very custom map, is hardly a reason to say "war is good for nothing." I just finished a more "normal" game on prince level with 7 other civs, where i wiped out 3 and won a space race. In retrospect I would have been better off not finishing off those 3 civs altogether, but devoting some resources to knocking down the power of the others some. Limited war definitely has benefits in hurting the AI civs.

    And why shouldn't the persians gain tiles from killing a Greek city nearby? I'm sure there's a large Persian influence in the areas inbetween as well; its not an unthinkable thing.
     
  16. OG_Pieps

    OG_Pieps Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    52
    Location:
    Mödling, Austria
    In my opinion the war weariness is ok. There weren't the same war wwariness it is today. but there were e.g the 'Bauernkriege' (I would translate it with farmers wars??) in Germany where in the end of the middle ages the farmers attacked the castles of nobles because the nobles sent the farmers to war too often.
    In the war Luis XIV, the King from France, startet against Austria, which was allied with Britain and the Netherlands 2 million french people died. Just some thousands in the battles but a lot of poor people died of hunger because of plunderings and all the money was given to the army. So it wasn't really war weariness but still this points damaged the economy and research of a state.

    Concerning the culture: I liked the system of Civ3 better where you got at least the nine fields around the city. It's unrealistic that my troops are sitting in a city but do not control the fields some miles around it.
     
  17. OG_Pieps

    OG_Pieps Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    52
    Location:
    Mödling, Austria
  18. sturmtrupp

    sturmtrupp Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    76
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    Actually this would probably not be the case if you were bordering a country for several thousand years, since these are the wars I typically get in. The reason is that your culture still penetrates deep into there borders. You can see this by looking at the percentage in each tile. Hence, when you invade a neighbor, they lose a lot of culture from that city, and now you culture has a significant advantage, and really helps in building new culture.

    Now the closer you get to to the capital you will now find more culture to overcome, not to mention your culture will probably not extend as far. However, this is situation is no different then what was experienced in Civ3. Hence my scorched earth policy (razing all I conquered, until their main culture emitters were gone, and I would then resettle with new settlers.
     
  19. Masquerouge

    Masquerouge Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    17,790
    Location:
    Mountain View, CA
    I don't want to sound rude or anything, but to me your problem is that you were not fully prepared for your war, and you tackled it badly. You should have gone for Greek's highest cultural city first if you did not want to feel the pressure. Maybe you should have stocked some great artists to instant-boost the culture of the cities you just captured. Maybe you should have decided from the beginning to completely annihilate the Greek.

    There are a lot of ways around your problem. It's not even a problem, actually : you just dont' have enough experience with the game, and we all do, given that it's been out for not even a month. :)
     
  20. Sirian

    Sirian Designer, Mohawk Games

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2001
    Messages:
    3,654
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Trying to bite off only a piece of an empire in the late game is difficult. Their culture is strong and you start off way behind.

    If your first war comes sooner, though, you can be more successful with limited warfare. With the game that crowded, why did you wait for so long?

    You can still benefit from limited war, of course. You can pillage and grab gold, for instance, or capture and RAZE the cities if they won't be worth your while to keep. It may take a little doing before you are familiar enough with all of your options to choose ones that will work best in a given situation.


    - Sirian
     

Share This Page