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

[Gromblmompf]

While i can win this war, it would seal my fate in the tech race completly.

Then why did you start it in the first place?

Ah, to have fun. Then plan it better and do it right. Dont start halfhearted and make it worse by not even finishing it. Or if you want to fool around, then fool around on lower difficulty levels. The AI is a bad mofo from Monarch and upwards.

Basically you are blaming the game for your bad strategic decisions. If you play with 18 civs on a standard map, you can expect each empire to be kinda small and packed... so if you want to war someone, you should be ready to lead the war to the bloody end. If you would have played on a larger map (or with less nations), the cities would have been more numerous and farther apart and cultural pressure wouldnt have been as powerful in the border regions (heck, with these settings there arent any border regions or outskirts at all! Everything is main land, so to say ).

 

[Wlauzon]

My take on war so far is that it can be fairly easy early on, but impossible late in the game.

In one game a while back Alexander and I fought over ONE city for 550 years, trading it back and forth about 10 times. Neither of us could ever gte enough advantage to keep it.

At continous war, so of course both our production and research was in the pits. Eventually some other civ on opposite side declared war on Alex and pretty much wiped him out with tanks, then game over.

 

[Madryoch]

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.

I made this point in another thread. The additional thing I found was that when you do wage war (even if you do it "honourably" by declaring it first) your opposition just gets furious and just refuses to speak to you. I ended up having to prosecute a very long and costly war where the opposition just refused to talk to me even as I took city after city. Even when I withdrew all my troops from their territories they still wouldn't speak to me.

 

[EdCase]

Seems like the firaxians are big fans of the boss, not only quoting him, but also designing the game in this spirit. .

Small nitpick
Barret Strong, Norman Whitfield/Performed by Edwin Star

Last time I checked good old Edwin has never been refered to as the "boss".

 

[opkoad]

Small nitpick
Barret Strong, Norman Whitfield/Performed by Edwin Star

Last time I checked good old Edwin has never been refered to as the "boss".

Argh! You beat me by just minutes. Bruce Springsteen ("The Boss") was only doing a cover of an Edwin Starr song...

 

[yoshi74]

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?

Were sitting on my island till i got galleons I wasn't so happy about my starting position on this island, but decided to give it a try at the start of the game.

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.

Of cource i could waited longer to get an army double that size. Only drawback would be that by this time i would had met not 2 muskets, but surely a lot more.

Going for the capital... tried it later, didn't work much better. had it, still no more land. It also was a lot harder to hold it, because it got a faster counter attack (because sitting in the middle of his other cities..)

Argh! You beat me by just minutes. Bruce Springsteen ("The Boss") was only doing a cover of an Edwin Starr song...

I know only the version from Springsteen, don't even know the Edwin-guy you mention. Hope this isn't a too big lack in general education .


Pretty sure the wisest decision in the game would be not go to war. But the wisest isn't always the one holding the most fun. And going for space with the much better production base as a human is not really exciting...

 

[opkoad]

I know only the version from Springsteen, don't even know the Edwin-guy you mention. Hope this isn't a too big lack in general education .

Not at all, I doubt most people here in the US even know that!

Actually, I just found out something very interesting. Even Edwin Starr was not the first -- it was the Temptations! Though I imagine 99.9% of people never heard that recording:

"'War' was originally recorded by the Temptations," recalled Edwin. "It was buried on one of their albums. But then a lot of mail came in, mostly from students, asking why they didn't release it on a 45. Well, that was a touchy time, and that song had some implications. It was a message record, an opinion record, and stepped beyond being sheer entertainment. It could become a smash record, and that was fine, but if it went the other way, it could kill the career of whoever the artist was."

Apparently, the Temptations were afraid of the song, and so it was given to Edwin Starr.

"Nobody really understood what we were talking about on that song," he continued. "It wasn't about Vietnam. It never once mentioned the war in Vietnam. It just so happened that, at the time, the war was going on, and the words just lent themselves to the occasion. Actually, we were talking about a war of people -- the war people wage against each other on a day-to-day basis. All the words are applicable to neighbors who fight with each other, you know, 'War, what is it good for?' That's what the song was about, at least for me."

Source: http://www.superseventies.com/1970_10singles.html

 

[narmox]

I just fought 3 huge wars (standard map, 7 civs) as the Japanese. Boy the barracks + vassalage + theocracy (last 2 I didn't have in my first war as it was in the ancient/early classical age) + free combat I promotion greatly helps. In 2000 years of history or so, I conquered the roman empire (6 or 7 cities) THEN the Chinese empire i nthe late 1900's (5-6 cities).

War weariness was ok and manageable, especially when spreading my religion to the newly conquered cities that didn't already have it, the war had a good flow cause I paced myself and used artillery and combined arms to the fullest (after my initial samurai + cover promotion blunder whne they stopped encountering archers and met war elephants)

As an aggressive leader (Tokugawa of Japan), waging those 3 wars was actually beneficial for my empire as I didn't have a strong scientific/economic core to compete with the nations on the other continents, and the conquests allowed me to compete enough (though I still lost to Elizabeth's spaceship victory)

Final verdict is: if you understand how to wage war, it's actually good for something. Same goes for every aspect of this game

 

[Mujadaddy]

Limited war = limited results

 

[narmox]

My take on war so far is that it can be fairly easy early on, but impossible late in the game.

Not true, I waged wars in every era now, and it's possible to wage war in every era successfully. (Noble difficulty level)

Don't throw your knights against pikemen (and too many other examples to give here).

Dont underestimate the use of barracks and the appropriate civics for extra promotions when you build new units.

Dont underestimate that dusty old Samurai with Combat I, II, III and Pinch promotions, who can probably kill a musketman better than a musketman can.

Don't go to war past the classical era without catapults or other siege units, and USE THEM to totally batter down a city's defense bonus then use them up to weaken all units in a city RIGHT BEFORE YOUR CHARGE! Don't wait after using up your catapults or the units in the city will regenerate.

Don't underestimate the medic I and II promotions! A well-placed Pikeman or Rifleman can help heal not only the units on his tile, but the units on the 8 adjacent tiles too! Keep him just behind your lines so he can heal units as they are attacking the city.

Don't put all your units in 1 stack, or that puny enemy catapult will show you a thing or two right before a cavalry charge.

For that matter, don't build only 1 type of unit, or you'll get your *** kicked to kingdom come when his war elephants come to eat your knights for breakfast.

Don't underestimage upgrading units. Yes, it costs money. What else are you gonna do with that money? Pay tribute to your victorious opponent? As a bonus, you get to keep all those promotions your units got in the previous wars, which often makes them much more powerful than units you can churn out in your high production cities! (keep in mind untis with more than 10 XP are reduced to 10 XP when upgrading, so maybe wait till they get one more promotion by vanquishing a weakened unit before upgrading it - unless you need that extra firepower NOW of course!)

And finally, very very very important, unlike previous civ games, seriously don't underestimate the value of pillaging! Not only does it give you loads of money (put 4 units in a stack and pillage a town will pillage it down to nothing in 1 turn instead of 4 turns), but you'll also cut off your opponent's resources if you plan it well enough. A few longbowmen with double Guerilla upgrades accompanied by some pikemen with archery and melee bonuses will lay waste to your enemy's iron and copper centers!

With careful planning in fact, you should have a core group of units you build in the ancient era that last all the way to the modern era and get 5+ promotions, waging various wars with the help of newer units and a constant supply of siege units to fuel your city conquests. And thank god for that combat odds calculator which helps you chose the right unit for the right task!

What is war good for? LOADS OF FUN It's just not the mindless affair it was in civ2

 

[damxam]

I've fought wars early, and I've fought wars late. My personal take is that I prefer early wars because tech moves a little slower, so my units stay relevant a little longer, and because the smaller number of cities the enemies has makes the task of crushing him a lot easier to organize. End-game wars, you're going to have a massive logistical task on your hands as armies can be very large and providing sufficient reinforcements means building a whole lot of units and getting them to the right area a large task. On the other hand, bombers can really help soften up fortress cities. Also, the AI does build a lot of units. I was No1. in my last (noble) game against six AI's in all areas except military. In military, despite building what I considered a reasonable number of troops for my upcoming war I didn't go past 5th. Still, I won my war and kicked the enemy off an island we were sharing. The thing is, despite my success the war probably cost me. I went for a space victory and lost twenty or thirty turns fighting a war which gave me three cities which contributed nothing to the space race. Wars in Civ4, much like in real life, are difficult and must be calculated well.

 

[anton_z1]

War is pretty useless if you dont take at least half of the ennemy. First of all, this guy woulld annoy you for the rest of your game. Second, he could bring his allies and now you are in trouble. When you planifie a war, bring some allies with you, the crash completly the ennemy civilization and grab all the cities .

Finally as quoted earlier, it is pretty easy to win wars later in the game, but it takes time. I am currently in war with all 7 Civs at the same time (Conquesting one after another is cheap), and i still win. The AI in prince difficulty is too dumb.

 

[Venger]

Rather than fiddle around talking about how this user needs to siege their capital, let's just examine the situation as is and see if it reflects sound thinking.

He has gone to war with a neighbor and captured two cities. These cities are apparently conquerable and annexable, but the unoccupied farmland that is next to them is not. This is simply ludicrous. Obviously a treaty was declared between them, and the result - the captured cities simply starve to death because they don't "produce enough culture" - and this is the unfortunate outcome of borders-by-culture design run amok.

To argue that his attack was "poorly conceived" because he took outlying regions rather than the capital would seem to fly in the face of thousands of years of military history and conquest. This in fact IS what was generally done. And when a city was taken, the residents weren't forbidden from farming outside the walls because they hadn't built up enough bloody culture points.

In my game I am playing, I am just running into this same awful thing. Lets go to the screenshot...

The city Aquileia WAS a Roman city, taken by arms maybe 20 turns ago. It was size 4 with maybe 90 or so culture at the time. I have retaken it, and when I did, I get... nothing. No, apparently I had enough force of arms to take the heavily defended city, fortified with riflemen and cannon and knights, but not enough to ensure we can pick berries by the side of the road. So I took the next city down, and look... some wierd patchwork. And I cannot utilize the square adjacent to Aquileia despite the fact that it is currently unclaimed by ANYONE. All those improvements adjacent to the city? I BUILT THEM. Before I lost the city... now they are VERBOTEN. Huh?

One should expect at least a claim on ADJACENT squares to cities - if I plopped a settler down, the city would be able to work those squares, but not if I take it by force. Right. And let me tell you the NEXT bit that's I am sure is coming - a settler horde will come and try and claim this "new unclaimed land". Why look, it's all pre-farmed and improved, just like pods from the Unity...

Borders after conquest ARE NOT RIGHT. Cities should not starve out - that is inane.

To the original poster - your are indeed correct, something is rotten in Denmark. The fact is you will NEVER move those borders - and that's sorry. Adjacency MUST trump culture creep.

Venger

 

[MeteorPunch]

One thing that I agree with this thread, gameplay wise that should be fixed, is that conquered cities that are no longer in resistence should be able to use the 9 square surrounding the city. It's rediculous that no other city is using these squares (other cities are too far away), and yet these cities cannot use them.

Of course the whole game is way too favouring the cultured, and should be lessened.

 

[Blazer6]

Did yoshi74 switch to Police State and build to reduce ww before declaring war? I don't know how quickly war weariness affects people in this game.

 

[Venger]

Here's a rule of thumb that should be followed -

A city out of resistance should claim the same adjacent squares it would get had it just been settled.

Additionally, I would argue that a city that is settled or captured should NOT be entitled to those squares ONLY if they are within the city radius of another city.

Other than that, the current situation sucks and might be a game ruiner. As I feared, a settler popped up on that continent...

Venger

 

[Venger]

I have yet to encounter war weariness, though it was fairly onerous in Civ3.

I would hope the game would have a better concept of "just war". For instance, should you lose three cities in a war with an enemy, a war to retake them should NOT cause the same weariness as a mere war of aggrandizement.

I do think that in Civ3, war weariness was different based on whether or not you started it, which is good... hopefully that concept exists in Civ4, just haven't played enough to be sure yet...

Venger

 

[narmox]

weird, in my recent game a conquered city that went out of resistance would use all 8 squares around it, except it another civ's culture was too strong in that square, then it would still be owned by the other civ.

 

[Renata]

The culture factor does seem a smidge overpowered, as well as frequently counterintuitive. (As I posted in another forum, in my recently-completed game I managed to have a situation where my city was controlling one tile immediately adjacent to a foreign city while simulataneously that city was controlling two tiles immediately adjacent to mine. Makes no sense.)

I'm also concerned about the ability to wage meaningful wars of conquest in the late game, and would be interested in hearing from anyone who's managed it. The late game (industrial/modern ages) seems to fly by extremely fast (faster than a Civ3 game on infinite 4-turn research pace, much less a 'normal' Civ3 game). And the AI is apparently much stronger at keeping up, so how exactly do you fight a major war at that point without by default also losing the space race? I don't want it to be easy, but I do want it to be possible ...

Anyway, from the point of view of three games played at Noble difficulty, those are my two most major game-balance concerns. A bit more experience is needed for me to know whether they're really problems or just something I need to find new ways to deal with.

 

[narmox]

Planning planning planning! Don't fight wars blindly!