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. TerraHero

    TerraHero Terranigma Guru

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Messages:
    718
    This type of warfare forces players to prepare allot more in advance, i find spies usefull now when i can find weak spots in there defence, after-all. Defending your troops are by far in a superior possition, so getting to a save spot is vital.

    Secodn, targetting cities deep into there territory or surounded by other powerfull cities it practicaly useless since the culture will push your city into oblivion, so its imporrtant to start at the outlining cities, and prefferably linked to your own borders.

    And 3th, pushing on in a war is also very important. Since its the only way to actually secure a bit of land without having to give the stuff back due to unhappiness or culture flip. This means simply going to war to capture juz 1 or 2 cities is generally fruitless
     
  2. Venger

    Venger Give it a tumble, sport

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    783
    If I understand your post, it is important that warfare reflect the culture-border reality, not reality itself.

    Venger
     
  3. Gato Loco

    Gato Loco Open to Interpretation

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    That's not a limited war. Pillaging improvements, taking colonies, and demanding concessions for peace is limited war. Taking large core cities on the enemy's home territory is total war. The ability to take a large, well established home city, sue for peace, and actually keep it without having utterly demolished the enemy's ability to resist is unrealistic anyway. That's why culture flips are in the game in the first place. That said, there should be a way to diplomatically secure access to individual tiles in a peace treaty.
     
  4. Volstag

    Volstag Chairman of the Bored

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Messages:
    529
    Location:
    Big Sky Country
    Yoshi,

    First of all, Edwin Starr is responsible for the song.

    Limited wars, IMO, are the bread 'n' butter of Civ IV. Overrunning an enemy civ is possible, of course, but it's nothing like the unholy blitzkriegs of Civ III. For me, I conquer enemies through a succession of limited wars. Set your objectives, obtain them quickly, then sue for peace. Consolidate your gains, refit your army, declare war and repeat the process.

    IME, if you're not prepared for a war, it can drag on for a long time. Fighting defensive/holding wars on your own turf and/or lacking the ability to make serious inroads against your opponent(s) can lead to a total bog-down against intractable opponents. It's for this reason I try to avoid them at all costs.

    For me, what seems to work: keep a respectable standing army at all times. Maintain good relations with your immediate neighbors (having a buffer between you and potential enemies is a huge boon). If war comes, pursue it aggressively. Everytime I "half-ass" a war it usually comes back to bite me. You know... trying to take a city with less than optimal force (and losing)... continuing to build non-military buildings/units while the enemy is pouring into your turf, engaging in desperate low probability fights, etc.
     
  5. Zhahz

    Zhahz PC Gamer

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,615
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    War Weariness isn't so bad as long as you're winning (as the aggressor). If you lose units (siege units don't seem to impact this as much) or if your lands/seas are getting pillaged it seems to jack up the weariness in a hurry. Suicide charges are a great way to inspire your people to dislike you (and lead to weariness).

    I don't think weariness gets out of control so quickly if you were the one who was attacked, but I'm sure it kicks in eventually even if you're the defender.

    Winning means having a good plan, having a purpose, and using units appropriately to avoid heavy casualties.

    The cultural recovery or cultural border war is rough but it kind of makes sense. If you attack a civ that's been around for 100's of years why should you be able to infect their civ with your culture just by taking over 1 city? Dealing with the cultural fallout of war is just another part of planning.

    The only thing I really dislike about the culture issue is that if you ARE taking out an entire "enemy" empire or a lot of thier cities there will often be large gaps of land between cities while they're in resistance and/or rebuilding cultural boundries, and often times other AIs will "colonize" the lands you just conquered. I think that this behavior should be an act of war because technically that frickin land is mine even if my cultural boundries haven't covered it yet - I went to war to take land, not to free it up for opportunists.
     
  6. catorulz

    catorulz Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    7
    This does seem somewhat out of balance. Perhaps what is needed here is some level of culture retention when cities are captured. The amount of culture retained could be related to how long you are at war with a Civ and how long the city is under siege. If you are able to take multiple cities from a civ in just a few turns, you should keep some level of culture since such a quick war/siege is less likely to alter daily lives of citizens and destroy infrastructure.

    Perhaps culture production and/or total culture value could go down by 50% if you take over a city in 1 turn, 60% if you take it two turns etc. Perhaps it should be related to how many attacks it takes as well. Just thinking out loud.
     
  7. Spatzimaus

    Spatzimaus Mad Scientist

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2005
    Messages:
    3,063
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I'd agree that the culture rules have issues. A non-revolting city probably SHOULD get the adjacent tiles, unless those tiles are worked by another city, although I'd still question that if enough culture was built up. But, in the specific example from the original post, there's a different issue.

    When you're assaulting a small city along your borders, the culture from your own cities will help support the newly-conquered towns. So, we usually don't see this sort of thing as blatantly, and this is the "limited war" everyone's been talking about. This works fine; the culture is never so totally skewed that the conquered city is entirely surrounded, and a culture bomb can solve the problem. It even makes sense, historically, since border towns always tended to mix the two empires they separated, and some changed hands without any real impact on their day-to-day operations. This reflects the overlapping culture regions of the two civs.

    But the original example wasn't a "limited" war at all. You were attacking two core cities of an empire across the ocean, going far out of your way to sieze large cities that had no connection to the rest of your empire. By definition, any war that involves mass sea transport isn't "limited", even if you stop at the first city. It'd be like the Russians invading New York City, and expecting the rest of the northeast to follow just because they built a new library to replace what they sacked.

    Now, maybe it's more appropriate to say that limited war isn't really possible in the modern era when you stick so many civs on a map that each can only have a handful of cities. When there ARE no "minor cities", then yes, every war pretty much has to be to the end. And in the example given, you'd probably have to then attack the other civs on the same island (Persia) just to keep their culture pressure from flipping you. But this is actually not too unrealistic; in the modern era (say, 20th century), how many times have two major powers fought without it being a total war? When Germany invaded France, they didn't just grab a couple border towns and sit back.
     
  8. spiceant

    spiceant Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    177
    a rule of thumb for early offensive early wars without an overflow of happyness resources:
    -dont loose non-siege units a lot, loosing your own units makes for war wearyness, this phenoma can kill you (mostly in multiplayer) if you cant end the war when you loose to many units and and your people become unhappy as the enemy continues to take you over.

    in pre-modern era you can use catapults to suicide, a bit later you can use collateral damage tanks
    in the modern era you can make aircraft, these can do hit and run on enemys and reduce units down to 50% of their originel strength (and bomb defenses) (units with 50% less strength are 4x less likely to win in battle against units with the same strength but without the -50%)

    the alt mouseover does not have a square function which it should show, your chane to win is roughly that of your odds squared shared by his odds in square (yourodds^2/hisodds^2) this gives you a ratio at which you will win battles. in modern era first strikes become more important, each first strike you get gives you a chance to do damage (the same chance of the yourodds/hisodds formula above) but it does the damage of the strength in battle, so if you make 2 first strikes with a battleship the offending ship is already down to 20% health in the Civ 4 battle simulator before the enemy returns fire (semi invisible combat simulator, u can see it in the combat log)
    the square formula easily explains why scouts almost always loose vs barbarians even though early game the odds is 1 to 2 (1*1)/(2*2) = 0.25 chance = not big

    in big battles bring different units so the best counter to one unit isnt always picked against your attacking stack of doom

    even later u can nuke (this is good in war of attrition but bad for politics, dont worry about global warming as it strikes everyone), altough it dont take long for enemy to make the 75% nuke interception project
    promotions make half your army, a unit with +20% strength already has a 69% chance to win in a fight against the same kind of unit without +20%, in addition it will always do more damage regardless of win or loss.

    also
    -late game, police state is gold in war, along with jails it can reduce wearyness into an insignificant phenomena.

    also
    -caste system is a great civic in early game wars within close range of culture centers (capitols), focus everyone who cant work 3+ food tiles on culture while building theatre untill the city is good to go.

    and...
    dont try to play the game on a hard difficulty late at night when your sleepy, it will drag you down.

    'n...
    infradstructure is important in quick game speeds, but dont overbuild roads or railroad, a mainstream highway between the front of war and your main citys is the most imporant to keep the war effort going. later on, if your succes allows you the room, build a few airports in your backlying citys to suply the front with fresh units.

    look!
    the ai makes atleast one big mistake, in the past it has been shown war can and has been fought over religion (altough not so very very much in europe) it will adopt the most stupid superstition and make himelf a bullseye to shoot for other ais.
    also the ai does not care very much if you are winning certainly if they occupy themselves with heathen religions. dont be stupid to adopt a religion right off the bat, rival ai borders will be closed and trades down, if you need the religion use the temples for the happyness bonus, otherwise make settlers or workers to limit your population untill you can support the consequences of converting to superstition.
    if you must found a superstition drag an ai down with you by converting him to you before someone else does...

    i just mentions the ai founds many religions, you can use this or watch as wars are declared, an ai that is attacked on multiple fronts is easyer to fight, remember that war is not the only way to abuse the ai mistake of founding religions.

    when dominating the military scene you can be a bully and take things from ai, demand money, cheap techs and sometimes even resources and expensive tech from the weak, but make sure that if they declare a war they cant run a war of attrition by running across your land with cavalry (infrastructure helps as it only benefits you and allys), it is generally good to threaten the ai that has its own solitary superstition, as it is less likely to have allys within his own religion.
     
  9. Thrag

    Thrag Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    This example only demonstrates a flaw in your strategy, and not a flaw in the game. You planned and executed your war very poorly. You have to take out his major cultural centers if you plan on holding any territory. Next time skip the small useless cities on the edge of his empire and attack the center of the empire (just lock down and bypass insignificant cities). Seems like in your example the game worked exactly like it should, it punished your bad decisions.
     
  10. XF Clohvn

    XF Clohvn Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    43
    Location:
    Ottawa, Canada
    This is bothering me quite a bit aswell.

    In my latest game, I waged a massive war against the french, starting with swordsmen and ending with musketeers (so you can get an idea of the era). I managed to completely demolish half of their country, taking the capital and everything on its side of the country closest to me. I end the war thinking I had won, but no. Even though Paris was a good 7 to 8 tiles from the nearest city, and I used a great artist to try and build up some culture, it wasn't even able to hold its own 9 tile radius around itself, and quickly flipped back, taking all my captured wonders with it. Now it's just a matter of time before the rest do.

    I think captured cities should come with atleast a certain percentage of their original culture, so limited war isn't totally useless. How hard would that be to mod in?
     
  11. Thrag

    Thrag Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    "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."

    Ah, I see the problem, you have forgotten that this is a game and not reality and that the abstractions made in order to create the game may not always match reality. Anyway, your statement that this flies in the face of history is crap, in some wars there were limited territorial ambitions and in others it was a run straight to the capital (or more accurately, the leadership) in order to destory the actual opposition (the enemy leaders, not the entire nation). If the borders you get after taking a city aren't acceptable then don't make peace and eliminate the source of the problem (i.e. the big culture city that is causing the problem).
     
  12. screwtype

    screwtype Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    291
    I think your points are reasonable, but in terms of strategy, why don't you just see to it that it's your settler that pops up? IE Raze any city you capture and have your own settler ready to found a new one.

    I know this is not necessarily how it should be, but in terms of current gameplay it beats capturing a city that's culturally crippled and of no use to you.
     
  13. Mujadaddy

    Mujadaddy Geheim Grammar Polizei

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,082
    If you RAZE those troublesome "cultured" cities, they'll prove much less influential in the long run ;)
     
  14. Thrag

    Thrag Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    Well, doesn't that make sense? The conquered people aren't going to be too happy with you just because you conquered them. The culture abstract in this case reflects the loyalty of the people living in the city, and guess what, they aren't too fond of their new masters. This is why it can be important to utterly destory an opposing culture instead of just trying to take a few cities. I learned the folly of leaving an enemy culture intact in my first game where I came to regret my limited territorial ambition when the culture I left standing kept going to war with me and bringing friends.
     
  15. Thrag

    Thrag Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    Exactly, don't be afraid to raze. If you really only have a limited territorial ambition because you don't want to spread too thin that doesn't mean you should only take the cities you want and end the war, it means you should take the cities you want and raze the rest to the ground so there is no longer an existing culture for your new cities to feel loyalty to.
     
  16. Mujadaddy

    Mujadaddy Geheim Grammar Polizei

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,082
    Yeah, it was different in Civ3... Easier to keep captured cities...

    In Civ4, those pesky "old world" high culture cities are nothing but trouble for the attacker/occupier... Plus, nothing like knocking 20%+ of your opponent's score off :crazyeye:
     
  17. knotty

    knotty Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Messages:
    4
    I agree with the other poster that said a city should keep a certain amount of it's culture when captured, not much .. maybe 10-25%.

    Does garrisoning troops in cities reduce the chance they will flip?

    In a 'martial law' kind of way?
     
  18. Thrag

    Thrag Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    They shouldn't keep any culture because they don't share your culture. Think of culture as loyalty. If you just took a city filled with people of another culture why should they feel any loyalty to you?
     
  19. Venger

    Venger Give it a tumble, sport

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    783
    I have? I don't recall a lapse in that knowledge. I'm sure your extensive board experience, having joined us now for at least 100 hours, has given you insight into such matters those of us who have been playing Civilization and discussing it here for three plus years lack.

    The abstractions made in this game are shortcuts designed to give a realistic result without an infinitely complex system. In this case, the result is unrealistic and poor. You'll note this game is historically based, with units and concepts from throught history. All designed to model reality as well as can be expected. In this case, we can expect more.

    What are you, twelve? Is your military knowledge limited to Operation Iraqi Freedom?

    Please offer us a detailed history of major land campaigns that started with armies bypassing regional cities in order to attain an unsupported position far behind enemy lines... thanks Custer, we'll take it from here...

    Jeez, did you LOOK at the picture? You STILL do not receive adjacent tiles after removing the city or growing your own borders. To argue, as you do, so foolishly in defense of this system, to suggest that the way war is waged in a game designed to re-run history, where taking a city leaves you with a useless stub, adjoined by "cultural" borders of land unusable to anyone, is to argue a case of nonsense. In the original example, his city is DE FACTO sieged, which is stupid.

    Another knucklehead washes ashore, POSITIVE he's the first to discover the island... we'll, this islands got natives from long before you managed to type civfanatics.com into your browser, and you'll need more than "that's just the way the game is" in order to carry the day, junior.

    Venger
     
  20. Venger

    Venger Give it a tumble, sport

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    783
    Because of two things - first, the notion that a third party is going to found a city in the middle of your raging war front is onerous to common sense. Secondly, because I already HAVE a city in this quadrant - I shouldn't have to plop an unneeded city down next to a city that can't work the land outside it's walls because the neighbors were so darn cultural.

    I think the better solution is to seek a gameplay remedy that makes for a more measured, more reasonable outcome, rather than ICS my way through conquests. I understand you are wisely looking for a work-around here, but I am looking to conquer the problem... not accomodate it.

    Venger
     

Share This Page