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. Venger

    Venger Give it a tumble, sport

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    783
    Dude, he doesn't get it. How the game works is self-justifying - there are no problems, just design choices. So when you sieze Carthage, burn it, because it will never be productive. If you attack another nearby city, you might get a square to work. Or get what I got - a settler dropped in the middle of a waging war front by a third party who saw all the unworked, pre-improved squares.

    Oh, sure I could start planting cities in there as well, but you see the other guy doesn't have to defend them - he can squat. It's as if Switzerland started a city on the Western Front in the middle of France.

    Post-conquest borders must be fixed in order for conflicts to have sensible outcomes...

    Venger
     
  2. Thrag

    Thrag Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    Going back to my point that this this a game and some abstractions are not going to seem 100% realistic. The in game strategy of taking out large culture cities works just fine, I just finished a game a little earlier where that strategy was essential in securing my main landmass, and it is a strategy I've used in previous games. My suggestions aren't based on speculatoin, but actual use in the game. I agree that the culture effect could use some tweaking, but I don't believe it is broken.

    As to the personal attacks, they make you look like a fool and that's really about it. They don't bother me much, in fact, I find it somewhat entertaining when someone blows their top because someone dared to disagree with them about a computer game. After reading usenet and various forums for some 16 years I thought watching people embarass themselves would get old, but it still hasn't. I still giggle when I think of some ranting usenet poster years ago that thought "what's the matter with you, do you have two broken arms" was a valid reply to "there should be a hotkey for that". It's just funny, though your foolish arrogance is unlikely to have any lasting humor effect, it made me giggle today at least. Yes, I called your statement crap, and your statement was and still is crap. If you get all bent out of shape when someone calls a single statement of opinion about a trivial matter "crap" you need some help. Calling some specific statement of yours "crap" isn't eqivalent to calling you "crap", learn that and hopefully you won't be so foolishly defensive in the future.

    Still, you're welcome to apologize and show a shred of maturity if you care to save some face.

    To sum up on the actual topic, the culture effect is just another thing you must take into consideration when waging war. If you plan to just try and take some border cities, you have to consider if it is culturally viable to do so. Often you must capture or raze high culture cities in order to make limited conquest culturally viable. A war plan that does not consider this is a poor war plan. That's why the original posters war plan was flawed. Hopefully understanding the culture effect better he can plan better next time. Culture in effect is another form of territorial defense (and offense).
     
  3. vodkamattvt

    vodkamattvt Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    51
    In addition to the culture issue outlined in this thread, there is the simple fact that it seems programmed into the game that "war is bad for business". When you take over some new territory, you have to:

    1. Spend a whole bunch of resources to take it, resources that could be spent economically
    2. Hold the territory (even more resources)
    3. Wait 8+ turns to even use the city (riots)
    4. Not be able to use anything for 20+ turns due to culture of other cities

    The only way to stop this is to take the whole damn continent (which takes HUGE amounts of resources). While you are doing this the other "religious block" (because diplomacy in Civ4 is really just an extension of religion) on the other side of the continent or on their own continent is busy booming away while you build a huge hole for yourself. Its not even a hole that can be boomed out of with more cities .. they have good relations and are trading techs constantly.

    When are wars ok? Early! To take resources and position and grab land and to limit an opponent. When they are limited to defense of your territory combined with massive pillaging of enemy territory. Late game total wars are a waste of time and will in many cases lose you the game (if it is close). If you are wolloping the AI late and have nothing to build, then you should up your difficulty :lol:

    This has been proven in my games, as one of the best ways I have found to delay cripple an enemy is to get someone to declare war on him and to buffer myself with peaceful (i.e. same religion) neighbors. Its just rather boring later in the game though .. with all the peace sometimes.
     
  4. Ravinhood

    Ravinhood Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    180
    You guys do know you can modify (change) war weariness down to practically nothing in the XML files. So, quit whinning and start changing the game to what you want it to be, it's so flippin easy. Cause no single one game design can be the beall game for everyone.

    I have no complaints because I can adjust anything. ;)
     
  5. Thrag

    Thrag Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    Don't get me wrong I totally agree that all out war has become a less viable option than in previous games. That is rather plain considering the effectiveness of stack of doom conquest in civ3. I disagree with those that say it is not a viable option anymore.

    It is also quite plain that some of the complaints stem from expectations based on previous games and would be more useful as questions as to why something works or doesn't work rather than complaints that it doesn't work. Sure, there are also perfectly valid complaints as well. I did not say that every single complaint is invalid. The post you replied to was simply about the character of posts, that posts that really should just be questions are often complaints. This is true of most sequels or any game where people have preconceptions.
     
  6. vodkamattvt

    vodkamattvt Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    51
    Total war late in the game doesnt work for one reason. Because it takes X number of turns for the gains (territory) you make to give you anything in return. Combine this with the fact that resources that could be spent on your economy are spent on war, and total war is not a good option late in the game. Limited wars to stop spaceship victories, pillaging to disrupt, etc work fine, but taking cities to take cities late is fairly useless because they wont give you an impact in the (short) time the game has left. In fact, they will hurt you. Wars hurt your economy in the short run, but should help you in the long run. This is why they are so effective early.

    In 1on1 wars are great, but when you play more than 1 civ, unless everyone is at war, someone is benefiting by the relative lose of total economic output, so you better be sure you can use what you lost (resources to make war), to make more (more cities/economy) in the future. Otherwise you lose. Good example of late war, against number 2 civ, or civ in the lead, or civ threatening to win. Bad example of late war, against your neighbor who is a mediocre civ.
     
  7. Thrag

    Thrag Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    I've found that in a lot of cases razing and resettling is a better option. There aren't many times when I capture a city that has useful buildings intact (unless it was a really major city). Razing is against all my instincts, but it is useful. I even managed to overcome my aversion to razing anything and I actually razed a city with a wonder in it (obsolete though). Raze, create a culture vaccum and resettle teh area quickly before the other nearby empires do.

    Basically now I fight three types of wars. Wars to raid and hurt the enemy economically (raiding and taking out improvements and sueing for peace, usually done early to cripple neighbors I will crush in a later age). Wars to wipe out another empire completely (or at least wipe out all his cities nearby), and rarely wars of limited territorial ambition (to secure a choke point or resource). The last type usually involve taking the city I want and razing the nearby city that is dominating the area in culture. The limited war actually seems like the hardest to do right, it does seem more prudent to try and wipe out the enemy civ than to just take some of their cities since they are just going to be a torn in your side.
     
  8. MeteorPunch

    MeteorPunch #WINNING Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2005
    Messages:
    4,819
    Location:
    TN-USA
    I agree with everything you said here.

    On the other side of the coin it's just as annoying when there is are threads like this one with valid complaints, where fanboys come in and bash people who have a contrary opinion. :D

    @vodkamattv: :goodjob: Good summary of what I was thinking. It's so much harder now to achieve a military victory with the insane tech pace and military and city upkeep.
     
  9. Thrag

    Thrag Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    Very good points. In a late game war you really can't expect to have the time to make much use of the captured area (culture problems or not). You post demonstrates why I like Civ4, war has a cost and you have to assess it carefully. You have to consider what you will really gain from what you capture and if that is worth the expense of war. This is the way it should be.
     
  10. MeteorPunch

    MeteorPunch #WINNING Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2005
    Messages:
    4,819
    Location:
    TN-USA
    Everyone knows the tech pace is way too fast so that you can hardly make use of your military before it's obsolete anyway. The problem is not the fact that it's hard to maintain the army, but that the tech goes by too fast to make any gains worthwhile.
     
  11. screwtype

    screwtype Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    291
    Well after a lot of frustration I finally seem to be on the verge of a successful war at last.

    I quietly built about 40 axemen units while being buddies with the French, then when I'd done so I quickly moved them to the borders and attacked. The poor stupid frogs appear to be totally unprepared! The first city had only three defending units. The one I've got lined up now has only one, and the next one in line, only two. In fact I'm wondering if I didn't overdo the military buildup. I've probably got a big enough army to crush everyone on the continent, LOL.

    The only thing is I'm in the red financially and it would have been better to start with a few settlers, because I'm beginning to see what other players mean about the dysfunctionality of cities you take over. The only tech I have that creates culture is a library. Do you get the normal borders back when the city stops resisting? If not, it seems to me it could end up being literally impossible to ever get a city up and running again.
     
  12. Thrag

    Thrag Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    Such is the net. I'm not a big fan of the fanboy type response either. A reply that just states "You're wrong" without some reasonable explanation of exactly why is pretty pointless. People get defensive over the silliest things. Too many people seem to assign some part of their own worth to some product they bought or some random statement they made and suddenly any complaint against it is a complaint them personally.

    Though, now that I think about it, I get the same way whenever my girlfriend compalints about our designated couch laptop running slow. I'll have to apologize for getting short with her next time she complains about it (which will surely be tomorrow).
     
  13. MeteorPunch

    MeteorPunch #WINNING Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2005
    Messages:
    4,819
    Location:
    TN-USA
    @Screwtype: your "strategy" is exactly what Thrag is talking about. :mischief: You should be using Swords and catapults to take cities, if possible and build your infrastructure some more.
     
  14. Venger

    Venger Give it a tumble, sport

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    783
    The fact is that a game that sports two victory modes - conquest and domination - have a game system designed around them to make this actively non-pursuable. History is replete with conquests, in every age. But the culture-as-borders bit clearly cannot handle a change in borders due to change in ownership after X number of turns, because the map is fixed not by treaty or force of arms, but because someone built a library 2300 years ago. That's stupid.

    The louder he spoke of honor, the faster we counted our spoons... you sure make a show of it for something that "doesn't bother you". If it doesn't, then act like it doesn't.

    I'm sorry you're a knucklehead.

    PLEASE. This is precisely the PROBLEM - it doesn't work. "Culture effect" - meaning that if I sack Vienna, it will evaporate because of the culture from the library in Prague - does that even make SENSE to you?

    Listen to yourself - is it "culturally viable" to take back Normandy? Or will the culture from German occupied Paris starve us out? This is what people are saying - we don't want a workaround for a poor design, we'd like the design issues rectified.

    Sorry, that's just goofy. Finding a workaround to a bad system is not a solution.

    Jeez... you don't get it. The problem lies in how the program is drawing culture boundaries - you CANNOT TAKE AN ENEMY CITY without taking all the adjacent ones? Is that a SOUND system? Sorry, can't get Alsace Lorraine, because we won't be able to work the land because of German culture. HUH?

    Culture as borders has been suspect since it was installed in Civ3, and now has rendered the concept of conquest as either unworkable, or at the least, an unemployable killjoy. A city MUST be able to work it's adjacent tiles after order is restored UNLESS used by another city. To argue in defense of this system is to argue a clueless case.

    Venger
     
  15. Thrag

    Thrag Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    Cities will grow to their initial nine square size after the period of unrest is over, unless there is a strong culture nearby preventing this (usually only a concern mid-late game). This is why later on taking border cities can be troublesome (unless you raze or capture cities whose culture controls the land around the city). If you mouse over a square you'll see a number that represents the percent loyalty which demonstrates the cultural effect on the square.

    One strategy that I don't think was mentioned is if you get a great artist, save it for your next war and use it to counter the culture effect if enemy culture overwhelms your captured city. This can make a huge difference.
     
  16. Thrag

    Thrag Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    "is it "culturally viable" to take back Normandy?"

    Of course, the Germans had only captured the area a few turns before and they didn't have time to build up their own culture. ;)
     
  17. Venger

    Venger Give it a tumble, sport

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    783
    If you've found a way to fix the REAL problem - borders in newly captured cities. Please share it. I'll mod it and shut up completely forthwith...

    Venger
     
  18. screwtype

    screwtype Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    291
    Meteorpunch - I disagree about using swordsmen to take cities. I tried that in my previous game and got absolutely creamed by the opposition when I attacked because they had axemen.

    Axemen are actually much better all round units because they have a massive +50% bonus against melee units (ie swordsmen). In addition, they are also eligible for the same or similar city attack bonuses as the swordsmen are. So even though they have one attack point less, they are quite superior to swordsmen in my opinion. After my previous disastrous campaign, I will never use swordsmen to try and wage an offensive war again!

    I'm not sure what Thrag's points are because I haven't read through the whole thread yet. But it seems to me he's advocating doing just what I'm doing - waging an offensive war of annihilation early in the game.

    Oh, and as for building infrastructure some more - well yeah, that's the name of the game :) But it's impossible to build infrastructure AND a decent army at the same time. I figure by knocking out at least one opponent and taking his territory, I will be in a position to build up my infrastructure/research much more quickly in the middle of the game. That's the idea anyhow.
     
  19. Thrag

    Thrag Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Messages:
    55
    I agree with that. Even on epic the game does seem to go by too fast. Even when I'm planning a war it's hard to finally execute it because I'm always thinking "well, in x more turns I'll have unit y".

    I'm sure at some point someone will release some mods to make the game more of a giant conquest game. I think it would be neat to play a few hundred turns just in one given period.

    Of course the upside is that I think I now can play three games in the time it would take to play one game of the original.
     
  20. Venger

    Venger Give it a tumble, sport

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2002
    Messages:
    783
    But the question is - did Paris starve out during occupation despite the presence of Vichy culture?

    I would offer here, despite disagreements, that the following is likely agreeable to almost everyone, and is relatively inarguable:

    A captured city out of disorder should possess the 8 squares adjacent to it regardless of culture level, as a new city founded with a settler would, unless theses squares are within the city radius of another city.

    This would address my grievance against the system, would fix the problem for the original poster, and I think more accurately reflect territorial transfer via conquest in history.

    Venger
     

Share This Page