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

[MeteorPunch]

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

I'm sure there is...Civ 3 had a "cities retain culture on capture" option.

I won't shut up about it though, as most competitive Civ games use standard settings.

 

[MeteorPunch]

@Screwtype: I agree there. Usually though the AI cities are mainly defended by archers and longbows. A Swordsman with City Raider is better at that. If they have axes though, taking axes is good.

 

[Thrag]

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.

Another good strategy is to sort of prepare the enemy for later elimination. In one game I saw that I had a rival civ pretty close and some useful resources were between us. To stifle his growth I captured his workers in a surprise attack and destroyed key improvements even though I couldn't even dream of taking his city. This really slowed down his growth and I was able to take him out later (after using him as a strategic buffer of course, since my religion spread to his cities he was foolishly nice to me as I raised the axe).

Actually, raiding becomes very very useful later on. If you take out an enemy town (not city) that's a hell of a lot of turns of development you just destroyed. Even if you can't take his cities now, you can really hose his economy so that you can be sure to get a tech edge on him later.

 

[MeteorPunch]

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

I hope they change this as well. the "8-tile solution" solves everything.

The whole "culture bomb/starve your neighbor strategy is a joke.

 

[Venger]

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 admit to not understanding the utility of swordsmen versus Axemen. As I play Rome, I get the wonderful Praetorian unit. However, Swordsmen seem useless as a unit despite frankly being the predominant means of warfare for thousands of years... An axe is a good, heavy cleaving weapon, but is at a disadvantage most of the time against a sword merely because of the range of motion required to wield it. The axeman/swordsman thing seems a little off. Could be wrong... but likely not.

And upgrading to maceman... maceman? Tell you what, you pick up a mace, and I'll pick up a sword, and we'll see who ends up with both the mace and the sword...

Venger

 

[vodkamattvt]

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.

Yeah, but the point is that is one of the only times an all out war is in your best interest. Late in the game all out wars get less and less useful and actually can hurt your position relative to other players. One of the reasons pointed out is culture, which makes it impossible to utilize what you just fought for (razing could help somewhat, but again, you wont have an operational city contributing to your empire any time soon).

It comes down to purpose for war. If your purpose is to gain territory, you have to start early. If your purpose is to hurt another player, make sure you do not expose yourself to losing ground economically in the process. In a close game ... war is amlost intolerable because it will immediatly knock you out of the running. Its like a reverse lottery where you sit there trying to boom holding that lotto ticket and hoping to god your number isnt called. Then when that idiot Aztec decides he is going to war with you, you either can let him steamroll your improvements/cities or dig a big hole for yourself to make up against the other peaceful countries who are not burdened with war.

So the complaint is you have all these cool units late game, but very few reason to use them, and througout the early game you have a great need for war and not enough time to do it.

 

[Thrag]

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

I don't think that a city should automatically get the surrounding area, but the culture effect can certainly be toned down for cases like this. If the squares next to a city cannot be taken via culture, you have eliminated the culture war part of the game to an extent. Perhaps there should be a reduction in enemy culture over time adjacent squares to give you an opportunity to build your own culture and secure the area. If anything is done to tweak it, it has to also not cause a problem in other areas (like cultural conquest of cities).

Hey, imagine that, when you don't act immature and defensive actual discussion takes place. You might want to make a note of that for the future.

 

[screwtype]

Another good strategy is to sort of prepare the enemy for later elimination. In one game I saw that I had a rival civ pretty close and some useful resources were between us. To stifle his growth I captured his workers in a surprise attack and destroyed key improvements even though I couldn't even dream of taking his city. This really slowed down his growth and I was able to take him out later (after using him as a strategic buffer of course, since my religion spread to his cities he was foolishly nice to me as I raised the axe).

Yeah, I fell a bit behind the other Civs in my current game but the idea is that the extra territory and fat captured cities will allow me to overhaul them. Whether this works or not, I don't know yet.

But I think maybe it's easy to conquer Civs you're on friendly terms with, because they don't build up their forces to protect themselves against you. When I went to war with India in my previous game, she didn't like me and when I attacked I found her cities full of danged axemen. It's a dirty trick really, stabbbing a friendly Civ in the back! Maybe there should be a diplomatic penalty for it.

Anyhow thanks for the suggestions, I'll bear them in mind.

 

[Thrag]

Yeah, I fell a bit behind the other Civs in my current game but the idea is that the extra territory and fat captured cities will allow me to overhaul them. Whether this works or not, I don't know yet.

But I think maybe it's easy to conquer Civs you're on friendly terms with, because they don't build up their forces to protect themselves against you. When I went to war with India in my previous game, she didn't like me and when I attacked I found her cities full of danged axemen. It's a dirty trick really, stabbbing a friendly Civ in the back! Maybe there should be a diplomatic penalty for it.

Anyhow thanks for the suggestions, I'll bear them in mind.

You bring up a good question. Is there any negative effect of a sneak attack?

I did learn though that when you declare war your troops are moved out of enemy territory, so you can't get open borders and move up a big stack next to each city and sneak attack like that.

 

[screwtype]

I admit to not understanding the utility of swordsmen versus Axemen. As I play Rome, I get the wonderful Praetorian unit. However, Swordsmen seem useless as a unit despite frankly being the predominant means of warfare for thousands of years... An axe is a good, heavy cleaving weapon, but is at a disadvantage most of the time against a sword merely because of the range of motion required to wield it. The axeman/swordsman thing seems a little off. Could be wrong... but likely not.

And upgrading to maceman... maceman? Tell you what, you pick up a mace, and I'll pick up a sword, and we'll see who ends up with both the mace and the sword...

Venger

Yes, I totally agree, the unit development path does not make sense and neither do the military bonuses. And if I'm not mistaken, you get both axemen and swordsmen with EITHER bronze or iron - but no difference in the quality of the units! That doesn't make any kind of sense at all. Iron weapons are superior to bronze and the game should reflect that.

 

[Venger]

I don't think that a city should automatically get the surrounding area, but the culture effect can certainly be toned down for cases like this. If the squares next to a city cannot be taken via culture, you have eliminated the culture war part of the game to an extent. Perhaps there should be a reduction in enemy culture over time adjacent squares to give you an opportunity to build your own culture and secure the area. If anything is done to tweak it, it has to also not cause a problem in other areas (like cultural conquest of cities).

If you means test the square acquisition, then I believe you are in the same boat we currently are in. If I have taken your city, your claim to the adjacent squares, based upon control and culture of that city, should be VOID. It should be as if I squatted a settler right there. Now if this is done by taking those adjacent squares and wiping the culture score clear (but remembering them in case of reconquest), so be it. I of course want to make sure that we don't create a new problem out of an old one - such that for instance a captured city can never be culture flipped (though, to be honest, I have that already turned on in the custom rules menu). But if I take Vienna, Vienna shouldn't shrivel and die because we can't work outside the city limits...

Hey, imagine that, when you don't act immature and defensive actual discussion take place. You might want to make a note of that for the future.

You know, you just don't see it... you ignore the provocation, but notice the provoked.

Hey, imagine that, in paragraphs you don't act like a provocative jerk, you can get a reasoned responsive discussion... make note of that for the future.

Venger

 

[screwtype]

Yeah, but the point is that is one of the only times an all out war is in your best interest. Late in the game all out wars get less and less useful and actually can hurt your position relative to other players. One of the reasons pointed out is culture, which makes it impossible to utilize what you just fought for (razing could help somewhat, but again, you wont have an operational city contributing to your empire any time soon).

It comes down to purpose for war. If your purpose is to gain territory, you have to start early. If your purpose is to hurt another player, make sure you do not expose yourself to losing ground economically in the process. In a close game ... war is amlost intolerable because it will immediatly knock you out of the running. Its like a reverse lottery where you sit there trying to boom holding that lotto ticket and hoping to god your number isnt called. Then when that idiot Aztec decides he is going to war with you, you either can let him steamroll your improvements/cities or dig a big hole for yourself to make up against the other peaceful countries who are not burdened with war.

So the complaint is you have all these cool units late game, but very few reason to use them, and througout the early game you have a great need for war and not enough time to do it.

Yeah, I've already argued on other threads that the build time for military units is absurd, it takes you decades to build a military unit! It could be fixed a number of ways, say by having a separate build queue for units and buildings, or by having the build time for any military unit being a single turn (as in Rome Total War), or even by being able to build any number of units in a single turn, the number being limited only by the size of your economy or something. It just doesn't make sense that armies take so long to build.

 

[screwtype]

So the complaint is you have all these cool units late game, but very few reason to use them, and througout the early game you have a great need for war and not enough time to do it.

Yes I think the game is ultimately going to need modding. Right now though, the challenge for me is in trying to beat the game at standard settings Once I've done that a few times, then I'll start thinking about mods.

 

[Venger]

What I have never understood is that these units represent a great many people, but never effect population. I have wondered the consequence of making land units take a population point. I haven't thought the game dynamics all the way through, but you could argue for shorter build times - a turn or two. Other avenues such as unit loss effect on war weariness under this approach also grow. But then, it makes the current system of Kamikaze artillery not really viable... so who knows. Maybe it was a better idea under Civ3...

Venger

 

[Thrag]

Perhaps some sort of system where military force can counter culture would be useful here. Something like being able to raze culture. This would also probably help in the feeling of realism. You could use military units to reduce enemy culture in squares near your cities that are owned by the enemy. Limit it so that you can only lower enemy culture in enemy squares (so you can't use this to counter cultural conquest) and maybe you can only lower it to a certain fixed point or point relative to your culture or adjacent culture.

Even in hostile land the farmers have soldiers by their side they should be able to work. This would emulate that and hopefully help the sense of realism.

 

[Venger]

May be a little too micromanaged - I mean if we insist on a ZOC for captured cities, I think it solves the issues with few other real problems. I am interested in hearing practical problems with this approach - no sense giving a half assed recommendation to Firaxis on this...

It could almost be tolerable, the one square city thing, if there were means to support the city any other way - let's be honest, New York City isn't supported by Manhattanites farming the countryside...

Venger

 

[screwtype]

What I have never understood is that these units represent a great many people, but never effect population. I have wondered the consequence of making land units take a population point. I haven't thought the game dynamics all the way through, but you could argue for shorter build times - a turn or two. Other avenues such as unit loss effect on war weariness under this approach also grow. But then, it makes the current system of Kamikaze artillery not really viable... so who knows. Maybe it was a better idea under Civ3...

Venger

Yeah, I've thought about doing it that way as well. That's how it works in Imperialism II. In that game, you have workers to manufacture your resources, and when war comes along, you convert as many worker units as you like into military units, depending on the available resources. So population acts as a cap on both your military and your economy. Time is not a factor at all, you can create a huge army in a single turn if you have enough available men and equipment (which is how it should be when turns represent a year or more in length).

I'm not sure if this would be viable in Civ4 though. Using up a population point to create a military unit would probably end up being too costly. I guess you could try it and see. But you'd probably have to find some other limiting factor.

 

[screwtype]

Perhaps some sort of system where military force can counter culture would be useful here. Something like being able to raze culture. This would also probably help in the feeling of realism. You could use military units to reduce enemy culture in squares near your cities that are owned by the enemy. Limit it so that you can only lower enemy culture in enemy squares (so you can't use this to counter cultural conquest) and maybe you can only lower it to a certain fixed point or point relative to your culture or adjacent culture.

Even in hostile land the farmers have soldiers by their side they should be able to work. This would emulate that and hopefully help the sense of realism.

That sounds like a viable idea to me, but would it be possible to make a mod for it? I have my doubts. And even if you could, the AI might not have the sense to make use of it on its own behalf.

 

[Venger]

Ah, good old Imperialism II... I think it's still on my E: drive. Let's look...

Yep. Fired it up even. Runs like lightning of course. Always takes me a few turns to catch the hang of it again - trading, resources, etc. Then you get the battle screens, with the horses galloping up a few squares, then the cannon, heh. Fun game.

Venger

 

[screwtype]

Ah, good old Imperialism II... I think it's still on my E: drive. Let's look...

Yep. Fired it up even. Runs like lightning of course. Always takes me a few turns to catch the hang of it again - trading, resources, etc. Then you get the battle screens, with the horses galloping up a few squares, then the cannon, heh. Fun game.Venger

I've been playing it on and off for a couple of years and I still seem to learn something new every time I play it. I didn't even look at diplomacy until fairly recently, and in my last game a unit I'd always thought of as a total dud turned out to be the decisive factor.

Yeah, great game. I'll be going back to it after I get sick of Civ