Warring is often boring and awfully tiresome

[youngsteve]

My problem with the game hasn't really changed since the first civilisation, in that the game gets more of a chore & less interesting the longer it goes on. Up unitl renaissance era it is great, really tactical as you build up your empire & hold off your rivals. Then its starts to drag as larger armies & navies enter the fray, until you get to the modern era when it really feels a chore. This is usually when I give up & start again. Giant Death Robots & Nukes mean nothing to me, & are really boring. I am currently playing America & have now reached 356 turns & each new one seems a grind, so will start another soon.

Don't get me wrong Vox Populi is really good & has made vanilla look ordinary in comparison, but the early to mid eras are the interesting ones to me, & the modern ones far less so. I agree that probably the main issue is too many units when the game reaches the latter part. Early on each unit is worth alot & you tactically ensure you don't lose any, but later on many are just cannon fodder, due partly to the cost of upgrading & not having the experience as early units, so doesn't seem the same somehow. This is also a bit confusing as although armies have gotten bigger over time, that is mainly to do with increased populations & empires. There were still massive armies around even in the ancient world. So not sure why the amount of units expand so much. Yes the power of military has increased massively but not the amount.

I have looked at playing the longer games, but marathon in particular, although sounding great, would take an age to play for me. It also doesn't seem as balanced as standard. I tested a game as the Huns, & was shocked that the barbarians entered the cities on the same turn as standard despite being so much slower to do anything. I wonder what else is unbalanced as well.

I don't want things changed just because of the way I play the game, as many love the current system & warmongering, but just wanted to give my thoughts on the issues I have. Reading the thread it seems I am not alone in this.

 

[Stalker0]

This is also a bit confusing as although armies have gotten bigger over time, that is mainly to do with increased populations & empires. There were still massive armies around even in the ancient world. So not sure why the amount of units expand so much. Yes the power of military has increased massively but not the amount.

Here is a nice chart that showcases army sizes over history: The World's Largest Armies From Antiquity To The Present - Business Insider

There is some truth to what you say, some of the larger armies of antiquity are at least ballpark comparable to armies as late as the 1800s. However, past that point army sizes balloon noticeably, and then the armies of WWI and II are gigantic in comparison to earlier armies. But then after WWII going into the modern era, the armies of the major powers shrunk noticeably, as a focus on quality over quantity was established with growing technology.

You could reintroduce that with a much stronger era penalty to supply for Modern and Information Eras....effectively "forcing" a standing army to shrink back down.

 

[RedHotTomato]

Impossible to win deity without warring, since there will always be 1 AI that goes out of control. I love the war aspect of the game, however warmongering penalties are always so harsh on deity and it becomes a grind. @@

 

[stii]

Yeah that is not true at all. War makes it easier but there are a bunch of threads where people talked about how to win on deity without war and then did it.

 

[civvplayer]

Impossible to win deity without warring, since there will always be 1 AI that goes out of control. I love the war aspect of the game, however warmongering penalties are always so harsh on deity and it becomes a grind. @@

100% agree. Someone suggested playing the Huns for reduced warmongering penalty. I still prefer England for her spies and naval bonus. What I found useful was to increase supply cap to the point where there is always at least 40% of it unused. Also always plan a few liberations during your conquest.

 

[Stalker0]

Yeah that is not true at all. War makes it easier but there are a bunch of threads where people talked about how to win on deity without war and then did it.

yep, my first win on deity was recently, and it was peaceful

 

[RedHotTomato]

Yeah that is not true at all. War makes it easier but there are a bunch of threads where people talked about how to win on deity without war and then did it.

Well then i guess it depends on luck then. I've always play on deity and there is constantly a runaway AI on the other side of the map (not my neighbour).
How do you deal with that scenario? By mid game, they have conquered the entire continent whereas if you play peacefully, you have 4-5 cities.

 

[Deaga]

Do you think that will have the side effect of causing the AI to be too weak? As it is, warring with the AI is challenging because AI players fill the screen with units. It is not uncommon for me to kill 5 to 10 units per round in late game battles. If unit numbers are drastically decreased, I don't think the current AI will stand a chance against a decent human player.

I don't know. Maybe yes, maybe not? Warring in the early eras certainly isn't trivial and they're fine in terms of supply, it's just when start ballooning near or over 100 units that it feels really like a chore. Civ V's UI is clearly not designed for moving around this many units and then it frankly becomes just boring to assign commands to each unit individually and have to move units accross the world to take out that one runaway. I don't think this necessarily implies into an easier AI (ie it might or might not make it easier), but depending on how much "easier" it were to become, that's a price I'm willing to play to have a less boring endgame.

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

I

I always thought that there should be a hard cap that does not allow more units to be produced or purchased, maybe 50% over the normal limit. But I was alone in this.

As someone who played a lot of Age Of Empires III, i really think this is not a good idea at all .... having a hard supply cap that's just a limit for the sake of having a limit is extremely frustrating in a game about resource management that should reward careful planning and playing optimally with the ability to field a huge army both absolutely in terms of number of units and relative to the rest of armies.
Afaik Age of Empire had this limit solely because it was exhausting to computers at that time to have such number of units per player and as long it does not crash VP or make the game unplayable, i think we should never have a hard cap on supply

 

[LifeOfBrian]

RedHotTomato, I reduce that risk by playing on Pangea/Oval map, where it's harder for one AI to balloon as much as you describe. If you're playing on continents, you're increasing the chance of a steamrolling AI. Also, sanctioning, peace accords, banning their luxury etc. very early on before they snowball too much. Maybe you could share some screenshots of your Deity games so we can help you improve your game?

Also, 5 cities is often enough to win as Tradition even against a runaway warmonger AI, but if you think that's not enough, try settling a few more cities, including by leaving an area to settle later (protected by your borders touching/covering the settling tile!) with Pioneers.

Edited to add: Make sure you don't select known warmonger AIs if you want a peaceful game, so without the likes of Shaka or Attila.

 

[civvplayer]

RedHotTomato, I reduce that risk by playing on Pangea/Oval map, where it's harder for one AI to balloon as much as you describe. If you're playing on continents, you're increasing the chance of a steamrolling AI. Also, sanctioning, peace accords, banning their luxury etc. very early on before they snowball too much. Maybe you could share some screenshots of your Deity games so we can help you improve your game?

Also, 5 cities is often enough to win as Tradition even against a runaway warmonger AI, but if you think that's not enough, try settling a few more cities, including by leaving an area to settle later (protected by your borders touching/covering the settling tile!) with Pioneers.

Edited to add: Make sure you don't select known warmonger AIs if you want a peaceful game, so without the likes of Shaka or Attila.

That makes sense. I always play earth map with all civs from ancient era in marathon mode. So far the only good counter I've found against snowballing/run-away opponents is to conquer everyone around me before they do (usually through vassalage).

 

[Grassland Farm]

My supply limit was "only" 54 when I finished securing my Continent, and I died a little bit inside when I knew that I'd have to move all my troops to plan my next move over-seas...
Warring is much more exciting than peaceful play but the honeymoon dies very, very quickly. IMO there's both too much supply limit granted by buildings (Barracks+Armory+Walls+Castle, that's not even Renaissance Era and already 4 buildings that involve supply limit, half of them a flat amount and the other one scaling with Pop!) and a tendency for Authority warmongers to straight up have so many Hammers per city that they might as well keep building more units.

 

[civvplayer]

and I died a little bit inside when I knew that I'd have to move all my troops to plan my next move over-seas...

I agree, and I can't imagine playing without an airport in every city. I setup Quick Reaction Forces on each continent by staging troops around cities within airlift range and having groups of XCOM strategically positioned to respond to infiltrators, barbarians, and invading armies.

 

[Recursive]

100% agree. Someone suggested playing the Huns for reduced warmongering penalty. I still prefer England for her spies and naval bonus. What I found useful was to increase supply cap to the point where there is always at least 40% of it unused. Also always plan a few liberations during your conquest.

Huns get reduced war weariness. No civ gets reduced warmongering penalties.

 

[civvplayer]

Huns get reduced war weariness. No civ gets reduced warmongering penalties.

Thanks for the correction. In all honestly I've never really played as the Huns.

 

[stii]

That makes sense. I always play earth map with all civs from ancient era in marathon mode. So far the only good counter I've found against snowballing/run-away opponents is to conquer everyone around me before they do (usually through vassalage).

It is certainly possible that peace is much harder with vastly different settings. With default settings even the biggest map only has 12, so having all civs is more than three times as many as normal.

That said I'd be interested in giving it a go and seeing if it really is impossible. I don't think this map is a default so what version do you use?

 

[Recursive]

It is certainly possible that peace is much harder with vastly different settings.

Standard Pangaea, Quick speed, Deity, 43 Civs

Portugal (you)
VS.
10 Denmarks
10 Aztecs
10 Huns
10 Zulus
3 Mongolias

Domination Victory only

 

[RedHotTomato]

RedHotTomato, I reduce that risk by playing on Pangea/Oval map, where it's harder for one AI to balloon as much as you describe. If you're playing on continents, you're increasing the chance of a steamrolling AI. Also, sanctioning, peace accords, banning their luxury etc. very early on before they snowball too much. Maybe you could share some screenshots of your Deity games so we can help you improve your game?

Also, 5 cities is often enough to win as Tradition even against a runaway warmonger AI, but if you think that's not enough, try settling a few more cities, including by leaving an area to settle later (protected by your borders touching/covering the settling tile!) with Pioneers.

Edited to add: Make sure you don't select known warmonger AIs if you want a peaceful game, so without the likes of Shaka or Attila.

I've always played different map types to make things fresh, but you are right about pangea/oval, much easier.
I will share more post on my next game, wanna try a warmongering playstyle with the new patch's AI

 

[stii]

Standard Pangaea, Quick speed, Deity, 43 Civs

Portugal (you)
VS.
10 Denmarks
10 Aztecs
10 Huns
10 Zulus
3 Mongolias

Domination Victory only

I don't think this is quite impossible, assuming you are allowed to war. As long as there is space for 3 cities you can assembly a vassal swarm. It would take forever too. Plus I have no idea how to add more than 22 players to a map.

I've played deity always war in vanilla and that is probably impossible with this mod because the war exhaustion will just kill you.

 

[Recursive]

I don't think this is quite impossible, assuming you are allowed to war. As long as there is space for 3 cities you can assembly a vassal swarm. It would take forever too. Plus I have no idea how to add more than 22 players to a map.

I've played deity always war in vanilla and that is probably impossible with this mod because the war exhaustion will just kill you.

You don't accumulate war weariness if you're locked at war.