Warring overpowered?

besset

Warlord
Joined
Dec 25, 2017
Messages
206
Ever since i started playing vox populi and tried authority for the first time and won, i have found it to be the best and easiest way to win in vox populi. Especially on higher difficulties i feel it really shines. I may be wrong though but these are some of my thoughts.

First of all the AI in vox populi will never be as good strategically as a human player. It just doesnt have the strategic overview and decision making that a human player has, like focusing on certain victory conditions but perhaps even more so in terms of trading units and min maxing that part of the game. In higher difficulties with the AI having all it's bonuses the one thing they don't have is the better unit trading and unit movement logic that a human player has.

On higher difficulties, the land in the earliest stages of the game gets settled much faster and this makes authority a very lucrative choice since you can just grab your neighbours cities. This means you dont need to waste production on settlers and instead use that production on building units. This gets even more crazy when you play a civ with a strong early game unit (like songhai). If you invest in a sucessful early army and you never let your units die you are free to build every infrastructure building in your capital and satellite cities for the rest of the game pretty much and also try your luck at wonders more easily.

If you play your cards right and never let your units die, they become unstoppable killing machines that pretty much never die (this gets even more fortified with the % combat bonuses in the authority tree. It also allows more easily for mistakes to be made, since authority has such a nice early production boost so if you lose a few units it might not be the end of the world (thought sometimes it can be on deity). Then if you get god of war you can very easily get a religion, and we all know how good religion is in vox populi. Eventually as you take more and more cities you will be able to use inquisitors in your captured cities along your war path. This allows for a very easy reform, much more so than when using other policy trees (im always able to reform using this strategy as authority) and then taking cities becomes even better when you reform and get culture and GA points alongside more culture and science from the authority tree when capturing cities and insane combat % increase on your units. If you lose units at this stage of the game it doesnt even matter that much, you can very quickly build more upgraded units especially if you for example manage to get alhambra. These wonders shouldnt be a problem to get either as you will have very small wonder cost (and really nice production as authority). And when you get to autocracy it becomes even easier (25% attack bonus for 50 turns and various combat improvements). Diplomacy doesnt matter that much either when you snowball as authority and neither does supply cap (especially if you get all the "authority" wonders which will not be that hard). Also monopolies are very easy to get as you take your opponents cities and the bonuses get absolutely crazy as you start snowballing which makes you snowball even harder (imperialism boosts this more). Vassals are also really nice and give plenty bonuses, and you will have many of those. Science never feels like a problem and neither does happiness or culture. The bonuses from the AI just feels like they are nullified, even on deity and this is not that hard to achieve compared to trying to win with the other policy trees atleast in my experiance. It just feels like you are more in control as opposed to for example playing tradition and praying to god that you dont lose a particular wonder.

Overall the policy tree and strategy of warring feels really good and its really fun, but maybe it should be tweaked a bit. I dont know where to start though, it just feels like this policy tree should be a bit harder than the other trees since you can outplay the AI in terms of unit trading and overall war strategy and this policy tree improves your ability to do so by a lot. Things i can think of that could be tweaked include: making the anti warmonger bonus for opponents stronger/ tweaking happiness for warmongers so that it's harder to stay happy/ removing or tweaking combat bonus % from authority tree/ nerfing god of war/ nerfing the % combat bonus in opponent lands and yields for taking cities reform/ tweak lower unit supply bonus for authority.

Let me know your thoughts!
 
Last edited:
Domination Victory is always going to be the most straightforward victory type. Whether or not that would also make it the easiest is arguable, but I think it can safely be said that the most direct way to reduce the power of other civilizations is to conquer them. For that reason, in my opinion it can and should be the most powerful option a player can wager to increase their chances of winning the game. If you "do war" right, then you win, because everyone else lost their cities. If you "do science" right, then there is still a chance that an enemy still wins, likely because they own their whole continent.

I notice that you have tied warring directly to Dom Victory in your case. Although I am sure you understand that conquering cities or even full civs doesn't make Dom Victory the only option, it should be noted that warring alone is merely part of a strategy, a tool to be employed to help achieve any victory type. There's a reason Autocracy also has strong Culture and Diplo Victory-related tenants: Choosing Autocracy is basically saying that you have decided to make war your late-game CV or DV playstyle, rather than Freedom's bigger innate Tourism / Great People / peaceful focus or Order's mix of the two. I honestly haven't picked Order in a long time so I won't speak of its focus.

All that is said because it's important that we understand what warring means in a context incorporating every Victory type, not just Domination. We have to be careful in nerfing warmongering so that it doesn't damage its ability to win the game without going full Dominator. From your OP, it sounds like you have more of an issue with how strong the overall warmongering package is. For me personally, I'd open up the discussion with how easy happiness actually is to manage as a warmonger. In my last game as Autocratic Byzantine I think I reached over 100 unhappiness as I took my final capital. Thematically you can argue that an Autocratic culture would create a citizenry that is actually very honor-based and would take immense nationalistic pride in their empire's military victories, but citizens living in a puppetted city probably become a lot more disillusioned towards these acts. They may become more wary of their "elected" leaders and be more discontent the more their allied parent nation goes on fighting. To this end I think puppet city unhappiness should scale, or be increased by Autocratic tenants that buff a civilization's army. Adding a caveat such as "+%50 Puppet unhappiness" makes sense for a tenant such as Total War, a drawback to that civ's commitment to really pushing for a Dom Vic.

As I'm typing this I realize that this may be a great angle to balance DV from, so I'd like to see what others have to say before discussing further. Your OP brings up valid points regarding the positive non-warmongering consequences of the Authority tree and the playstyle associated with it. I'm also at work so maybe I should get more done before lunch ;)
 
Last edited:
unhappiness should scale, or be increased by Autocratic tenants that buff a civilization's army. Adding a caveat such as "+%50 Puppet unhappiness" makes sense for a tenant such as Total War, a drawback to that civ's commitment to really pushing for a Dom Vic.

As I'm typing this I realize that this may be a great angle to balance DV from, so I'd like to see what others have to say before discussing further. Your OP brings up valid points regarding the positive non-warmongering consequences of the Authority tree and the playstyle associated with it. I'm also at work so maybe I should get more done before lunch ;)
Hmmm that might be a good balance for someone going for Domination Victory (capitals + 0-X number of other civ’s cities) vs someone using war to achieve any victory type by taking over the world (lots of other civ’s cities, capital or not). I think war should be a tool that can be used for all Victory Types but not the best tool, as I’ve found it to be in all games I’ve tested recently. Having a higher or scaling unhappiness penalty on puppets would be a good solution, as then you are forced to slow down global warring or annex cities, which slows down your tech or culture game already. Maybe an increase in unhappiness when the number of puppets exceeds the number of owned or annexed cities? Or based on total number of puppets period?
 
I think this is built into the DNA of civ games. At the end of the day making myself stronger while at the same time making an enemy weaker (conquest) is always going to be superior to just getting stronger.

I think the mod was taken good steps to limit war abuses, and ensure that “all war all the time” is limited. But at the end it can only alter, it will never stop thst inherent factor in the game
 
I think this is built into the DNA of civ games. At the end of the day making myself stronger while at the same time making an enemy weaker (conquest) is always going to be superior to just getting stronger.

I think the mod was taken good steps to limit war abuses, and ensure that “all war all the time” is limited. But at the end it can only alter, it will never stop thst inherent factor in the game
Agreed, and I don’t think is something that can be or should be stopped, it should possibly just be “slower” to win if this is the playstyle, since if going for a cultural victory for instance, you would be spreading out your focus between war and culture. Maybe it would be rationalized that it might take a bit longer to disseminate culture or newly learned technology over a larger empire, especially if mostly puppets who would still be inwardly loyal to their original empire, until a courthouse is built upon annexation.
 
Domination games are long, even when they take fewer turns. I'd rather have faster combat and slower city assymilation. Maybe this way domination games can rise to the 300 turns without making it painfully long.

I wasn’t suggesting slowing Domination Victory, I was suggesting slowing other Victory types if predominantly using war to achieve that victory.
 
Maybe a non-capital could only be puppeted for X number of turns before it forced you to either annex or take another action? Or maybe this could apply only to puppets that exceed a 1:1 ratio of number of puppets to number of owned/annexed cities?
 
Civ was, is, and always will be a war game. They've just started adding layers of 'nation-building' on top of it.

G
Ah, but here’s our chance to make our own, tweaked version since we’re (you’re) at the reins.
 
You could play SimCity....
Nah, no war there. I like war, I just think it is too easy to win all Victory types, not just domination, using war. There’s currently no incentive to do anything else, other than one’s own desire to avoid war.

EDIT: Perhaps adding incentives adds balance. It doesn’t force or restrict any action, just balances actions (for every positive of war there should be some negative)
 
I've just finished a Denmark domination victory. Didn't do a domination in a while. Emperor, Tectonic small (6 civs). Managed in turn 231, but it took me all my free time since release. I don't think I could have done much better (maybe a bit more of naval invasions, since they move faster by water). It was Progress--Authority--Imperialism. I didn't even get to Ideologies. Maybe you think it is ok, since it takes so long, but for me, finishing a game before getting to ideologies feels wrong.

I noticed something weird, I think after opening Imperialism. My units that disembarked saw their movement points restored when reaching land. This must have something to do with the Viking promotion.

I didn't face any opposition at sea, though. I don't know if promotions work well, I just overwhelmed AI at sea.
 
Anyone that feels the winning via conquest/Domination is too easy is more than welcome to try Deity against a roster of hand-picked strongest civs.
 
Anyone that feels the winning via conquest/Domination is too easy is more than welcome to try Deity against a roster of hand-picked strongest civs.
Do you think it is OK to beat the game in deity going domination and not being able to beat it in immortal for the other victory conditions? Because that's the complaint.
 
Warring does get disproportionately better as the difficulty rises, because the AI handicaps mean the AI has better stuff to take, so you gain relatively more from a successful war, and set your opponents back by relatively more at the same time. I don't think you can really fix that, in all honesty. Nor am I sure it'd even be desirable. If it really fusses you, play more Continents and less Pangaea.
 
I've just finished a Denmark domination victory. Didn't do a domination in a while. Emperor, Tectonic small (6 civs). Managed in turn 231, but it took me all my free time since release. I don't think I could have done much better (maybe a bit more of naval invasions, since they move faster by water). It was Progress--Authority--Imperialism. I didn't even get to Ideologies. Maybe you think it is ok, since it takes so long, but for me, finishing a game before getting to ideologies feels wrong.
It's obvious that you can win sooner via domination on smaller map.
noticed something weird, I think after opening Imperialism. My units that disembarked saw their movement points restored when reaching land. This must have something to do with the Viking promotion.
It's Denmark's UA.
 
Increasing the number of civs in the game can make warring more difficult. There is a higher chance that someone far away from you has a long time to develop before you can really damage them.

Also the Great Wall is a very potent anti-aggressor wonder.
 
Back
Top Bottom