Gaspar and Lewwyn listen to backseat drivers Brick and Noble

[GeneralKilCavalry]

It was the right thread.  He's aiming not to inflame tensions further.

what an unnoble aim

the lurkers demand blood!

[Gaspar]

See the beauty of Civ I consider them realy good as in the ancient era are the best defence unit. And even in clasical is very usefull. I usualy find myself building loads of them maybe even more then axes.

Alright everyone, Archery first!

[NobleHelium]

Why the fuck is there a no war weariness option that needs to be debated every game now just because Commodore requested it for his own personal fetish? Can I request a no Commodore game option that everyone has to debate every game?

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A REGULAR GAME WITH NO WAR WEARINESS. PLAY ALWAYS WAR IF YOU WANT TO STROKE YOUR NO WW FETISH.

[scooter]

Why the fuck is there a no war weariness option that needs to be debated every game now just because Commodore requested it for his own personal fetish?  Can I request a no Commodore game option that everyone has to debate every game?

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A REGULAR GAME WITH NO WAR WEARINESS.  PLAY ALWAYS WAR IF YOU WANT TO STROKE YOUR NO WW FETISH.

War weariness is a stupid mechanic that has no place in a MP game. Also, Always War has war weariness.

[NobleHelium]

I disagree, why is it a stupid mechanic? It's one of the mechanics for helping the defender, and puts general pressure on parties in an even war to make peace. I am aware Always War has WW, but it is halved. I forget if the mod changes that or not.

[scooter]

I disagree, why is it a stupid mechanic?  It's one of the mechanics for helping the defender, and puts general pressure on parties in an even war to make peace.  I am aware Always War has WW, but it is halved.  I forget if the mod changes that or not.

WW isn't really a defender's advantage. It's a mechanic intended to weaken the dominant SP strategy of killing everything. The AI will take peace pretty much whenever you want because the AI only exists to be a speed bump in the way of victory rather than a serious challenger. As a result, WW is there to force a decision of whether or not to carry on with a war. In MP, no such option exists. A defender on their way out has no reason to take peace because they are happy to see the attacker miserable. Given the fact that WW decays insanely slow, it was clearly intended to be something that can only be removed by peace or conquest. That balance is thrown out of whack with human players.


Besides, do defenders actually need more advantage? They have mobility advantage, collateral advantage, city defenses, etc. I don't see any value in discouraging human-on-human combat. If you're a defender and you also need WW to help you, maybe you deserve to get conquered.

[GeneralKilCavalry]

Why the fuck is there a no war weariness option that needs to be debated every game now just because Commodore requested it for his own personal fetish?  Can I request a no Commodore game option that everyone has to debate every game?

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A REGULAR GAME WITH NO WAR WEARINESS.  PLAY ALWAYS WAR IF YOU WANT TO STROKE YOUR NO WW FETISH.

again. wrong thread.

[NobleHelium]

I disagree, why is it a stupid mechanic?  It's one of the mechanics for helping the defender, and puts general pressure on parties in an even war to make peace.  I am aware Always War has WW, but it is halved.  I forget if the mod changes that or not.

WW isn't really a defender's advantage. It's a mechanic intended to weaken the dominant SP strategy of killing everything. The AI will take peace pretty much whenever you want because the AI only exists to be a speed bump in the way of victory rather than a serious challenger. As a result, WW is there to force a decision of whether or not to carry on with a war. In MP, no such option exists. A defender on their way out has no reason to take peace because they are happy to see the attacker miserable. Given the fact that WW decays insanely slow, it was clearly intended to be something that can only be removed by peace or conquest. That balance is thrown out of whack with human players.


Besides, do defenders actually need more advantage? They have mobility advantage, collateral advantage, city defenses, etc. I don't see any value in discouraging human-on-human combat. If you're a defender and you also need WW to help you, maybe you deserve to get conquered.

You literally just described how it acts as a defender's advantage while saying it's not a defender's advantage?  And it doesn't address the scenario of an even war, which do in fact exist because people get into protracted wars with no clear advantage all the time.  It is actually better for simultaneous games to have fewer wars than more so that there aren't as many turn splits.  If players don't have a good reason to continue with the war because neither side can get anywhere, it is good for there to be pressure to make peace.

My general philosophy on changing the game is not to mess with underlying game systems unless you really know what you're doing.

[GeneralKilCavalry]

I disagree, why is it a stupid mechanic?  It's one of the mechanics for helping the defender, and puts general pressure on parties in an even war to make peace.  I am aware Always War has WW, but it is halved.  I forget if the mod changes that or not.

WW isn't really a defender's advantage. It's a mechanic intended to weaken the dominant SP strategy of killing everything. The AI will take peace pretty much whenever you want because the AI only exists to be a speed bump in the way of victory rather than a serious challenger. As a result, WW is there to force a decision of whether or not to carry on with a war. In MP, no such option exists. A defender on their way out has no reason to take peace because they are happy to see the attacker miserable. Given the fact that WW decays insanely slow, it was clearly intended to be something that can only be removed by peace or conquest. That balance is thrown out of whack with human players.


Besides, do defenders actually need more advantage? They have mobility advantage, collateral advantage, city defenses, etc. I don't see any value in discouraging human-on-human combat. If you're a defender and you also need WW to help you, maybe you deserve to get conquered.

You literally just described how it acts as a defender's advantage while saying it's not a defender's advantage?  And it doesn't address the scenario of an even war, which do in fact exist because people get into protracted wars with no clear advantage all the time.  It is actually better for simultaneous games to have fewer wars than more so that there aren't as many turn splits.  If players don't have a good reason to continue with the war because neither side can get anywhere, it is good for there to be pressure to make peace.

My general philosophy on changing the game is not to mess with underlying game systems unless you really know what you're doing.

One of the first iterations of CtH proposed removing war weariness for won battles. This would have made it a "winning player's advantage"

[Gaspar]

War weariness is a shitty mechanic but in MP, to some extent, it forces you to play smartly - basically to fight either surgical battles or full conquests.

I would not be opposed to a total revamp of the mechanic if we were in a situation where we had discussion, etc.

I am utterly opposed to altering a fundamental game system at the 11th hour before the game goes live, after picks have been completed, etc.