Urbania in Iceland - First warlords game

[uberfish]

The WW from taking one city, and AI tactical weakness where it keeps pouring defenders into lost cities instead of doing an alpha counter were not introduced by Warlords. They are issues in the original civ4 which weren't fixed.

[cynyck]

Thanks for the report. I too am waiting for a bit before deciding on Warlords.

By the way, on that second screenshot, Qwack of Celtia? Oh, that's scary.

[Sirian]

The WW from taking one city, and AI tactical weakness where it keeps pouring defenders into lost cities instead of doing an alpha counter were not introduced by Warlords. They are issues in the original civ4 which weren't fixed.

Reinforcing cities is a good thing, in my view. The problem is that ANY behavior that is 100% predictable is exploitable. The Civ3 AI would not reinforce, and it was even easier to beat.

I don't recall ever seeing WW from the first city, but it's no secret that I'm no fan of WW as a concept.


- Sirian

[uberfish]

I remember getting ~2 WW from the beginning taking a city with no defenders in medieval age with very few casualties. I don't think ANYONE is a fan of the WW mechanic though, except the dev team.

[Compromise]

Perhaps a patch to Warlords could add an option for Custom Games:

<box> No War Weariness

[Atlas]

Perhaps a patch to Warlords could add an option for Custom Games:

<box> No War Weariness

Motion Seconded!!!

[Blake]

The WW from taking one city, and AI tactical weakness where it keeps pouring defenders into lost cities instead of doing an alpha counter were not introduced by Warlords. They are issues in the original civ4 which weren't fixed.

It's true that the CIVanilla AI also happily pours defenders into lost cities, but the Warlords is even worse - this is largely because the Warlords AI REALLY loves mounted and siege units - it is an extremely BAD THING to have these units defending a city against city raiders. There is no question the AI should leave these units next to the city and counter-attack the human stack with them.

A treb will destroy a knight in a city. It can't touch a knight sitting next to the city.

[Qwack]

Most of what Warlords adds is good... except for a few things that really muck everything up. It reminds me of the expansion to Diablo II, in a way. "You improved so many things, why did you have to go and break feature ___ from the core game?! Argh!"

I agree. One thing that really surprised me is that they reduced both the redcoat and cossack to thier base units strenghts. Wouldnt something in-between have worked out well. Its like "Well, A is overpowered, lets now make it underpowered". Not that cossacks and redcoats are underpowered, but I think 16 strength for cossack and 15 for redcoat would have been better.

If only that kind of world were "weird" rather than the norm.

I can see what your referring to, but this was still the most peaceful I have ever seen. I didnt even get the "You have traded with our worst enemies" modifier for the whole game .

I definately think the trebechut needs to be toned down. Its versatility ATM is unmatched. I think not giving it the ability to bombard might be a somewhat balancing change, so players would be forced to have both catupults and trebechuts in a stack.

Perhaps a patch to Warlords could add an option for Custom Games:

<box> No War Weariness

Interesting proposal. I think war weariness should stay in the game but the way it takes effect right now is not right. I dont know how possible something like this is but if war weariness can depend on percentage of total army lost in a specific war.. it would make a lot more sense to me. For example, lets assume you had 500000 soldiers (demographics) when you declare war, if 10% of those die, war weariness should go to something like 1 unhappiness. If 20% die, 3 unhappiness, if 30% die, 7 unhappiness, and as that number rises the increase should be exponential, the numbers I used are just examples to show the concept. IMO this would be more realistic and not as annoying as it is now.

[Drugged_Unholy]

You need a more complex WW model than that. There are a number of factors that should influence WW:

1. Just cause - if you get attacked then you should have a happiness bonus to represent the nation coming together (except perhaps for cities which want to join the motherland). Similarly if you backstab someone who has been an ally all game you should suffer more WW.

2. The civics you and the enemy are in - if you are running pacifism you get more. If the enemy is in slavery and you are emancipated then your population considers it humanitarian intervention. Also the opportunity for your population to express anti-war feelings is related to whether you have free speech or not.

3. Your war tactics - things like razing cities, pillaging towns and stealing workers should raise WW, wheras behaving more honourably should mean you retain support.

4. The era you are in. Put simply, the more time goes on, the more WW should become a factor. Wars in the medival ages won't get you as much WW than if you attack someone in the modern era.

[Iustus]

I believe war weariness is one of the major factors that determines how AIs determine when to declare peace, how much to give/demand for peace, etc. If this is correct, keep it in mind when you think about making major changes.

I suspect that a no war weariness game would mean that AIs would never accept peace without you offering a city, as they would think they were winning.

-Iustus