Plunder

[batavier]

I've just won my first game on prince level with Civ4 Vanilla

This was a very peaceful, except everyone hated montezuma, but for a long time no one was doing anything about it except declaring war, and demanding I do the same. I always complied, but sent no troops, because we were on a long snaky continent and monty was very far away.

By the time I had cavalry, Hatseputh and Louis XIV took him apart, and I sent over some cavalry in 2 galleons. They came too late for most of the fighting, but not too late to plunder a large number of towns and other improvements.

Hatseputh, who was my main rival, and who got most of monty's turf, was left with a barren wasteland. (she plundered some stuff that she shouldn't have herself)

Do the AI players watch how much effort you put into a war, or is declaring a war enough?

It appears that plundering improvements just after a city has fallen is a really good way to slow down an opponent who threatens to pull away.

The rest of the game was all love and peace (I was mali)
against Frederick, Victoria, Hatseputh and louis XIV. (and Alexander, alone on an island and really backwards) . At
a certain moment everyone was pleased or better. (I used free religion and pacifism for most of the game. I DID have plenty of troops tough)

[Quillan]

As best I can tell, it doesn't matter whether you send 0 units or 100 units, if you kill 100 enemy units or 0 enemy units, only how many turns you are at war with the mutual enemy.

[DirtyMartini]

Congrats!

AFAIK, the AI doesn't care if you do any fighting at all, as long as you declare war. I do this (declare but not fight) often, particularly when protected by geography.

Pillaging. I just don't do this enough. I'm always intent on preserving everything for once I actually take the cities. The AI, as you noticed, tends to pillage everything first, then they take the city.

What victory condition?

[Cyrus The Mike]

I do have a funny story about war declarations.

I was Rangar on a small island with Stallin (boy I totaly creamed him but kept him my vassel) about the time of late musketmen everyone on another continent was at war with eachother. There was like 4 world wars. and during a lul charlimain declaired war on me (heres the funny part) he had absolutly no port cities unfortunatly I didn't pick up on the hint that he wanted to die so eventually justinian killed him off.

I lost a diplomatic victory to Justinian who made everyone on his continent his vassel (after a long period of war) witch raises a question, Why do the AI's vote for the people they absolutly hate even more than you just because their vassels?

But I digress. Congradulations Sir, I'm still working on Noble. and nice peace rout I'm not a fighter so... I tip my non-existant hat to you.

[batavier]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
Congrats!

Pillaging. I just don't do this enough. I'm always intent on preserving everything for once I actually take the cities. The AI, as you noticed, tends to pillage everything first, then they take the city.

What victory condition?

I've noticed that cities that are very far away and next to some of your creative rivals aren't much good anyway.

A spaceship victory in 1972. None of the AI had more than a few parts ready. I managed to win Noble soon after getting
the game, but then got many losses at Prince. Usually I either fall behind in tech, or don't build enough military.
Installing a patch that nerfed chopping didn't help either.

This was on a fractal map with 6 of the 7 civ's on a long snaky continent. I suppose Pangaea is much harder to keep everyone happy and get enough space as well.

[Quillan]

Originally posted by Cyrus The Mike
Why do the AI's vote for the people they absolutly hate even more than you just because their vassels?

In the game I'm currently playing, Mansa Musa just capitulated to Huayna Capac. The following turn, Mansa asked me to stop trading with Huayna. The vassal is asking me to declare an embargo against his master.

I didn't do it, because I have other plans, but back onto topic. My usual decision tree goes like this:

1) Do I think I'm going to own this city in the near future?
2) If not, do I think I'm going to own this city later on in this war, but within 40 or so turns?
3) If the answer to both of the above is no, I pillage everything starting with the towns. If the first is no but the second is yes, I'll pillage the farms, mines, mills, and such but leave the towns so I won't have to spend time regrowing them once I take over.

[Krill]

Congrats on the win, but whatever you do, don't buy beyond the Sword. You'll likely end up; back on Warlord...

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by batavier


I've noticed that cities that are very far away and next to some of your creative rivals aren't much good anyway.

Absolutely, I just can't seem to get that through my head. Between games, I also recognize the value of primarily pillaging wars against nearby civs who are running away in tech, but who I can't outright crush (Darius comes to mind). However, once I'm in a game, I fail to execute such tactics.

Yeah, like Krill said, BTS is hard. Civs can tech like mad and still defend themselves pretty well.

[Krill]

I'd go look up some threads from Blake about how to slave efficiently, that ought to help you to play better...

[MattDoyle]

I lost a diplomatic victory to Justinian who made everyone on his continent his vassel (after a long period of war) witch raises a question, Why do the AI's vote for the people they absolutly hate even more than you just because their vassels?

I think this was a change in either BTS or perhaps 3.13. I think it reflects the "pointy-stick vote". I know if i had a vassal (which I took over by force) and they didn't vote for me, I'd apply some more force.

[Brael]

But then the question would be, shouldn't it apply a similar restriction as to population/land for domination wins? Just give the master half the vassals vote and strip the vassal of voting rights.

Congrats on the win, but whatever you do, don't buy beyond the Sword. You'll likely end up; back on Warlord...

Is the AI really that much tougher in BtS? I stopped playing for a few months and then got back into it, jumped from playing Emperor level Warlords games to Immortal level BtS games without any real problems at all. If anything it seems to have been weakened, which I seem to recall a post talking about before too.

[Krill]

IMO Below monarch got harder and above monarch got easier; the AIs improved but had a lot of boni removed so they don't "cheat" as much, ie they start with less and have lower health and happy on emp BtS than emp Vannila.

[joasoze]

Two days ago I was cruising into a space race victory (or so I thought) on Monarch as Ragnar. Suddenly in the lords year of 1913 Elisabeth wins a cultural victory. In 1913!!!! This BTS stuff is killing me

[DirtyMartini]

I can't speak much to Emperor and above -- I played Warlord at Monarch, but BTS mostly at Prince.

What usually happens on Monarch is that I play a pretty clean game and am doing fairly well until the other continent discovers mine. At that point I'm 5 or so techs behind at least. The fact that I've played well, but still have a substantial tech gap frustrates me and I quit despite the fact that that is far from an unrecoverable situation.

However, on Prince, I'm usually first to circumnavigate, have a tech lead, and the ending is a foregone conclusion barring an Apostolic Palace fiasco. So, I usually quit my Prince games becaue they're not hard enough.

I've tried messing with settings. IMO, raging barbs usually makes Monarch games a little easier, I think the barbs slow the AIs more than they slow me. I haven't tried no tech brokering yet, that could be promising.

[East Street Trader]

You might try playing your games out.

The later phases of the game are not as much fun as the early part but your assumptions - that some games are lost and others are won - might not turn out well founded. And until you see exactly what it is that allowed a win or what it is that allowed you to catch up or what it is that undermined an apparently hopeful position you are not likely to evaluate your early and mid game play accurately.