Frustrated Domination player asking for help with BtS

[=DrJambo=]

The unhappiness only comes in cities with the same religion as the AP. There's a few ways you can deal with this:

1. Prevent the AP religion from spreading to restrict the unhappiness to only one or two cities.

2. Spread it more througout your cities to have a more influential vote. You risk more unhappiness if you defy however.

3. Allow one of the votes to pass, thereby relieving yourself of the -5.

It seems you're the only civ who's causing problems for the AP's religion base. IF this is the case, then this is why you're the only one being targeted by the resolutions. Maybe get another civ in on the act to avert the gaze of the AP elsewhere?

[LzPrst]

well you did defy the pope 3 times...

but seriously, i suspect that if the AP says you should do something and you dont, and the slighted party declares war your people would feel that you are in fact the aggressor since you refused the peaceful solution that was agreed upon... and you did it 3 times. your people consider you a warmongering godless heathen. hence the unhappiness. and the game is very abstract, an unhappy person is meant to illustrate certain things, it is not specifically people who just sit around starving saying "we wont work".

[Solver]

Two more notes. First, war weariness is lower if your troops actually stay within your borders when fighting the war. Second, defying resolutions really hurts as you can see

By the way, if you beat an AI badly in the opening turns of a war, they'll be willing to talk much sooner than normal.

[Blake]

Hilarious!

The AI is pretty fond of using the AP to force players to give cities back. It's a good way to keep stronger players in check. I think that human players would vote in much the same way, to impede progress.

And in the real world, nations, even aggressors which have been defeated, tend to end up getting their territory back. It's not unreasonable voting behavior, regardless of whether the "victim" "had it coming".

[Solver]

The problem is, you can use the UN in the late-game very effectively to impede leader civs. All you need to do is propose a vote for a civic they hate. Half the AIs defy, happiness penalty.

Like, propose global Free Religion if the leaders are religious. -5 happiness for them. And so on. I can understand defying critical resolutions (a switch to Suffrage at wartime, maybe, or a stop war resolution), but I am still very concerned about the AI's willingness to defy.

[eris]

Just to add to the discussion, it is not just the player who gets these things happening to them. In my first game, Shaka was warmongering with England off and on, as well as with a couple others. There was a continuing offer to have a vote to give back one of the captured cities to England. As Resident, and since Shaka always supported me on other votes, I never allowed that vote to happen. I was tempted, though, just to see what it would cause.

After years of trying to create world peace, I then had to go around and stomp on people for a domination win. (It helped to control the AP. I stopped a couple votes that would have make me stop warring, and I let through a vote that stopped Alexander's attempt at expansion by military.) After that game, I have been the one pushed around for several games, only now (about 6th game) am I in the lead again, although I am facing a big World War if I start anything.

So, yeah, the AI is much more devious and vicious and the AP is just one way they plot and plan against a potential world tyrant. Or at least it is good enough at simulating such things to convince my imagination. That works for me.

[Kataphraktoi]

Unfortunately civ4 does not support nationalistic\defensive wars IE increased happiness\production when attacked or atleast no negatives. Example everyone knows;USSR didnt just collapse with a bunch of war weariness in the face of defeats.

Maybe increased drafting limit when attacked

[Civilized 67]

Thanks for all the replies, guys. I would just like to add that I can understand being made an International Pariah for grabbing territory in a defensive war and refusing to give it back after being ordered to do so by the pope twice. That part makes sense. My only problem with the situation is the profound unhappiness that bordered on economic collapse in my own nation.

My situation was vaguely similar to Israel's during the Six Day War. They were attacked and yet managed to win the war and grab enemy territory. Now we all know how the consequences of that territory grab have haunted the Israelis to this day and they have largely become, fairly or not, International Pariahs. But the Israelis themselves are not the source of Israel's problems, it's external pressures that have caused them difficulties, not an uprising in their own nation!

Anywhoo, thanks for the input everyone. I have a lot to think about in my next game. And, BTW, every time I said "Domination" I meant to say "Conquest"...

It sucks getting old...

[GePap]

Why shouldn't the other civs have voted against you? After all, you got bigger, asnd thus more powerful. Why would it be in the interest of the other civas to allow you to get bigger, for whatever reason?

I think the AP forces one to spend more time on diplomacy, and on having the most votes possible as well - try to "convince" the other civs that you being stronger is good for them, not bad.

[yin26]

For what it's worth, I have serious problems with the AP as well...but I won't go into that here. So I a)build it myself just to squash the idiocy b) destroy it c) raze cities instead of capturing them. Yes, there are times when the composition of the AP and its ensuing votes make for an interesting game, but that is a factor of randomness more than good execution.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by nbarclay


Where do you get that there is randomness?

Civs don't get to pick what resolutions are available and when. This is random.

I had, for instance, a game when I controlled the AP and 2 other civs nearby had my state religion and voted me in. A 3rd civ, not religious at all, declared war on me. Despite there having been no resolutions for over 20 turns, I had no way of trying to get a resolution for a war against him. Or even a trade embargo.

Anyway, it is frustrating. Terribly implemented, and now I've played enough games to confirm it.

[Unimatrix11]

Actually there should be a list of items to pick your next resolution from (if you control the AP) at any time, which would be proposed immediately (but the same only once during a term maybe). And elections should be every xx turns (=1 term).