Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Positive and Disturbing Trends

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Positive and Disturbing Trends

    Playing in Monarch as the Romans on a huge map with (once 16 now) 6 civs. I've had probably more fun playing this particular game than any I can remember (though there was this one time in Civ II.... ). There have been a couple fantastic things that've happened that are pretty much totally unique to me. There's also been some stuff that I'm really not okay with.

    POSITIVES

    Didn't get the GL, didn't get the Pyramids, but enjoy - and have enjoyed - a sizable lead over the AI for a vast majority of the game. On the F7 key, it takes a while to get to a Roman Wonder, but entering into the late Industrial Age it's just a sea of red from there on. Beautiful. Beautiful.

    The AI is tenacious and seeks to overwhelm. For seven turns or so the Egyptians sent massive amounts of cavalry and knights against little old harmless Aureolionorum after I had declared war on them to gain an Iron resource and an Ivory luxury. I was successful, they were not - but I had never before seen such a determined siege. Really impressed.

    Many, many centuries later, the Egyptians (still peeved, I guess) declare unprovoked war on me. They do so by massing no fewer than 58 cavalry around little old harmless Cologne. (At this point in the game, I am statistically in the lead, with Cleo's gang a close second and the Greeks number 3.) To make a long story short, the next turn they turned tail and fled back to Egypt with 16 *wounded* units, not ever having attacked Cologne at all...but I was happy (in the aftermath) to see the AI bring-it with such gusto. Indeed, this pattern would repeat itself over and over again. The next turn the Greeks joined the cause against me and did the *exact same thing*, this time grouping nearly 65 units around little old harmless Ashur on the other end of my empire. I was successful, they were not, and ultimately I crippled, fractured, and otherwise belittled the Egyptians.

    These are the only positives to speak of. The coordination and power of their attacks, and the fact that you can still win even if you miss out on the GL or the Pyramids - the latter, undoubtedly, being old hat for some of you wizards.

    NEGATIVES

    Now to the really fun part.

    The last time Rome declared war against a civilization without provocation I was probably monarchy, or something, and it would have been literally ages ago and we were a neat little civ fighting for dear life against, alternately, the British, the French, the Babylonians and the Egyptians. The landscape now in the early 20th century is absolutely littered with the ruins of civs who attacked me. I have been a pacifist whom, when roused, inflicts the fury and wrath of All Mighty God on my foe. The point being, of course, that I haven't been a war monger. And yet, at probably the most dire junction of Roman history, as I defended against massive Greek and Egyptian incursion, my lousy-ass citizens ousted my gov't and threw me into anarchy.

    6 turns with my city factories lying dormant and literally hundreds of enemy units knocking at the door. I was a democracy, of course, so perhaps I had it coming...but of course I *didn't* have it coming, because *I* didn't declare war.

    This has continued. The war weariness is simply too much to bear. I've got Universal Suffrage and police stations out the yin-yang. I am attacked by aggressors for no good reason and yet am forced to up my luxury level so severely that, when at war, I have given up on research completely. I have recently been attacked by the Japanese and the Greeks, in alliance, and there is yet more egregious massing of troops, and half of the 89 cities in my empire just went into civil disorder.

    All I can say is: "It's not my fault! They told me they fixed it!"

    ...ah hell, I can't remember what the other negatives were. Must not have been that bad.

  • #2
    I agree, it sux. But on the other hand...

    Should Democracy be a friend of Caesar when he needs to make war? Surely not. If yes then there is nothing holding Caesar back from total world domination in short order. A good thing IMHO, if one wishes a challenge.

    Alas, Communism is Caesar's only true friend when at war.

    This is as it should be. Caesar is not wed to any political system. Caesar is wed to his own, and Rome's success. In Peace Caesar may be democratic and encourage the sciences. In war, Caesar must look to the security of the empire. A more, shall we say, centralized government is better suited to this.

    Ahem... I agree it is distasteful to many in the West, however I appreciate the differentiation of government strengths and weaknesses.

    Salve
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)
    (")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

    Comment


    • #3
      Did you put as many citizen on entertainer as needed? That gets me out of disorder. Sometimes I have to put so many that the city starves, but that is ok, it will recover.

      Comment


      • #4
        managing city disorder

        Yes, I can fix each city on a per-turn basis, but as the wars continue (even if I try and end them) my peeps just get more and more pissed off. It's an accumulating kind of thing, see...and what worries me most of all is the possibility of being thrust into anarchy with no warning - which is what happened to me earlier.

        notyoueither - I agree that communism is the best war gov't...that's irrefutable. But Rome requires six turns of anarchy to choose another government, and I certainly don't want to be a peacetime communist civ. Meaning that changing horses in midstream would require a full 12 turns of anarchy to combat war weariness and then get back to democracy. I can't bring myself to start that cycle, especially when peace may be right around the corner...right?

        Comment


        • #5
          That is the reason I prefer to play Industious and Religous civs or get to Rep and stay there.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: managing city disorder

            Originally posted by KLIN-TONN
            Rome requires six turns of anarchy to choose another government, and I certainly don't want to be a peacetime communist civ. Meaning that changing horses in midstream would require a full 12 turns of anarchy to combat war weariness and then get back to democracy. I can't bring myself to start that cycle, especially when peace may be right around the corner...right?
            I'm still experimenting with the different Civ qualities, but Religion is the only must have attribute. The above quote a perfect example of the absolute strength of the Religion attribute. If you change governments only twice (Despot-Republic-Democracy) then Religion 'pays' for itself in the lack of anarchy. I played one game as a non-religious civ and after the first anarchy period realized I would never bother with any other type.
            Here's a link.

            Comment


            • #7
              My sentiments exactly regarding Religious attribute, especially when that long drawn out war in the industial era happens and a switch to communism without prolonged anarchy is called for. Of course, I like to play the non-Religous civs for the challenge and other reasons.

              If fighting with Democracy, I crank up luxuries to about 30% when attacked on my homeland and about 40% if I instigate a foreign war. Keep the wars short (battles).

              Setting the governor button to manage moods in all cities is probably a good idea, but it doesn't always work to prevent unrest. I think a patch could improve this so that it always prevents unrest. Maybe the governor prefers unrest to starvation, in which case, we have to remove the governor. Unfortunate, since this can require too much micromanagement (checking each city each turn to see if they are going to revolt next turn and left clicking on center tile to balance the happy/unhappy quotient). That could put a crimp on my battle fervor.

              Comment


              • #8
                I'm a bit confused. Why is it so unrealistic that you get war weariness when some other schmock attacks you? You *are* in war if you started it or someone else started it. War is war. I'd be just as mad if MY country engaged war as if ANOTHER country engaged war on ME!?

                Do you think people would say: "Of course our sons get killed in war but since we didn't start it it is perfectly OK" ?

                Achnor
                I want to die in my sleep like my Grandfather, not crying and screaming like the passengers in his car!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Well you were on solid ground when you said we would be unhappy regardless of who started it. You lose me when you over look the large amount of solidaryness that occurs when one is attacked. In other words weariness should not start nearly as soon if they initiate the war. How much tolerence depends on the country. Highest might be for Japan.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    What is solidarity? Is the degree of solidarity proportional to the amount of distress you are willing to accept before 'nough is 'nough? I think it is, at least I think it is applicable to this situation. So yes, I agree with you that the war-weariness-rate should be lower if you are attacked than if you are the attacker. But we agree on the presence of war weariness and that is good

                    Is this perhaps a possible fix for the next patch? I don't see how difficult it could be. If 100% corresponds to todays war weariness rate, just applying a modifiervalue of say 0,3 ( = 30% of the rate if you attack yourself) whenever you are attacked could make it more realistic.

                    What do you think?

                    Achnor
                    I want to die in my sleep like my Grandfather, not crying and screaming like the passengers in his car!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      bottom lime, achnor

                      If another civ attacks me, unprovoked, I'm pretty pissed when 47 of my cities go into disorder on THE NEXT TURN.

                      It's one thing if I've got the war good and won and am just taking cities for the helluvit. It's another thing if they've sent 100 units into my land, taken one of my cities and stolen a goodly percentage of my workers all in one turn and my people are wining at me about "give peace a chance" - especially when the attacking civ refuses my envoy.

                      That's all I'm saying.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        That is a very unrealistic part of the game that needs to changed:

                        Foreign army attacks you and your people go into riot?? Gawd!
                        If America lost a city to a foreign invader the entire US population would be mobilized for WAR within minutes!

                        Heck. Any modern day democracy that is attacked from nowhere would have their entire population crying for a full scale war, not rioting for peace.
                        sum dum guy

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          preeeeeeecisely.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Are you sure you didn't loose some Luxuries, from Trade, when they declared war? That's what it sounds like if you had so many in unrest in 1 turn.

                            Salve
                            (\__/)
                            (='.'=)
                            (")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Also, perhaps your new war came very closely to previous defensive wars. War weariness accumulates, and takes time in peace to wear off. So if you are at war and have 50% war weariness, then go to peace, and then back at war again the following turn, your war weariness will be back at 50% immediately.
                              I'm building a wagon! On some other part of the internets, obviously (but not that other site).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X