|
Ulvirich posted:Being prophet bombed won't eliminate the holy city's religion completely, that requires a inquisitor to do the work. For your case however, there's a few things you could do next time; 1) Surround the city's hex grid with units, 2) Park an inquisitor in the city, or 3) Capture the prophet before it arrives. Barring that, you said the religion wasn't too advanced, it may not be such a bad thing to just use the invading religion. Check the beliefs of it and see if it fits your play style. I was surrounded by city states, so I was trying out Papal Primacy, and was building up to Religious Unity, to try and counter my two closest neighbors, Alex and Gustavus (the last thing I want is for Alex to ally all the CSes surrounding me, and then DoW me). My biggest problem is actually that my holy city has the Hanging Gardens, so it's already at 17-18, which means it's going to take ages before it flips back to my own religion.
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 06:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Ah, well, lovely, lesson learned for next time then!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 06:34
|
|
|
Ulvirich posted:Being prophet bombed won't eliminate the holy city's religion completely, that requires a inquisitor to do the work. For your case however, there's a few things you could do next time; 1) Surround the city's hex grid with units, 2) Park an inquisitor in the city, or 3) Capture the prophet before it arrives. Barring that, you said the religion wasn't too advanced, it may not be such a bad thing to just use the invading religion. Check the beliefs of it and see if it fits your play style. Sometimes you get Prophetted to the face before you even accrue enough faith for an Inquisitor. Great, goodbye Salt/Iron Pantheon (that was netting me 8fpt), hello Jungle pantheon (netting me 0cpt). These days, I don't even bother with Religion, it's too much of a hassle because I am always going tech heavy and hence your era rate is outpacing your faith rate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 06:44
|
|
|
Ulvirich posted:Being prophet bombed won't eliminate the holy city's religion completely, that requires a inquisitor to do the work. For your case however, there's a few things you could do next time; 1) Surround the city's hex grid with units, 2) Park an inquisitor in the city, or 3) Capture the prophet before it arrives. Barring that, you said the religion wasn't too advanced, it may not be such a bad thing to just use the invading religion. Check the beliefs of it and see if it fits your play style. It's like, I like it as a mechanic, but when the AI cheats that hard, why even bother?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 07:21
|
|
|
I have two questions about happiness. Does the CN Tower give me +1 happiness for each puppet city, and does Naval Tradition give +1 happiness for each Harbour, Seaport, or Lighthouse in puppet cities? I'm currently at -17 happiness with a ridiculous number of unrazable cities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 08:01
|
|
|
If you just raze them for a little while you can knock the population down, then cancel the razing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 08:44
|
|
|
Krazyface posted:If you just raze them for a little while you can knock the population down, then cancel the razing. I don't think I can do that, it won't even let me start razing a capital. I control 3 cities I founded, 17 other capitals, and 10 city-states. As you might imagine, I'm not very popular in global politics. I'm trying to figure out if the best way out of this happiness hole is to use a Great Engineer to rush the Sidney Opera House and spend the policy on Naval Tradition, or build the CN Tower. Do puppet cities get happiness bonuses from wonders or social policies?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 09:03
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:The AI outright circumvents ALL the rules of religion the player is forced to follow. While you can kill their holy cities so they don't produce Holy City pressure, they always produce Missionaries, Inquisitors, and Prophets of their founding religion regardless of the religious status of the city that built them. I've completely obliterated religions from the world stage only to have them suddenly reappear when the computer shits out a dozen inquisitors from one city that follows my religion and no other. I just experienced this myself playing a bit earlier tonight. I noticed Portugal was all up on my continent with pressure of their religion (Catholic) when I popped a GP and sent him over to convert all 3 of Portugal's cities. Smug and secure in my religious dominance I went on to take care of other things for some turns and then I noticed a city state between us was getting Catholic pressure again. There was only a scant 3 or 4 followers left of my religion on Portugal's continent out of a possible like 30 some. I was extremely disappointed at how fast this happened. Edit: Especially because, as mentioned, I just learned the other day that GP's can pretty effectively wipe down a religion because I had it happen to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 09:57
|
|
|
To people experiencing resurgent religions: Are you sure it's not AIs using great prophets? Any great prophet you generate through any means will always be of the religion you've founded. (If you have not founded a religion, then it can only build holy sites) This is something the player is capable of doing and something I've seen the AI do. The AI cheats on faith generation, getting bonus faith which allows them more frequent GPs, but I don't think they cheat on missionary/inquisitor religion. The religion spread mechanic is total poo poo and not fun at all, partly because of the AI cheating with faith, and partly because it's just poorly designed and is basically based around out-spamming your opponent, which isn't tactically or strategically interesting at all, just extremely tedious.
Dr. Video Games 0031 fucked around with this message at 11:41 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 11:38
|
|
|
Chamale posted:I don't think I can do that, it won't even let me start razing a capital. I control 3 cities I founded, 17 other capitals, and 10 city-states. As you might imagine, I'm not very popular in global politics. I'm trying to figure out if the best way out of this happiness hole is to use a Great Engineer to rush the Sidney Opera House and spend the policy on Naval Tradition, or build the CN Tower. Do puppet cities get happiness bonuses from wonders or social policies? yes they do, I got the benefits from the CN Tower for my Venice playthrough in my puppeted cities
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 12:00
|
|
|
In my most recent game, The Shoshone killed Assyria. When I went to re-take Assur, it never gave me the option to liberate the city and bring them back to life. Anyone know why that would be? I'm guessing it was related to me being at war with them at the time they were wiped out? I had already revived Venice in that game, so I know it can be done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 14:18
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:To people experiencing resurgent religions: Are you sure it's not AIs using great prophets? Any great prophet you generate through any means will always be of the religion you've founded. (If you have not founded a religion, then it can only build holy sites) This is something the player is capable of doing and something I've seen the AI do. The AI cheats on faith generation, getting bonus faith which allows them more frequent GPs, but I don't think they cheat on missionary/inquisitor religion. Yeah, this is likely the cause of what White Dragon was describing. There are really almost no cases where the AI blatantly ignores the game rules; it tends to instead get bonuses so large that the rules are irrelevant (like happiness). Another way a religion can come back from extinction is that the AI spams missionaries hard but sometimes doesn't use them right away, so they might have had a couple sitting around when you obliterated their religion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
Wars with Washington when he has B17s has got to be the most annoying thing ever. I keep taking his cities to raze them, and he follows up with bombarding the city with all 8 of his B17s that are in range, and taking the weakened city with a single infantry unit. It's maddening. Maybe it's accelerating the razing, because each time the city is captured the population drops further  I'm at the point right now where I'm right on the cusp of a diplomatic victory. I'm allied with every CS out there, and hold all the capitals but Washington and the Shoshone (my pals) I do this all the time. Instead of letting it play out and taking the win, I've got to spike the football and attack my arch rival. This turns a 30 minute victory into a 4 hour war. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:This turns a 30 minute victory into a 4 hour war. I do sometimes feel like war can get a bit grinding, especially in the late game. Early on, four bowmen and two siege towers is a powerful force capable of taking cities. Later in the game, people will have airforces alone that number more than forty units.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
Referring to some common complaints I see in he thread since patch: I've successfully payed off AIs to declare war on other AIs In multiplayer since patch so I really can't relate. Myself and my girlfriend play regularly on prince and king with 4-6 AI. In our last game, Carthage went crazy on Assyria and wiped them out, and Spain declared on me for forward settling their closest natural wonder. I have noticed ever since BNW peace throughout an entirely peaceful game is much more common, and AI are more conservative and reserved about diplomacy, but I'm really not experiencing this non-interactive AI that keeps getting mentioned in the thread. Very confusing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
Why can enemy prophets/missionaries enter my NO OPEN BORDERS civ at will?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
redreader posted:Why can enemy prophets/missionaries enter my NO OPEN BORDERS civ at will? Prophets and missionaries are exempt from border disposition. They suffer attrition for every turn spent inside another civ's borders
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
redreader posted:Why can enemy prophets/missionaries enter my NO OPEN BORDERS civ at will? Because Great Prophets/Missionaries can cross non-open borders natively, even yours? Missionaries suffer penalties to their religion spread strength in non-open territory, however, and this happens even to the AI's Missionaries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
Gort posted:I do sometimes feel like war can get a bit grinding, especially in the late game. Early on, four bowmen and two siege towers is a powerful force capable of taking cities. Later in the game, people will have airforces alone that number more than forty units. My biggest complaint about Civ V at this point is that it doesn't lead to a good Cold War like Civ IV did. The excessively limited number of nuclear weapons, changes to the Manhattan Project, and limited range makes it so that you have nothing but a tiny arsenal of nuclear artillery. There are mods like ICBM Nuclear Missile but the AI doesn't really get into nuclear standoffs like it used to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
Gort posted:I do sometimes feel like war can get a bit grinding, especially in the late game. Early on, four bowmen and two siege towers is a powerful force capable of taking cities. Later in the game, people will have airforces alone that number more than forty units. Agreed, and I feel this could be improved. I'd like to see mechanics that make it harder to field an army when it gets larger (aside from the usual pain of moving it all about, I mean) and harder to replace it when it gets destroyed, so that the theme of war is "do more with less and use it wisely", and not "build as much as possible and throw it all at the enemy at once" or "fire a constant stream of units direct from factory line to front line". A stricter unit cap would be a good start, perhaps inverse exponential so that huge empires don't get a ridiculous advantage (or decouple it entirely and base it on something else). Exponential unit maintenance costs, too, so your 30th unit costs 100 times more than your 4th unit to keep around - this might be enough to make the unit cap redundant, but it might be wise to have one anyway for those empires that rake in outrageous amounts of gold. But also an emphasis on conserving units (to discourage the "constant stream of poo poo" schtick), so either nerf the experience that can be pumped out at production, or boost the rewards of experience from combat. Possibly even increase the hammer cost of each unit every time you build one - so you are encouraged to retreat and heal your existing units, rather than think "gently caress it, it's gonna be replaced next turn anyway". It's an idea that needs ironing out but I think it could make war less grinding and more cerebral (but that in turn might gently caress the AI, so....)
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:Agreed, and I feel this could be improved. I'd like to see mechanics that make it harder to field an army when it gets larger (aside from the usual pain of moving it all about, I mean) and harder to replace it when it gets destroyed, so that the theme of war is "do more with less and use it wisely", and not "build as much as possible and throw it all at the enemy at once" or "fire a constant stream of units direct from factory line to front line". I read a proposal for nuclear missiles that automatically launch back at any nation that targets them. Make nukes powerful and ranged enough to hit almost anywhere, set up the AI to understand this, and conventional warfare has a risk of going mutually-assured destructed. Cold War era brinksmanship is fascinating to me and I love any game where that kind of situation develops naturally. I fondly remember a game of Civ IV where the big powers nuked each other into dust and a tiny forgotten nation won a science victory in the year 2200.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
An easy way to make Cold Wars occur easier is to remove the range on ICBM's (seriously, they should have had unlimited range from day one) and make it so that you don't need the rarest strategic resource in the game to build them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
I think having maintenance cost per unit rise as your army grows larger is a great idea, though I think a linear rise is fine and an exponential rise may be overkill (unless what you want is an effective hard cap). Picking up a brief discussion I inadvertently sparked on the thread for a certain horrible EA game, I think Firaxis would do well to move back toward something like the way Civ 1 handled stacking. I would be in favor of allowing units to be stacked but (a) if units are stacked only one melee (melee/mounted) and one ranged (ranged/siege) of them may attack in a given turn, and (b) whichever unit has the highest defense strength under the present circumstances (accounting for terrain, promotions, and so forth) defends for the whole stack and whatever damage it takes, every unit in the stack takes. But mainly I regard the upside of stacking as being able to move a bunch of units at once. Basically I like 1UPT for actually waging warfare but really hate the tedium of maneuvering one unit at a time while moving my army from place to place, especially in lategame when you get carpets of doom.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:But mainly I regard the upside of stacking as being able to move a bunch of units at once. Basically I like 1UPT for actually waging warfare but really hate the tedium of maneuvering one unit at a time while moving my army from place to place, especially in lategame when you get carpets of doom. I've had carpets of doom moving like ocean currents, where I maximize my attacks-per-turn with a careful pattern that requires multiple turns to execute.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:To people experiencing resurgent religions: Are you sure it's not AIs using great prophets? Any great prophet you generate through any means will always be of the religion you've founded. Still, their Faith output bonuses are so dumb. You don't magically make a Great Prophet twenty turns after you lost your previous one when you only have one city left on Marathon, and I have seen that a couple times too. Fur20 fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:It could be but I've actually seen them make Inquisitors in cities following religions other than their core and use them to spread their founding religion again. This is from civs I've rooted the Holy City out with an Inquisitor in. It's definitely not Great Prophets; I usually start "gently caress this poo poo I'm sending an Inquisitor to your capital right the gently caress now" wars by killing the most recent GP they've made. I'm pretty sure Inquisitors can't spread religion at all, nor can you use them on cities you don't own.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
Bremen posted:I'm pretty sure Inquisitors can't spread religion at all, nor can you use them on cities you don't own. Both are correct. The AI cheats with faith, since its bonuses are purely numerical, but it doesn't let them defy the rules.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Chamale posted:I read a proposal for nuclear missiles that automatically launch back at any nation that targets them. Make nukes powerful and ranged enough to hit almost anywhere, set up the AI to understand this, and conventional warfare has a risk of going mutually-assured destructed. Cold War era brinksmanship is fascinating to me and I love any game where that kind of situation develops naturally. I fondly remember a game of Civ IV where the big powers nuked each other into dust and a tiny forgotten nation won a science victory in the year 2200. Hah! I had that idea myself, too. I imagined it in the form of a national wonder "early warning system", which allows you to give each nuke a retaliatory target. During the actual cold war (the early years of ICBMs anyway), there wasn't any time to determine where the nukes were coming from, so the US/USSR just held the assumption that it was each other and pointed all their nukes respectively  That could lead to an amusing situation in Civ when a third player gets the bomb...I too am fascinated by nuclear brinksmanship, being as I am a fan of game theory. The ideas I've had for Civ could flesh out an expansion. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:so that the theme of war is "do more with less and use it wisely", and not "build as much as possible and throw it all at the enemy at once" or "fire a constant stream of units direct from factory line to front line". that seems the only way that the AI can handle wars at all, in Civ IV or V
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Bremen posted:I'm pretty sure Inquisitors can't spread religion at all, nor can you use them on cities you don't own. They seem to do the same conversion thing as the great prophets since the latest patch, in addition to removing all opposing religions. If you're aiming to spread your religion to your own cities that are under some other faith you're better off using just inquisitors instead of missionaries. Unless of course you have the interfaith dialogue belief in which case hey, free science.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
I'm curious how religion worked in previous Civ games. Has it been more worthwhile in the past?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
I'm in the strange situation right now of having developed a good amount of faith throughout the game, but didn't hit the first great prophet in time for a religion. This strange spot is also where I have had literally nothing the entire game to spend Faith on. I think I have, like 6500 faith just banked and sitting there on a standard speed game, year 1990 or something. I know I could use social policies to find something to buy great people with, but I've been needing to prioritize ideology enhancements instead. So I'm all faith-ed up with no place to go. Fertility rites pantheon only. Turns out the only religion the people of Venice want or need is the religion of bow chicka wow wow 
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
You really should at least finish Tradition before ideologies come into play, I think. Great Engineers are always handy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 21:32
|
|
|
Judas Iscaredycat posted:I'm curious how religion worked in previous Civ games. Has it been more worthwhile in the past? I dunno if it appeared prior to that entry in the series, but Civ 4 had a "basic-complex" religion system in that it's really easy to use and understand but kind of long-winded to describe. Every religion could spread to every city and there was no detriment to it aside from the holder of the holy city would get a spying bonus against any city with the religion in it. It became exponentially harder to spread a religion to a city as it got more religions in it. Having any religion allowed you to build a Temple for that religion (+1 happiness) and, if you had enough of the associated Temple, you could build a "super temple" (Mosques for Islam, Synagogues for Judaism, Cathedrals for Christianity, Pagodas for Taoism, etc.) which gave extra happiness for Incense or Wine and increased a city's culture output by 50%. The founder was able to build Holy Sites in the founding city, which provided +1 gold per city in the entire world that had the religion in it. There were some social systems that benefitted from having your state religion in a city (for example, Pacifism gave you +100% Great Person production but doubled your military maint), but no detriments for having non-state religions in your cities. In fact, there was an entire social policy (Free Religion) that gave you the huge benefit of a whole +1 Happiness for every religion in the city. Oh and +10% Science. There was no competition and no way to get rid of them once they were spread to your cities... but they did so much good no matter what they were that there was no reason you didn't want as many religions in your cities as possible. It took a very modern stance on them, where Civ 5 is fairly historical in its religion mechanic. tl;dr, Civ 5 is like "I will declare war on your poo poo backstabbing rear end for having a Great Prophet anywhere near my borders;" Civ 4 was like "Jesus poo poo AI just send me more loving missionaries already" Fur20 fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Oct 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
Religion was kind of like this secondary system in 4. It wasn't a huge focus. They didn't want it to be, they were trying to avoid controversy and ultimately decided to make it a pretty tame system. Each religion was functionally identical, and you mostly just let it spread passively. It was a thing that happened almost in the background that occasionally showed up in diplomacy but never all that strongly. You worried about your home because making sure whatever religion you've officially adopted as your state religion was in all of your territory was fairly important, as it gave you happiness boosts. Interestingly, in 4 a single civilization could found multiple religions. In middle to lower difficulties you could do a humorous gimmick game where you found every single possible religion in the world. You could do one of two things with this: Adopt Theocracy which prevents the spread of non-state religions and try to get only your state religion adopted by the world for diplomatic benefits (and possible apostolic palace diplomatic victory) or you could try to get all of them spread and build the holy wonders for every religion, giving you utterly insane amounts of money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
Wasn't religion a bit more important for diplomacy as well? I seem to remember some leaders (Issabella) being your best friend if you adopted their religion, and a guaranteed enemy if you didn't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 22:06
|
|
God I fucking love Diablo 3 gold, it even paid for this shitty title
|
misguided rage posted:Wasn't religion a bit more important for diplomacy as well? I seem to remember some leaders (Issabella) being your best friend if you adopted their religion, and a guaranteed enemy if you didn't. Yeah, actually, some AI personalities really heavily weighed religion. Religion from the start was basically meant to be a diplomacy tool, a wrench thrown into the diplomatic systems to create more unpredictable results.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
Civ4 religion was a way of forcing friendships and conflicts on the game map. This was important, instead of getting a situation of every man for himself with regards to religions, you were encouraged to form religious blocs, and the shape of these blocs didn't necessarily match up to geopolitical pressures. Which was okay in SP, because it gives you a way of placating your AI opponents. Of course, that doesn't really mean anything in MP, but at least in MP the games tended to have fewer people, so it was easier to get your own religion and exploit those mechanics. The thing I tended to utilise the most with my own religions was actually the +1 culture/city, because I always found it an inexpensive way of popping your newly built city's border. Yes, a monument costs 30h, a missionary costs 40h, but newly built cities have terrible production and it's better to build your missionaries in older core cities and to have your borders expanding instantly, so your new city can start getting granaries up quickly. And getting +1 happy and +25% building production/+2xp on units was pretty useful as well. The good thing about Civ4 religion mechanic was that it scaled pretty well throughout the entire game: it only costs hammers, and your hammer rate was always going to increase over time. No need to worry about accumulating yet another resource (faith), whose value was constantly degrading over time. It's not as in-depth as Civ5's system, but it's extremely elegant and you can tell it was built into the system early in development.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
The max number of religions is always half the starting nations, so assuming no massive early game purges you may or may not have neighbors ripe for conversion. In single player spreading religion to a civ that has none will make them happy, but trying to spread it to a civ that has its own religion will make them extremely cross. In the current goon MP game I've managed to spread the holy religion of Consumerism to more than half the world, but somehow this has failed to make everyone love me. Possibly because it has Tithe. So as always the mechanics don't work the same in an exclusively MP game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Religion in 4 was fine but I like the system in 5 a lot more tbh. Pantheons are awesome and a lot of the time I'll found a religion just to protect my pantheon. My favorite build atm is a growth pantheon, fertility rights or sun god, then religious community and swords into plowshares. I don't even want to spread it to other civs, which is fine since trying to do so is basically a lost cause on immortal anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2013 23:11
|
|
