Is Non-aggressive a Challenge?

[Jim W]

I notice a lot of strategies seem to involve military destruction of the other civs, then heading off to AC as a sort of afterthought.
It seems to me that anybody with a bit on the ball can handle that, but how about a more peaceable strategy? No wars of aggression, just a constant advancment of technology, aimed at eventual space flight.

Now, notice that I didn't say "no wars." That would be kind of unrealistic, not to mention fatal. If someone attacks you, you're free to go after them until they've had enough.

It might even be a good thought to insist that you have to fight as a Democracy as soon as you can get there, so that you'll have a government back home impeding any wars you might want to wage.

The challenge is still to build yourself up well, defend yourself, and get to AC first.

Is that a challenge, or is it too simple? And if it's too simple, what have I missed? I'm still learning this thing.

JimW

[Smash]

well yes it is very difficult because if 1 civ builds a super science city with Cope's and Sir Isaac's,builds Mich's, lets say,you are not going to be able to keep up science wise.You have to slow them down.They are not going to turn their science to zero.So war is your tool to try to slow them.

Sounds like a diplo game is what you seek.Things are handled a little differently in an attempt to mimick real world situations.There is war of course.

[War4ever]

my suggestion would be to take out the science city and destroy it.... some one with only science and lacking a strong army has more to lose that some one who has a strong army and has stolen alot of tech. After all... if those wonders are destroyed that civ becomes very vulnerable and easier pickings
Rape Pillage and Destroy.... the greatest and largest spanning civ in the world did it and it worked for a limited time hehe

[johnmcd]

Well, at risk of sounding boastful , this is the way I play when I fancy winning rather than OCCing or whatever. I like getting all the peace points. I think that in the first game I ever won at diety I never captured an opponents city, let alone initated aggression. Also, how on earth would the AI ever get a super science city? It doesn't seem too interested in CO or IC when I play it, and I have never had it beat me to Mike's.

Is the original question assuming OCC?

That said I don't understand how some of you see to be at war constantly. I just don't seem to be able to have enough shields to build armies and infrastructre. I've only won bloodlust, huge, RH at diety once...and not for lack of trying
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by johnmcd (edited November 29, 1999).]</font>
[This message has been edited by johnmcd (edited November 29, 1999).]

[Campo]

Which game version do you play?

[Smash]

I was thinking from a multiplayer point of view.


The ai in gold is, without a doubt,more hostile than the regular version.At least at deity anyhoo.Maybe this was put in to compensate for the slightly lower # of beakers that are required.

OCC is a good example of a successful "peace" strategy.
I should have said Paul's OCC strategy.
[This message has been edited by Smash (edited November 30, 1999).]

[Smash]

doh! dam double post.....
[This message has been edited by Smash (edited November 29, 1999).]

[Paul]

Like johnmcd I also always played peaceful in my first deity games. In those days I always had trouble expanding so I would usually finish those games with less than 10 cities. This kept me low on the powergraph and the AI would be more peaceful towards me so I could go for spaceship wins without ever being at war.

[johnmcd]

Campo, if you were asking me, I play 2.42. I had stopped playing for a while but then this site piqued my curiosity about some new styles being described.

Paul, how odd, I find that when playing super peacfully I am able to expand almost unihibited. That said whenever the AI says it'll stand on my head unless I give it the wheel I aquiess, then I take a tour of everyone else I've met and give it to them too, just to make sure no one can trade with it and get ahead of me that way. Pretty soon I can defend my towns well enough that the AI normal slobbering attacks pose no threat. I guess it just depends how principled you are about giving stuff to the AI. One of friends refuses to ever give it anything, mind you he is yet to win at diety.

[Sten Sture]

I prefer to play non-aggressive. The game takes less time and the "howies/artil smash the capital and spies buy all of the cities" tactic is just too easy. (I do wish the points system was divided by the number of cities and you got bonuses for reaching AC early.)

In the Gold version the AI is a lot more aggressive than in 2.42, but it is no better at figuring out if it can win a battle, so choak points continue to befuddle the AI's military strategy. Playing non-aggressive is easy with a fortified choak point, a couple of unsupported units, and a dip to add to your collection. Then focus on trade with your happy science city. Build up enough extra caravans and you can launch your space ship a turn or two after you get Plastics, Space Flight and Super Conductor.

[geofelt]

First, I agree that the AI in MGE seems to be more aggressive.
If it is possible to get to AC with one city, then you would think that it would be easier to do it with ten or more cities. Possibly not, though, because the AI would see a larger civ as a threat and constantly pester it with wars. The only way you can get peace is after they capture one of your cities, or if you can capture one of theirs.
As for a challenge, you could require that you could never capture an AI city, and that you needed to build more cities than any other civ.
I once tried a game such as this, attempting world conquest requiring howitzers before capturing the first city. It was frustrating getting beat up while waiting. I got them all at the end though.

[Ming]

Yes, the AI in MP is more agressive than 2.42

I played a game in 2.42 where I never attacked another civ's units or cities during the entire game.
(Barbs were a different story).
I just relied on superior defense and about 12 to 15 super cities. The AI didn't stand a chance

The trick is to research Feudalism early... and stay ahead in military sciences while building the wonders of your choice...

Hear,hear! Points for peace are given. ALL seem to think war is it. I'd like to meet some more rational perfectionists.

...as applies to multiplayer. I don't really get into AI playing with myself.

[Jim W]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I did _not_ mean that you never fight a war. In fact, I meant that you should have a sufficiently numerous and advanced military force that when somebody attacks or breaks a treaty, you can jump all over them.

I also meant, however, that you do not get yourself a big army and go out hunting for whoever seems to be handy for destruction.

Non-aggressive means just that; you don't go looking for trouble. But when trouble finds you, you have to be ready for it, and deal with it.

And that is the challenge

JimW

[Jim W]

Seems like too much of a challenge for some people.

JimW

[Campo]

I've tried this approach and concluded it can't be done with the MGE version. The AI is so agressive when I get the lead that war becomes constant. All AI civs launch constant attacks. Even when I have the UN, there's usually one or two civs that won't accept peace, and the ones that do break the treaty within few turns.

My impression from various notes here is that the 2.42 version has a less-aggressive AI. Perhaps the peaceful strategy would work there, but if it's possible in the MGE version then I'm missing something.

[johnmcd]

So let me see, to paraphrase, Win at bloodlust without ever being the agressor?

[Steve Clark]

Having re-read Jim's originating post, it sounds like a typical AC game (I think, haven't done one myself). He said, "The challenge is still to build yourself up well, defend yourself, and get to AC first." I think that's a simply strategy for BOTH games: AC and bloodlust, especially for larger worlds and relative isolation. Becoming isolated, even against an agressive AI, is too easy to defend and as Sten said, the AI still haven't figured out how to fight. But the key to isolating yourself on a large continent is to get rid of your pesky neighbors, so a little warfare (usually with Musks) is necessary. So I guess the trend, assuming a non-small world, is to:
1. grow early,
2. build defenses (Great/City Walls and pikes will last for a long, long time)
3. get the lead on science,
4. clear the continent,
5. stay non-agressive while building some more
6. with a big lead in science and production, now you can go conquer or go AC.

To paraphrase, one way to play is to be agressive only when necessary to maintain your lead and to win the game as the #1 civ.

[Jim W]

Steve, you're pretty close to the mark, save that I don't go looking for a war. However, I do not let others get away with annoying behaviour, and I consider annoying behaviour to be anything so semi-innocuous as having settlers/engineers wandering over my own mines and irrigated fields.

However, I do not consider such annoyances as an excuse for all-out war of decimation. There are other cases, such as discovering that someone else has built a city practically within the boundaries of one of my own. If possible, I will conquer that city, rather than allowing it to be built up and be a continuing source of action, from irritating raids to attempts at conquest.

JimW

[Jim W]

No, Johnmcd, you're not paraphrasing, you're twisting my words.

JimW

[johnmcd]

I did't mean to, I genuinely don't understand what the challenge is. Could you paraphrase please.

in SP, against the AI, i play that way. i never played MP, though.

------------------
Alien Infiltrate

[Scouse Gits]

Would it add an element if you had to remain 'Spotless' throughout the game?

------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]
[This message has been edited by Scouse Gits (edited December 03, 1999).]