Dan Magaha about playing peacefully in Civ3

[lockstep]

I found some interesting news at civfanatics.com, posted yesterday: Dan Magaha, Firaxis talks about playing a Civ3 game with a pacifist strategy. The link to the original thread is http://forums.civfanatics.com/Forum5/HTML/000343.html:

I can personally attest to the ability to play peacefully and have a great game of Civ III. Right now I'm the Germans, smack-dab in the middle of the French, Americans, English, Iroquois, Zulus, and Russians, and I've not had a single incidence of combat (it's ~1800's in my game).

By pouring all my resources into culture and by trading the resources I'm amassing, I've been able to make huge profits, expand my territory, and keep diplomatic relations good between myself and the other civs, and all without keeping a large army (2-3 strong defenders per city, a few roving offensive units to act as deterrents, and a couple of naval vessels for the same reason)

There has been a lot of talk about how unbalanced the special units might make the game and how the golden ages will destroy the Civ experience, but I'm not seeing it; the Zulus started out very aggressively, sending their Impis everywhere (and getting their golden age early), but I've pushed their borders back with a cultural strategy (several of their cities have defected to me due to culture) and they now have to beg me for resources (which I naturally won't give them).

So, will Civ III force you to think differently about the way you play Civilization? I really think so. Will it be a good change? So far for me, I'd say "absolutely."

I´d say the days of warmonger dominance will be over soon.

[Deathwalker]

I don't think so, because if you come accross a military power you will have to fight to survive. Pease can only be maintained if an enemy thinks they can't beat you in a war. So if they make civ 3 in a way that a pacafists can win and not have to fight either the computer or human players, it would be totally unrealistic.

[Skanky Burns]

Cool Sounds like resources and culture *really* are important Im definately looking forward to this game

Thanks for the info Lockstep

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by Deathwalker
I don't think so, because if you come across a military power you will have to fight to survive. Pease [sic] can only be maintained if an enemy thinks they can't beat you in a war. So if they make civ 3 in a way that a pacifists can win and not have to fight either the computer or human players, it would be totally unrealistic.

I think the point is: you can play a nearly totally pacifist strategy and dominate the game. This is all of course, if you defend yourself. I think Dan M. made that point very well. He had 2 to 3 strong defensive units per city and some deterrent offensive units as well. With his strong culture and economy, there is no question that his Civ would have no problems defending itself against a warmonger. It would be like waking a sleeping giant.

I don't think anyone who plays a pacifist strategy believes they don't need to be able to fight a war if necessary; it's just that war is not their de facto means of diplomacy.

Bring it on warmongers, we pacifists will take you on any day!

[Gramphos]

All you need is a strong friend that you pay for protection.
What would the AI demand to protect a peaceful civ?

[Provost Harrison]

Sounds like my kind of game. As long as your defense is adequate and you hold a considerable number of civs by the balls with resources, I am sure you can cripple even a militaristic civilisation with such measures. I like this, sometimes it is more satisfying to pull the rug from beneath the feet of an enemy than simply crush them...

[Urban Ranger]

Lovely

I always want to do my expansion in peace and quiet, but those annoying computer players have to come and attack.

Now I can have them by their balls

[Colonel Kraken]

By the way, thanks for the great post, lockstep. This is most encouraging. I like to see that war is not the only fun/viable means to victory and domination.

Don't get me wrong, I love to wage war in Civ, but I don't like to persue it indefinitely as my only way to enjoy the game. I enjoy seeing how well I can conduct diplomacy. I try to roleplay; I don't play the game just to win, but to have fun and enjoy the experience.

I like to think of a role I want to play for the game and follow through (e.g. Benevolent Superpower). It makes the game more interesting and seemingly more realistic. Putting a little imagination into it (like you do a book) really helps increase the experience. I really like thinking of the computer players having personalities, holding grudges, remembering favors, etc. This isn't entirely true, of course, but thinking of the game in those terms really adds to the experience.

With all I've heard so far about Civ 3, I'm really looking forward to it.

[Steve Clark]

But we already knew that there are, what, 6 ways of winning?

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Lovely

I always want to do my expansion in peace and quiet, but those annoying computer players have to come and attack.

Now I can have them by their balls

I agree, but (and this is the beauty of it) since you havent battle-hardened your troops, your stuck with mostly green newbie-units, and without any Great Leaders. Also, you probably wont get a chance to build any war-related small Wonders either, since those Wonders is available as a result of how you play the game (perhaps the automatic unit-upgrade Wonder is only available for battle-experienced warmongers, for example. I dont know).

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
But we already knew that there are, what, 6 ways of winning?

There may be 6 ends to the game, but an infinite number of MEANS to those ends.

[Colon™]

Why would one fear an aggressive militarist when you’ve got tanks to combat their knights?

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by Ralf


I agree, but (and this is the beauty of it) since you havent battle-hardened your troops, your stuck with mostly green newbie-units, and without any Great Leaders. Also, you probably wont get a chance to build any war-related small Wonders either, since those Wonders is available as a result of how you play the game (perhaps the automatic unit-upgrade Wonder is only available for battle-experienced warmongers, for example. I dont know).

Ah, but you're missing one small detail. No one ever said that those who play peacefully through diplomacy don't ever go to war. On the contrary, I play with this philosopy: Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Attack me, and you'll wish you were never a bunch of nomads calling yourself a Civ.

Since when does the AI not attack you? Exactly. Therefore, I'll have plenty of veteran troops, war wonders, etc.

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by Colon
Why would one fear an aggressive militarist when you’ve got tanks to combat their knights?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ralf
I agree, but (and this is the beauty of it) since you havent battle-hardened your troops, your stuck with mostly green newbie-units, and without any Great Leaders.

Not necessarily. I still have to due with barbarians and foreign aggressors even if I play as a peaceful expanisonist. Until I corner the market of some known resource there's always the chance of some opportunistic bastard trying to do me in.

[Edward]

Dan Magaha's game scares me. Does he say what level he was playing on? It seems his "cultural strategy" is allowing him to easily appease his AI neighbors and keep the war mongers in the dark ages. A peaceful strategy is now obviously possible, but is it too easy? Please tell me he's playing on Warlord and hasn't mastered the game before it's even released!

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

Originally posted by Edward
Dan Magaha's game scares me. Does he say what level he was playing on? It seems his "cultural strategy" is allowing him to easily appease his AI neighbors and keep the war mongers in the dark ages. A peaceful strategy is now obviously possible, but is it too easy? Please tell me he's playing on Warlord and hasn't mastered the game before it's even released!

I wouldn't be too worried -- as I stated later on in that thread, I'm not the world's best Civ player, I usually play on lower difficulty levels. I was playing on Warlord in that particular game, and even then it wasn't "easy" to appease my neighbors by any stretch of the imagination. It just so happened that everyone else was intent on forcibly removing the Aztecs from the face of the planet, so I took advantage of that fact and went into culture-producing mode while they were geared up for military conquest. Of course my cities were not well defended for some time and I had to pay out a *lot* of tribute to keep the AI from stomping me during that time, but it paid off in the long run.

Further, since I posted that thread, I have had to employ military tactics to get oil (how very American of me) from, oddly enough, the Americans. Abe wouldn't play ball and I needed that oil =)

Dan

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jeez, Dan. You really are a fellow American. One mention of oil and you drop your pacifism and go on the attack .

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS


I wouldn't be too worried -- as I stated later on in that thread, I'm not the world's best Civ player, I usually play on lower difficulty levels. I was playing on Warlord in that particular game, and even then it wasn't "easy" to appease my neighbors by any stretch of the imagination. It just so happened that everyone else was intent on forcibly removing the Aztecs from the face of the planet, so I took advantage of that fact and went into culture-producing mode while they were geared up for military conquest. Of course my cities were not well defended for some time and I had to pay out a *lot* of tribute to keep the AI from stomping me during that time, but it paid off in the long run.

Further, since I posted that thread, I have had to employ military tactics to get oil (how very American of me) from, oddly enough, the Americans. Abe wouldn't play ball and I needed that oil =)

Dan

Your description of your games, make civ3 sound so cool. I can't wait to play!

[Provost Harrison]

Well the thing is that I tend to be a peaceful player, but I am quite adaptive. With dangerous and untrustworthy neighbours (or any close neighbours) I can be an unpleasant neighbour who tends to confiscate bases off my enemies until they are no more...I will often try and get early Blitzkrieg campaigns to capture their bases and eliminate a future threat. Leave me on my own, and I am as nice as you could hope someone to be!

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Well the thing is that I tend to be a peaceful player, but I am quite adaptive. With dangerous and untrustworthy neighbours (or any close neighbours) I can be an unpleasant neighbour who tends to confiscate bases off my enemies until they are no more...I will often try and get early Blitzkrieg campaigns to capture their bases and eliminate a future threat. Leave me on my own, and I am as nice as you could hope someone to be!

Wow, you sound just like me and my wife playing Civ.

[Gramphos]

I sometimes play peaceful, and sometimes I just smack some civs while playing civ. I hope that Civ3 will allow all sorts of tactics without big problems.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
I wouldn't be too worried -- as I stated later on in that thread, I'm not the world's best Civ player, I usually play on lower difficulty levels. I was playing on Warlord in that particular game,

Somehow above both reassures me and worries me even further, simultaneously. I feel assured then it comes to Edwards worries, yes.

But if Dan Magaha is a newbie warlord player, what about the rest of the Firaxis-team? Are all Firaxians "happy amateurs" in terms of Civ-playing? No hardnosed old civ-veterans (both warmongers and perfectionists) playing Civ-2 "to death" on emperor- and diety-levels? No hardcore civ-veterans with previous beta-test experience?

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

Originally posted by Ralf


Somehow above both reassures me and worries me even further, simultaneously. I feel assured then it comes to Edwards worries, yes.

But if Dan Magaha is a newbie warlord player, what about the rest of the Firaxis-team? Are all Firaxians "happy amateurs" in terms of Civ-playing? No hardnosed old civ-veterans (both warmongers and perfectionists) playing Civ-2 "to death" on emperor- and diety-levels? No hardcore civ-veterans with previous beta-test experience?

Rest assured Ralf, I'm an anomaly here in the office: I play Civ all the time, I'm just not very good at it I always get razzed in the office for not playing on the higher levels, and now I must publicly air my shame...

Dan

[Mookie]

I will love this game

[tniem]

Dan sounds great! I love that you are making the game so that it is more open and adaptable to how we want to play and still allow us to succeed in the game. Culture, economy, and diplomacy all seem to be becoming more integral. And while you have said this in the past, until this post I wasn't sure if it would work.

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Ralf
No hardnosed old civ-veterans (both warmongers and perfectionists) playing Civ-2 "to death" on emperor- and diety-levels? No hardcore civ-veterans with previous beta-test experience?

Reminds me of the story of when Civ2 first came out, the manual (or the readme or something else) quoted Brian Reynolds saying that he (and/or the Microprose) doubt Civ2 can be beaten at the deity level, at least on a regular basis.

It is the tendency for strategy game developers to make it too easy on the hardest level for the hardcore players. That would perhaps require too complex of an AI in order to compete effectively without resorting to obvious AI cheats.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS

Of course my cities were not well defended for some time and I had to pay out a *lot* of tribute to keep the AI from stomping me during that time, but it paid off in the long run.

Did the AI civ´s demand a lump sum of gold or a per-turn-tribute, thus effectively making you their vassal?

I really like the idea of a superior AI civ vassalizing me (in the short run ).

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by lockstep


Did the AI civ´s demand a lump sum of gold or a per-turn-tribute, thus effectively making you their vassal?

I really like the idea of a superior AI civ vassalizing me (in the short run ).

Yeah, this would be really cool indeed. With the new bargaining system in diplomacy, we will be able to effectively make another civ a vassal. Just offer the civ an alliance in exchange for them giving you say 1 iron and 10 gold PER turn.
And, I definitely hope that the AI can do this too.

[TechWins]

This all sounds so great. Every way you could possibly play seems to have some sort of benefit while still having a downfall, this is awesome. Will you take the route of getting the great leaders, military small wonders, tributes, gaining resources by force, etc... or will you take the route of getting great people, capturing cities by cultural means, gaining large borders peacefully, having a lot of resource by peaceful means, etc... Of course these options in each route can combined. You could be an aggresive, cultural civ, meaning that you are expanding your culture at great lengths but if anybody decides to mess with you then that civ will be taken off the face of the map. There are so many options in the game that it leads to a plethora of different routes you can take in playing the game.

Dan have you been earning a lot of great people? Have you gained many great leaders? I'm just curious.

It just so happened that everyone else was intent on forcibly removing the Aztecs from the face of the planet

This also encourages me very much.