"Compensations" to warmongers

[Alfonsus72]

It has been told that CIV3 will be harder for players with a "warmonger" strategy. From the new details given by Firaxis, I think that´s not quite so true. You now need a culture (frontiers) and economic (units are payed in gold per turn) background, but some additions in my opinion balance that:

- You can capture workers, catapults and cannons, so the prize for taking a city or fortress, or winning a batlle in open, now dramatically increases. In Civ2, in a campaing against an enemy civ warmongers could capture cities, some gold and techs, but they had to have enough settlers to build roads to effectively control the land. Now, they can capture workers and as they are slaves, they don´t have to fed them (in game terms). Also, captured catapults and cannons could help a lot to continue campaings without that badly needed reinforcements, and skilled combatants could advance a lot with few units.

- You can upgrade your units in exchange for some gold (halved with Leonardo´s Workshop). Also helps a lot in campaings, in CIV2 you have to build new units and make a long trip to the front.

-Some special units mean great advantages at the beginning of the game for that civs historically more primitive (I know that doesn´t sound politically correct) like Aztecs, Zulus,Iroquises,... They have a big advantage at the begining (if you want to win the game as warmonger you need to start your conquers early in the game), and as they could have their Age of Gold so soon, you could build a good army (for the time) in relatively few time.

-The militaristic caracter of some civs means advantages for the warmonger players that choose them.

-The new combat rules, more complex, make skilled combatants to take bigger advantages from their tactical abilities.

- Finally, the armies, that militaristic civs could build sooner, gives warmonger the posibility to build a "superunit" without very advanced technoligies.

So, what do you think? Do you think that´s enough to make a powermonger strategy still playable?

[Alfonsus72]

Another "compensation":

- As warmongers used to control a very big (but underdeveloped) land mass, they will have plenty of resources (iron, bronze,...) from the begining of the game.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Alfonsus72
So, what do you think? Do you think that´s enough to make a powermonger strategy still playable?

It sure is, together with below.

Some militaristic mini-wonders (both land & naval) are probably only available for those who proved themself by earning enough veteran/elite combat-points and/or conquered enough cities - which means meekly passive & peaceful empires are less likely to get access to those wonders.

Great leaders can only spawn from combat-experienced elite-units - and you can only rush-build important great wonders under the direction of a great leader. So if you are too passive and peaceful = no great wonder rush-building, I reckon.

Also, you can pillage important trade-junctions, and by that sending several luxury-dependent enemy-cities into disorder, besides destroing their trade. You can also embargo both special recources and trade, and pursuade others to do the same.

You can also conquer cities - destroy them completely, and/or sell out their city-improvents and forcefully evacuate its population (by settler & workers), and allocate these conquered pops along your own established cities. Or use them to populate small hastly founded cities & work-colonies in desolate parts of your empire. Like Stalin did (think of the evil-minded possibilities ).

[Alfonsus72]

One more advantage for warmongers:
The FORBIDDEN PALACE, that reduces the unhappyness produced for having many cities, one of the worse disadvantages of warmongers in Civ2 (at least in high dificulty levels)

[Inverse Icarus]

the forbidden palace is crap.

(again, opinion)

[Mongoloid Cow]

The Forbidden Palace would be very good at the beginning for warmongers / expansionists, but it would be crap later on., except for the possible (?) cultural benefit.

[Inverse Icarus]

there need to be MORE warmonger compensations.

A Militaristic culture is a culture none the less now isnt it?

Japan prior to and during ww2, so ethnocentric/proud of their nation and their ruler, that they would die for them. surely thats a cluture within its own right. a civilization constantly at war should get culture points.

in short, your people should learn what kind of ruler you are, and adopt a culture as such.

(they should also realize if you go from President to Comrade in the span of 1 year that they should be mad, but thats another thread)

[Sarxis]

"The candle that burns twice as bright, burns half as long."

And so it is with war-like nations. History is full of nations that conquered, but died out; some died quickly (Third Reich), and some lasted (Rome). But war is NEVER enough to make and keep a strong nation.

Economics and culture always play a part in holding a nation together, and war simply does not provide these things, but rather, sucks them away.

[KrazyHorse]

Uber, no military empire has managed to conquer the entire globe, yet it was trivial to do so in Civ. Why? Because Civ made it too easy for units to wander afield for hundreds of years, instantaneously imposing your system on subject populations. Civ2 ended up making warmongering too easy, and I'm glad that (IMO) the changes (overall) make the military conquest avenue less appealing.

Everyone else: The King is dead! Long live the King. 1000 posts On-Topic!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Here, Here!

Conquering the world should be hard to do, not mundane!

[Warm Beer]

Conquering the world should be hard to do, not mundane!

I have to agree with that statment. I does indeed get boring pluging out units and over running smaller civs, incorperating their cities into your industrial base, thus making it easier to buid more units to over-run another nation... ad nauseum.

The "concessions" listed above at least gives war mongering more depth.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Conquering the world should be hard to do, not mundane!

Agree.

In Civ-2, pursuing the CTW-option (Conquer the World) was like an increasingly more shrinking/ downsloping "challenge". The more cities you conquered, the safer you sat in the saddle, and the easier it was to subdue the next batch of soon-to-be-conquered enemy-cities. And it all was about 10 times easier, once every empire was infinite-move railroaded. Not to mention those huge dust-collecting city-treasures, just waiting for you to use in order to speed-build riot-pacifying cathedrals, or whatever.

In the best of worlds, conquering the world should now only be possible if you forge an alliance (you need at least one parner that exchange trade & resources + join forces, then everyone else is embargoing you). Also, there should be a rubberband-limit how large/ how many cities a greedingly landgrabbing empire can control. Beyond that limit, you MUST gradually give additionally conquered cities/civs at least some limited vassal-freedom. Otherwise internal economical/ logistical problems stands the risk of getting totally out of control, in a self-feedingly downspiral matter, that is very costly to stabilize/control (at least I hope so).

The AI controls these vassalized cities/empires (so you cannot order them to produce combat-units or control these units, for example). Also, vassals never attacks you (as long as you dont starting to loose cities to still free enemys) but they can riot, of course. They never embargo you (unless; see above) and you have free right of passage at all time + the right of martial order control his cities. Also, you always get first dibs on his recources (although you must still exchange them - more favorably though) and 33% of all his foreign trade and 33% of all hes produced shields is automatically siphoned and evenly distibuted too your own homeland-cities. You are always free to give up total control on some already conquered cities (= give them vassal-status) in order to be able to assimilate other vassals as your own, now fully controlled cities/empires instead.

I dont know if above is the best possible solution, but my main point is that complete military word-conquerings should in Civ-3 be the hardest & most challenging victory-condition of them all. One way or the other.

[Mars]

I love Warmongering and i can't wait to arise to the new challeneges and tactical advantages in civ3.

[HalfLotus]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Here, Here!

Conquering the world should be hard to do, not mundane!

People get too bent out of shape about war/peace strategies. First of all, the worst thing you can do in a strategy game is decide your strategy before you start playing!
You should adapt to different circumstances of the game as you go along. Will it be beneficial to kick butt or build infrastructure right now? It is more satisfying to adopt a strategy based on each individual game.
Every 20-30 mins. of playing Civ2 I'll sit back and assess my cities, terrain, enemies, etc., and adjust my strategies accordingly.
Free your strategic mind!

[Inverse Icarus]

incorrect.








(that vague and undirected comment should stun you)

[Sava]

I don't think planning ahead strategically is bad. Everyone starts out with 1 (or 2) settlers, and builds from the ground up. If the game started out in say, the modern age, then you couldn't have a pre-determined strategy.

Earlier Civ games were vastly unrealistic in the snowball effect of conquering the world. Although this idea is not terribly unrealistic, it needs work. The culture and nationality ideas should make it more difficult to conquer the world. Which, I believe, is too easy. No single nation has conquered the world for that reason.

[HalfLotus]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
I don't think planning ahead strategically is bad. Everyone starts out with 1 (or 2) settlers, and builds from the ground up. If the game started out in say, the modern age, then you couldn't have a pre-determined strategy.

I don't get your point.

The best strategies are based on the circumstances. Circumstances aren't known before you start the game.
Also a scripted strategy is less enjoyable. It's like folks who plan out their build order before they start....whrere's the fun in that?

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by HalfLotus


I don't get your point.

The best strategies are based on the circumstances. Circumstances aren't known before you start the game.
Also a scripted strategy is less enjoyable. It's like folks who plan out their build order before they start....whrere's the fun in that?

That is the point. Some people don't play for fun, they only play to win.

THis being the case they'll use the same old tired strategies, formulated to abuse inconsistencies in the game, to "win" every time.

These are also the people who complain the game is boring and dull at it's highest difficulty when they use these "broken" aspects of the game to win constantly.

[Inverse Icarus]

i'm not saying warmongering should be easy, i just think that if you pride your civ in conqueroring others you should recieve cultural points for doing so.

[Stuie]

I like the stance Firaxis is taking on this:


"While we've certainly expanded the importance of diplomacy, culture, and trade, warmongering is still a viable approach to playing and winning the game -- it's just not as easy to win by the might of your sword alone. You will probably need to use diplomacy and trade to complement your military strategies unless you get very lucky with your starting location. So no matter which victory condition you set your sights on, you should still need to utilize a variety of skills, including using diplomacy, trade, and your military.
" (http://www.civ3.com/asktheteam_092801.cfm)

If that's not your cup of tea, maybe you should be playing a wargame (try Sid Meier's Civil War games - they're a lot of fun...)

[Roland Ehnström]

Personally, I like the sound of the new culture concept A LOT, and I am also happy that war will be more difficult than in Civ2 (eventhough I like Civ-wars a "tad" more than real-life wars ). I just hope I'll like it as much when I have actually tried the game myself , but I have confidence in that Firaxis can do a good job.

Peace!
-- Roland

[Roland Ehnström]

And slightly off topic: Congratulations to KrazyHorse for reaching King status! I've found myself agreeing to most things you write, so keep on posting!

Peace!
-- Roland

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by HalfLotus
Every 20-30 mins. of playing Civ2 I'll sit back and assess my cities, terrain, enemies, etc., and adjust my strategies accordingly.
Free your strategic mind!

But please review Civ III and understand that very possibly, this is a thing that we will once again not see the AI do.

Instead the strategy will be chosen in advance, depending on the unique traits of the civilization and will be played out the same across the game.

At least each Civ has 2 traits out of many unlike Civ 2 (militaristic - yes/ no, expantionist - yes /no) or the 7 traits hardcoded into SMAC.

[HalfLotus]

I concur oxy.
People are worried about the plight of warmongers. Have we forgotten about mobilizing for war? This HALVES the cost of military stuff. Shouldn't be too hard to arrange a formidable army in just a few turns.