Civ3: Fun without war is pretending.

Jeje2 · November 19, 2001, 02:11

Or have I just been playing it wrong?

Yeah, after almost three&½ games I'm getting into a feeling of that Civ3 just isn't fun. Not at least when you play a non-war game style.

One of my peaceful games I just watched how turns go by and gave new build instructions my cities. (Had workers on automate to reduce micromanagement.)
My last game has been almost fun (No space race victory allowed), with several longish battles for military victory. (Almost there by 1980) The Indies gave me a good thrill by building UN, but luckily it was a tie in vote. (Have dismantled the UN since.) So based on my games I'm, feeling bored about Civ3.

So can Civ3 be fun without war?? And if so, how?
(If not, well EU2 is coming soon)

Topic comes from a Finnish phrase: "Ilo ilman viina on teeskentelyä" which roughly is: "Fun without booze is pretending".

Venger · November 19, 2001, 02:19

Man I don't even TRY spaceship or diplomatic victories...I mean what the hell is that all about anyways? You launch a spaceship and win...what precisely? I want to have the dominant empire, grand in scope, epic in size, unrivaled in power. Not some sissy rocket...

And a diplomatic victory? The way some threads sound it's like The Weakest Link, where the smartest player always gets ousted in the last round because the two stupid ones vote him off. It's survival of the weakest...

Venger

Barbotte · November 19, 2001, 02:25

Nope, civ3 can be really boring without wars and there`s a lot less wars than in civ2. But most people dont seem to care. If you dont start wars yourself (or indirectly by refusing to pay a tribute to the mighty Shaka), there will be (in my experience) between 1 and 3 wars in the whole game and often none at all in the 2 first ages.

I maxed out the agression levels of all my opponents, but the difference is minimal. I do get threatened a lot more, but there isnt more inter AI wars. I guess they always pay when another AI threaten them. This may explain why they trade tech so fast

Pyrodrew · November 19, 2001, 02:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Barbotte
Nope, civ3 can be really boring without wars and there`s a lot less wars than in civ2. But most people dont seem to care. If you dont start wars yourself (or indirectly by refusing to pay a tribute to the mighty Shaka), there will be (in my experience) between 1 and 3 wars in the whole game and often none at all in the 2 first ages.

I maxed out the agression levels of all my opponents, but the difference is minimal. I do get threatened a lot more, but there isnt more inter AI wars. I guess they always pay when another AI threaten them. This may explain why they trade tech so fast

I never paid tribute, except once & that was just for just my territory map & 7 gold flat. I've also broken my word, lied, betrayed, & razed cities... and I hear reports about AI Civs breaking their word to other Civs... and I still rarely see any wars, except if I start them. I often have to be the bully, unlike in Civ2. The bully isn't even my style. In my recent game, when I got the GreatLighthouse & sent Columbus & Ponce de Leon to discover the 2nd Continent... all 7 AI Civs there were at peace... and none had even conquered 1 foreign city, even tho technology & distribution of strategic resources (iron, horses, saltpeter, etc.) could give HUGE advantages to some. Someone mentioned in another post they were able to remove ALL their military units from the west side leaving their western cities unguarded... and yet still no AI attacked. (!)

There are many aspects I like about Civ3. Yet, from what I've seen Civ3 is seems TOO peaceful. Besides the outrageous corruption (which obviously limits an AI Civ's conquest plans), could map size be affecting this??? I've only played on Huge maps. Do smaller maps force the AIs to be more aggressive?

Barbotte · November 19, 2001, 03:10

Quote:

Do smaller maps force the AIs to be more aggressive?

The only difference when you play a small map is that it`s more boring because all the land is taken very quickly. Most of the time the AI is quite happy even if he`s limited to 2-3 cities.

I must say i like the game, but it would be nice to see a little more violence

dexters · November 19, 2001, 05:14

In Civ 3, War is very much important and I forsee most people going for victories that will include wars.

Spaceship/diplomatic victories doesn't mean you don't go to war. You need specific resources to build your spaceship, and that usually means heavy handed dealings to obtain those resources, including playing two civs against each other, and open hostilities-- read-- WAR!

But War in Civ 3 is more costly. Even if you're way ahead, you're unlikely to completely wipe out an entire Civ unless they are your close neighbors and you have the stomach to wage war with them for more than ten turns.

At the same time, war is an event, and War in Civ 3 is about tactics and taking strategic cities to secure resources or just to deny your rival an opportunity to expand. For example, Taking a city that gives a landlocked rival Civ acess to open water may be all that you want out of the war.

With Civ 2, its always been about conquering every last city you can conquer, regardless of their strategic importance. That may be fun to some, but I find that kind of war to be rather tiresome and boring, because at some point, it becomes totally pointless.

Jeje2 · November 19, 2001, 05:35

Quote:

Originally posted by dexters
Spaceship/diplomatic victories doesn't mean you don't go to war. You need specific resources to build your spaceship, and that usually means heavy handed dealings to obtain those resources, including playing two civs against each other, and open hostilities-- read-- WAR!

Nope...
In one of my games (the peacefull) I traded the needed resource. (IIRC I needed rubber) Sure I could have waged a war, but instead I bought what I needed. (For a very high prize.)

Wrong_shui · November 19, 2001, 06:39

In my first civ3 game there wasnt a war till 1972, which i thought was a bit odd.

In my second game though the first game was in 1000's when japan and germany started on me.
Which was nice.

So i agree with Barbotte, 2-3.

Grim Legacy · November 19, 2001, 06:39

Maybe it's just my style, but I'm utterly unable to play a peaceful game unless I'm alone on a continent and am able to cover it with nice cities.

As this rarely happens (if you're alone, the continent is usually small or consists of hellish terrain), I am always busy rushing to swordsmen/horsemen to erase the enemy's presence ASAP. After those politional actions I usually slumber until decent ships become available to launch the Final Conflict.

As far as AI wars are concerned: they seem to focus on building cities peacefully until the modern era... at least that's what happened in my games. And the modern era wars are heavy stuff... I've seen continents completely razed without my interference.