Lack of warfare

Sir Max · November 25, 2001, 02:49

Ok i have an interesting dilema... I have played several games to the end and have only improved in my tech development strategy and expansion rate. I go for republic as fast as possible with libraries being the top priority right behind temples in the build queue. Standard orders are defense unit, worker, granary, settler, temple, settler, library, settler... the emphasis is to not allow towns to grow beyond size 5 as size six go critical on chieftain. Towns with good production will be considered wonder builders and therefore will be encouraged to grow to size 12 asap. The rate of military production is dependant on # of opponents and proximity of opponents. Basically lots of units are a bad idea unless you intend to be a warmonger (kiss your gov't goodbye in a few rounds).

My problem, i'm so culturally advanced and usually tech advanced that nobody will attack or provoke me. My military service is near the bottom but each town will have two units minimum. Ridiculous numbers of workers and patrolling military in the work area are a good tactic. Back to the problem.... i rarely see any fighting between anybody. War is almost impossible with gov'ts above monarchy and staying monarchy...YUCK!!

Courthouses will improve corruption losses at a minimum rate regardless of distance and it improves as it gets closer. Having the forbidden palace is a major boost... Build it near your capital and then move your actual palace to a more distant location to maxmize palace influence. By 1000 ad last game i had gone through my town list twice and had not too bad corruption.

The race for town space... play with 15 opponents.

ElBone · November 25, 2001, 02:59

dunno what to tell ya bro, but I'd like to have your problem. Every single game I play, it's a struggle to stay out of war. There is almost always a war, and I'm in it more often than not.

bone

Cian McGuire · November 25, 2001, 03:03

Yeah, try playing on a harder difficulty level man- and what's wrong with communism as a warlike alternative to monarchy?

Raleigh · November 25, 2001, 03:31

I have to agree about upping the difficulty level. I think you proved that you are familiar enough with the game to play on prince (or whatever the equivalent is here). At that level, there are no bonuses to you and citizens riot after 2 pop (I think). That should probably throw your strategy for a loop.

Also, I am not sure but I think civs get more aggressive with difficulty level, which is a shame b/c above prince, THEY get bonuses. I don't like playing when they cheat anymore than I enjoy (except when Im learning maybe) playing at lower levels where I get to cheat. However, I would like to see crafty aggressive AIs.

Capt Dizle · November 25, 2001, 04:13

The AI is peacenik on Regent. You will have to go higher.

I think if you have the culture they won't attack on any level, exceptions being Civs like the loopy Germans which have be programmed to go nuts every 75 turns or so.

GePap · November 25, 2001, 04:25

Obviously you have yet to have a game were a vital resource is nowere in your land. being roman or persian and finding no iron in your land is the perfect recipe for war- for you beginning one. Later in the game, after nationalism, if you ever start a war for resources, expect world war.

Blaupanzer · November 25, 2001, 17:33

I can't get 'em to quit fighting, both each other and me. The militaristic civs are spoiling for a fight all the time. This is on regent. (Got creamed on deity, thought I'd work my way up.) Also some resources "cluster." If you are not a beneficiary but want to win, war is inevitable. A culture win has great potential for boredom: move one hundred workers, hit space bar, repeat. MPPs definitely precipitate long, costly (to research anyway) wars.

Cian, in Communism, science really suffers compared to the representative governments, even though the latter demand happiness spending. That's its chief disadvantage. Given the corruption, conquering the world is not necessarily the leading victory method of choice.

Cian McGuire · November 25, 2001, 21:11

Yeah, I realize that, but I believe Communism's research levels are higher, and it's corruption levels lower than Monarchy, correct?

Sir Max · December 3, 2001, 03:38

Well i'll have to admit that i haven't upped the difficulty rating but there's purpose to that... Getting the hang of what has changed and adjusting for a variety of situations like islands and or lots of opponents... The race for space should encourage war at all levels and i find it appalling that they would pratically turn warfare off at the lowest level of ai challenge. I know all about the smarter ai of higher levels and that above prince the computer gets more then unfair advantages rather then just being smarter... I have rarely ever played a civ game above king for this reason unless i have given myself at least some chance of getting things that are virtually impossible at higher levels (Wonders) through the scenario maker and editing the rules file. Then and only then does Diety become a worthy and interesting challenge. The best challenge is against humans of course but the time factor is happersome... games last for so long even with alot of towns and units on auto. Did you ever allow a truly large number of settlers to go auto in civ 2... Really makes you wonder what the #&!! the AI is smoking.

Happy hunting.

Oh, a sick tactic... Allow cities on land masses mainly controlled by opponents to pollute... Encourage it!!