How much real choice is there in playing Civ3 ?

volcanohead · February 25, 2002, 15:42

This is following on from several threads where the issue of strategic choice has been discussed.

It would be interesting to know how viable a non-aggressive strategy is in Civ3. My personal experience is that having at least one assault on other civs in the ancient period and one in the modern will virtually guarantee a victory of some sort at all levels of difficulty.

On the other hand I've never successfuly played a purely defensive game, seen that I start to fall behind unless I'm ruthless and expand rapidly at the expense of other civs.

This, I believe, is a critical point. The new patch appears to have made the game into a competition between the player and all other civs combined. This means that you are forced to go to war to have any chance at all, thus producing a very linear game. Not to say unenjoyable, simply that you know pretty much the grand line you will need to take every time.

The point of this poll is to see if this idea is right, or rubbish. If we find that many people win at high levels without war then it simply means that I'm playing in a stupid way and there is more than one grand strategy to win the game.

V

Zouave · February 25, 2002, 15:51

I often play a very defensive game. In these games, I will not start wars, and if war is declared against me, I play defense, and might take one or two cities before I sue for peace. I end up winning with a diplomatic, cultural or space race victory on monarch level. Of course, I can only do this if I end up with a good chunk of land after the initial phase of the game. I also, usually culturally assimilate a couple of cities along the way.

volcanohead · February 25, 2002, 15:55

Zoave,

Do you find that without a large army the AI thinks you're a wimp and gives you a hard time? Do you have a strong, but purely defensive, military? Or do you get by with very few units?

And how many times do you restart befor finding a position good enough to employ this strategy?

V

Zouave · February 25, 2002, 16:01

I always keep a strong military composed of mostly defensive units. I do not insist on using this strategy, so I do not restart if I have to go to war to secure enough land. It simply means I have to be more agressive.

volcanohead · February 25, 2002, 16:03

And, very roughly, what proportion of games do you find yourself in a good enough position to employ the purely defensive approach?

V

Zouave · February 25, 2002, 16:04

Maybe half. I feel like I am being interrogated.

volcanohead · February 25, 2002, 16:08

NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!

volcanohead · February 25, 2002, 16:13

I appreciate your response, it's interesting to see that you find the defensive approach as successful as that. As I said, I simply find that it is much easier to keep ahead hwen you knock out a civ or two who have some nice cities.

The other obvious need for war is resources. Sometimes those guys will just not trade uranium for love or money, and this limits the defensive possibility to only cultural victory.

V

Zouave · February 25, 2002, 16:20

Resources do become a problem sometimes. Oil and rubber are the two main ones in this case. Occasionally, I have to convince a civ with one of these resources to declare war on me (so as to not ruin my reputation), and then seize a city to get it. Sometimes, I can arrange to trade for one of them though. Even without them, diplomatic victory is still possible.

volcanohead · February 25, 2002, 16:29

Hmm, hadn't considered diplomatic victory. I usually find the game is over before the UN is available. And personally I find it pretty cheesy to win this way, unlike SMAC. But that's just me. It is another viable option. It'll be good when there are some more votes... Slight edge on 'Never' right now.

V

The Andy-Man · February 25, 2002, 16:38

i have found that in all the succesful games i have played i was either:

a)alone on a big space, (i could fit many cities before i met the AI)
b)i declared war as soon as i met an AI.

i also have a large defensive military (3units in each city), because if i dont the AI tends to just declare war on m for no reason.

Zouave · February 25, 2002, 16:41

Quote:

Originally posted by volcanohead
Hmm, hadn't considered diplomatic victory. I usually find the game is over before the UN is available. And personally I find it pretty cheesy to win this way, unlike SMAC. But that's just me. It is another viable option. It'll be good when there are some more votes... Slight edge on 'Never' right now.

V

I don't think there is anything cheesy about winning a diplomatic victory. In some ways, it is actually harder than building a military and wiping out your neighbors. Getting UN votes is not exactly easy, especially since, in all likelihood, you will have been at war with nearly everyone at some point.

volcanohead · February 25, 2002, 16:49

Cheesy in the sense that there is too little information regarding the process, and you have little feedback on your actions. Cheesy in the sense that in a few mouseclicks it's all over. As I said, it's my personal point of view.

But I agree that it may be harder than the military option. This is in fact the whole point. I find the easiest and most assured victory comes from military dominance. I prefer a peaceful approach, but when I see that there is such a huge advantage from aggression it is difficult to resist. Often there is little choice in the matter.

V

The Andy-Man · February 25, 2002, 16:53

every time i try peacful, i am either 3 ages behind or having my arse whipped around the map.

volcanohead · February 25, 2002, 16:57

Quote:

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
every time i try peacful, i am either 3 ages behind or having my arse whipped around the map.

Exactly. The other problem is constructing wonders. Can be tricky without forcing a war, which usually means having to really punish some civ before they give in.

The Andy-Man · February 25, 2002, 17:03

exactly, and with stupid war wariness, AI dow's or a DoW tp get a leader are impossible.

i always play a religeous civ for evetually i end up in war, and have to change govt. alot of trouble without relgeous, so i wuld be stuck with monarchy the WHOLE game.

Zouave · February 25, 2002, 17:06

Quote:

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
exactly, and with stupid war wariness, AI dow's or a DoW tp get a leader are impossible.

i always play a religeous civ for evetually i end up in war, and have to change govt. alot of trouble without relgeous, so i wuld be stuck with monarchy the WHOLE game.

I usually use republic. Once a war starts, you have 20+ turns to fight before war weariness kicks in. That is plenty of time to get a leader and/or capture a couple cities.

volcanohead · February 25, 2002, 17:15

Religious trait is extremely powerful. Losing all those turns to anarchy is just too expensive.

It's unfortunate that when adopting a purely peaceful approach (well, attempting to anyway) Democracy isn't a more viable alternative for you Zoave. Fast, overwhelming wars, combined with religious trait to swiftly move in and out of democracy are extremely powerful tools, significantly more effective than culture or diplomacy IMHO.

V

Zouave · February 25, 2002, 17:21

Unfortunately, civs using democracy and communism sometimes seem to declare war on me just to cause war weariness. I hate them for, but they are usually on the other side of the world, so I cannot force them into a peace treaty. I just have to wait it out. Democracies are likely to collapse in this situation. Plus, the extra benefits of a democracy over republic are nominal. If you have enough workers, you do not need the production bonus, and if your empire is well planned and managed, the little bit of extra corruption will not be noticed. I have never had the AI subvert any of my cites through espionage, so this is not important. I'll stick with republic. It has worked so far.

The only religious civ I play is the Japanese, and I do agree it is very powerful. I do not play the Japanes unless I feel like kicking ass, so I almost never use them in this strategy.

volcanohead · February 25, 2002, 17:32

It is frustrating that a peaceful approach is not rewarded more. I agree that the benefits of democracy over republic are much less than rebublic and the other government types, but I find it annoying that the game is structured in such a way that the government which gives the greatest benefit is difficult to maintain when adopting the peaceful strategy.

There are so many ways in which a peaceful strategy could be made to be more of an option. For instance, a pacifist democracy government, which has greater benefits than normal democracy but which throws you into anarchy for some horribly long period if you so much as step foot in another civ's territory, and thereafter can never be invoked again so as to avoid manipulation by the war mongerers.

The Andy-Man · February 25, 2002, 17:33

i always use egypt, for religeous and industrial is a very powerful combo indeed.

volcanohead · February 25, 2002, 17:50

Egypt is good, but when you think you're going to war Japan is extremely effective. The samurai UU is powerful, and was made more so in patch 1.17 which allowed it to be upgraded to Cavalry.

Culture is another area which could be developed to promote viable alternatives to war. Korn has described some very reasonable suggestions in this link.

Skanky Burns · February 25, 2002, 19:50

I played my first game post-patch as the Romans with the intent of seeing the changes to the combat system. I expanded rapidly on my tiny world map, built many warriors, then legions, and finally discovered that there was no-one else on my continent.

After I discovered the other civs, I found that all three shared a continent smaller than my one. I found my tech rate to exceed theirs, and ended up never having a battle with any other civs units.

Jac de Molay · February 25, 2002, 20:15

With Strategic Resources at stake, I've found it's almost impossible to play defensively.

Salvor · February 25, 2002, 23:50

I think that volcanohead raises some good points, but his definition of "defensive game" is much more restrictive than mine.

I find it much more difficult to employ a defensive strategy in Civ3 than it was in Civ2 and its spinoffs. But it's not impossible. But to say that you can NEVER raze or capture an enemy city is rather extreme. I don't generally raze enemies, but I'm inevitably in a war at one point or another, and do capture enemy cities by means other than cultural flips (i.e. by conquest). I still consider several of my strategies "defensive" even with these occasional skirmishes, especially if I'm not the one declaring war on anybody.

I never go for diplomatic victories simply because I think it leaves too much to chance. You can never be sure how other civs will vote, and it doesn't seem to matter as much how well or poorly you've played the game up to that point. I usually leave the option turned on, then make every effort to build the UN myself and never hold elections, thus denying any other civ from denying me victory through such a "cheesy" (IMHO) method.

I agree that Civ3 does seem to frown on defensive strategies, probably because they went a bit overboard in trying to prevent ICS. But that's the way the game was designed, so when I decide to try a defensive strategy, I know it's a bigger challenge, and get more satisfaction when I win. Certainly a lot more satisfaction than I would get from whining about it.

Selkirk · February 26, 2002, 01:24

Quote:

Originally posted by DetroitDave
With Strategic Resources at stake, I've found it's almost impossible to play defensively.

I played a one city game on Monarch (pre 1.17f) where I had no resources at all in my territory. By the end of the game I had a constant supply of every resource and every luxury via trade. I did not declare war at all and no one attacked me. I won with a cultural victory.

I do find cultural and diplomatic victories unsatisfying, though. At least with space and conquest there is an exciting build up to the point of the win (or loss). Culture wins are way too abrupt. Its like getting cold water dumped on your head with no warning.

The culture and diplomatic victories need a movie or some sort of unique ceremony at the end to make you feel good about your choice of victories. Firaxis was a little stingy with the victory movies.

Worthingtons · February 26, 2002, 02:18

I was very close to a defensive peaceful victory. I got a nice starting posistion on a game once, and being expansionist I had good fortune in 2 ways

1. got a LOT of tech from huts
2. Sourced out my nearest neighbour quickily.

The 2nd point enabled me to expand very quickily in thier direction and I found I had a decent Civilisation with no need to wage war. I appeased the neighbours, build a decent DEFENSE and was looking good for a peaceful victory.

Unfortunatly power went to my head, and i was too tempted to take the Americans luxuries which were close to my borders. attacked without a decent attack force, underestimated the AI massively, Game over

Pius Popprasch · February 26, 2002, 05:49

When playing India I played pacifictic and got eliminated by the Aztecs 1530AD. Other countries didn't want to trade with me. My cities were pretty cultural but my overall culture was low because I had fewer cities. On Emperor level I never had a cultural flip to my side. Once there was an underdevelopped tundra city right next to my capital. My capital was a cultural marvel but the worthless tundra city never joined my empire.

notyoueither · February 26, 2002, 05:56

I could win no matter what, if only they'd give me a banana.

Bananas uber alas, or something like that.

Salve

kailhun · February 26, 2002, 06:58

Played for a long time on the current game without having to resort to war. But that was mostly because of a somewhat unique situation. The Romans were north of me. The Chinese and Japanese south of me. I was a solid band of purple between them. The Japanese/Chinese were at war with the Romans. I let the Romans through, but not the Chinese/Japanese. This kept three AI-civs busy.
After a while I became too weak (didn't emphasize my military as much as the C/J coalition) and war was declared upon my person.
C and J wiped out after a couple of wars. Then my allies, my friends, the ones I had protected (the Romans) declared war on me! I was shocked. I was horrified. I was victorious.
I'd say war is inevitable. If not for growth or resources, then because the AI will turn on you sooner or later. You can't please them all the time and at some point some little thing will piss them off and ... WAR!

Robert