Stubborness DOES NOT Pay.

[Tormund]

It all started when I was playing as Emperor of the Babylonians on a huge map with every other civ...

Now I'm sure I'm like many others. I don't respond well to demands. I'm always happy to negotiate and I don't hoard techs, resources and luxuries. (What can I say I believe in free trade and peaceful coexistence.) So when a civilization starts making demands (for a territory map and a little gold) I tell him what he can do with his empty threats.

In this game I had just this situation occur and they decided that this just isn't good enough and declare war. They are on the other side of the globe and I figure I'm a peace loving kind of guy. I'll let them cool off and then propose peace, hopefully without a blow ever being traded. A turn passes and now another civ steps up to the plate with similar demands and they end by declaring war. Four more turns pass and I'm at war with six civs all because I don't respond well to demands.

All these civs are miles away and they are trying to attack by dropping the odd galley load of people on my shores. I don't even initiate the attack. They destroy themselves on my defenses. I figure that once they wear themselves out they will propose peace. However by the time they decide they want peace, they want me to pay them to make the treaty go ahead. I'm thinking to myself that you guys were stupid enough to declare war over a territory map and a few gold. Now you want peace and a lot of gold from me to make it happen. I may be a peace loving kind of guy, but I will not be the subject of extortion. Especially since I didn't declare the war in the first place. Besides, realistically I can't make peace with them all at the prices they are demanding and I'm NOT giving up any cities.

So the wars continue, only now most of them decide to bring a friend. So I'm at war with eleven civs. To add to my frustration everyone else is at peace with each other. By the time I decide to 'play ball', no one wants to be on my team. I can hear them saying, "What are you crazy, you're at war with eleven other civs and you want me to pick your side?" I keep resisting and building up the defensive units in my cities. Unfortunately I can't defend all of my improvements. These bastards raped and pillaged my land while I sat behind my fortifications helplessly watching on.

I'm thinking to myself that this can't go on forever. They must give peace a chance eventually. I mean as a civ when the first threat was laid at my feet I was a middle of the road civ score wise. So I wasn't the biggest threat and I wasn't the easiest target. Surely there comes a time when a civ thinks I've been at war long enough, I'm getting nowhere. Time to declare peace and move on. Well let's just say it didn't pan out as I hoped.

In the end two of my cities fell. Yes, I know. How could I let some of my cities be overrun. BUT there were ELEVEN other civs! Something had to give. At this stage war was really only taking place on a couple of fronts. My nearest neighbours, with the exception of one, had not abandoned their senses altogether and they were staying out of the conflict. And then it all changed. Those civs which were invited to join the party late in the game decided to throw around some money and invite a few more friends to come along and play. There I am at war with EVERY other civ on the map! All FIFTEEN of them! I'm a peace loving kind of guy! I know that these other civs know what peace is. After all, they are ALL at peace with each other. My mission as I see it, is to try to take over the world culturally and resort to violence only to put an end to the war. I keep up with or lead the front pack through shrewd trade and management practices. What the hell happened this time?

It was after my third city fell that I came to the conclusion that "Stubborness DOES NOT Pay"! I started paying civs bucket loads of money for peace. I started trading away cities for peace. But there is only so much to go around and I can't make peace with everyone. In the end I abandon the game. My end is inevitable. The lesson I learned is that sometimes you just have to give into the demands of other civs to 'give peace a chance'!

[Jack_www]

I never give in to the demands of the computer players. Like you I am more than willing to make a fair trade with the other computer players. But when ever the computer decides it's time to go to war, I take the war to their homeland. The only way you can force a faverable peace treaty is to take their cities untill they cry and beg for peace. Althougt if you are in a very weak postion then giving in ti their demands while you build up your empire would be a very good idea. But many times the computer is bluffing.

[Kilroy_Alpha]

But this is realistic! You were obviously commanding the armies of darkness, intent upon world domination, and the entire world decided to ally against to halt your incredible war machine. Although you feigned a love for peace, the AI saw right through your facade! ROOFLE OWNED.

[nbarclay]

In one game where I had two civs fighting me at once, both civs wanted gold in exchange for peace. I bought off the one farther from home, figuring I could take out France if Russia stayed out of it. Then I found that with Russia out of the picture, France was willing to sell me a tech at a slightly reduced price in exchange for peace since Russia wasn't helping them attack me anymore.

That gives me the distinct impression that buying off multiple opponents is generally significantly cheaper than the sum of their initial demands. (Of course that doesn't mean buying off fifteen opponents is all that practical. And I'm just working from one data point, so I don't know for sure that my experience was typical.)

By the way, were you building up your military during the early years of the war? Gaining military strength, even if you don't plan to use it offensively, might make peace look better to the AIs in such a situation. Conversely, a nation with a small military that's already fighting several enemies probably looks like an easy target.

Nathan

[Tormund]

You were obviously commanding the armies of darkness

I suppose your right. I didn't realise that two MPs per city would be considered an army of darkness. I think it more likely that they saw me as an army of light. Light on that is.

Although that said once I started churning out units I would have thought my military strength would have equalled and rivalled most other civs at the time. And that this would have been encouragement enough for them to consider peace.

That said it was all too easy for the civs I was at war with to convince civs that I was on 'polite' terms with to join their cause. They must have been paid plentifully for this betrayal. It strikes me as odd too. Why can't a civ be polite and at war with you? I mean I had no animosity towards these civs for being turncoats. I saw them more as mercenaries for hire. The least they could have done is maintained their polite attitude and communication channels. That way I should be able to buy a peace treaty with them since it is money NOT war that they are most interested in.

[Harovan]

Sometimes, when I'm not yet ready to fight because I'm REXing and have no resources left for a big military, I give in to bullies. Heck, what are territory maps and 22 gold if I own hundreds? I open a virtual account for this civ and write the amount I gave them down. I let them pay it back later, when I finished expansion and am the #1 civ, with 1000% interest.

Sometimes, especially on larger maps if the extorting civ is far away, I deny to give in. Mostly they declare war then, but they need at least 1000 years to reach my borders, so what? I use the time to build a mobile force. Usually, after 10-15 turns or so, they ally up with a little friend who is my neighbor. At this time, I already have a countable force, I switch my entire production to horsemen and rush the ally. When the original warmonger arrives, I make peace with him (sorry guys, you went the long way for naught) even if it costs a little, and I let pay the ally for this.

For example, in my recent (huge, 16, monarch) game I (Iroquois) was bullied by the Germans (about 30 or 40 tiles away) for a TMap and 22 gold. Refused and got war declared. After a few turns the Romans (my neighbors) joined in. After about 5 turns tough struggle with their legions, I (#1 civ) succeeded to cut their iron and reduced them (#3 civ) to a civ of 8 small size 1-3 cities. Finally, the Germans (#2 civ) arrived at my borders. I sent them home with about 60 gold (I had all my forces in Rome) and in the same turn made peace with the Romans, getting over 100 gold, 2 techs, 1 worker and 3 of their remaining cities. Not a bad deal, after all.

[Tormund]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Sometimes, especially on larger maps if the extorting civ is far away, I deny to give in. Mostly they declare war then, but they need at least 1000 years to reach my borders, so what? I use the time to build a mobile force. Usually, after 10-15 turns or so, they ally up with a little friend who is my neighbor. At this time, I already have a countable force, I switch my entire production to horsemen and rush the ally. When the original warmonger arrives, I make peace with him (sorry guys, you went the long way for naught) even if it costs a little, and I let pay the ally for this.

I like your approach and it shows merit, but it isn't the way of the peace loving civ. I was wanting to walk the cultural path and not have to hurt anyone on the way there. They can hurt themselves on my forces, but I was looking for acquisition through conversion.

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
I give in to bullies. Heck, what are territory maps and 22 gold if I own hundreds? I open a virtual account for this civ and write the amount I gave them down. I let them pay it back later, when I finished expansion and am the #1 civ, with 1000% interest.

Now this is an approach that I am definitely going to adopt. Since I can't walk the stubborness line, I'm going to set me up some virtual accounts.

[Ethelred]

I find it usefull to pay the extortionists IF I think they can cause me real problems. Then they go on The List.

What I like to do after I pay them is imediatly try to make a deal with them. One where I make a nice tidy profit. For the maximum unlike my trades with friendly civs where I don't take it to the last nickle.

I have noticed that the serious extortionists are usually on the warpath for some poor victim. They have run out of room to expand and they have troops ready to invade someone. So if you pay them off they will usually go to war with someone else. Someone you may be able to make use of.

[Zachriel]

Some civilizations consider it an insult not to pay tribute to their gods and kings. Usually the amounts requested are minor. It's a cultural thing, a small gift to show respect. In any case, future historians might think you foolish not having paid such a small sum to prevent a world war.

On another, related point: On Emperor, your money is worth less than the AI's. Think of it as paying in Argentine pesos. So, when it comes to bribing rivals for alliances, you are at a disadvantage. Bring plenty of pesos to the bargaining table.

[Inverse Icarus]

this is why it pays to be a warmonger

can't wait to see you in MP

[Harovan]

UberKruX

Once upon a time (pre 1.17f), I was a builder, but the patch has taught me, that 2 or 3 early rushes certainly do pay. If this tendency persists, you'll call me a bloodthirsty b@stard after 1.18f .

[Arrian]

I've almost completed converted to warmongering. Japan is my new favorite civ. The AI never gets a chance to demand squat. They're already dead, providing me with cities and leaders. Also, I have taken advantage of peace treaty re-negotiation with civs I am not ready to attack yet. It works rather well.

If you are going to try the (mostly)peaceful builder route, and don't want to give in to demands, I strongly encourage buying allies RIGHT AWAY. Say the mean, nasty, demanding Bismarck man declares war on you for refusing to pay him off. Call up whoever is inbetween you and Germany, and get an alliance. Sometimes it doesn't cost all that much. Sometimes they want an arm and a leg, but consider this: if you don't do this, the AI will. That's what happened here - resulting in an 11 vs. 1 cascade.

-Arrian

[dawidge]

I would much rather pay all of Bismark's neighbors the same money/maps that B demanded as an example to the AI of how not to conduct relations with me. It has worked to great success.

I once played the Greeks with Germany just across a narrow isthmus. I only had 1 warrior in each city and a hoplite in each of the two cities on the German border. Bis pops up and demands 53 (all I had) gold and a territory map, declaring war when I tell him to get lost. I contact the Zulu (who are just beyond Germany)
and give them the 53 gold and territory map to pound on Germany. Eventually, Shaka and I kicked him off the island. Nobody tried to threaten me again that game.

It may have been related to the fact that all those warriors became swordsmen, or that I beefed up each city to have two hoplites by the time it was over. More likely, it was that 12 of the 16 German cities had gone Greek.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Arrian
I've almost completed converted to warmongering.
-Arrian

I avoid war, but war is unavoidable. Nearly every Age is scarred by battle.

[Inverse Icarus]

civ3 DOES lean a little toward the builder strategy, a lot mroe than civ2, but warmongers can kill the builders and take their buildings

[Cookie Monster]

1.17f...................................A patch that has caused a lot of peacefull builders to become warmongers. And to think that Firaxis way back last year advertised that Civ3 would concentrate less on war and more on peaceful building. Culture shmulture.................


I can even remember reading in PC-Gamer (the magazine) an interview with Sid Meier himself. He talked rather jovially about how Civ3 would be a nice game that wasn't 100% about war.

1.17f......................................


Then came the day that Civ3 was released to the public. We essentially became unwitting beta testers. The game was patched several times. Each patch, instead of just fixing problems, added other "goodies" which frustrated many players even more.

1.17f..................................

Then 1.17f came along. Now no matter what you do, you end up as someone's lunch or you go on a war rampage. You give into the AI's demands. You try to build up your army so they won't pick on you. Oh but wait, neglect culture and they hate you anyway. You could be number 5 out of 8 but the AI will gang up on you and kill you kill you kill you and keep on killing you until you are dead. What the *&(^ kind of game is this. Sid said last year that one of the cool things about Civ3 will be that it concentrates less on war and more on building. What a joke. What a betrayel. Yet I keep playing this game over and over again, hopeing that with the good advice I've received from fellow Polytoners that my game would be less warlike. What another joke.

WAR IN CIV3 IS REWARDED HANDSOMELY. PEACEFULL BUILDING IN CIV3 IS REWARDED BY DEATH.

1.18 BETTER FIX THIS PROBLEM.

[PerpetualNewbie]

I have been trying really hard to come up with a way of making the builder aspect more viable. Other than ludicrous bonuses for defenders, and changing pillaging to a multi-turn action (or even make pillaging chance-based, like bombardment), you can much more effectively damage his economy than you can improve yours.

Pillaging is ludicrously powerful. It takes, what, 39 worker-turns to change a jungle tile into a mined tile with a road. It takes 1 turn with a warrior to destroy the improvements. Both units cost the same amount to build, except the worker took a pop point! If he didn't cost a pop point, it would help the builder strategy, but I doubt it would help enough. The cheapest road is still 3 turns, and can be destroyed in two, one if you use a fast unit.

OTOH, if you slow down the pillaging rate, that eliminates the lightning raids, and puts the AI at a significant disadvantage, even though he doesn't often pillage. Players will still move in a stack of units, and have a half-dozen pillage while the rest stand guard, just like players do now with artillery.

Speeding up the rate of worker improvements helps some, but will reduce both the number of workers needed as well as the time spent improving land close to the border, where they are vulnerable.

I am still batting around Zone of Control over the entire 21-tile radius, but am inclined to think that will just make for bigger stacks, and not really affect the early, more effective wars.

And we haven't yet mentioned the problems great leaders present to a builder. Cleo is building Sistene? I better go to war with Bismark so I can get a leader and finish it first...

Of course, all these and any other fixes I can think of are major changes, not patch level stuff. And even if you were to put them into effect, I don't think they would have the intended effect of decreasing the effectiveness of combat, especially early combat. Guess that's why I'm not a designer. I can't come up with a good way to devalue combat within the confines of the current game engine...

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by PerpetualNewbie
Pillaging is ludicrously powerful. It takes, what, 39 worker-turns to change a jungle tile into a mined tile with a road. It takes 1 turn with a warrior to destroy the improvements.

It is easier to destroy than to build.

[PerpetualNewbie]

Oh, you want realism? Go ahead. Destroy my irrigation ditch. I dare you. *splash* *splash* *splash*. Ya gotta get the dirt from somewhere... Or how about training that first Warrior? Seems to me it takes 5 turns with a decent start, which would be 250 years, IIRC. Lot of damage that old geezer can do. No wonder he only has a 1 move. Shouldn't be that much. And he might live for several thousand years. Anyone who has ever ridden Amtrak knows that you can't go from any point on the map to any other point on the map and arrive there fresh as a daisy. Not to mention the sheer lunacy of having to face Montezuma's Modern Armor (didn't the Aztecs get pasted centuries ago?)

Actually, I was more thinking from a gameplay standpoint. Of course it takes much longer to build a house of cards than it takes to knock it down, but if you don't skew it somehow, it doesn't make for much of a fun game. For the builder, anyway.

The play's the thing, right?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by PerpetualNewbie
Oh, you want realism? Go ahead. Destroy my irrigation ditch. I dare you. *splash* *splash* *splash*. . .
The play's the thing, right?

Right (wiping the water from my face).

[Ethelred]

So how come I can be mostly a builder and win on Emperor?

I am not saying there are no wars. I just make sure I win them.

Get MPPs. Remember your roads are your friends. Use cannons and later use the master defender weapon Artillery. Protect you choke points.

Block the wandering settlers don't tell them to get out.

Plant settlers right next the silly cities the AI builds and get two for the price of one.

It takes 24 turns with slow workers to remove jungle and one pillageing does NOT make the jungle regrow. By the time you have railroads you are near to replaceable parts and with that even slow workers build roads in one turn under democracy. Industrious workers can max out a square in three turns.

One for road
One for the mine
Oner for railroad

On to the next tile.

Yeah it take longer for hills and mountains. So how did they get there? You should have had defensive units with cannons or artillery on those tiles blasting away at them.

If you have railroads why the heck are you allowing them to pillage anyway. Blow them away with artillery.

The key is to have friends. Get MPPs and don't waste them by attacking first.

Oh and don't forget to take some of the enemy territory later. You may need more cities to win the game. Like I said, MOSTLY builder.

Pacifists go extinct in the real world too.

It might even work in multiplayer. Two warmongers aren't going to trust each other but the builders can trust each other to some extent. Just don't be the only builder in a game full of mad dogs.

[PerpetualNewbie]

Good points, all, Ethelred. And though I only play Monarch, it sounds like our games play pretty similarly. I am more leary of MPPs though. My "allies" tend to attack about the time I need to build wonders, and I run into war weariness in a handful of turns, even though I never leave Republic...

However, remember that I was really only talking about early wars. Destroying a mine in an ancient era is going to take a fair amount of time to rebuild. You don't have the luxury of faster workers via Replaceable Parts or Democracy. You get the base rate.

Seriously, in my last game, I could only found 5 cities before I was out of space. Well, not quite, as I founded an additional 2 in the middle of a desert, mostly to keep the AI from trying to walk through me to found a city for what turned out to be the resources that appeared there. Only one of "my" cities had double digit production by the end of the ancient age. Had it not been for the early wars, and the pillaging of the enemy tiles, there is no way I could have been a contender. I just flat out did not have enough cities. But after gaining a few AI cities, on some prime real estate, I was set for life.

Yes, you can build. I am only at monarch, but by the end of the ancient age, there are very seldom any civs who are not at least impressed by my culture. But without the strategic territory wars and the hit-n-miss great leader they almost always spawn, my game would probably be over pretty quickly.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Ethelred
So how come I can be mostly a builder and win on Emperor?

You could probably win faster if you were in more wars... just my opinion. Something you may want to try.

Two warmongers aren't going to trust each other but the builders can trust each other to some extent.

No one knows how someone will play until they play. So if you saw me as a builder last time, how do you know I won't be 1/2 a builder this time & 1/2 a warmonger? And couldn't I be a warmonger who kept his word & you could trust OR a builder who you couldn't trust?

[Ethelred]

You could probably win faster if you were in more wars... just my opinion.

I like winning by Space Race. I don't think I manage a lot faster at that. A little. So far my second game on Emperor was my fastest. 1748. I just finished my third emperor game yesterday and that ended just before 1800.

I lost the first game on Emperor.

Now if I wanted to go mad dog warmonger I certainly would have a chance to win sooner. The one I won yesterday I might have been able to make a push with tanks to win 100 years sooner by domination.

In fact I planned to do that but I kept finding reasons to wait a bit longer. Finally I noticed the Americans had two parts of their Space Ship built and two more on the way. I decided I had better start mine and see if I could get Lincoln to declare war. I prefer not to start wars. That helps with war weariness.

The fink wouldn't start the war. I spyed and deliberatly failed and then planted another spy, multiple times. I told him to get out of my territory, multiple times. He left, he fumed, he was furious. He knew his two Modern armour, 40 infantry and 12 mechanized infantry weren't going to last against my 53 modern armour and 50 plus mechanized infantry.

Yeah and that was as a builder. I out built, and out researched America on the Space Ship despite haveing started on it second. Of course if he had attacked like I wanted I would have landed a prepositioned force of 16 modern armour and 8 artillery four tiles from Washington. The rest my of units would have punched out of city he lost to me when he still he could beat me militarily in the Industrial Age.

Tech goes fast on Emperor with 1.17f.

I didn't have any need for a early war in that game because I had a ridiculous amount of territory that I was able to block off. My second game on Emperor I managed to get half the territory on my continent and that worked out to ten cities. Thats enough to win I suppose but I did take the other half of the continent later. Greece had extorted me for iron early so they were on my LIST. When my oil depleted and new oil showed up just four tiles away in Greek territory it was time to go to war.

I will go to war early if I have to but it holds back my development so if I can get enough cities for the Forbiden Palace to be enabled I find thats enough till later.