Am I the only one who doesn't kill kill kill?

[Sparky]

I have the feeling that I'm in the monority. I've been playing since the days of Civ1, and I don't take the all-out military approach. I often play on king level and try to maintain the most peaceful, internally wealthy, "Babylonian" style civilization that I can.

I'm worried that with all the attention given to Civ 3 military, there won't be an equal amount done for city and empire development. Civ 1 was pretty much 50/50, half the game was city development. Civ 2 changed that to 55/45 by up-playing the special combat rules in military, but leaving city improvements basically untouched, just adding more of them. SMAC did the same thing. SMAC slapped down peaceful civs by focusing 70/30 on military: tons of unit combinations, special abilities, and alternate "peaceful" ways to win that happened to go to the civ that actually was the most militaristic (case in point, the peacekeepers really couldn't win a diplomatic victory by playing nice -- Yang always conquered his neighbors, got a bigger population through more cities, and would win a diplomatic victory through what were really military methods.)

Is Civ 3 going to fall prey to this trend? I'm a loyal civer. I want to see a well-balanced game, one with equal attention to building and conquest. Leave in the new military options, but add new city options such as detailed city planning and architecture a la sim city, or transportational planning, or advanced agriculture, or a space program, or cultural evolution. Then we would really see Civilization 3 instead of Militarization 3.

[Sparky]

Religion, slavery, and prolific languages would add immensely to the game's cultural value, too.

[Nikolai]

No, you aren't! I also play peacefully, a bit because I don't am good in it. Even if I try to play a conquest game(and I have tried), I just don't manage to win in that way! Well, peace is better than war, at least for the people.......

[Ilkuul]

I fully sympathise with wanting to play peacefully! I've also been playing since Civ1, and one of the things that always bothered me in Civ1 was that I was never free to just build up my civ peacefully -- somehow I always ended up at war! And even when I did manage to reach AC first, it could never be done without significant bloodshed en route. And now with Civ2 my most successful strategy is still to eliminate my most powerful opponents militarily before settling down to build up my civ and head all out for 'spacequest'.

So, yes, I do hope Civ3 will allow alternative victory strategies that are truly 'peaceful', even if they take much longer!



------------------
Ilkuul

Every time you win, remember: "The first shall be last".
Every time you lose, remember: "The last shall be first".

[The diplomat]

No you are not alone. I like to take a peaceful approach too.
It is not just about introducing new peaceful strategies. I think that civ makes war too easy. The game needs to introduce some of the costs of war. Conflicts cause huge loss of life and loss of propriety which in turn can bring disasters on the victors as well as the losers. There needs to be a cost to war to make it more balanced with a peaceful strategy.
So, I have no problem with making war more realistic in civ3 IF at the same time, the game makes war less beneficial to balance it better with a peaceful strategy.

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[Vitmore The Great]

I would like to see more improvement in the trade and diplomacy models than combat. I wouldn't like increased focus on city management becaus ethat just means micromanagement, which just slows the entire game. I admit the city view option in Civ II is lame, but its enought for me when speaking about cities going the way of SimCity. Peaceful ways to win should be expanded, of course, but I would to see more diplomatic ways of doing so, or even economic.


Vitmore

------------------
"We should not go out and conquer the people, but give them no other choice in their minds but to be conquered." - Me

[Chris1111]

I agree with you I like to play a peaceful game to. I guess thats why Im never really successful at anything above king level game play .

Anyone play master of orion 2? In that game it was possible to never be at war and never kill another ship and still win by being voted in "leader" of the galaxy. Alliances actually meant something as your allies would vote for you. They were unfortunately annoying though and constantly demanded you attack their neighbors unless you put them on ignore :P.

[Sparky]

That's a good idea: show more of the negative side of war. For instance, in civ as it now stands, the biggest lossses you can have are cities (your population), surrounding tile improvements (part of your infrastructure) and happiness (if you're a democracy), as well as gold and techs, but only if they capture cities.

It's not realistic that well-defended city can technically lose a hundred defensive units, and yet not take one point of population loss. Losing men at that rate should hugely inpact the total population (like WWI), as well as be very financially costly. You should lose city improvements in the bombarded city (I always thought it was odd a city's improvements could always survive a nuke) as modern bombs and shells rip up the landscape (like WWII). Also, what about morale and disease? Yes, your men are more experienced, but wars like Vietnam and WWI have shown that casualties cause huge morale problems in the soldiers and the population at home.

How about this: have all civs (the AI, too) realize the huge costs of war regardless if they're the "winner." Make them reluctant to go into battle and instead vent their disapproval through embargos or subversion or espionage, diplomatic actions that are less unit-intensive.

[Sparky]

More ideas for a more civilized Civilization. What about class struggle? Civ has always taken a simple approach, using luxuries to define happy content, and unhappy citizens. Not much complexity there. Class struggle has always been a huge issue, from the time of plebians and patricians in Rome, to the Communist Manifesto, to the Polish Union that toppled the government in 1989. Civ3 should include social legislation, actually dealing with the issues of race relations and suffrage, both male and female.

Also, Civ3 could expand environmental issues beyond "smokestacks." Sanitation and deforestation have been problems since before the Greeks (By 400 BCE, they already had to sail to Thrace in search of more ship-quality timber for oars. The Romans so deforested northern Lybia that it has become the desert we know today -- the result was that silt clogged ports as far away as Ostia, Italy). Wouldn't you think that working a forest square would eventually leave it baren?

i think, civilizations should become more introverted. put internal stability above simple conquest. if done well, you'll time by time have to make a war or conquer a city to restore inner stability (war as social stabilizer was often the case in history)

[This message has been edited by Temptihumbaninshushinak (edited March 25, 2001).]

[MrFun]

For me, the simple, one-dimensional slaughter conquest play style is BORING. Like the others who have posted here, I play a game that is balanced with peace and war.

I go to war in my games, but I do not seek to win the game by conquering every civilization -- too straightforward and boring that way for me.

[Chronus]

Count me in for peaceful civing as well. I don't want another game where I choose from 1,000,000 different units to attack with a possible 1,000,000 different formations utilizing 1 of 1,000,000 different tech strategies ... etc., etc.

I really feel that the Civ II model is just fine for combat with the exception of unit stacking. One unit defending for all is a bit absurd. They should all be able to attack as one group as well. Once this is fixed, I think simply adjusting the current numbers (attack/defense/hit points etc.) can resolve most of the peculiarities we have now. Please, no more new statistics and/or hundreds of new units. DOH! Okay, let's add the Range Attack value (from CTP) and bombardment ... but that's it! (Sheesh, and to think that I advocate simplicity!)

Adding new units only means a quicker obsolescence. A few new ones is fine ... just no overkill.

I enjoy focusing on economy/infrastructure/diplomacy. Unfortunately, the payoff for winning a war is high. Peaceful progress is tough because your rewards too easily become somebody else's rewards (either through combat or espionage). By the way, can we tone down the tech stealing ability? It sometimes make research a moot idea. Or perhaps a spy/diplomat unit can be eliminated when it fails instead of merely sitting there outside of the city or getting expelled.

I very rarely declare war and tend to seek peacful resolutions. But I also want an "evil empire" out there that's desperate to take me over. There's nothing more fun to me than to defend my hard work against an aggressor.

[Zanzin]

I've mentioned in other threads, that Civ3 should be a game that encompasses all aspects of a civilization, rather than focusing on one or two (like war, or trade (as others sem obsessed with doing))

War is an important part of the game that can't be disregarded. I like Chronus' idea that there will be other civs out there hell bent on destroying me for the purpose of expanding borders.

The best way, i believe, for the game to reflect the problems inherently associated with war is that when you build a unit, you loose one population...this will reflect a strain on production (less production because your men have gone off to fight etc).

In CTP1/2, war was the only fun part of the game for me (I don't know how others felt - personally, I didn't feel inspired to finish the game any other way).

We must remember that war has it's merits - it's a good way to expand your borders, and in early times, Greece/Roman empires, this was how they expanded. It also has it's downsides. Lets pray Firaxis can find the right balance (And not forget about other aspects of the game as well)

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 03-25-2001 04:19 PM It is not just about introducing new peaceful strategies. I think that civ makes war too easy. The game needs to introduce some of the costs of war. Conflicts cause huge loss of life and loss of propriety which in turn can bring disasters on the victors as well as the losers. There needs to be a cost to war to make it more balanced with a peaceful strategy. So, I have no problem with making war more realistic in civ3 IF at the same time, the game makes war less beneficial to balance it better with a peaceful strategy.

Agreed! War in Civ should be an option, but often an expensive one!
I used to fight with enemy in Civ and SMAC, mostly because I can't keep them at a realistic diplomacy table. If they went seeking trouble, I did my best to help them finding a lot

But I must add that last Sid interview make me fear alot about "light heart" elements added for Fun. After months of debate about realism and best balancing I have a strange feel of incoming Civ III derailing for unnecessary humor...

You know, all that Deja Vu about "Wars are fun", "Smiling leaders" that add special effects (Magic? Super human? :eek to your army...

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Hasdrubal]

Agreed!

I'm also more interested in intricate management than into the fire-power of a panzer-tank or whatever. We don't need the next command and conquer.

And I'm glad that Chris1111 brought Master of Orion up. Now there's a game that they should borrow heavily from.

[Sparky]

What I'm hearing from CGW sounds promising. The elements they're putting in might correspond to the level of "civilization" we want. They have trade monopolies and culture points, as well as racial assimilation. Bravo.

[Zeevico]

Here, here! I played an expansionist-pacifist game once and do you know what happened? They signed treaties against me! I was forced to crush them after one of their units actually attacked (but lost) one of my cities. Every single last civ in the world was reduced to 1 or no cities. In 5 turns. And at that time they probably had more military units then i did. It ruined the game. As did when the 1 city Roman 'civilization' declared war on me after i defended myself from the small Zulu civ. Neither had a chance. The only loyal civ was the mongols, and thats because they had lost the nerve (I did sort of buy every single city they have, even when i was allied to them) to do anything. I pressed cheat to see myself on the powergraph. I was at the very top and thanks to their own stupidity, the other civs were as powerful as they were when they started the game. They had one, size 12 city each, all of them makinghuge losses both in science (-8 turn discoveries), money (broke) and military (one fanatic)

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by Sparky on 03-27-2001 07:35 PM What I'm hearing from CGW sounds promising. The elements they're putting in might correspond to the level of "civilization" we want. They have trade monopolies and culture points, as well as racial assimilation. Bravo.

Yes, I'm also encouraged by this. I hope they do allow for conquered cities to revolt spontaneously if they are not properly assimilated (i.e., if the conquering civ doesn't have enough culture points). This will really put the pressure on to militarists to pursue peaceful technologies -- if for no other reason than simply to prevent their growing empires from falling apart!

(By the way, I seem to remember that there has been a discussion somewhere in these forums of how the mechanics of such 'breakaway' cities would be handled. Can anyone direct me to it? Would they automatically always return to their parent civ, would they become barbarian cities, or could they actually start a brand-new AI civ?)



------------------
Ilkuul

Every time you win, remember: "The first shall be last".
Every time you lose, remember: "The last shall be first".

[Vitmore The Great]

quote: Originally posted by Chris1111 on 03-25-2001 04:40 PM Anyone play master of orion 2? In that game it was possible to never be at war and never kill another ship and still win by being voted in "leader" of the galaxy. Alliances actually meant something as your allies would vote for you. They were unfortunately annoying though and constantly demanded you attack their neighbors unless you put them on ignore :P.

MOO2 in my opinion is the greatest strategy game ever made, when speaking of actual diplomacy, trade, and combat models (simple, yet concise). Civ II is still my favourite of the two because it is grounded in history, and I am a history buff. If Civ III borrowed some of the elements of diplomacy and trade from MOO2 and expanded upon them, Civ III will be amazing.


Vitmore

------------------
"We should not go out and conquer the people, but give them no other choice in their minds but to be conquered." - Me

[Lawrence of Arabia]

I am the biggest perfectionist ever. Whenever i play world map, i play with the sioux and aztec. In the first few turns, i kill them and take their knowlege. Thats about the only action i ever do. From then on, i have all of the americas for myself. I always have a scientific city (Boston) a tax city (new York) and the rest of the cities are good at everything. I build roads, but not in the ai fashion. Just one road between cities. i take care of the geography and hardly ever change terrains. Then, i fly to Apha centauri in like the 1600s and i win the scientific victory. In civ 3, tho, i think that they are going to incorporate a cultural/economic victory where u accumulate culter and trade points to win. i would definatly follow this path. I just hate when i go to war and capture all of these crap cities and all i build r military units and my cities have no improvements, or tile improvements

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now

[garciamed]

quote: Originally posted by Sparky on 03-25-2001 01:54 PM YOU ARE NOT ALONE!!!! I ALWAYS PLAY PEACEFUL AND I ONLY ATTACK IF I REALLY HAVE TO, I LOVE PLAYING A CIV GAME, AND I AM ALSO WORRIED IF CIV3 BECAMES WARCRAFT. I WANT MORE TRADE, MORE POLITICS, RELIGION, CULTURE, THAT WOULD BE A CIV GAME. IF I WANTED TO ONLY DO WAR, I WOULD PLAY AGE OF EMPIRES; WHICH SUCKS. GERMAN GARCIA, BUENOS AIRES, ARGENTINA.

[MBloomIII]

I have never enjoyed a military approach and have always seeked AC since the Civ I days. One way of making war more meaningful would be to deduct a population point for all military units sd they are built. The only exception would be for warriors which you could build to your hearts content. Also, instead of warriors being replaced by military advances, they could turn into explorers or trackers or something along these lines. This would make the price for military build-up steep however the downside may be that you could build military units in the early stage to keep cities in line. (I'm thinking as I type here). What could be done is that if your military unit loses a battle then a population point is deducted from the home city. Disbanding of a military unit should also add a population point to a city since these people could contribute to the overall economy rather than strictly peacekeeping. I don't know if this idea has been bandied about elsewhere.

[Sparky]

Zeevico, I do the same thing. My favorite style (perhaps not the most efficient on deity) to to be nice to everyone, spread my cities, build efficiet roads and infrastructure, and try to make a huge population. I rarely declare war. Woe to my enemies, though; anyone who sneak attacks shall taste my steel. If any civ ever attacks me, I will never sign peace until I have annihilated their empire.

My second favorite style is single-city. I liked this best in Civ 1 Real Earth, where there was the perfect city spot in Manchuria (lots of trees and grasslands, two sides protected by water). Once I won on king with 12 wonders.

[Blaupanzer]

Sparky,

Agree with thinking. More war should bring on disease, refugees fleeing the war area, loss of irrigation systems, decreases in the population of the nation losing units, and so on. The four horsemen ride together; war brings pestilence, famine, and death. Civ doesn't reflect this. Long-term oppression leads to many of the same problems: inefficiencies, waste, refugees, guerilla warfare, brain drain, and so forth. Civ doesn't reflect this either. However, Civ III is doing away with Fundamentalism as a government choice and adding cultural effects. Hope springs.

[Cyclotron]

Just remember, don't kill off war altogether... many minor wars have occured quite quickly and ended the same, so you shouldn't completely discourage people from fighting in the first place!

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 04-05-2001 11:33 PM Just remember, don't kill off war altogether... many minor wars have occured quite quickly and ended the same, so you shouldn't completely discourage people from fighting in the first place!

Yes -- although I said in an earlier post in this thread that I would like to see more peaceful routes to victory in Civ3, war must still be a viable option when backed up with parallel economic and cultural development.

To me, Civ3 will have achieved the right balance if, when the most expert aggessive expansionist comes up against the most expert rational perfectionist, it's like the irresistible force meeting the immovable object. Each should be just as strong as the other, with neither able to conquer merely by virtue of military or economic power -- though in a real game, of course, there will always be random factors and other players that will tip the balance one way or the other.

[Gammaray fan]

This is a bit long, but please bear with me...
I also have been a AC pursuer since the Civ1 days. In fact, civ1 had a really great idea which was dropped in Civ2 in which if one of your cities was ultra prosperous with great infrastructure etc. there was a small chance that city's in other poor but expansionist civs would 'admire the prosperity of Rome' for example, and defect to your civ!
Anyway, I think the main thing Firaxis should concentrate on is not to discourage war completely, but to discourage continuous war. It would be fun to send out say 3 great stacks and battle it out for 10 turns or so (retreating, counterattacking, fortifying to the military strategists content), but placing severe penalties for having longer wars. (unhappiness?) I believe the main reason why war was so boring in previous civ games was because you had 100 billion troops constantly roaming the map. And people are saying settlers are bad! Units should be encouraged to stay in cities. Perhaps assigning units to 'border patrol' will determine if you detect enemy incursions across your borders, eliminating the need to place troops all around your borders, and encouraging them to stay in fortresses or cities.

[Sparky]

Yeah, I miss that city-defect event, too. In all my games of Civ, though, I only saw it happen maybe three times.

Have any of you been getting gamestats to come up as a Spanish FIFA site? For days I've been getting that.

[SerapisIV]

Well in the Ask the Team where they mentioned cities revolting, Firaxis was a little nebulous (big surprise) on the topic, but it sounds as if city-defects (or some kind of revolting) will occur
http://www.firaxis.com/civ3/asktheteam_011901.cfm

[Maccabee2]

[quote]Originally posted by Sparky on 03-25-2001 04:44 PM

It's not realistic that well-defended city can technically lose a hundred defensive units, and yet not take one point of population loss. Losing men at that rate should hugely inpact the total population (like WWI), as well as be very financially costly.

Sparky, Zanzin, and MBloom are really onto a great idea here! I was thinking the same thing (subtract one population unit for each military unit built). This would require every empire to grow before it "goes forth and conquers." Also, I like the idea that one of the above made that when you disband a unit, it adds one back into your population. This also adds another dimension -- what to do with your soldiers when they come home! Sometimes its a double-edged sword, hence the need for improvements that prevent unhappiness caused by overcrowding (like hospitals, entertainment, etc.)
Remember that many empires that had the technological and industrial potential to conquer the world, were slowed or defeated by the inability to draw enough loyal troops from their own population. They simply didn't have enough people.
Several examples come to mind. (1)Rome's legions began to recruit its soldiers from the outlying provinces like Gaul, Spain, Illyricum, Dacia, and Syria, because there simply weren't enough able-bodied men in the Italian peninsula to meet the demand. This eventually led to less devoted and disciplined troops who violated the rights of Roman citizens, eroded the "cultural value" of being part of the Roman Empire, and contributed to its downfall. (2) Throughout the Early and Mid- Middle Ages, the infantry of any European army was composed almost soley of "levies", basically armed peasants. This especially argues for a population cost to build any unit. (If we wish to compromise with the "Hawks" among us, we could concede that those military units that were solely made up of nobility or aristocracy, like knights or any pre-19th century cavalry, would not cost one population unit. The nobility didn't really work anyways, so their traipsing off to war like merry school boys towards a holiday, wouldn't really affect the cities production .)
(3) Napoleon was often frustrated trying to raise armies and had to resort to supplementing his French troops with those from conquered nations like Italy. (4) The Nazis were desperate for more men on the eastern front and had several S.S. corps made up of Italians, Romanians, Bulgarians, and other nationalities. Towards the end, they drafted young boys to defend Berlin, and the lack of manpower contributed to their defeat. (I remember a teacher, a WW2 vet, whom I pressed to tell me about the war. He cried when he told me the hardest thing he ever had to do was kill a 12 year old German boy who was shooting at him.)
While this is primarily a game, for me it is also a teaching tool. My daughter plays Civ2, AOE, and CTP, and occasionally we discuss the events and problems she runs into and how it applies to the real world.
War costs, and I think this game should reflect that.