Civ 3 WAR and PEACE: a few thoughts that all should read.....

Gregol · August 18, 2002, 20:01

There's been something I have been thinking about for a long time now, and I figured it was about time for me to adress the issue of war and peace in civ 3. I am just now starting work on a big mod for civ 3, and while I do plan on adding many new units, I also wanted to add techs and improvements. This got me thinking that balance in gameplay past the industrial age is something that is rarely discussed, largely because so many people don't get past the industrial age. This also is likely to make all the wonderful new modern-age units I will be adding (thanks to all the awsome unit animation that has already been done by people) will be hard to balance out, and will largely go unused

People who COMPLAIN that they never get into the modern age because they always conquer the world or win via domination before that time, I have something to say to. Before I do, I would like to point out a debate on this forum that occured a while ago pretaining to leaders in the game. I remember reading someone say that Ghandi was a bad choice for a leader (which he is because he never lead the contry, but that's not the point) because he was a peaceful person, and the game revolves around war. Some people claimed that hitler would be a good choice for a leader, citing that in games, EVERYONE pop-rushes improvements, raises enemy cities, declares war on their neighboors for no reason, and basically that by playing civ, you are essentially role-playing a WARLORD or other conquest-driven persona. And thus, it was ok for leaders like Mao, Stalin, Hitler to be in the game because you are playing an evil person anyway (or something to that effect). One person said that it was totally innappropriate for ghandi, one of the most peaceful people ever, to be in a game that, AND I QUOTE: "revolves entirely around war".

This statement drew to my attention the fact that 80-90% of civ 3 players actually consider it a war game. 80-90% of players try to conquer the world, or win by domination, etc. To most, the thought of AIMING for a cultural or diplomatic victory does not occur to them. To them, they are just alternatives if you fail to conquer the world in time. Now don't get me wrong: everyone has the right to play the game however they want; but don't assume that there are not other ways to play it.

People who assume that are missing the point, and don't reaslise this: Sid meier never intended civilization to be a war game. When he created Civ 1, He meant for it to be a game of diplomacy, science, and building. Now obviously, It was too primative to be much fun without any warfare at all. But really, the military units were put in the game for the sake of realisim and completeness. He never intended them to be the focal point of the game. That is why even to this day WARFARE IN CIV IS FAIRLY SIMPLISTIC. Units have attack, denfense, move, etc. While more complecated thing like air missions and bombardment have been added due to the hordes of warmongers wanting warfare to be improved, SM still hopes for civ 3 to at least provide the freedom to players to play a war-filled game or a peaceful one. This is the reason for the space-race, diplomatic, and cultural victories. They are there so you can CHOOSE them, not just a fallback options in case you suck at war.

Don't get me wrong, war can be fun, and I have played the warlord in the past, but many people seem to think there is no other way. Now, true enough, the space race in civ 3 is not the greatest, which is why in my mod i plan to make it better. But the cultural and diplomatic victories are hard to get, especially the cultural victory. Personally, I consider the cultural victory the highest from of victory, becasue it means that your civilization is just so kick-ass that it is undisputedly the best one. The fact is, I hear many people complain that the game is too easy, or that they never get to the modern times because they conquer the world too early. To them, I only ask that they considerthe possiblilty of ..... not going to war... at all. ever.

Let me explain: Say your neighboorhood is having a gardening contest. It seems obvious that to win, you have to put a lot of time and effort into developing your own garden. But, you could also win by going around and pouring round up on everyone else's garden, thus destroying their chances at winning and ensuring yourself a victory. This is exactly what conquering the world is. In my view, it is taking the easy way out. It doesn't matter how crappy your culture is, or how much anyone hates you, because you can win by forcing other civs into submission. Now, BEFORE YOU GET MAD, in civ, this is a perfectly fine way to win, but in gardening, you can't truly consider yourself a winner, can you? you win by having an amazing garden, not by destroying everyone else's. Does war and conquest in civ make the game easier to win? Yes, which is exactly why you should consider not doing it, especially if you think the game is too easy. Of corse it's easy if you don't give your opponents a chance!

Here is my argument: the most challenging game is one where you use only the resources and land that you get initially by settling. When you take away land and resources from your opponents via conquest, it gives yourself an edge. Only use what you are given, and if you can create a truly great civilization with that, that you have really acheieved something. Note that you will still gain other civ's cites: they will civ-flip because of your high culture. You can settle very agresively, just never actually declare war. If your FRIEND (rival civ's should not be considered enemies by default) has a resource you need, TRADE FOR IT. Build, build, build and win after you reach the modern age. I see so many people brag and brag and show off screenshots of their saved games where they control like 80% of the world's surface or something. I think it is way more impressive to win by having a kickass civilization while only controlling 20% of the world's land surface. Yes, going to war gives you an advantage. What does this mean? it means that if playing this style of game, a totally peaceful one, sounds too challenging, than it means that you aren't really that good of a civ player.

Remeber, your small army will make you a target. The fact is, you will go through wars, you just won't start them. And even if you do, just take what you need then sue for peace. But if your opponenets are almost always more strong militariliy than you (as is the case with me) this just makes war with them more desperate and challenging and thus, more fun. Winning a war while having only a thrid the forces of your opponenet is quite satisfying, and this will be the case if you are worried about producing as many wonders and cultural improvements as possible before the 1000 AD mark ( so that their value will double after a thousand years).

This post is not directed at everone, it is directed at people who complain the game is too easy, who never reach the modern age, who think that the game is a war game. The fact is, I rarely play a totally peaceful game. usually, I play a mixed game, especially on the harder difficulty levels, (like emperor). But rarely win via domination and in all the games I have ever played, I only once won by total conquest. Yes, I find it fun to play the bad guy and conquer the world sometimes. But it isn't the ONLY way to win. I i didn't think war was an important part of the game, I wouldn't want to add more units to it, much less 40+ new units. All I am saying is to try and see civ as something other than "a war game at heart" just because you personally play it that way.

In conclusion, I wantto take my hat off to anyone who has won a game without ever pop-rushing an improvement, without ever raising a captured city, and most of all without EVER GOING TO WAR EVEN ONE SINGLE TIME. I know I have, and it was damn fun.

zulu9812 · August 18, 2002, 20:07

avoiding wars at Deity is nigh-on impossible. Well, you could give the AI everything it demands, allow it march units all over your territory and let it get away with trying to steal your techs and planes, I suppose...

Gregol · August 18, 2002, 20:23

i understand that deity level is nearly impossible to win without EVER going to war, and I am not suggesting that you never go to war on this high a skill level (AS I SAID IN THE POST IF YOU READ THE WHOLE THING). but most do not play on deity level. Also, just because you go to war in moderartion doesn't mean you have to conquer the world. You don't have to give in to their demands, just don't go to war without provocation unless you have no other choice, and on deity, I can understand that situation.

As for the totally peaceful game, I was refering to difficulty <= emperor

Theseus · August 18, 2002, 20:30

Gregol, for a truly peaceful game, try AU 102: Give Peace A Chance... you are not allowed to build any military units, period.

RedBird · August 18, 2002, 21:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
Gregol, for a truly peaceful game, try AU 102: Give Peace A Chance... you are not allowed to build any military units, period.

Is this a CivIII mod (if so can you give a link), or a completely separate game?

Capt Dizle · August 18, 2002, 22:06

If you even have the least bit of sense of history you will know that warfare was and is the only constant factor. If the game can be won by peaceful mean it doesn't reflect the nature of mankind.

The basic flaw in 4x games is the bigger is always better problem. Thats a hurdle that hasn't been cleared yet AFAIK.

Theseus · August 18, 2002, 22:44

Gregol and RedBird,

It's not a mod. If you look in the Strategy thread, there are a number of games that we have played in a group manner... not so much competitive, but rather for mutual advancement.

We founded Apolyton University ("AU") to further this goal; we're still fairly new at it, but having fun.

In a burst of interest and creativity about a month ago, based upon the report that a player in Germany had done something similar, we developed this game. It was cool, although obviously less than full Civ. But you should try it... interesting lessons to be learned. Also, alexman, who actually created the SAV, threw in a bunch of very funny references to your new leader, Sam the Hippy!

Gregol · August 18, 2002, 23:35

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
If you even have the least bit of sense of history you will know that warfare was and is the only constant factor. If the game can be won by peaceful mean it doesn't reflect the nature of mankind.

Trust me, I am a huge history buff. I am aware of this, and I love historical war games and scenarios for civ II (hopefully for civ III soon enough.)

But this is a GAME, my friend. You can be better than real humans. life in eutopia, etc.

Besides, I think some may be misswing the purpose of my post. It is not to say that you should never enjoy warfare in the game, simply to adress people who complain that they don't get to the modern age or that the game is too easy. I want to make it clear it doesn't have to be and it is possible to challenge yourself by aiming for other victory types.

I am simply saying that it is NOT a war game. You can play that style, or a peaceful style. I think that is the reason why sid meier has always wanted Ghandi to be the leader of the indians, as innaccurate as it may be. He is trying to send a sutble message: that it is possible to play a peaceful game.

Capt Dizle · August 18, 2002, 23:59

Well, it is a war game. Sorry. It might not be a good one but it is a war game. The only way you can generate leaders is through war. The AI expands like crazy and the only way you can expand is through war. If you don't have resources you need you have to war or pay unreasonable costs. The diplomacy is tailored to force war - MPP anyone?

It might be possible to play a peaceful game but its an aberation.

Coracle · August 19, 2002, 00:21

It is IMPOSSIBLE to decide before the game begins what type of strategy you will have if you do not know your geographic position and who your neighbors are before the game begins.

Jon Shafer · August 19, 2002, 00:30

Unfortunately, the nature of Civ is to try and be as all-inclusive as possible, but it chokes and comes up short in every area. Combat is unbelievably simplified, and the non-war aspects of the game are horribly neglected, as you said, into 'a backup in case you can't conquer the world'. To me, this is the biggest underlying problem with Civ (any incarnation) that I can find.

RedBird · August 19, 2002, 01:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
It's not a mod. If you look in the Strategy thread, there are a number of games that we have played in a group manner... not so much competitive, but rather for mutual advancement.

We founded Apolyton University ("AU") to further this goal; we're still fairly new at it, but having fun.

That's neat. How do you avoid all war? I mean, sometimes war is simply declared upon you. At least it has been for me. So, does AU have a forum? Give me a link.

vondrack · August 19, 2002, 03:26

Frankly, there is not an option I would feel I could vote for. If possible, I will go for peace (one notable, totally peaceful game of mine was won by the UN vote in 1900, fighting not a single war throughout the whole game... the irony was I played as the Germans...

but I understand that it is not that rare and heard of other people doing the same). However, it is seldom an option available at all times. Very often, you have to wage war to stay competitive.

So the option I would vote for would be something like "I always try to play peacefully, but almost always end up warring..."

Dunno, if it's me or the AI...

Still, I have only one Domination victory in my HoF, and no Conquest one. Space Races all the time...

To be honest, I have gradually changed my playing style hanging around here at Poly... I used to be much more peaceful, never initiating wars, just defending myself justly against aggressions. Now I often go to war on my own terms...

Panag · August 19, 2002, 05:46

Quote:

Originally posted by zulu9812
avoiding wars at Deity is nigh-on impossible. Well, you could give the AI everything it demands, allow it march units all over your territory and let it get away with trying to steal your techs and planes, I suppose...

hi ,

it can be done , ....

even get a diplo victory , ...

have a nice day

Grumbold · August 19, 2002, 05:48

I usually have one early war. While this is often begun by an AI nation I always carry it to the extreme (eradication of their Civ or banishment to a hidden galley) in order to gain the extra territory you need as a human player to more than offset the AI cheats that make it superior to you.

Beyond that point I am largely happy to sit back and turn my nation into an Utopia until the modern age unless another nation attacks. Its then a toss-up whether I win by culture, conquest or space race. I find all the endings pretty unsatisfactory thanks to the perfunctory nature of the victory announcements. I prefer all of them to world dominance during the mediaevil or industrial ages since that really ought not to be possible under any circumstances.

muxec · August 19, 2002, 10:09

I never declare war on AI and try to sign peace treaty as fast as possible.

Thrawn05 · August 19, 2002, 10:28

I play peacfuly, BUT, if an AI attacks me... then I commit acts of Genocide.

Hey he started it, he should finish it.

Arrian · August 19, 2002, 11:20

For those who are interested in "Hippy Sam" here is the link:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...ighlight=AU102

I managed to come within 4 turns of a UN victory before being sneak-attacked by Egypt. Others managed to win. I think everyone got attacked at least once, though. Ahh, what I could have done with units.

-Arrian

Lord Merciless · August 19, 2002, 14:18

War is like the Dark Side of the Force, quicker and easier to achieve power. Peace takes longer, and generally requires more skill to achieve the same level of power. I have been so far playing on the Emperor level and have always resorted to warmongering strategies. It starts getting boring because it becomes like a winning formula. If Aeson can conquer the world at Deity level from an iceberg, that says something about the effectiveness of warmongering.

Winning peacefully, or rather pacificist, is a much bigger challenge. If someone can do it consistenly at Emperor+ levels, that person is the true master of Civ3.

Thrawn05 · August 19, 2002, 14:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
War is like the Dark Side of the Force, quicker and easier to achieve power.

That's funny, because every SW game I play I play that side.

It looks like Sid converted me.

Panag · August 21, 2002, 05:50

hi ,

peace true power , ....

by the way , at deity until 2050 without a war , 256x256 , 24 civs , ...

so it can be done !

have a nice day

Galvatron · August 21, 2002, 06:22

I'm not sure if this game is meant only as a peaceful "build cities and irrigate your squares all the time" game as you just need to look at the units more than 3/4 of them are meant purely for war and only a small scale are civilians. Furthermore war is an ideal way to expand your territory and that's the top-priority to win this game. I'm not declaring war to destroy other civs but only to protect my interests and expand. Of course it often happens that a war may escalate and my opponent gets too angry as I took away from him almost all of his possessions and than you just have only one option: to eradicate him completely as he doesn't want to make peace again and will always be a thread to you. But in the end this isn't my fault, all I want was just these two cities.

Panag · August 21, 2002, 06:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Galvatron
I'm not sure if this game is meant only as a peaceful "build cities and irrigate your squares all the time" game as you just need to look at the units more than 3/4 of them are meant purely for war and only a small scale are civilians. Furthermore war is an ideal way to expand your territory and that's the top-priority to win this game. I'm not declaring war to destroy other civs but only to protect my interests and expand. Of course it often happens that a war may escalate and my opponent gets too angry as I took away from him almost all of his possessions and than you just have only one option: to eradicate him completely as he doesn't want to make peace again and will always be a thread to you. But in the end this isn't my fault, all I want was just these two cities.

hi ,

putting a civ in the grave yard might be a way to get rid of the problem , but the real challange is to get that civ back on your side , of course only after you have put it on corner of the map , ....

you can allways try propaganda , or culture flip if you want those places , ..

or sign a mutual defense pact , and get them after the other civ declared war , ...then back out , this way the civ you took the places from tends to be less angry with you , ..

have a nice day