My Conversion to the Dark Side.

kmill25 · September 23, 2002, 13:12

I'm like Luke in ROTJ. I'm conflicted. But I'm beginning to turn. I am a builder. My motto has always been Peace before the gun. I try to go for diplomatic and space ship victories.

But recently I have been getting much pleasure from destroying other civs. Mostly those damn Zulu.

My games start the same. Build cities and a culture foundation, while spitting out settlers and exploring units. Well until recently I would build until my borders have reached neighboring civs and then stop. I would only go to war if absolutly necessary, and even then I would always get help. There's nothing like a 3 on 1 war where I send no troops and let my allies fight the battles.

But now once I reach a neighboring civ, I get all the info I can on them, build up an invasion force and take em out. I usually reduce them to three or four cities and then take them for all that they have. And instead of stopping there I get greedy. And since I usually powerful at the time, I have 5 or so turns of peace, to lower WW and then I take out the next closest civ. Basically the same strats you guys have been talking about since 1.16.

Anyways I'm walking down that dark road and loving it. Is there any cure? Or am I doomed to make the choices of my father Darth Vader? And rule the CIV III empire through conquest.

vmxa1 · September 23, 2002, 13:51

Welcome brother. You will likely revert from time to time.

Arrian · September 23, 2002, 14:15

You have taken your first halting step toward the Dark Side. Discover the awesome power of Great Leaders, and your journey will be complete.

I too was once a "builder" in that I had no intention of fighting until I was attacked. I concentrated on building cities, improvements and wonders, with a very small armed forces, mostly just 1 defender per city. I traded with the AI and responded to attacks by conquering the invaders. By the time I hit Regent level, I began to get more and more frustrated with being attacked by the AI, or being beaten to wonders despite concentrating on building instead of fighting.

Monarch is the level that finally turned me. I just couldn't manage to build all my shiny wonders anymore. The AI would build some (and often enough beat me to crucial ones like the Sistine) and/or invade me. First I got mad. Then I got even.

I no longer wait for the AI to attack me or steal MY wonders. I hit them first, I hit them hard, and I hit them often. I see AI cities as mine, just not right now. I see AI units as training tools for my troops and potential leader generating battles. If a neighboring AI builds a wonder, GOOD, because it will shortly be mine.

It doesn't always work out. There are a lot of things that can go wrong when you live and die by the sword. So be it.

-Arrian

kmill25 · September 23, 2002, 15:06

And that is what basically helped me to change my ways. The lack of leaders. The loss of Wonders. Being attacked by Shaka, and Cesear, and the Japanese. The simple phrase "Compared to them our Military is weak."

And of course the joy of conquest. Knowing that even though it is corrupt the WHOLE contintent is yours.

Golden Bear · September 23, 2002, 15:59

I agree - I also have been pulled to the path of conquest against my will. I always preferred to expand and develop. Then I discovered the Zulus - and the Aztecs. Then I started to play on Monarch.

The level of AI testosterone goes up quickly from Regent to Monarch. These guys come calling with troops in the drop of a hat. It used to be that if I saw the Zulus or the Aztecs nearby, there would be a war as soon as I had cavalry. Now, as soon as I bump into someone and they do not look too strong, then I will get into a fight.

Part of it, I think, is that I figure that one less AI means one less AI to trade techs behind my back. Partly, it saves a lot of money that I would spend on Settlers.

I continue to play the French because I like Commercial and I like the timing of the GA - and also because I like the noise the Musketeer makes when he fortifies. On Monarch, it is less of a trick to get somebody to declare war on you just before you get Gunpowder.

BTW, I regard the English in the same category as the Zulus and Aztecs. They are really irritating to have as neighbors. Hmm, maybe because I play the French.

One little wrinkle that I have added in my most recent game is that I used swordsman along with my horsemen in my early Aztec-stomping adventure. The map is a little tighter so their lack of speed was less important.

Of course, I believe that I fight these early wars just in order to buy myself enough space to develop my country. After all, I am a Builder!

Carlos

vmxa1 · September 23, 2002, 16:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Monarch is the level that finally turned me. I just couldn't manage to build all my shiny wonders anymore. The AI would build some (and often enough beat me to crucial ones like the Sistine) and/or invade me. First I got mad. Then I got even.
-Arrian

This the main reason I play few games above Monarch anymore. I got my reminder last night on EMP. They get so many wonders and tech swap you into a big hole. I know I wil come back, but it still is annoying to see the blurp that city abc has completed its wonder. My satisfaction is coming now when India (#1 by 500 points at the time) was at war with French (#3) and Greece (#4) and demanded I (Rome #2) give them wine. I said no figuring they had enough on their plate, but no they sneak atacked me. I was surprised. Now not many turns later I have annexed serveral cities, got the other 2 civ to join the fun and I am cutting into the lead big time. Getting to enjoy the fun now, but it is hateful to see them lord over you for so long. They are at war with all civs and will not be in the lead for long or ever again.

Arrian · September 23, 2002, 17:06

vxma1,

I have pretty much stuck to Monarch. It's all about what one considers fun.

I have gone so far now that I have almost no fear of war. Any time, any place, against anyone. Well, maybe not THAT fast 'n loose, but close.

War really disrupts the AI... and triggering their GA can even be a good thing. You may think fighting a GA-empowered AI in the ancient era is bad, but it depends on the AI. Rome and Persia... no. Bad idea. Kill them quickly, or at least deny them iron.

In my most recent game, however, I (Japan) found myself at war with the Babs after they demanded my map & 20 gold (I told them to shove it). They quickly got alliances with India and Zululand against me. That's a 3 front war, folks. Luckily, India never showed up to the party and were bought off for peanuts (1gpt), but I had my hands full with the Babs and Zulu, both of which had their GA's triggered. This wasn't a bad thing, really. All they did was pump out units for me to kill. I later discovered that the Babs were also fighting Persia (I saw a stack of immortals making a futile effort to beat my horsemen to the Babs' core cities), which meant that almost everyone on the continent was at war most of the time. I took all but 2 Bab cities (the Persians took care of them), and turned my attention to the Chinese, while still fighting the Zulu. After China, back to the Indians (20 turns up

). India died quickly. I actually had a peaceful interlude (yep, even with Shaka)before refusing a Persian demand and sending my Samurai to fight Immortals and Pikemen. Shaka, had managed to stymie me with Impi fortified in a couple of large cities. I had made peace because I had taken horrendous casualties trying to take them, and had to focus on Persia. Finally, with Persia wiped out, I finished the Zulu.

The wars of continental conquest were an ongoing bloodbath, and ended up generating leaders for: army (HE), forbidden, Sun Tzu, Sistine, Leo's, Smith, Magellan's, Newton. Granted, the last few came later, during the "rampage of the Samurai." I build the Pyramids (after a failed bid for the Colossus), Bach and Copernicus. I captured the Oracle (Babylon), HG (Beijing), Great Wall (I forget, unimportant).

Final victory came in the 13th century, as my Samurai horde spilled across the ocean into a silly pink place called "France" that had the last 2 luxuries I didn't control. I farted in Joan's general direction after she informed me that a 6 for 1 luxury deal was "insulting."

I had forgotten to mention this earlier, but that's the final reason I snapped and starting breaking things... you can't get a fair trade if you're doing well.

-Arrian

Theseus · September 23, 2002, 17:32

Warmongering is the strongest weapon in the Civ3 strategic arsenal. The philosophical transition from builder to warmonger is one of the most difficult to make, and often that's why the rewards are so gratifying.

Once mastered, almost any game is yours to control; you will also find that the other strategic imperatives more easily become weapons in and of themselves.

Welcome to the Dark Side... it keeps getting better.

Golden Bear · September 23, 2002, 18:55

Here I am stuck at work and you guys are getting me psyched to get back to my game!

I (French, sorry Arrian), having taken all but one Aztec city, was subjected to an all out attack by Babylonians which resulted in a massacre of about 20 units of theirs (those stupid bowmen, mostly). This was followed within two turns by an attack by the English (from the South) which was backed up with Knights. I had like one pikeman anywhere near there but I stalled them and counterattacked (suicide attacks) with cav and swordmen. They asked for peace when they were about to lose 5 knights in one turn - I had to give it to them. I just finished my war production builds and started to build peaceful city improvements when the Babs came over the eastern border again, this time with Knights!

I have had constant war with very little possible to build up my infrastructure. Add to that the fact that the majority of my expansion region was jungle to start with, and I am fighting without a lot of production. Still, I can manage to make it come out right with carefully built roads and lots of horse and now, knights. I built the Great Library and used GLs for FP (I had too for war response) and for Sistine Chapel. I am building something else (not Sun Tzu) while I wait to start Bach's Cathedral. I have built a nice group of knights who might product some more GLs if I can keep a controlled war going.

Fortunately, I can bottleneck the Babylonians at a pair of cities (naturally my capital is on the far western coast away from all this fighting). I lost an outpost city and then fought them to a standstill with the "counterattack the stack from the city" tactic. They just asked for peace but I am only 2 turns from Gunpowder. I like peace but, I am ready for my GA. That means that the war must go on at least 6 more turns. Alternatively, I actually want to attack England since their cities will form a more compact and defensible region. I could punish the Babs a little more, get peace and then provoke a war with England. So many options! Currently I am in Republic (I have a tendency to get into Republic too early because I want to minimize lost Anarchy turns).

A problem with warmongering for me is that it gets a momentum of its own that makes it tough to stop. Maybe some time I just will not stop.

BTW. The game is French, Large, Restless, Large Continents, normal climate, etc. with all victory conditions turned on.

Carlos

vmxa1 · September 23, 2002, 22:19

Arrian that sounds like fun to me. I tend to prefer Monarch as well, but must play a game of EMP/Deity from time to time to remind myself, why I don't care for that game. It sucks for fun for soooo long. It is great fun, once you get on some what of an even footing, but I dislike all of the abuse before then. I have to bear down too much to enjoy myself. I guess I do not have all of the proper moves down.

punkbass2000 · September 28, 2002, 16:49

DON'T DO IT! Seriously, this game can be beaten without war. Give in not, young kmill25.

Zero · September 28, 2002, 20:28

You can be both builder and a warmonger if you build the empire like a hive as i do... Strong core and zillions of small towns as shell pumping units. You can have best of both worlds!

Zero · September 30, 2002, 21:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
Warmongering is the strongest weapon in the Civ3 strategic arsenal. The philosophical transition from builder to warmonger is one of the most difficult to make, and often that's why the rewards are so gratifying.

Once mastered, almost any game is yours to control; you will also find that the other strategic imperatives more easily become weapons in and of themselves.

Welcome to the Dark Side... it keeps getting better.

actually lot of people make the transition to warmonger as a beginner to builder..... take me for instance, i was a total warmonger, built little or no city improvement and just units since civ I... it was long later until I even tried total builder style. Now I play mostly balnced of both worlds.

Which ever style u start as, i beleive u will be tempted to try extreme of the other world... and ur maturity perhaps is when you learn the balance... theres still room in the middle of balance scale to tip more toward war or peace, and ususally thats wat we mean by warmonger and builder i think, warmongers still spend alot of time building improvement and builders stil build armies of units..

Theseus · September 30, 2002, 23:24

You are right of course... the best warmongering comes from the best building.

kmill25 · October 1, 2002, 08:43

No builder is ever totally defenseless. I think the warmongering comes from what you do with those armies.

Do you simply keep the as a defense force, never attacking a sovergn(sp) nation. Or do you send those armies on the offensive crushing all that are in your way.

Defense or Imperialism? You decide.

Arrian · October 1, 2002, 10:01

Imperialism for me please

-Arrian

Bella Hella · October 1, 2002, 11:29

i find myself pondering the dark side a lot. i tend to build, and then amass a strong military in the industrial era and do tank/infantry rushes. (oh when the tanks... come rolling in.... oh when the tanks come rolling in....) but the awesome power of early warmongering cannot be denied.

Harovan · October 1, 2002, 11:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
You are right of course... the best warmongering comes from the best building.

That's very true. And I must say, post 1.29f I slowly begin to turn back a bit in the builder direction.

I don't need warmongering much (except in the ancient age), because own research is a viable option again. I fight wars if I need space to breathe or to eliminate a potential treat (like Bismarck in the neighborhood), but I don't fight big wars of overseas conquest anymore. On huge, crowded maps (my current favorite), this generates just completely corrupt areas, which I can't be arsed to micromanage

. And I don't fight wars anymore just to generate leaders. With a good infrastructure and terrain improvement, up to Emperor, at least one ancient wonder (Pyramids or GL), half or more medieval wonders and all industrial/modern wonders can be built. I use to punish sneak attacks with taking away 1 or 2 overseas luxury cities, that's it. But calling me a warmonger would be wrong. I'm something in the middle. Call me a pragmatic player, that should fit it best.

Catt · October 1, 2002, 14:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

And I must say, post 1.29f I slowly begin to turn back a bit in the builder direction.

I don't need warmongering much (except in the ancient age), because own research is a viable option again. I fight wars if I need space to breathe or to eliminate a potential treat (like Bismarck in the neighborhood), but I don't fight big wars of overseas conquest anymore. On huge, crowded maps (my current favorite), this generates just completely corrupt areas, which I can't be arsed to micromanage

. And I don't fight wars anymore just to generate leaders. With a good infrastructure and terrain improvement, up to Emperor, at least one ancient wonder (Pyramids or GL), half or more medieval wonders and all industrial/modern wonders can be built. I use to punish sneak attacks with taking away 1 or 2 overseas luxury cities, that's it. But calling me a warmonger would be wrong. I'm something in the middle. Call me a pragmatic player, that should fit it best.

My current playstyle has very much evolved ionto something similar. I make war (if needed) in order to secure sufficient land and resources, both luxury and strategic, and I make war for strategic reasons -- capturing and holding powerful and defensible geographic locations, crippling a too-strong neighbor -- but I'm finding with 1.29f that I make war less frequently. 1.29f seems to have helped in offering strategic alternatives in gameplay, which makes each game a little bit more interesting for me.

'Course, I never really went over to the dark side to the extent of some of our Strat Forum regulars. And this was a playstyle I tried to use before - it was just a little bit more challenging on the higher levels with research so difficult before 1.29f.

Notyoueither coined a phrase I like to use - I'm a buildmonger -- builder at heart but not timid about making war when circumstances warrant.

Catt

Theseus · October 1, 2002, 17:01

Then make me a warbuilder... I STILL romp the AI civs' butts on a regular basis, whether for lebensraum, techs, luxuries, GLs, trimming, or just on principle.

I just don;t believe in a mono-focus on war, nor do I like the simplistic games where rushing is the primary focus.

I believe that 1) a balanced game is the most fun (which includes keeping AI civs off-balance!), and that 2) warmongering *capabilities* come from having a well-developed and healthy empire.

Arrian · October 1, 2002, 17:12

I played a couple of builder or buildmonger type games right after 1.29 came out, messing around with France, America and Rome. One of the French games was pretty darn peaceful, but partway through I made the mistake of trying to prop up a civ that was getting killed. The trade route got cut, and I became a deal-breaker. That annoyed me. I was winning anyway, but at that point I pretty much had to switch over to agression.

And then the power of the Dark Side called to me, and it was back to my warrior ways. Though technically, I could argue that my Egyptian game (I think I posted about it - the one where I had a perfect FP really early) was not a warmonger game. I was attacked by England, the Iroquois and Russia (alliances with England) first. I responded. Later, I finished them off. I was later attacked by the Aztecs and Chinese. I responded. Finally, Greece attacked me. Game Over. Now it's true that I had every intention of fighting whether I was attacked or not, but I never drew first blood. But like I said, technically

-Arrian

Catt · October 1, 2002, 17:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Theseus
Then make me a warbuilder... I STILL romp the AI civs' butts on a regular basis, whether for lebensraum, techs, luxuries, GLs, trimming, or just on principle.

I would expect no less

.

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
And then the power of the Dark Side called to me, and it was back to my warrior ways. Though technically, I could argue that my Egyptian game (I think I posted about it - the one where I had a perfect FP really early) was not a warmonger game. I was attacked by England, the Iroquois and Russia (alliances with England) first. I responded. Later, I finished them off. I was later attacked by the Aztecs and Chinese. I responded. Finally, Greece attacked me. Game Over. Now it's true that I had every intention of fighting whether I was attacked or not, but I never drew first blood. But like I said, technically

Again, I would expect no less

.

Even while I say I play a more "builder-ish" game than some, I can almost always count on a strategic imperative for a war of aggression, and I can always count on an AI trying to start trouble -- in such circumstances swift and intense punishment is generallly called for

Catt

Theseus · October 1, 2002, 17:26

Arrian, what I did last night with the Japanese save you posted should be illustrative of my thinking.

The start is SO AWESOMELY powerful, that, unusually, I found myself in the lead almost from the start... more towns, ahead by 1-5 techs...

India, however, started getting a little uppity. Only one tech and one town behind me, I felt that Gandhi had to be shown who's boss. WHACK!! There's a little trim job for you, Elephant Man!

What's this? Shaka settled MY luxury patch to the west (well, he didn;t know it was MINE, but hey, what are you gonna do)... WHACK!!

Jesus, what now... Jerxes build a city near IRON!! Can;t have that. WHACK!!

WHACK!! WHACK!! WHACK!!

(but building temples, markets, etc., all along)

I don;t know if it's the Dark Side... I like to show my friends and neighbors the "light."

Dalai Lama · October 2, 2002, 12:01

I`m a builder who is slowly but gradually "turning to the dark side" too... But i have 1 big issue: after a couple conquests, how do you warmongers cope with the immense amount of corruption and waste in your enormous empires??? Those conquered cities, especially in empires distant form my home continent, are of absolutely no use.

Palace shifts, governments,...???

Tell me and then I will be part of the Dark side once and for all...

Theseus · October 2, 2002, 12:19

Palace, many luxuries, adding my own pop via workers and settlers, harbors / airports, happiness buildings and GWs, marketplaces, WLTKD, courthouses, police stations.

Maybe Monarchy for the MPs, but by that time I would usually rather be in Republic or Democracy.

Zero · October 2, 2002, 22:28

no builders at heart should treated as warmongers just because they start the aggression first. Builders don't have to be peace loving AI is my brothers type of a guy. Good player ceases all the opportunity that is given, and if a builder is presented with those chance, they should go for it. What determines a warmonger VS builder would be this question: Say that you have enough units to fuel your current campaign. And you have basic necessities of aqueduct, temple and library and city moderately developed. Wats your next queue gonna be? More units to overrun? more wealth, workers, buildings?

Dalai Lama · October 3, 2002, 07:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Calc II
Good player ceases all the opportunity that is given, and if a builder is presented with those chance, they should go for it.

That`s very true, and I`m not saying that I didn`t start wars in my building times, but I used what I call "the scavenge tactic"... When one of my neighbours is losing a war, mostly when they`re up against multiple opponents, I start pumping out some attacking and of course some defensive units (10 knights, 5-10 longbowmen and 7 or 8 musketmen for example) and take whatever I can, before the empire is totally defeated. I mostly can get 5 cities with no great losses, no foreign nationals, and relatively close to my capitol.

Arrian · October 3, 2002, 10:10

CalcII,

That type of question is where my "builder" beginnings shine through. If a city improvement is available, I cannot resist it. I actually like falling behind in tech early while I build my army because if I wasn't behind in tech, I'd be building other things and never get around to building the army! I know I need another horseman, but I WANT that library!

I often find myself running low on troops in the late ancient age and again in the late medieval age. This is where having a good Palace/FP setup is crucial. Obviously, the secondary core of my empire gets a later start than my original core, and thus is behind in improvements. I often find myself "building" in the secondary core, and pumping out troops from the original. The improvement I have found I can resist is the colosseum. I'll eventually build them, of course, but I can hold off for a while and build some more troops to keep the momentum going my way.

-Arrian

p.s. Dalai Lama (going to war? LOL) I would humbly suggest that building longbowmen is almost always a waste of shields. They really are a crappy unit, and they cannot be upgraded. I have used them in a pinch a handfull of times, but if you can build knights... build knights.

Dalai Lama · October 4, 2002, 12:23

Yeah, I agree, Longbowmen suck, but in most games I need an army quick, because until that point I didn't have any military. So in cities that take too long to build knights, I build those cheap longbowmen... As secondary attack untis, they get the job done