How do I not be an evil warmonger?

[ThaddeusAlexander]

Originally posted by dworkin
Cannot one be a good warmonger? Helping out poor benighted civilisations from their evil neighbours. Punish the guilty and culture flip the innocent.

Just think of it as the 'Human Player's Burden' to bring civilisation to the AI savage.

You wouldn't be a 'Good Warmonger' as much as a 'Peacekeeper' .... which isn't bad at all. So long as your main strategy is still non-militaristic, then you're not a warmonger.

However, if you declare war under the title of peacekeeper or defender (or something similar) but in actual fact its simply for personal gain then you're just a big hypocrite .... *cough*USA*cough**cough*

Cheers
~Thadalex

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ThaddeusAlexander
but in actual fact its simply for personal gain then you're just a big hypocrite .... *cough*USA*cough**cough*

Cheers
~Thadalex

Canadians really shouldn't troll that way. You live in a country that was stolen from the Amerinds just like here in the US.

[ThaddeusAlexander]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Canadians really shouldn't troll that way. You live in a country that was stolen from the Amerinds just like here in the US.

What are you talking about? Boy we just keep bumping heads don't we

What I was referring to was the US in Afganistan ... they put in charge of the country one of bush's old Oil buddies who worked as a consultant for the family's oil endeavours, and are now running a pipe to pump the oil out of the country. We all know the bush family got rich from oil and if you look in to it, in may of 2001 (before the sept11 attacks if i'm not mistaken) the US told the pakistani goverment they planned an attack in afganistan for early 2002.

How dare any country step in the way of a superpower and its oil supply.

~Thadalex

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ThaddeusAlexander


How dare any country step in the way of a superpower and its oil supply.

~Thadalex

Except that its not the US oil supply.

I remember this same arguement being used to claim that Viet Nam was about oil. There is still no oil coming out of Viet Nam. This is what makes me suspicious of claims that Afganistan was about oil. Claims regarding Iraq are of course on much better ground but its still Europe that is getting most of the Mid East oil and not the US.

Hey I don't like Dubya but I think he is acting more from fear than from greed for oil. I was mostly just pointing out that Canada is not as lilly white regarding rapacious behaviour as some Canadians try to make out.

[ThaddeusAlexander]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Except that its not the US oil supply.

I remember this same arguement being used to claim that Viet Nam was about oil. There is still no oil coming out of Viet Nam. This is what makes me suspicious of claims that Afganistan was about oil. Claims regarding Iraq are of course on much better ground but its still Europe that is getting most of the Mid East oil and not the US.

Hey I don't like Dubya but I think he is acting more from fear than from greed for oil. I was mostly just pointing out that Canada is not as lilly white regarding rapacious behaviour as some Canadians try to make out.

I don't pretend that we didn't take the land from ther mongols that got here first many a century ago like the americans did. But that was many years ago. There is a very different mentality north of the border, that you can't deny.

I've never heard oil from viet nam, but I know whats happening currently in afganistan and i know who 'dubya' put in charge of the country and the figures add up don't they? Even if the oil from the mid east is going to europe after the gulf war, its still making sure the 'free world' or the 'western world' or whatever you want to call us, has a nice supply of oil. If they never pump anything out of afgan and bring it to the US in the near future, you can bet once the US loses its supply they will. Its all about security. I think the bush family knows what they're doing... and although I'm sure the president felt sorrow for the losses of sept11 and anger towards the terrorists, he knew plans for afgan oil were already in place and this would (if i may use some civ3 terms on this civ3 forum ) decrease the war weariness of his democracy.

Thats just my two cents.

Cheers
~Thadalex

[Catt]

Originally posted by ThaddeusAlexander
. . . . and if you look in to it, in may of 2001 (before the sept11 attacks if i'm not mistaken) the US told the pakistani goverment they planned an attack in afganistan for early 2002.

[miccofl]

Now I understand "South Park - the Movie"

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ThaddeusAlexander


I've never heard oil from viet nam, but I know whats happening currently in afganistan and i know who 'dubya' put in charge of the country and the figures add up don't they?

The figures add up to a bit of oil moving through Afghanistan from Russia anyway and I think it would be a stupid place to invest billions. Afghanistan is too volitile and has been that way for millenia. Course Dumbya may not know that.

As for Viet Nam well I guess your specialty in history doesn't cover 30 years ago. I remember it myself. It was a very popular claim that the US was there for oil. I can't rember it being on the bathroom walls or anything but it was in the newspapers and places like Mother Jones and the LA Free Press. I was in High School and College during most of the Viet Nam War. One tends to notice what is being said about a war one may be drafted into.

[vmxa1]

Just because someone is doing something that one does not care for, does not mean they do not have good motives. They may in fact be wrong, but still that does not make them evil or treacherous. When people do or say things I disagree with I do not have to assume they have a bad intend, they could belive they are correct, we both could. What I am saying is that even is every thing you say about Bush is correct, it does not preclude him from thinking it is the right thing to do. He does not have to be evil or corrupt or even stupid, he could be wrong or even right.

[vmxa1]

BTW the way some were saying we were in Nam for some neferious reason, including oil. I was in the Navy in 1963-1968, so I recall the events. I, in fact remember being told about my ship at the time the Turner Joy going on patrol in Nam and I had never heard of it. As it happens, I was transfered and did not go, but you may recall they were the catalyst for the resolution of the Tonkin Gulf.

[dworkin]

Originally posted by ThaddeusAlexander


You wouldn't be a 'Good Warmonger' as much as a 'Peacekeeper' .... which isn't bad at all. So long as your main strategy is still non-militaristic, then you're not a warmonger.

However, if you declare war under the title of peacekeeper or defender (or something similar) but in actual fact its simply for personal gain then you're just a big hypocrite .... *cough*USA*cough**cough*

Cheers
~Thadalex

I try in most of my games to be an enlightened ruler loved for his legions of elvii rather than jackbooted thugs. And protecting my poor, tactically challenged neighbours from loons like Monty and Shaka gives me most of my wars. Alas even with these high ideals there is always the temptation of the dark side. Quicker, easier, more seductive.

[ThaddeusAlexander]

I'm perfectly aware that people can be wrong. BUt this IS suppose to be a thread about Civ3 ... I have nothing against helping minor civs, did i say i did?

All i wanted to joke about is player that go "oh the poor indians are going to be annhilated by the americans. I'd help but I have nothing to gain but some corruption ridden cities on a far away continent with no luxuries." but when they're something to gain they go all "send in the peacekeepers to help this poor defenseless nation!"

Not that it really matters I guess ... this thread was suppose to be about helping the starter get more tactics on how to play a non-warmonger game and I think besides myself only one other person posted some tactics.

Cheers
~Thadalex

[dworkin]

My idea as 'peacekeeper' (BTW nice label, thanks Thaddeus) is to fight mainly defensive wars in someone else's territory. Give back worthless cities or plant them as a burden on your 'friend'. Keep the good one's, one can educate the natives. If only you speak loudly and slowly to them for say, the rest of history.

Fighting for peace seems to generate the same number of GLs with none of the incessant micromanagement a global empire requires. And your core cities are seldom at risk, not that they are beyond the early game anyway.

And build the Spaceship and leave the bickering savages to nuke themselves into oblivion.

Gave it a go at monarch (Japan). Slowly but surely assimilated neighbours and earned the adoration of the world. Then left. Only one deplorable episode when 'hawks' seized control and exterminated every single evil green Aztec after they burned down Byblos. But they were nasty.

[Ethelred]

Only one deplorable episode when 'hawks' seized control and exterminated every single evil green Aztec after they burned down Byblos. But they were nasty.

Monty is a pathological liar and eats babies for breakfast. Its not warmongering to put him down.

[ThaddeusAlexander]

My idea as 'peacekeeper' (BTW nice label, thanks Thaddeus) is to fight mainly defensive wars in someone else's territory. Give back worthless cities or plant them as a burden on your 'friend'.

I go with this strat enough ... It helps keep my closest rivals down and bump up the weaklings who really can't do much to stop me win. After all, the aim is to win Probably the only real benifit I DO get, however, is giving captured cities back to the original owners to make some new best friends in case someone sees me as a threat in the future. In any way, it makes you feel good i guess

Keep the good one's, one can educate the natives. If only you speak loudly and slowly to them for say, the rest of history.

0nly one thing to say... well put

Fighting for peace seems to generate the same number of GLs with none of the incessant micromanagement a global empire requires. And your core cities are seldom at risk, not that they are beyond the early game anyway.

As you said later in your post you used Japan so I can understand, but I rarely use militaristic civs because they don't offer a direct benifit to my goal and most of the use is wasted. I always aim for the Art of War wonder so I don't need the cheap barracks and my cities tend to outgrow wall usage fast enough (although they have saved my life in outskirt cities holding luxuries from barbs and rivals in the early game).. Japan would, however, be one of the few militaristic civs i'd use (i do play them enough actually) simply because I love religious civs as i tend to build temples in all my cities ASAP.

Okay gotta get back to werk

Cheers
~Thadalex

[Dis]

I might not actually be considered a warmonger player. Although i do use war after my REX is done. I just need to establish at least 25 cities. And if it takes war to do this then fine.

But after that is done I am very peaceful. I only go to war when I have pacts with other nations or when I can't help it. I usually try to get out of them because I'm in a democracy.

So I see my ancient age wars as justified. It was a brutal time.

See- I do play realistically. In modern ages I don't go around like a bloodthirsty dictator. That is just not how its done.

Also considering I win all my games by culture or space ship victory I guess that makes me a builder.

[igloo_boy]

I personally enjoy playing a peaceful builder game most of the time. One problem I have encountered in quite a few games is trying to peacefully contain a powerhouse AI that is beating up on its less powerful neighbours. This can be especially difficult when this rowdy AI is on a seperate continent (I usually forgo building much of a navy putting me in a position where military intervention is impossible).
My solution to this problem has led to a few stratagies designed to peacefully hurt the strong AI and help his/her weaker neighbours.
As a builder (I play on Monarch btw) I am usually the world leader in tech, or close to becoming so. This leads to stratagy #1:
Bankrupt the powerhouse AI. I try hard to sell it all the brand-new tech I've researched, at exorbitant prices. The goal is to drain his/her treasury and future treasury (through gpt) making the AI unable to rush projects and causing its large army to become a financial strain. Preferably, I will be selling the warmongering AI "useless" techs. By useless I mean techs that dont help it military success (hey China, want Free Artisty for 600 gold and 100gpt?).
The alternative to stratagy #1 is helping the weaker neighbours fend off the bully.
Stratagy #2: help the little guy. Again, with my tech lead allows me to direct militarily helpful technologies to those in need. Gifting Gunpowder, Nationalism, Replacable parts, or Computers really helps bolster the defence of your allies. If possible, also gift a lump sum of gold and any spare luxuries you have lying around. Dont forget to send any resources that musketmen, infantry and mech inf. require if your ally doesnt have them. (Is Cathy bugging you with those cossacks? Here's Rep. Parts, 1000gold, and rubber. Tell the Russians to shove it.)
These 2 stratagies go hand in hand to help balance out the power in the rest of the world, allowing you to rise to the top. Let the powerful civs spend their shields on calvary to attack infantry, while you spend your shields on the hoover dam, banks, cathedrals and spaceship parts. Its like playing Robin Hood, rob from the powerful to give the weak a fighting chance. And as a great side effect, following this plan practically guarantees you a diplomatic victory. The weak civs of the world love you for giving them so much free tech money and lux. And the powerful see you as a peaceful trading partner. I will win UN votes by 7-1, 9-3 margins.
I hope this helps people to better meddle in international affairs without having to "send in the marines".
Constructive critizism wanted!

[ThaddeusAlexander]

igloo_boy (great name btw... ) , firstly i like what you wrote. Its all very true and I use this enough if a bully is too far away to bother with. However, you really should build a navy. Even if on land, all my cities have only one or two defenders, I always have a dozen or more destroyers and battleships and carriers (at least 5 carriers). They up your Power rating and thus the respect of rival nations, and they virtually eliminate the need the for a strong, land-based "first strike" force if the enemy lands .... since if you play it right, you'll sink 'em before they can!

Also, if you trade a lot with the weaklings and you're friends with them, chances are the bully's attitude towards you will drop. What I usually do to ensure a run is sell or even give the bully a luxury it doesn't have .... i haven't yet run in to a game where an AI declared war on me while it was getting a luxury from me.

I'm not big on selling on techs to other civs, especially if they're contending the #1 spot. You have to remember that even if you don't want Free Artistry and you think its useless to the AI, the AI obviously doesn't! I know I can sell end-of-age techs to rivals for tons of gpt, but one thing you have to realize: even if you sell them a tech that isn't military oriented, you selling them Free Artistry WILL help them get to those military techs! The AI never misses a tech, so if you give them Free Artistry, you're really giving them a military tech a half dozen (or so) turns early because the AI will spend as long as it takes to get free artistry before it moves on in the tech tree.

Just some food for thought.

Cheers
~Thadalex