From nice guy to genocidal maniac -- this is Civ3?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I've been reading people saying that the game favors warmongering, but this is a bit much.

I've got a big Persian civ, sharing a very big continent with the Americans. (Yes, there used to be others there too; but not anymore )

I'm trying -- really trying -- to be a peace-loving cultural civ. I'm largely succeeding; I've got the tech lead without the Great Library (admittedly, this is on warlord), and my culture generally rocks. Plus, the Americans are my gracious friends, military allies, and trading partners. Life is good.

You know what's coming: out of nowhere, without provocation, the Americans attack, taking and razing two former Zulu cities on our border. The thing is, I don't have a large standing army; but I do have a serious production advantage (factories in every city plus the Hoover Dam) and I alone have tanks. The solution seems simple: mobilize for war, crank out tanks, hit American city after city, and raze each one I take instead of holding it, since I don't have enough troops to quell resistance. It's certainly what the AI would do; the scorched earth that once was Germany attests to that.

It's working like a charm, but I'm not at all thrilled about having to be Attila the Hun when I'm trying to be Joseph II. I know this is a TBS, not an RPG, but still: is this really how the game is played?

[ducki]

If you appear weak to the AI, they will definitely be inclined to attack.

If your military advisor says your army is weak compared to these guys, you're a target. Not necessarily the only target, but a target.

I like to play peaceful, culture-rich, wonder-builder too, but if you don't have an army, what's to stop the AI from taking you out?

At least, that's the AI logic.

Start maintaining a military as large as, or bigger than, your opponents and you should see a little less senseless aggression.

[The Pioneer]

But on the other side if you have a strong military teh AI starts to resent you. Trading becomes more difficult and alliances against you are forged.

So long...

[Spiffor]

You can conquer without razing too much (why, without razing at all), but it'll be slower : send your tanks on the offensive, and leave a bunch of cheap units in the conquered cities to avoid culture flips. Build libraries / temples / cathedrals quickly, and avoid civil unrest in the city at all costs. Switch to Communism if needed, to poprush these buildings, and have less corruption in conquered cities.

If you want to be a completely peacemonger Civ, there is a way to have peace almost permanently :
- have a correct army, not too strong, not too weak
- have embassies in every foreign civ
- trade often. Arrange good deals to the other Civs (like obey the answer when you ask : "what do you want for coal ?")
- avoid to spy too much on them. When they discover one of your spy, it pisses them mucho.
- give in to AI demands.
- respect all your agreements. Have a spotless reputation.

[Arrian]

You cannot show the AI weakness.

For example: I'm playing an Emperor game as the Iroquois, and I did a fair amount of fighting in the late ancient/early middle ages (mmm, mounted warriors) to secure most of my continent and become the #1 civ. During this period, I pulled all my spearmen out of my core cities and took them to the front, to become pikemen and then musketmen where I needed them most.

This left my capitol and 2 other key cities undefended. They were not coastal cities.

So along comes a Babylonian galley. It sails slowly along my coast, and drops a lone bowman next to one of my coastal cities. The next turn, it marches inland, straight at my capitol. I was forced to demand its withdrawl, result: war, result: I lost a knight trying to kill it. GA for Babylon. I finished off the bowman, and the longbow/warrior landed by the second galley with other knights. Fine, I say. I ally with Persia and Germany against Babylon, and prepare to send two caravels loaded with elite knights to take Babylon's gems away.

Meanwhile, a lone German galley sails down my coast. I watch my ally's boat sadly, knowing what's coming. A lone german archer is deposited on my coast, and begins to march inland, toward my capitol. I am forced to run a Cavalry unit over it. Result: I must then send a force to Germany and raze Berlin.

Anyway, in my case it wasn't that I was weak. I was the strongest in the game and had a large standing army. But the AI saw what it thought was an opportunity to sneak in and capture Salamanca, and just couldn't resist it. *sigh*

End result: Germany loses Berlin forever. Babylon loses gems, and will shortly be destroyed by Persia. I gain a GL from the fighting in Bablyon - he is reserved for Hoover. Everyone's reputation (and I mean everyone's) is shot to hell.

-Arrian

[badams52]

This thread has given me a couple new ideas on how to get involved in wars without starting them and thus lessen the WW factor.

1. Act like a wounded animal. Purposefully leave your army weak, but have a strong base of cities that can pour out unit after unit according to the current age.

2. Leave some cities undefended. But if you do this, make sure you don't have any ROPs otherwise, good bye city.

Baiting wars is a great way to keep the WW factor small so you can stay in your replublic/democracy longer while blowing your rival civs off the planet.

Me likey

[vmxa1]

You know I love it when I am told I can have peace. All I have to do is bend over and smile, what a deal.

[Cyclotron]

It's a game that's pretty balanced in approach. You can't play a game very easily without war, and you can't play a game fighting constantly (well, unless it's an early rush). It seems like a balance needs to be struck.

[ChaotikVisions]

Yes, the best idea is to just have a big military, even if one does declare war on you it'll be easier to get pacts against them since you're strong. In my current game I avoided all ancient wars entirely, with just a strong defensive force in all my citys. Although in 1610 I started a war against Russia, which lead to the world going to war. Its now 1834 and all nations left are at least warring with one other. But I still have my original allies I had when I went into the war from the MPPs, even my conquered citys get a garrison of 3 units(either MA or MI). So while i'm waging a big war i'm still defended and strong, think its keeping my allies from getting any ideas too.

[Jethro83]

I usually find that I never have any chance to build peacefully in the beginning. I figure that there'll be time for that later when the enemies in my immediate vicinity are either utterly destroyed, or turned into my pet vassal states.

I also figure that it takes much time, money and power to get from barbarism to civilization.

I usually don't start much serious building until the mid to late medieval era, though I do build temples (libraries instead if Scientific), marketplaces and courthouses as quickly as possible so as to get enough culture to spread my borders and enough wealth to support my lumbering war machine.

Then comes the Industrial age, which is an age exclusively set for building in my strategy. Any other peace-time is simply a short reprieve from a costly war, or consolodation of newly acquired territory.

Once the tanks roll out, and I have sufficient numbers of them, its time to head back on the warpath.

I never knew I could be such an aggressor, and surprise myself whenever I play the game, feel a deep-seeded anger and hatred for my enemies and use cunning and cold logic I never thought I had.

[Pyrodrew]

- avoid to spy too much on them. When they discover one of your spy, it pisses them mucho.

Usually it does. In my current game Bismarck caught 1 of my spies & his attitude went from Polite to Polite. In the beginning of the game he was relentless to see me destroyed even though I was on the opposite side of the world & his attitude was always Annoyed. Ever since I gave him 1 free tech (my idea, not his request) he's been as giddy as a little girl.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Thanks guys, this is really helpful. I went back to a pre-genocidal save and reloaded, this time focusing on strengthening my army. So far, so good...

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Thats the ticket, when you have built a huge force then you can go kick some ass!

[Pi Seti]

For my Industrial and Modern Age wars, I will try to blitz all or most of the enemy's territory in one or two turns without worrying about culture flips. I figure once the enemy is mostly put away for good, I will be free to then concentrate on easily taking back any cities who decide to flip. It's like undertaking two campaigns, the first to deny your enemy their own territory, the second to add the territory city by city to your own.

[Mad Bomber]

I used to play the peaceful, I won't mess with you, so don't mess with me, type of game.... it just became so boring, usually ended up with a space race victory in the 17-1800's. Too predictable. Then I switched to a more of a warmongering game, but I would always reach the domination limit when it was beginiing to get fun. So now I play bloodlust games, only conquest is a victory; no others enabled; and a histograph win is the same thing to me as a loss. It makes the games very interesting...

I think most players start out as builders, but most come to realize that the game would be no fun if all their was to CIV 3 is a macro sims game. War is what makes the game interesting, particularly when it seems the world itself is at war. Negotiating the potential minefields of Rop's Mpp's and alliances is a thrill in its own right.

[SpencerH]

I can understand using a warmonger strategy to win the game. But interesting? Although the AI's capabilities to wage war are much better than they used to be, they're still pathetic. Unlike other games out there, CIV is not a wargame and there is very little room for any use of tactics or strategies. Theres no supply (therefore no encirclement) and no unit facing (therefore no flanking). How can this be interesting?

[Mad Bomber]

Spencer H:

And a great cultural victory is exciting as can be had? And I just wring my hands during that tense UN vote!

War is as interesting a CIV gets, no its not a deep strategy game, issues such as supply, flank attacks, and ambushes are not factored into the combat system. So What? It is still interesting to me, and this is what matters. If you find that you prefer to build Cathedrals ad nauseum, or want to hang out with the wimps in the UN go right ahead, no one stopping you but yourself (unless you are playing MP) CIV is a macro style game, you can't depict a good combat system with the generalities that exist in CIV 3. But I, for one, get a fuzzy feeling when I tell my advisor that the Persians are scum and my 200 MA's will be storming on to Persepolis in a matter of a few turns.

[SpencerH]

No the other victories are pretty hollow as well. Hopefully less so with PBEM and MP (if it ever works completely).

[Mad Bomber]

Spencer H:

If Firaxis can get the bugs out of PTW, then warfare would be a little more realistic, even with the limits of the game design. Can't wait to let loose the legions against a few Human civ's.