I'm playing an Emperor game, 18 civs, large balanced map as the Japanese. I've fallen behind in tech as I expand courtesy of my weaker neighbors. :hammer: The problem is no matter how badly I beat on someone, I can't get a single tech from them as part of a peace settlement. Saladin was down to 1 city and 1 unit with 6 Samurai next to his city and he still wouldn't give up a single tech. I'm not usually a warmonger, so I don't know if this is a new 1.61 phenomenon, or if this has been the case for a while. So is pointy stick research dead?

Yes. I can never get a tech out of them in peace talks.
I'd imagine it can still be achieved on lower levels.

I am just playing an Emporer game as Cathrine, and my neighbour Dschingis Khan gave me 2 techs for 10 rounds peace.

What I found out is that its usually not possible to get techs from the same civ twice within a certain timespan, probably an anti-exploit. Anyways, the first time worked in Emporer-1.61.

If you reduce a civ to 1 city your offer of peace becomes valueless. They are already destroyed and will never be relevant to the game afterwards so you are quite literally offering them nothing. They have nothing to gain or lose at that point so you can't expect them to do you any favors.

If you attack a powerful civ and capture/raze half their cities they will most likely give you everything they have for peace since they still have something to lose. The general premise seems to apply across the difficulty levels (I've played noble through monarch). Even on Noble if you wait till peace is worthless it doesn't get you much at the bargaining table.

My experience agrees with Plutonium. Take on a big civ, give them a good kicking to the point where they cannot retaliate, and they will do your research for you. This works on all levels I've played on (up to Emperor). It also doesn't seem to matter which civ it is incidentally, anyone else noted any different?

If I'm in a war-mongering position I will use this tactic against nearby financial civs since these are often the main adversaries later on in the game.

I've still gotten techs since the patch after an axeman war (Emperor), but I don't get the whole shabang any more. At best I'm getting a couple of level 1 techs like fishing and hunting, where previously I'd get most of everything available, if not all techs.

I've never managed to get a tech out of the AI in a peace deal, obviously I'm not playing enough! Wait till I tell the wife:king:

-4 Your playtime sparks tensions.

I knocked asoka down to 2 cities, and he was willing to give me divine right for a peace treaty. He about 4 other more expensive techs, but he wouldn't give them up for some reason. I guess he knew he was getting razed either way.

Maybe he was desperately hoping you would repent, and forsake your evil ways, by introducting you to Islam?

If pointy stick research IS dead, or at least very, very sick, all I can say is: good riddance. Warmongers already get so many advantages and perks that I can't muster much sympathy. Higher scores, for one, and a game that gets easier as you go along, for another. Being able to pick up two, three, or four techs from a civ you're going to eliminate anyway was another one, and now that tech trading is harder for builders, it would be even more unfair if this were continued.
Look, I like kicking a little butt as much as the next guy- gonna play as Napoleon tonight and see how many neighbors I can take out early- but the Civilization franchise desperately needed to throw us builders a little bone, and divorcing war from the tech race (for the most part) just makes he happy. May not win any popularity contests around here saying so, but that's how I feel.

In what Civ version could you actually win by being a "builder" and not war?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but warmongering and building have both always been a neccessary part of Civ, and they were never mutually exclusive. I pretty sure all versions required war at the higher levels, with the exception of the funky cultural win, which I never understood.

Warmongers have to build things, and builders have to go to war. The balance between the two is the spirit of Civilization. I don't really see the difference between the two. A Civ player has to be both.

@ Oggums- I couldn't agree with you more. A combo between the two is the only way to win. Those who call themselves builders either don't play on very high difficulty levels, or they just don't go to war constantly, only when necessary to push someone off and gain more land. Same for those who call themselves "warmongers" go to war more often than not, but like you said, a combo is necessary.

I've found that some leaders seem to be more likely to give techs than others. Anyone else notice anything like this?

Yes, I've found that it is more difficult (but not impossible) to extort tech, but they're still willing to give up money. I'm playing an 18 civ game right now where I'm still way behind in research after 1000AD, but I'm making progress by extorting money from those weaker than me. My research can stay at 100% although my economy by itself could never support that rate. I just think of this as the new "pointy-stick research."

Oggums, you could do OK as a builder in Civ2. Between the Great Wall and the UN, you could keep war to a minimum, though the AI was so insane that even then war always cropped up-- but there's a difference between just fighting back, and taking it to the enemy. With Spies, you could simply buy enemy cities too, and expand "peacefully", if you had the gold. Total peace may not have been an option, but one could do a lot better at it in 2 than in 3, that's for sure.
The combo has always been part of Civ, I'll agree, but the balance sure felt like it swung way to the warmonger side in Civ3 (especially in vanilla Civ3, when you could only get Great Leaders via war), and that's why I find 4 such a refreshing change. YMMV.

In what Civ version could you actually win by being a "builder" and not war?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but warmongering and building have both always been a neccessary part of Civ, and they were never mutually exclusive. I pretty sure all versions required war at the higher levels, with the exception of the funky cultural win, which I never understood.

Warmongers have to build things, and builders have to go to war. The balance between the two is the spirit of Civilization. I don't really see the difference between the two. A Civ player has to be both.

You make Civ too much of a pure game with this kind of thinking. Much more than a strategy game, the Civ series has always been a tremendous 'what if' kind of experience.

Do you find it impossible to imagine an enlightened democracy spreading to include all peoples of the world without taking up arms against their future citizens?

What about a single religion spreading to all peoples of the world, making nations obsolete?

What about a single enlightened nation becoming so benign in the world theatre that all the nations of the world benefit, and watch with glee while that enlightened society makes its final preparations to launch the human race into the stars?

I agree that right now, the optimal strategy for getting the highest score possible or for beating the hardest level possible will always include war. Usually, a lot of war. Actually, usually all the other elements of the game are used only as tools to better the war effort. Nearly all my games on high difficulties are domination wins. Diplomacy serves only to hold my next target at bay until my attack is ready; Science serves only to preserve my technological advantage in war; even cities themselves and all of their developments are truly only tools to optimize my war effort.

And this is what drives the builder crazy. The other scenarios I described are largely absent as options in this game. It's all about kicking butt.

And in this case, your logic is circular. You're basically saying 'it's ok for strategies involving war to always be the best way to win the game because war is the best way to win the game.'

Every single big win uses War. Does every single big win use Religion? Culture? Diplomacy? Trade?

My answer is no. Often I get big wins ignoring these facets of the game and just steamrolling everyone. That doesn't sound much like the 'interesting decisions' that Sid had in mind for a game of Civ. There is War and everything else is the details of how and when to wage War.

Probably most pure builders don't mind that much; they just play on noble and have fun trying to play out their imagined history of a world without war. I have fun doing this, seeing what the highest difficulty is that I can beat without ever taking the offensive. But Peace is certainly not balanced against War in this game; the benefits of War nearly always exceed Peace.

It's still possible to get some techs out of the AI, but they won't just hand over research like they would in Civ2 or SMAC, especially if you have basically destroyed them. It's very easy to get a useless tech from them (like Divine right once the wonders are done/almost done) or to get some older tech you've never gotten around to, but you pretty much can't catch up on tech just by beating one AI down to 1 city.

I left Napolean with 1 city at around 1AD last night, and all he gave me was Fishing. :(


You make Civ too much of a pure game with this kind of thinking. Much more than a strategy game


I suppose I do, then. What's the difference in a "pure game" strategy game and just a plain old strategy game? I just see that there are rules to this strategy game, and I say one should learn to use them all. If you want do a little roleplaying instead, of course you'll have to stick to lower levels. You can't just ignore a major part of the game and still compete on the higher difficulties.


You're basically saying 'it's ok for strategies involving war to always be the best way to win the game because war is the best way to win the game.'


No, I'm saying the game was always designed with war as a major part, and to go against the grain to avoid it is just fighting against the natural game design. You can't compete in a game of baseball either, if you vow to never pick up a bat. You can swat at the ball with your hand all you want, if you enjoy it, as long as you don't expect to join a league.

Then again, I guess you are right. I'm am saying that a bat is the best way to hit the ball, because a bat is the best way to hit the ball. But then what you're saying is that needing a bat to play baseball is wrong.

I think I'm just going to shoot for Currency instead of Alphabet first, so I can at least nab thier gold. :goodjob:

In what Civ version could you actually win by being a "builder" and not war?
All. Keep in mind that people have won on reasonably high difficulties without ever building a single military unit. It's always been possible, though difficult.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but warmongering and building have both always been a neccessary part of Civ, and they were never mutually exclusive. I pretty sure all versions required war at the higher levels, with the exception of the funky cultural win, which I never understood.

Warmongers have to build things, and builders have to go to war. The balance between the two is the spirit of Civilization. I don't really see the difference between the two. A Civ player has to be both.
The objection many people have is that said balance is widely percieved to be poor. As a general rule, warmongering tends to be far more effective and powerful for most goals than building. So the balance becomes skewed badly towards war, with building being a distinctly secondary concern if you're playing optimally. So, a moderate increase in the importance of building relative to warring is a good thing.

If the optimal strategy is generally 90% war, 10% building (numbers produced out of thin air for illustration), then war is too dominant.

Hot new info: Gandhi gave me Polytheism, Sailing and Masonry in last nights game.

As a general rule, warmongering tends to be far more effective and powerful for most goals than building.

But it's not a one-or-the-other situation! I usually only have, on the average, 1 city in 5 focused on military production (after the initial land grab), and the rest are scrambling to build. I have a challenge for the "boo-hoo I can't just build" types...have you ever tried to win a game without building? Try it out sometime. Your research will drop to 0%, your military will go on strike, and then you will lose your army. You simply have to do both. A so -called "Warmonger" is going to have huge periods of peace-time specifically devoted to building.

I'd say this game is closer to 90% building and 10% war, rather than the other way around. I made those numbers up too, but I think they're more accurate. The game would be way too easy if it were truly 90% war.

Civ4 is definitely closer to even than other iterations, I agree.

But seriously, look at the sort of answers that are generally given to strategy questions.

What's the best way to get Wonders? Conquer them.

What's the best way to win a culture war? Raze the encroaching cities.

What's the best way to win a space race? Destroy enough of the other civ that they can't outbuild you anymore.

What's the best way to achieve a Diplomatic victory? Conquer enough of the world to vote yourself the win.

Even your arguments for the necessity of building are based on needing to build to support your army. Again, militarily oriented. Which points up the underlying problem. Almost all problems are best solved with wars, with the building aspects being primarily there to support warring. That's not balanced, or even close to it.

What's the best way to get Wonders? Conquer them.


Not the best way to get what you want. Lower levels, the best way is to build them. Higher levels, at the beginning you either skip them or conquer them most of the time, sure. Not because it's better to conquer them, but because you need those hammers for expansion by either building settlers, or more preferable axes (when you have copper). Capturing is a land-grab bonus. Yep, you're forced to war early in the higher levels, because that's the challenge of the land grab. But, play a huge map with plenty of room, and you'll build build build.

And do you not also build Statue of Liberty, Kremlin, Space Elevator? And do you not see people's Diety stategies that rely on bulding the Pyramids, or the Great Lighthouse?


What's the best way to win a culture war? Raze the encroaching cities.


Assuming you were already prepared for war with that particular civ. What if he's your ally and trading buddy? Best way is to build culture or drop an artist.


What's the best way to win a space race? Destroy enough of the other civ that they can't outbuild you anymore.


The best way is build the Space Elevator and use spies to sabotage. The tedious way is to load up transports full of troops and start razing.


What's the best way to achieve a Diplomatic victory? Conquer enough of the world to vote yourself the win.


Diplomatic is definitely broken, but I don't agree with you 100%. The domination-diplomatic victory is more of an, "I'm bored with this Domination, and I have the land, so I'm just going to end it." kind of deal (or I don't feel like finishing my space parts, or take your pick but it's definitely a "just get it over with" thing). Let's say you're on an island start and you decide to go for a Diplomatic victory. It's still better to make friends with the #2 and #3 rival and garner thier votes, rather than manufacture a tedious war overseas.

Here's what I consider a typical diplomatic victory:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=153536

Notice that my win involved war only at the very end of the game. Yes, I was pretty much forced to war to achieve a Diplomatic win. But it was such a small amount of the game on that map, that I guess was can now assume the best way to win game is with only 5% war, and 95% percent building, am I right?


Even your arguments for the necessity of building are based on needing to build to support your army. Again, militarily oriented. Which points up the underlying problem. Almost all problems are best solved with wars, with the building aspects being primarily there to support warring. That's not balanced, or even close to it.

No, my argument for the necessity of building is based on needing building to win the game. The "supporting a military" thing you're refering to was a challenge, to put the shoe on the other foot. Be a warmonger, with a "It's not fair, why do I have to build?" attitude. You can't, because it's too hard and you'll lose.

Playing as the Japanese last night, I managed to get Iron Working from Cesar right after taking Rome with Axemen, leaving him with only one city up in Tundraville. I was rather surprised he would give up that tech.

Later, after having taken every German city but a lone island city, Bismark gave me Currency for peace, which I gladly accepted.

So, it does happen, even if they only have one city left, however in my experiences, they will not give you tech if you are actually marching on their last city as opposed to being outside their cultural borders. Then I cannot get anything for peace.

I think the biggest problem with the 'builder'/'warmonger' balance is that internal politics is only about building productivity NOT about holding territory (which is what it is in reality)

The fact is Warmonger/builder will be imbalanced until rebellions are properly introduced, so Building becomes a way to Keep territory, Warmongering a way to Get territory.

Then, once Domination is a "Builder's" or "Warmonger" win, because it requires advanced internal politics/ruthless suppression to keep the entire thing from collapsing in revolt then there will be a balance.

The fact is that all Wins should use both 'Builder' and 'Warmonger' tactics to get there... and 'Builder' tactics need to be more than just... build... they need to include internal politics.

What's the best way to win a space race? Destroy enough of the other civ that they can't outbuild you anymore.


I think I can say with a fair amount of authority that this is not true with patch 1.52, settler difficulty, standard map size, as I hold the top entry in the Hall of Fame with those settings, and I built a total of 1 warrior per city. 1336 AD launch, and I never fought with anyone.

1.61 is a different story, I'm still getting the hang of it, and plus I play on noble now. You can't expand nearly as fast due to the chop nerfing, and it MAY be that the best thing to do is to go to war, but I am not convinced of that yet. Also, the HoF rules have been changed to require more AI opponents, which is making it even harder not to go to war now. Still, if you want to launch the spaceship in the shortest time possible, a war can really slow you down.

I'm playing a lot lately so that I can develop a fast ship launch guide, and I'm still experimenting with war vs no war, and unless you have some data to back up your claim, IMO, the jury is still out, on Noble diff. Below noble difficulty, I'll go ahead and say you're wrong. Game-long peace is the fastest way to launch.

I'll get to Prince+ eventually, but I'm still having enough fun on Noble that I don't feel like letting the AI cheat yet.

Remo, you probably wont actually get the "war is not optional" feeling until you hit Monarch. After that, it's just not possible to expand as quickly as the AI, with all the bonuses it gets. You aren't going to beat them to enough productive land, resources and research capabilities without applying the art of war at some point. (note: this is not a bad thing, this is what adds a challenge for you to overcome, before you can get on with your building).

Remo, you probably wont actually get the "war is not optional" feeling until you hit Monarch. After that, it's just not possible to expand as quickly as the AI, with all the bonuses it gets. You aren't going to beat them to enough productive land, resources and research capabilities without applying the art of war at some point. (note: this is not a bad thing, this is what adds a challenge for you to overcome, before you can get on with your building).

This has definitely been my experience. I tend to agree with Oggums although I am more a war-monger than builder.

As for the OP, I had Ghandi give me his second to last city (crappy one) and 2 or 3 techs the game before last. He was left with a nice capital but was obviously no longer a factor in the game. I don't think it matters how heavily you have pounded them but I do think it is very leadership dependent. Ghandi, Mansa, Asoka and other passive leaders will give techs without freely. Aggressive leaders it is like pulling teeth just to get a crappy tech out of them for peace.

Ghandi, Mansa, Asoka and other passive leaders will give techs without freely. Aggressive leaders it is like pulling teeth just to get a crappy tech out of them for peace.

Financial leaders are more willing to give away techs. This can compensate aggressive...

http://img53.imageshack.us/img53/9301/offer0jh.th.jpg (http://img53.imageshack.us/my.php?image=offer0jh.jpg)

I prefer concentrating on infrastructure building more than war-mongering. However, at any of the difficulty levels above Noble I haven't been able to escape numerous wars. Furthermore, I've only won using a combination of smart building tactics with warfare. Defensive war is obviously inevitable and sometimes going on the offensive can't be avoided either. Still, I suck at fighting and I never win at higher difficulty levels anyways. :P

As this is turning into a discussion about builder vs. warmonger I thought that I'll just give my 2 cents.

First of all, warmongering is far easier and therefore overpowered compared to being a builder. I think that one easy way to change this is for war weariness to not take into account what civ your at war with.
At the moment I can be at war with civ A for 20 turns and I would start getting a lot of angry citizens. If I make peace with civ A and declare war on civ B, all of the 'War! what's it good for...eh?" unhappiness get reset. That means that it is possible to be a warmonger while having civics like free speech and universal sufferage. With the system I propose, war mongers would be forced to adopt police state and nationhood just to stay happy. This would make their economy suffer a lot, hence weakening them.

In earlier versions of Civ you got significant unhappiness with advanced civics (republic and democracy) just for having units outside your territory. This is not the case for Civ IV so warmongering has effectively become easier. The unit supply penalty doesn't really count coz you counter it by making more money which is benefitted by more advanced civics.

The AIs are too forgiving. The -1 for "you declared war on our friend" or "you declared war on us" is too weak.
There should at least be a "you backstabbed your friend" or "you attacked your brothers and sisters in faith" modifier when attacking a former trade partner or friend.
I invade Mali, take two cities, and the very turn I sign a peace treaty Mansa is pleased with me agiain...

AIs too forgiving? I don't think so. As it is I hate the "you declared war on our friend" thing because they won't forget it even if the other party becomes their enemy eventually. And "you declared war on us" is a considerable -3. I think what makes the AI seem very forgiving is the same religion diplomatic bonus, which needs to be nerfed. I don't like how two AIs may hate each other from the beginning but become friendly after one switches to the other's religion. Enemies become friends in history, but this religion bonus makes it a mockery, considering how they will never grow to like each other for any other reason.

Personally, I war to build. Warmongering for me is to grab resources and a great landmass so that I can grow my empire and outbuild the AI. Once I have a tech lead that I can maintain and no longer face any credible military threat, I almost always stop fighting and concentrate on building my way to victory.

Personally I think a game of civ accurately reflects the history of the world - it's rare you can find a nation that hasn't had at least one war (some of them seem to make a national sport out of it!), so war should be one of the dominant factors (if not the factor!)

On another note, an 'always peace' game would have little or no tactical element, reducing Civ to a mere exercise in mathematics, where would the fun in that be? Might as well play a spreadsheet.

I have found that after extorting a few techs while at peace or to obtain peace the AI won't even give 10 gold to spare itself from obliteration. This is just silly. Is it trying to screw up the human player with war weariness or is it just plain suicidal?

Boy, pigswill hit the nail on the head! It is so much easier to wage war as an advanced civilization in Civ 4 than Civ 2 it is laughable. No meddling Senate and no interminable screens poping up saying that your cities are rioting. This is the biggest improvement in ease of gameplay in Civ 4. Truly a warmongers dream come true.