Will Civ still be predominantly a war game with G&K?

[JtW]

Hey guys.

I know I am not alone in my impression that Civ5 is basically a war game. Whenever I play, I have the feeling that while I can go for a peaceful win, conquering makes it just so much easier. If I want a culture win, I just puppet all the enemy cities, and it is still easier than having a small empire. And if you want the highest score possible, conquering also helps.

How do you think will the new expansion change this? I am kind of hopeful that the overhaul of the combat system is aimed at making conquests more difficult. Also: spreading religion and using spies gives us some "peaceful" tools of influence. However, I don't think they are able (or even intend to) make the warmongering less of a viable option (esp. if they make the diplo victory more difficult, I think I will more often find myself in the situation where going for conquest will be the easiest way to win... again).

What are your thoughts?

[Shurdus]

Warring is always a brute force method that will work all the times, without so many factors to consider as in most other wins. It may always be the easiest option. However, since we get more tools to control others, the other options may at least become more interesting. If an easy game is what you want, conquest will probably the way to go. If you want to role play a bit more, and be a puppet master a bit more, I think you will have better tools with the expansion.

[mitsho]

The main problem that conquest is such a nice option is the AI. If you can make the combat AI better at defending, holding back and not suicide attacking, the game gets a lot more difficult. So ironically what is needed to get the game away from being mostly combat is better combat.

The Thing is, there is a line of "improved AI" somewhere in the list of features for G&K and they are of course always trying to make it better. But that is not visible. They can show you a screenshot of the religion screen, but they cannot show you the AI Code, or at least it would be a lot less interesting

This means that we really need to wait til it's out to answer your question.

[MkLh]

Ultimately it depends on if they are going to add some real diplomacy on the game. Diplomacy is the only alternative to war (or as von Clausewitz stated, war is as an extension of diplomacy). If you can't secure your position by diplo, it doesn't make sense to stay as a sitting duck, so conquering is the way to go.

[JtW]

I like what you said, mitsho. You're right that the poor combat AI is key here. I am hopeful that Ed Beach, being an AI designer, can fix it to at least some extent. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

As to diplomacy, I have the feeling that it currently is very 'flat' - there is no room for any deeper plans. E.g., you can as one other civ to help you with your war, but you cannot build a multi-civ alliance with a common goal. And I think it's too complex a thing to implement in an expansion.

[Lord Olleus]

It isn't a wargame at the moment, so I don't see how your question makes sense.

[aziantuntija]

Originally Posted by mitsho

The main problem that conquest is such a nice option is the AI. If you can make the combat AI better at defending, holding back and not suicide attacking, the game gets a lot more difficult. So ironically what is needed to get the game away from being mostly combat is better combat.

This!

[OrsonM]

Of course it isn't a wargame at the moment, only that every single thing about the game points out to an easier victory through war.

Turn - 1 : we are all equals, I can win this differently.
Turn - 40 :Alright, so I didn't get that wonder and the ai out-city me 5 to 1, no problem, the ai just cheats a bit, is all.
Turn - 70 :I was tottally right, now I have a friend, Catherine from Russia... and she is only asking for half the stuff I have for free... its cool... she's got a settler that will pass through that totally not-important hex next to my capital, which is cool, friends let other friends pass...
Turn - 71 :...son of a... DECLARE WAR!!

[JtW]

Originally Posted by OrsonM

Of course it isn't a wargame at the moment, only that every single thing about the game points out to an easier victory through war.

Turn - 1 : we are all equals, I can win this differently.
Turn - 40 :Alright, so I didn't get that wonder and the ai out-city me 5 to 1, no problem, the ai just cheats a bit, is all.
Turn - 70 :I was tottally right, now I have a friend, Catherine from Russia... and she is only asking for half the stuff I have for free... its cool... she's got a settler that will pass through that totally not-important hex next to my capital, which is cool, friends let other friends pass...
Turn - 71 :...son of a... DECLARE WAR!!

Exactly what I have in mind.

[aziantuntija]

Originally Posted by Lord Olleus

It isn't a wargame at the moment, so I don't see how your question makes sense.

I mostly agree with the first poster, except that I dont think that civ5 is a war game, and frankly I dont think that it even were the ultimate point of the first post to claim civ5 as being a war game. But you do realize what he is complaining about, yes?

[ShahJahanII]

I don't believe Civ V is a war game at all. I do see how conquering makes things a lot easier though. I would like to see the expansion implement features like religion and espionage that give you alternative ways to exert your influence other than military force. If religion gives you control over people, I support it. If espionage lets you make the game harder for civs that would otherwise have a runaway, I'm all for that as well. I just hope all the features stay balanced and equally important. At no point in the game should religion overpower science, culture, and gold. Balance is key.

[JtW]

Originally Posted by ShahJahanII

Balance is key.

This is exactly what I am pointing at. Currently, conquest is the (easiest) answer to all questions, and I wish it weren't so.

[Deggial]

Originally Posted by JtW

... Currently, conquest is the (easiest) answer to all questions, and I wish it weren't so.

My statement would be in contrast:
Currently, conquest is the (easiest and most fun) answer to all questions, and I wouln't care (much) if this doesn't change.

But then, even in Civ4 with it's options, I almost everytime ended up owning the whole world.

Of course I know that many people here feel different and I really hope the add-on will bring fun back to them - as long as this doesn't take out the pleasure of dominating the world by introducing overly restricting game mechanisms.

[chazzycat]

The balance is all about RAs. The more peaceful you are, the more you can sign.

The problem is that a lot of civs will still sign RAs with warmongers, and it gives the same benefit to both types of players. I think the system need to be re-wired somehow such that smaller, peaceful civs get more benefit from the RA then large warmongers.

[Bechhold]

Civ V is already a war game. Domination, Diplomatic victory i.e. the most votes = the largest empire. That and no matter how you play you will be attacked by at least half the powers by late game.

[Buccaneer]

Civilization has always been a war-centric series of games. It doesn't mean that every game have to involve warfare (I run about 33/67 because I think 1upt has been - back when I played real wargames - a lot of fun). It is not hard to stay out of multiple wars, you just have to understand the reasons for it and adjust accordingly. The reason that I say that it's war-centric is because that's the constant threat in any interactions or circumstances. And because in strategy games with warfare, that's the easy things to do - always been that way.

[Louis XXIV]

Votes are not determined by Empire size, that's what Civ4 did (which is why diplomatic victory was essentially a poor man's domination). Granted, you can get more gold through having a large empire, but warmongering can also isolate you from City-States, especially if those city-states were allied with someone you declared war on.

[apocalypse105]

Originally Posted by Bechhold

Civ V is already a war game. Domination, Diplomatic victory i.e. the most votes = the largest empire. That and no matter how you play you will be attacked by at least half the powers by late game.

IF you played you're cards right at civ 4 diplomacy wise you could avoid those wars


main difference between a war game and civ is diplomacy

[Louis XXIV]

Well, no. A wargame's primary focus is war. Command and Conquer is a good example. The buildings are there to make warfare better. In Civilization games, buildings often have nothing to do with war.

[dexters]

Every Civ game I've played has emphasized warfare, it's the most direct and often cheapest way to stay ahead and strong. It's just easier to knock down your neighbours. In Civ4, gaining an early vassal and a free hand to expand with your borders secure has often been a strategic imperative.

That said, I agree that it isn't a wargame, but it's also always been true that warfare is integral to every civ game, and the amount of military units in the game far far outnumber non military ones.

Originally Posted by Louis XXIV

Votes are not determined by Empire size, that's what Civ4 did (which is why diplomatic victory was essentially a poor man's domination). Granted, you can get more gold through having a large empire, but warmongering can also isolate you from City-States, especially if those city-states were allied with someone you declared war on.

Yep Domination-Lite; In vanilla, it was almost impossible to win UN playing peacefully or even semi-peacefully, it was so broken. Still a broken feature even with vassals. Ironically the vote by pop weighting was in response to complaints about Civ3 being about bribing the tiny AI civ right before the Un vote. It seems like we've come full circle in that regard, though I'll hold any comments on how the new UN will be like given city states are getting huge changes in the XP.