Peacemongers unite

[Kjotleik]

Originally Posted by Um the Muse

Still, lowering quality of life is not the same as being warlike. Using spies to steal from the royal coffers may, in some round-about way harm citizens, but it doesn't cause conflict unless you're caught repeatedly Spreading culture (propaganda) or destroying espionage buildings also are not acts of aggression, even though they're not very nice.

Agreed, lowering Quality-of-Life is not quite warlike, but I would like to think of a Peacemonger to actually care for the well-being of his own (and other leader's) people. In that regard, as I come to think of it, Slavery should perhaps not be too obvious a choice to run either... (but, what do others think?)

Destroying buildings seems aggressive to me, even espionage-buildings. Stealing from the treasury, spreading culture, stealing technologies etc. seems fine by my standards. But where do you stand on the subject of supporting rebels, influencing civics and other "not-so-obvious-warlike-but-still-negative-for-the-leader" things. You could argue that helping a city to revolt would be to actually "help" the population against a tyrant

I agree that taking cities shouldn't count; it brings an end to the conflict faster, after all. But maybe you should give the cities back?

This is an interesting thought. First, you take the city from the aggressor. Second, you give it back in exchange for peace? Or did you mean to give it back after signing the Peace Treaty on condition that the former owner has a majority of the culture?

This thread has certainly given me some incentive to try a peacemonger-game in the very near future... I think it would be fun trying to adhere to these self-restricting rules of how to conduct oneself in relation to other leaders...


Yours Sincerely

Kjotleik of Norway

[noto2]

BTW - I just wanted to say I played a coule games under what couldbe called peacemonger rules. Actually it was even more strict than that. I decided to play as an "enlightened" civ. I had to do what was morally right at all times, thus no offensive wars and in a defensive war I had to give cities back to the AI once they surrendered, couldn't use nukes, couldn't use any of the labour civics except emancipation. Anyway, suffice it to say, winning a game by those rules is possible on noble and below, usually, but not higher.

[Um the Muse]

I am a peacemonger, but my rule is definitely unenlightened. Until a workshop is worth at least 13, I whip like I don't understand how to stop

Edit: In answer to your questions:
1.Slavery is definitely an unenlightened practice as implemented in the game. In real life, I think that there were examples where it was decent (for example, in the Bible, the Jews were supposed to free their slaves after seven years and slaves had quite a few rights. Other examples might be indentured servitude or apprenticeships) because it was often one of the few ways that you could come up in the world and you had the choice to become a slave or not (as far as I know; I could be wrong).
2.When you say "supporting rebels," do you mean citizens with "We Yearn For Our Motherland"? That should be good enough, as far as I'm concerned. If the citizens aren't already clamoring to leave their nation, though, it probably shouldn't count. Maybe you should judge based on how unhappy the city is?
3.Influencing civics causes a turn or more of anarchy and is very temporary. It definitely does more harm than good
4.Things like culture wars that lead to starvation are bad, but if nobody has to starve, you should be fine
5.You can give the city in exchange for peace, or you can give it (or another city, if that would make more sense to the aggressor and you) afterwards as a token of goodwill. Under my own rules, I would then abuse that city for espionage, but an enlightened ruler wouldn't do that.

@ noto2: That's an interesting restriction. Did you have to get the pyramids and run Universal Suffrage as soon as you could? Perhaps you consider Representation to be enlightened enough?

What about the religious civics? OR sounds like it should be good enough, but maybe you went for Shwedagon Paya for religious freedom?

What about espionage? Oh, and what about chopping trees (jungles and forests, just one or the other type)? Without either of those, the game gets much harder, I imagine.

[Kjotleik]

Originally Posted by Um the Muse

1.Slavery is definitely an unenlightened practice as implemented in the game. In real life, I think that there were examples where it was decent (for example, in the Bible, the Jews were supposed to free their slaves after seven years and slaves had quite a few rights. Other examples might be indentured servitude or apprenticeships) because it was often one of the few ways that you could come up in the world and you had the choice to become a slave or not (as far as I know; I could be wrong).

Good points. Perhaps biblical slavery looks more like a temporary job than what we usually think of as Slavery. After all, European slave-trade with African people were really cruel, to say the least...

2.When you say "supporting rebels," do you mean citizens with "We Yearn For Our Motherland"? That should be good enough, as far as I'm concerned. If the citizens aren't already clamoring to leave their nation, though, it probably shouldn't count. Maybe you should judge based on how unhappy the city is?

Well... yes, there are some cities that have multi-national culture in certain periods of the game. I think if you at least have "some" cuture in the city; and at the same time the city is bordering on citizens going on strike due to unhappiness; then it would be fair to help my symphatizers "rebel" in the city in question.

3.Influencing civics causes a turn or more of anarchy and is very temporary. It definitely does more harm than good

Agreed. Now that I think of it, it should be avoided.

4.Things like culture wars that lead to starvation are bad, but if nobody has to starve, you should be fine

Good point, again. I do want to comment that it would be difficult (not impossible, though) to time the cultural pressure in a way that makes the opponent "voluntarily" liberate the city to me through trade before starvation becomes an issue.

5.You can give the city in exchange for peace, or you can give it (or another city, if that would make more sense to the aggressor and you) afterwards as a token of goodwill. Under my own rules, I would then abuse that city for espionage, but an enlightened ruler wouldn't do that.

I wonder how I am to figure out what kind of Espionage-missions I would allow as being within the parameters of "not hurting the opponent's people, while at the same time weaken the opponent's leader?" After all, Espionage is all about knowledge and control.


Hmm. Perhaps if I wait for the unhappiness from using slavery to disappear before using the whip again, it can be counted as letting the slaves go free after seven years? (they become unhappy when I enslave them - and become happy again once they have ended their seven years of service).

Cutting down trees makes the city less Healthy. But if Health comes from other sources, I see no negative effects from it.

Jungles actually increase Health when they are cut down. So that is the exact opposite of Forests.



Yours Sincerely

Kjotleik of Norway

[Toon Link]

Originally Posted by Htadus

The problem you have very little to do with being a peacemonger. It has much to do with relationships you foster with your immidiate naigbores and types of AI they are.

Here is some thing I found a long time ago at these forums done by a better mind than mine. Hope it helps.

Good points, but...

1. I always pay the tribute, except when it's (rarely) like over 2,000 gold and three techs. And anyway, it's kinda creepy, but Mansa Musa always hates, no matter what game I play...

2. Yes, we had shared borders for a very long time, and since it's RFC, Bismarck took over some of my cities when he "regenerated".

I almost never play a offensive war. Nearly all of my wars are defensive, since I always end up being last in land, but I usually get two to three "super-cities", which have, like, 120 production, 500 beakers, and 200-something-odd culture per turn. But if I do get involved in a war, either way, I immediately start churning out units like crazy mad.

(oops, it didn't quote right... )

[Htadus]

I've never played RFC, so it seem that Diplo is even more complecated.

The thing about Tribute; When you pay tribute to AI "1" it is considered a trade. So if AI"2" consider AI"1" as his worst enemy, then you just traded with his enemy.

Mansa and all that hate may be related to RFC. Usually in most games Mansa become pleased even if he stated annoyed and without me paying any attention to him. He seemm to base his relations with him through trades. I have traded a slightly higher value tech to him and he would go from annoyed to please. Just opening borders with him gets him to cautious.

So, does the new AI (Bis) start with diplo points to begin with? For example, does he say when he show up that you have traded with his worst enemy? Or is the diplo screen blank?

Either case I would say once he become your new neigbor, it is time to take a new diplo approach.

[TheGambitWorm]

I've never been able to win diplomatically, and I'm tired of winning via space race. So I'm fairly war monger-y now. Though I've never even tried a cultural a win, maybe I should give it a shot.

[Ramesses-Rules]

The diplo message that I consider ridiculous is "you declared war on a friend" when I know that I started the rush so early that his scout barely had time to meet the other civ, much less open borders or trade. The military dudes are born loving each other in this game, even if they have opposing religions. On the other hand, you have to give Tokagawa your first-born child to get him to trade fishing with you.

[Toon Link]

I know, right? The AIs are always so greedy when it comes to techs. For instance, they'll offer me 200 gold for Composites (when they haven't started researching it yet) and next time ask for 5300 gold for Lasers.

And of course, whenever I make a good trade with somebody, it turns out to be unhelpful with somebody else, and in this way I end up being hated by half of the civs and greatly admired by the other half, even though they won't help me in wars.