Waiting for Jesus?

When playing on King mode, I enjoy playing as peacefully as possible for as long as possible. I may suffer a few sneak attacks, but I can usually postpone major warfare for about 4000 years.

Thing is- around 1 A.D. the world goes apesh*t. Not only will one civ attack me, they ALL start gaining up on me (except for pacifists like the Romans or Babylonians). It has gotten so predictable that I start preparing for war around 1,000 B.C.E., and without fail, the war begins 1,000 years later.

If I maintain a modest army (a few phalanxes per city) I still get attacked around 1 A.D.

When I build a giant army (enough to conquer the world) I *still* get attacked around 1 A.D. Also- I seem to lose 75% of my units on their first attack, even with barracks (veteran units).

Has anyone else experienced this? Is there any way to a) maintain peace or b) not lose the bulk of my armies? I love this game, but this is getting frustrating.

The game is structured that way. You get a 4000 year truce to build up your civilization. Then you go head-to-head with the AI civs to see who has built up the most powerful civilization.
The whole world changes in 1 A.D. Not only does it become all-out war, science gets twice as hard. Also, I think eliminated civs are not replaced after this time.

All you can do is concentrate on growing as big as you can before 1 A.D. More cities means more trade means higher tech. To get big enough by 1 A.D., you probably can't be 100% peaceful in the B.C. years.

Valen, Zaphod,

Thats wierd, I don't recall such a pattern in My games. I can go some games with several civ's never or seldom being at war with me. In fact, I am playing a game right now where My civilization in inter-mingled with the American civilization. We are sharing a continent, with ou cities intermingled (That's me, I seldom invade other civs, I just defend my own and build where there is space). On our continent, there is even a one-city civilization stuck in a corner (the French). They have never declared war on me and we are at something like 1600 A.D.. I Use the American Civilization are a trade parter and we exchanged ALOT of thechnology. We have smaller population and geography than most other civs, but together, are unmatched for technology and production. The Americans declared war one me once but I arranged that with diplomacy. I paid him 100 one other time, but now even if I refuse his demands he does not declare war on me anymore. So, despite minor ajustments, we were at peace for most of the game up to know and this strategy has paid off.

In my game I can often maintain lasting peace with several civs. I found that some civ declare war often by sneak attack but all you need is a diplomat on standby and you can easily re-obtain peace on your turn. This is a better strategy than going to war if you are more interressed in developpement and the space race.

Some times, I could swear that de AI is more elaborated than most peaople think. Like, it seems that how you behave with other civs has an impact on how they will react for the reminder of the game. For instance, I found it a good strategy to never be the first to declare war one another civ. Some of them , when attacked by you as the first aggressor, seem to keep a grudge for a long long time afterwards.

Also, to answer the question of the loss of your early armies, zaphod, Even if you have barracks, it does not mean that all previously built units all become veterans. Only those built while having the barrack in the given city will be starting as veterans. You should go check, I bet that alot of the units you loose in those first large wars are non-veteran units, built before you built barracks in your cities?

Acadien:

Boy, that is really weird!

FYI: I am playing CivDos v. 474.04.

I understand how the barracks work, which is why I am confused. For example, I might build 20+ veteran catapults/cannons, and 50+ veteran chariots/knights (depending how tech progresses) and I will *still* lose at least 3/4ths of them on their first attack. It is simply heartbreaking to lose a veteran knight to a militia or settler, but I swear to you, this is what tends to happen when I build a big army.

When I stay small, I don't lose units as easily, but I end up in trouble once the world declares war on me.

The game you are describing is the sort of game I would enjoy playing. I *do* like having an occasional war, but I far prefer when they involve fully developed civs (nukes, planes, tanks, etc).

In my version, I have to either hide out in the pacific isles, or pay endless tribute, to avoid war until the civs have all developed. Like I say- I love this game, but as you can imagine, it gets frustrating!

Hey Zaphod,

Hmmm..., Well, I play with the latest version 5. Do you feel that the type of terrain over which you fight (defence bonusses or lack there of) might have a role in this?

As for the war part, I don't know if playing random maps makes a difference or not, I never play the earth map because exploration of unknown worlds is one of the great joy of the game for me.

We have so different experiences it seems. Some of the computer civ in my games do tend to maintain a war-state with me, but most of the civs tend to be at peace, with intermitent very short lasting wars (two or three age turns) where no city changes hands. I almost always accept their peace offers since I am interested in developping my civ. With the great wall and later with United nations, it is pretty easy to maintain peace with diplomats. As soon as they do a sneak attack, you rush a diplomat to force a peace.

At what level do you play ?

I know that a prince a king, it seems that the size and level of developpement and productivity (etc..) of your civ relative to theirs influences how the other civs will behave towards you.

Of course, it is still all quite unpredictable. After I wrote to you about my mixed American-Acadian continent. The American went berserk and I had to capture-destroy two of their cities to subdue them and convince them of the futility of war (I had to go 100% tax, 0% science). And then the two-city French civ also stirred trouble. Still generally, I found that after two-three turns, if they don't have quick military successes, they usually offer peace.

In most of my games, we start with 7 civs, and finish with 6 or 7 civs still alive. I even had a game where there were 4 civs in a space race and I was not even part of that race!

Acadien:

I almost always play on King level with 7 civs. However, I rarely build Great Wall / UN- I usually go for Pyramids / SETI.

I think I will try to follow your example and build the great wall so I can maintain a more peaceful game.

I try not to attack units on mountains or hills. Does desert offer a defense bonus?

Another key difference- I like the Earth map. Perhaps I will try a random map, build the great wall, and an army of diplomats.

Zaphod,

I found that all I need, is a couple of diplomats at key locations in border cities with your neighboring civs. When all civs survive and develop, I found that land is scarce in most of my random maps game, so cities are real close to one another (I like this dense action, I often tend to use all the land I can early on, by building overlapping cities). With roads and Railroad, I could always rush a diplomat to a civ that had declared war on me within the very same turn (I build a railroad link to one of their cities). I remember a particular game, where I had the great wall and then the United Nations, I must have forced peace on the chineese like 20 times! He would sneak attack with one unit, I would force peace, then he would go use-up his military in a war with another civ; problem solved. This pattern would repeat itself several time over and he never had time to do any real dammage to me, which permitted me to develop my civ and colonize other vacant lands.

Boy, just speaking about this gives me the urge to go continue my game. Quite an interesting one too, since I never permit myself to Initiate aggression and have to build where I can. I play at king level and had a very small land-base to begin with. The low-tech Mongol and Zulu dominate half de planet, and I am in a technology race with the americans.

Three words:

Damn those Greeks!

I captured the Great Wall from the Mongols (damn cheatin' computer), and later built the UN. Even so, the Greeks continue to sneak attack me every three rounds. I'm afraid I have no choice but to destroy them, or be destroyed myself.

Sure, they offer peace every time I talk to them, but then they sneak attack again anyway. Am I missing something?

Well,

I'm affraid it is to be expected for some of the more aggressive civ's (mongols, Zulus, Greeks). One thing that appears to work sometimes, is to make sure you are much larger and with larger armies than them and it might lower the frequency of them sneak attacking but I am not sure. It seems to have and influence however. I don't think that being more technologically advanced changes things when it comes to this issue. Also, If you punnish a civ by taking two-three cities, it appears to subdue them at least for a considerable time.

Again, I have no proof of this, it just seems to play out this way in much of my games.... It still amazes me how the computer-controlled civs dehave in such interesting ways sometimes.

stalin is even more badass than alexander though

i don't wait for jesus anyways. the new technologies will cost twice more beakers after 1 AD, makes me to set it 0% and become no-tech warmonger.