War Required

I am sitting in front my game, 1950, owning about 60% or the world. I can't possible win by culture, I Nobody likes me but Joan, so cant win Un, turned off Space Ship. That leaves War and Conquest. And I don't really want to do it.

I have the power, twice the army of Russia, including bombers adn tanks, which she does not have. She has no saltpeter, so cannot build more cav. My first assault will be to cut her rubber, so no more infantry. I just don't want to do it.

Here is my problem. I realize war is part of civilization as we know it. A strong defensive military is essential for survival in the real world as well as the game. See my quote from Ronald Reagan. I have no trouble with this concept, and building the requisite strength.

One the things I did not ever like about II and ! was the requirement for war.. And, I liked the real options for winning in III without war. You could expect some defensive wars, and you have to maintain a strong army, but you do not have to be a conquerer or warmonger to win. (If you like to play that way, then that is still an option, of course... )

But I reach a point where the win is assured, and the game is just waiting for the end. Boredom sets in.
This is compounded by score, and score does matter, even if no one else ever sees it. Score seems to be determined by area controlled and population.

So if I play for a peaceful victory, and make it, I get bored with the game AND get a low score, since the only way to increase your land it war.
Well, you could set up a large or huge world with only a few civs, and live in peace.

Its a personal problem, I guess. I don't want to be a warmonger, but find that that is half the fun, and the only way to a good score.
Anyone else feel this two-way tug of war?

Well, I used to play like you do. Peace for mankind and all

Then I realise the AI never leave you in peace !! My first two game I won on culture with the Chinese in the first one and UN as the Iroquis in the second. Since then I think most of my game are more or less on domination and conquest. Since I tasted the blood there is nothing from stopping me on a killing rage no matter which Civ I play now

My latest game I played as American and already own like half or more of the map (2/3 of home continent and 1/3 of second continent). In the process I wipe out Iroquis (after they wipe out roman and aztec), reduce Greek to 3 cities and currently at war with both English and Egytian on the second continent. I love war in the modern age with my modern armor against their Tank and Mech Inf, F-15 vs Jet fighters etc

In fact, I did say war is not half the fun but most of the fun (if you have the right army that is. Currently I am having like close to 800 units and 6 Army on a huge map )

I think there is too much war in Civ III. It is a part of any civilizations history but not as much as in the game.

I have no problem going to war when there is a reason for it. The AI on the other hand just likes to go for no reason at all. I could see if there was a strategic reason but generally there is not. I am a firm believer in the RR theory of "Peace through Strength" as well but that does not deter the AI from declaring war on me. If they just wanted to expand they could go through the weak country instead of me. So I get drug into a non-stop war for centuries that I have no reason why. The Romans from the next continent declare war on me and then drag in my neighbors. The Romans have ZERO chance of landing on my territory and I have to fight these other guys for 100 years because of it.

Very, very funny Leroy JR - ha
There is hardly any war in civ 3 compared to the real world
In civ3 there are large amounts of tiem where no one is at war with anybody - a war is a mjor event. In the real world practically every civilisation has been continually at war or conquering somewhere at least up until 1918. Look at the medieval world for instance - there were wars continually and the same goes if you look at the ancient world
If you want the game to be realistic real peace treaties as opposed to surrenders should not come in till late in the game

The more Civ-appropriate Reagan quote would be:

"My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you
I've just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever.
The bombing begins in five minutes. ."

Originally posted by Graeme the mad
Very, very funny Leroy JR - ha
There is hardly any war in civ 3 compared to the real world
In civ3 there are large amounts of tiem where no one is at war with anybody - a war is a mjor event. In the real world practically every civilisation has been continually at war or conquering somewhere at least up until 1918. Look at the medieval world for instance - there were wars continually and the same goes if you look at the ancient world
If you want the game to be realistic real peace treaties as opposed to surrenders should not come in till late in the game

Click to expand...

First : there was more than 16 countries in the world

Second : wars in the world did not last for 400 years.

The result is that there is muc more wartime in Civ 3 than in real.

I don't mind, as military conquest is about the only way to play Civ3, sadly. All the others are either a let-down, either boring to death.

Originally posted by Akka
First : there was more than 16 countries in the world

Second : wars in the world did not last for 400 years.

Click to expand...

No, but some tribes have been at constant war for millenia - Israelites and Palestinians for example.. Or how about the long enmity between France and England? Sure they weren't always sending troops to massacre each other, but it was kinda like a war, civ-style in that long years might go by between combat (or maybe not, I'm not too versed in France-England history).

I have said before, CIV looks like a pretty good model of how the world works... Not a SIM, not exact, many things just cant be reflected in a sim, and still have a playable game. But it does seem to be a good model of how things actually work.

Maybe the real reason there has always been war in some part of the world or another is real people get bored with peace in real life.

I went back to the game, and started the war, but not in the mood to play, just quit again. I was going to attempt to steal war plans, and see where her forces were. But that price starts at about 2500 gold... Dont have that much, and if I did would not use it for that. Tried to offer a luxury in trade.... but she says it would not be prudent at this time.... Now, either she thinks she needs to spend all her cash researching to try to catch up--she is currently communist--or to hurry reinforceents, I get the idea I won't need to declare war. Just wait a few turns, get my forces firmly in position, and taunt her. May not even have to taunt her. I have an MPP with France and France is also massing forces on the Russian border. Looks like I am about to hae a little war, like it or not.

I remember a movie from the 70's "What if they gave a war, and nobody came?"

Originally posted by Akka


First : there was more than 16 countries in the world

Second : wars in the world did not last for 400 years.

Click to expand...

In the real war it didn't take 200 years to build one unit of your army. This is a VERY abstract game. In the real world I chalenge you to find a period of peace. In Just Europe find one period of time where no nations fought any other nation for a period of 50 years.

It would be tough to find 50 years of peace if all you looked at was the Balkins.

I have games of civ3 where nearly the entire world was at war for 2000+ years. This was, of course engineered by me, but the other civs obviously didn't want peace that badly either.

errrm .... why do points matter that much to u? ... why does getting a winning screen matter so much? (isnt like we get something good like a FMV or anything remotely rewarding) if u "win" the game it is rather obvious that u have won ... even if the computer thinks it has ... once the game gets boing i stop playing ..... im not going to play for a few hours to make sure i get some silly screen that says i have won .... when i knew that after i took the last continant (or start to pump out modern armour and he is just thinking about getting infantry)

btw ... that LWC mod seems to make lots more war!! ..... mebey was just my first game at it though ... anyways ... im sure no one thought that a culture victory would be action packed and "fun" or a diplomatic victory either... conquest requires the most "work" and so tends to be more satisfying

I haven't won it yet. I found the periods up to like Napoleonic warfare the most fun in my first games, but I'm starting to appreciate the modern period. The AI really does well for itself on emperor level... kinda got my butt kicked last game:

Emperor, small map, continents w/ large land mass, I was the French, had the Greeks and English on my continent, they split the Aztecs while I thought I was getting good land area. I think I limped along in about 3rd or 4th the whole game. Meanwhile Russia and Germany are on the other continent, and they seemed pretty backwards. I go to war with Greece, make some gains. It seems that the English can be counted on to attack in the early modern period. They brought in a huge stack of cavalry which I chewed up with artillery, infantry, and a few tanks. Germany and Russia start to pull ahead in tech (I've been behind the whole game, didn't research much and didn't buy any of the non essential techs... I did get military tradition, though.) Anyway, I manage to catch up in tech a bit after a good industrial era golden age. I built the UN and lost the election to Russia. Oops. I guess I'm still learning, but there's no real point to winning. If you had fun, you won. The French are the evil opposite of fun... kidding. Their UU isn't good and I haven't found a way to make commercial and industrial pay.

There have been wars going on all throughout history. Lots of them right now in fact but they do not make the news in the USA.

Border skirmishes are fine and there can be lots of them. It is just when you get involved in WW VII in 1858 in which atleast 6 civs are on one side or the other it seems a bit much. How many WW's have we really had?

Often it is Civs that have no horse in the race as well. No strategic reason to be fighting. Just fighting so they can draft and kill off their citizens and cripple their science building useless military units that will get slaughtered in battle. Maybe they would be better served by building up their infastructure and working on the fact that 50% of their population are entertainers instead of engaging in a war that they cannot win. Then when the time comes that they actually HAVE to fight they could be able to respond and not get run over and have their entire Civ razed to the ground.

narmax said

No, but some tribes have been at constant war for millenia - Israelites and Palestinians for example

Click to expand...

Uh sorry to side track this thread but i think it should be said that the whole Israeli Palestinian thing only started with the Palestine Mandate, in other words the British's fault for imposing it. When Jews were driven out of Spain and into the Ottoman Empire in the 1400's i believe, Arabs and Jews lived together fine. This new dispute is just based on land and the fact that the Jews "stole", i say that hesitantly and i'm sorry its a bad word to use but i cant think of others at the moment, Arab land that was Arab land for centuries. And they aren't tribes they are ethnic groups.

anywho. You cannot compare this GAME to REAL LIFE, people, Its a game. If it were realistic you wouldn't start in the year 4000BC and the Americans and Germans wouldn't be in the game untill very late. Frankly there would only be one civ for a while, then it would split up.

One thing is anoying about the war in this game, i agree you need to wage it to win with a high score or have fun. I dont think it should be that way, but its b/c of the AI's stubborness. THey will stay furious with you for centuries, and they attack when they are completly outnumberd. I have the Indians angree an me right now, i'm about to wage war on them but they and the Germans will probably do so first. I have a spy so i know that literaly 90% of their defence is spearmen, I have tanks, almost modern tanks, and bombers. All i can say is power needs to be desided differently, not just units. Frankly a spearman should be given a 1 rating while a tank or morder inf. a 10-15. and nukes 20-25 or so. Im not sure completely but knights and spearmen wont slow me down at all. THe continent is completly Egypts, mua ha ha ha.

So far I found that the AI usually has a very good reason for going to war or sue for peace or even refuse to talk

I agree there are a few occasion when the AI just declare war for no apparent reason. Ok, maybe its because they cannot afford to pay those per turn gold for luxuries, I did not check that.

While it is fun to join in the war, it is sometime good to just sit back and enjoy the fruits of the war. In my current game, the first war start very early in the AD (200AD I think, very peaceful in the BC) with almost everyone on my continent declare war on aztec who has only about 4 cities at the time. Aztec was promptly destroyed and the winners start to turn to each others (reminds me of Afghan after Russia left ). So Persia, India, Japan and France is killing each other while me as America just sits back and settle those little piece of land that is left and also those that suddenly open up as cities are razed. By the time the dust settle, I have an additional 6 cities and those in the war almost didn't gain or lost much. Sure, some cities changes hand but overall the balance of power remain with the American suddenly on the top

As this is the first time I play very agressively and go for kill in very war, I manage to really study the AI strategies. I notice that the AI seldom left huge defence in the cities and 90% of their forces are patrolling or ready for war within its border but not in the city. Thats the reason when AI declare war on you their units can appear inside your border so fast. However, as most of my war were fought in the Industrial or Modern age, I use the spy to my best advantages. I will often by pass their main army and capture their cities behind them With this tactic I manage to wipe out the Indian's 15 cities in a single turn and lost only 5 modern armor. Of course my 100+ unit of modern armor helps but the fact is I only kill off about 30+ Indian units and by the time I capture the last city Indian still has like some 100 unit around

I hear ya! 3 games ago, I was going for a culture victory with the Chinese. I was well ahead in culture, but not more than the double required (those darn Japs!) So I hit 100k culture and the game doesn't end. I figure out the problem, say what the heck, and finish the U.N. quickly. We have the vote, and the Germans, who have been my best buds since the birth of Christ decide to vote against me, resulting in a stalemate.

Now note that I had been fending off the Egyptians and Russians for most of the Industrial and Modern age, using just enough units to keep it interesting. I really wanted that culture victory. So now I'm sitting at 2016 with scads of fully modern units. I could take out the Japanese for a quick domination victory, but it's just not worth it. I could probably build the space ship again, but my heart wasn't in it.

So I quit for the night, come in the next day and start a new game. Really crappy map, which I realize very quickly. Normally, I'd enjoy the challenge. So I restart after 20 minutes. Best game I've played yet! The map is interesting, the civs are a good mix, I've had some meaningful fights, and the AI has kept 3 of the enemies as viable opponents almost through the industrial age.

So moral of this long-winded story is to quit a game when you are no longer having fun. You never know what awaits in the next one

Gaming theory says that there are three elements required in a game. Others might be there. Must have a challenge... conflice and resolution. Must have a goal... something to reach, and say this is the end. Must have a score so you can see how you are doing. You might use it only to compare how well you did this time as opposed to last time, and nobody else eve know. It tells you how you are doing.

I have quit many games when it became obvious I had to win, and it was just drudgery to continue. I felt a sense of incompleteness, but still, it was better to just hand it up.

I am having the best score ever, and the war drags on. Russia declared war on France, and my MPP kicked in. She is down to a few cities, but now they are comng one by one. , maybe two by two, but sometimes two turns to take a city. Most of the cities were lightly defended, with the bulk of her army in the field. She started with 23 knights (and unable to make more) SHe had some cavalry, but no saltpeter , so could not make more. She sent a stack of 23 knights at my first city on her land. Since I had more bombers in that city than 23---they did not survive the attack. But the last few cities have had 3 or 4 infantry--and she can't make any more--- no more rubber. 2 to 5 conscript riflemen, 2 to 4 longbows, and a knight. I have managed to save the airport on a few cities, and that has helped my forward movement.


The stupid English, however. she had one city. One. 6 ships. She declared war on France, and my MPP kicked in. Maybe she really was suididal. six ships, 2 spearmen and an archer.

my last game me as Japan, China where the Biggest and right next to me. India the same size as me where on my opposite border, the US and Babylon’s where on islands to the north. My army was modest but just for defence no real attack capacity. Anyway throughout the game the US, Babs and India mainly had wars with China , sometimes they would fight among themselves but on the whole they where a pact against china. Due to the nature of the land a lot of there armies went right past my capital which made me very nervous, i.e India would send 30 Elephants on the adjacent squares of my capital anyway apart from them asking ( both sides ) for my hep i always refused. The Babylon’s where caught several times trying to plant spies in my cities but neither side attacked me and i could remain peaceful the whole time.

I think 2 reasons prevented any of them from starting, 1 they had bigger problems China although the most powerful had constant wars on 2 fronts from 3 civs, the 3 civ pact had to contend with a powerful and advance enemy. My land effectively kept them apart at least a bit.
I was also a good trading partner to all sides esp with techs , for either side to start war with me would off been a big risk they might off won but it would off left either side open to invasion from the other side.

another reason why i think the AI goes to war is this and is partly the human civ's fault. Whenever i play games like this even AOK etc i like to expand as much as possible and block off chokepoints to limit the AI expansion, it seems this annoys some AI civs they don’t like being restricted to land they think is rightly there’s even though they haven’t settled there yet.

The above game which was peaceful for me was also when i decided not to expand willy nilly and have a lot of cr***y cities on the borders , instead i maintained a small geographical area where 90% of my cities where very good they where all roughly the same size, improvement level. I let the AI settle in land that previously i would off wanted i gave them room to expand.

The advantage for me was that the Japan game was the 1st where i had a comfortable tech lead , money coming in and easy defendable cities. I had no outposts and very little corruption.
Corruption in my whole empire from the f1 screen was like 10% and reducing each go ( well corruption would slightly go up but my income would go up quicker , so corruption in effect was decreasing ).

I think this resulted in the AI not particulary desiring my lands as they had enough already.
If i try to put myself say in the position of China and ask would i attack Japan would in be my best interest the answer would be no it would be too costly i would off gone after the weaker memebers of the pact which China did and had reduced it to 2 civs instead of 3 very quickly towards the end.

With regards to an earlier post expressing surprise at the number of "World Wars": historians have identified no less than nine wars which could be considered World Wars in the periods from the 17th century to the present. Exact criteria for a world war are somewhat variable, but they should include a majority of the world's great powers being involved, and theaters of war in many different parts of the world. Examples from before WWI include the Napoleonic Wars (which reached the US as the War of 1812) and the Seven Years' War (known as the French and Indian Wars in North America).

And then you have multi-power regional wars, such as the Thirty Years' War, which was confined to Europe but managed to drag in just about every European nation.

All things considered, I'll side with those who believe that war, not peace, is the "default condition" of human history. Not that I think this is a good thing. I'm glad that Civ3 gives us a chance to experiment with alternatives.