Do You Ever Have Problems Killing Friendly Civs?

My solution is to play with permanent alliances and join up with Auric Ulvin. His Wild Mana AI seems to love recognizing how powerful I am, and he declares war on anyone that looks at him funny. Then he expects me to do his dirty work... Thus I'm just a bystander that destroys whoever I have to in order to protect my dear fallen god from the repercussions of his horrible anger management issues.
 
I don't understand why anyone would ever pick conquest over domination.
 
Why would you ever pick domination? That win (much like, well, anything but Conquest) is quite anticlimactic. Besides, who plays Civ IV or FfH with the aim of winning anyway?
 
people play with domination ON? that's like not finishing your dessert. leftover pie sucks.
 
I play with domination on to force me to make sure the AI doesn't win that way. Otherwise I might be inclined to stop expanding/attacking while I'm small and just turtle my way to an Altar/Tower win every time. The more possible ways the AI could win the more I feel the need to engage them, instead of just hiding away and ignoring them (aside from crushing invaders, of course).
 
Cultural victories are more difficult in FFH because it doesn't have as many multiplier buildings. Conversely, in Final Frontier they're extremely easy.
 
MagisterCultuum said:
Why would you ever pick domination? That win (much like, well, anything but Conquest) is quite anticlimactic. Besides, who plays Civ IV or FfH with the aim of winning anyway?
Click to expand...

Heh, sounds like we have similar playstyles, MC. I always turn off everything except conquest, because that way it's easy to make sure the game doesn't end. Like you mentioned, playing the game in order to "win" isn't much of a draw for me - I very much enjoy the "world simulation" aspect of FFH (and civ in general), and the process of watching each new game world unfold with its own history and personality is why I play.

Granted, I realize a lot of folks enjoy the challenge aspect of playing to win. That's just not me. :lol:
 
I usually only ever win Conquest victories, occassionally Religious but nothing else.

Most oftenly though I either just play until I get bored, or I set my own targets for ''victory''. Things like, get 1 ledgendary culture city, capital up to 30 pop, religion spread to 50%, destroy the AV holy city etc etc. A mixture of different types of objectives, such as a building one, a conquest one, and a tech one make for a very fun and varied game. What makes it even better is saying, right I'll do all this, AND I'll do it before turn 300.
 
If allies weren't such dunces, I wouldn't have to take them over. Sometimes, a friendly civ is losing a war or just needs help, so I send troops to recapture a city for them or just to even the odds - the point is I'm there for them.

Then they sign a separate peace treaty or just stay in their cities while vulnerable enemy armies move through their lands to attack me.

Basically, I like role-playing my civ but not to the extent of ignoring that my Elohim ally is allowing me to shield his lands while I'm in a life-or-death struggle with three or four enemy civs. Taking the Elohim's 12 cities and adding their production to my nation is good for all of us.
 
Basically, I like role-playing my civ but not to the extent of ignoring that my Elohim ally is allowing me to shield his lands while I'm in a life-or-death struggle with three or four enemy civs. Taking the Elohim's 12 cities and adding their production to my nation is good for all of us.
Click to expand...

You're playing mostly Amelanchier, right? And he's an isolationist xenophobe who doesn't really care about all that "struggle good and evil" stuff as long as it doesn't harm the Ljosalfar forests. So playing him like a ruthless pragmatist isn't that far off his character.

Thessa sounds like a softer character, but I get the impression she isn't meant to be a goody-goody, and she strikes me as being a quite pragmatical lady.

The only Ljos leader to whom destroying allies she preserves to be useless for the greater good would be totally OOC is Arendel.

Besides, who plays Civ IV or FfH with the aim of winning anyway?
Click to expand...

Civ4, I play to win, maybe with a bit of roleplaying thrown in sometimes. FfH, I try to win while soft-roleplaying.
 
:) Amelanchier does roll that way; I will say though that if an AI ally ever really provided aid in a meaningful way, in a way a human friend would, then lore or not, I wouldn't stab them in the back. It would be just too cool to have an AI stack moving to our rescue or participating in our war in a vigorous way - right now they can be pretty lethargic.

True, like in real life, they may have their reasons for letting us take a thrashing - I can really understand why you might let a "friend" lose a city or two - but most alliances feel like I'm in it alone: I give them techs or send armies, they give me excuses. The game's fun right now, but I'd like that sort of AI true Ally personality on occasion.
 
Yeah, I would especially expect that of so-called honourable leaders, people like Sabathiel and Cardith Lorda. I wonder if it would be possible to code them to do this?
 
Vassals are such a nice source of free mana. Conquering neighbours completely is nce to do sometimes, but leaving them a nice little size 2 tundra town which povides them with nothing and you, the friendly and benevolent protector of their way of life, with three more or less random mana points that can be used to, well, keep up the friendly and benevolent protecting of their lands.

So. I indeed have a problem killing of my good old friends. Subjugating them to a brutal rule of extreme violence and enslaving the lamentation of their women, not so much, but killing them outright - that's where I draw the line.

Aaaah. It's a hard job being a friendly neighbour, but someone simply has to do it. :D
 
To be honest I think it might be nice if you could achieve a conquest victory without having to kill/vassalise Friendly civs. It would provide a nice added dimension to the game, an alternate to just killing everyone in sight. Very fitting for certain civs, Elohim for eg, and actually gives you a reason to belong to one of the councils, because you will get a big diplo bonus with the other members.

I know there are more peaceful victories, like the Magic Towers (yawn) or the Altar of Luonattar (yawn), but I think that the best victory conditions are ones whhere you have multiple options available to you, and multiple ways to go about being successful. A nice example would be Religious victory. It tends to require just the right amount of friendly missionaries, conquest of infidels, and outright inquisition and makes for a fun and varied game.
 
I agree, Ekolite. I think a lot of us tend to play Good vs. Evil games, so maybe just having a victory condition whereby you win by eliminating all players of opposing alignment (no idea what to do with neutrals... get them to convert to Order/AV or vassalize them?)
 
Yeah I think the game is potentially open to lots of interesting VC's. Personally I tend to set my own at the beginning or throughout the game and claim victory when they are complete. Like I said, varied aims are the most fun. Conquering one civ after another after another just gets boring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Evie
Team Victories, or Why does history have to be a solo sport?
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Krajzen
Krajzen
R
Bombers can’t hit targets during war.
Replies
0
Views
3K
RavennaAl
R
RulerOfDaPeople
Describe your most recent game
Replies
18
Views
1K
Oberinspektor Derrick
Oberinspektor Derrick
kryat
Borders and True Diplomacy in Civ VII
Replies
1
Views
384
luca 83
luca 83
L. Vern
My 4.5 Playtest Report + Feedback
Replies
5
Views
796
azum4roll
A
Top Bottom