The non-aggression principle

[Jonathan]

As an experiment, I've decided to adopt non-aggression as a principle when playing Civ 6. For me, this has the following implications:

1. Don't declare any wars.
2. Don't capture any cities.
3. Turn off barbarians. Because they're designed to be intolerably annoying unless you wipe them out. Anyway, the distinction between barbarians and civs is a false one: in real life, 'barbarian' is just a stage that tribes go through before turning into civs.

So far, the experiment seems moderately positive. I don't really enjoy the repetitive hassle of capturing cities or squelching barbarians, and I can concentrating on founding and developing cities. I don't need to bother with battering rams, catapults, etc., because I won't be using them.

 

[Robo-Star]

As an experiment, I've decided to adopt non-aggression as a principle when playing Civ 6. For me, this has the following implications:

1. Don't declare any wars.
2. Don't capture any cities.
3. Turn off barbarians. Because they're designed to be intolerably annoying unless you wipe them out. Anyway, the distinction between barbarians and civs is a false one: in real life, 'barbarian' is just a stage that tribes go through before turning into civs.

So far, the experiment seems moderately positive. I don't really enjoy the repetitive hassle of capturing cities or squelching barbarians, and I can concentrating on founding and developing cities. I don't need to bother with battering rams, catapults, etc., because I won't be using them.

What implications does that have on Policy Cards used?

 

[nzcamel]

Turn off barbarians. Because they're designed to be intolerably annoying unless you wipe them out. Anyway, the distinction between barbarians and civs is a false one: in real life, 'barbarian' is just a stage that tribes go through before turning into civs.

As City States are a false distinction also. Both serve a purpose in game though...

 

[LuckyAC]

Yeah, I generally play that way (at least not capturing cities, don't care about barbarians), just because it's not fair fighting wars against the terrible AI. Makes deity quite challenging, although Immortal is still easy (you start out behind in tech, but once you hit enlightenment, you shoot ahead) - there's a surprisingly big jump in Ai teching speed.

 

[PYITE]

When I play peaceful is seems like my neighbors are usually the leading civs that I have to catch up to. Less wars to fight (especially ones against the human opponents) makes the AI much more successful. No barbs is also a huge boost to the AI.

 

[Jonathan]

What implications does that have on Policy Cards used?

So far, I haven't noticed much effect. I still want most of the things I wanted before, apart from battering rams, siege engines, and catapults. There are probably some policy cards that are less useful, but I didn't tend to use them anyway because there are others that I found more useful.

 

[Kyro]

I usually play peaceful games as well unless the ai forward settles me or captures a city state I like.

I still field a peacekeeping force that's sufficient to fend off inevitable wars and annoying barbarians.

It makes the game more challenging than just eating everyone I meet.

 

[nzcamel]

I usually play peaceful games as well unless the ai forward settles me or captures a city state I like.

I still field a peacekeeping force that's sufficient to fend off inevitable wars and annoying barbarians.

It makes the game more challenging than just eating everyone I meet.

Or builds a wonder you wanted. Then you go full on genocidal

 

[PlayAsPericles]

I've always played civ this way. I do notice that this version it seems that civs settle right on your border far more often which always REALLY ticks me off and makes me raze that city though and then try and make peace.

 

[Jonathan]

After experimenting with non-aggression for a while, I appreciate spending less time and effort pursuing wars.

However, (a) I still have wars to fight from time to time, even if only defensively, (b) fighting less often and less hard doesn't seem to benefit my non-military sector as much as I'd hoped, and therefore (c) I don't get high scores.

So I'll probably start allowing myself to capture cities, again; though I'll keep barbarians turned off for now as the game seems more pleasant without them.

 

[Scaramanga]

Would the non-combat Australia Tycoon scenario appeal to you?

 

[Talcove]

Playing 100% peacefully/defensively sounds like a really cool challenge. However, aside from that and role-playing, for regular play it is just an unnecessary handicap. If you can do better by playing aggressive, then why ignore an entire large section of the game?

 

[Yzman]

I normally play peaceful unless I have some specific achievement I am going after or the civ calls for war.

I feel it makes the game harder and closer to how it is truly intended to be played. War trivializes much of the game.

 

[Kyro]

Playing 100% peacefully/defensively sounds like a really cool challenge. However, aside from that and role-playing, for regular play it is just an unnecessary handicap. If you can do better by playing aggressive, then why ignore an entire large section of the game?

Because that aggression bias that the Devs advocate is depised by many players who don't treat Civlization as command and conquer. To play that way is to accept that game direction and destroy the need for change.

 

[nzcamel]

Because that aggression bias that the Devs advocate is depised by many players who don't treat Civlization as command and conquer. To play that way is to accept that game direction and destroy the need for change.

Yeah, cos Civ is a sandbox game where others don't try to impose their will on you

 

[Jonathan]

Would the non-combat Australia Tycoon scenario appeal to you?

Possibly, but so far I haven't bought any DLC and don't know exactly how that scenario works. For example, I see that it's limited to 60 turns, so I suspect that it doesn't start in the ancient period; and I like starting in the ancient period.

I suppose I could buy the DLC and find out. Although latecomers such as Australia (America, Brazil) strike me as rather out of place in a game starting in ancient times.

Thanks for the suggestion.

 

[nzcamel]

Possibly, but so far I haven't bought any DLC and don't know exactly how that scenario works. For example, I see that it's limited to 60 turns, so I suspect that it doesn't start in the ancient period; and I like starting in the ancient period.

I suppose I could buy the DLC and find out. Although latecomers such as Australia (America, Brazil) strike me as rather out of place in a game starting in ancient times.

Thanks for the suggestion.

I never start the main game anywhere else but ancient too; but scenarios feel different so I find it's okay. I really enjoy the outback scenario and would recommend it. I'd just like them to do some longer scenarios!

 

[Gotag001]

Good luck with Gorgo if she's a neighbour and declares on you. She's a tough cookie to make peace with if you don't lay a beating on her.

Gotag

 

[Jonathan]

If you can do better by playing aggressive, then why ignore an entire large section of the game?

Because I find that capturing cities is a repetitive and tedious process, and I get bored with it. I have captured quite a few cities in the past, but I have more fun founding my own cities than capturing other people's. If I don't enjoy a large section of the game, it seems rational to ignore it. Unfortunately, the way the game is, it seems hard to play successfully without capturing cities.

It's not the only large section of the game that I try to ignore. I also limit all my games to 220 turns (on a standard map), so I never play the second half of the game as designed. I've played every version of Civ since Civ 1, but I've always enjoyed the start of the game most. My aim is to cut off the parts of the game that I don't enjoy, as far as possible. The game is large and complicated, so I can cut off chunks of it and still have a game to play.

If I could, I'd also cut off religion, as I don't think the religious part of the game is well designed. As I can't cut it off, I ignore it by not building holy sites.

 

[nzcamel]

Have you considered playing Civ Revolution? Might be more up your ally...?