A Kinder, Gentler Civ...

[thelibra]

I notice a lot of warlike strategy, and guide after guide telling me how I've got to take out neighbors early on, and so forth, but there's always -another- neighbor after you get rid of one, and nothing slows down growth early in the game like a big ol' war.

Me, I like to play with a "hornets nest" mentality to the game. Peaceful but well protected until attacked, and then unleash my hordes of flying monkeys to pacify the vile infidels.

But in my current game, now going on over a week, I have been peaceful friends and allies with my two neighbors (Isabella and Mehmet), and am on almost everyone's good side. Even Gandhi, who is my only real competition and slight rival is still "pleased". Everyone else is either pleased or friendly towards me, and I am always at least 50-150 points ahead of Gandhi. My diplomatic relations range from about 5 to 20+ with everyone. I've got two industrial giants of cities, am constantly the richest civ, am the tech leader, and cover the most landmass thanks to my finding the one tiny additional barbarian infested continent besides the one main fractal continent, and defeating the barbs and colonizing it with as many cities as I could get before the rest of the world realized there was new, unguarded land. At 1870, and now a definative lead in everything, including number of cities and landmass, I forsee a relatively easy win from this point on.

Now... to be fair, I'm on "Noble". Now you can laugh. What I'm curious about is whether or not this sort of mindset is doable in higher difficulties, and if it's possible in online multiplayer, or that the only reason my strategy worked is because Noble is so n00bish.

I welcome all comments.

 

[Excl]

When reading your post ... the first thing that popped into my mind was, "You probably need to turn up your difficulty".

This will definatly not work at higher difficulty. Relations with other Civs get spoiled quite easily, and it seems like you always have somebody mad at you. It's also a lot harder to keep up in the tech race without having to trade techs, and thus angering another Civ or two. Balancing city growth versus unit growth is also a lot more difficult. If you build enough units to defend and attack, you're going to get left behind in the tech race. If you concentrate on enhancing your cities, you will find swarms of invaders looking to take over your under-protected cities.

 

[CivMonger]

I like to do the whole peacenik thing as well. But generally I play archipilago, so I kill my neighbor and take the whole island. Then I buff it up and slowly start scouting out to see where I want to go next, taking one island at a time, tossing workers onto it afterwards to alter it to my liking, and having my military pop in and out of locations taking what I want. Fortunately the AI hasn't seemed too adept at taking out my navy, so they can't put up too much of a fight on the land.

 

[thelibra]

Well that sucks. I wonder if a Pacifistic win is possible on the higher levels.

I love Civ4. I think it's great. The only beef I have with difficulty level is that it lets the AI start with an unfair advantage at higher levels, which is not a valid test of skill. A valid test of skill is starting on the same playing field, and seeing who can play the game better. I guess that's probably a bit too much to ask of a casual game AI though. To get the PC to play Civ with the veracity of a human being, the AI alone would probably have added another few hundred to the game's price, and years to the production time.

 

[Excl]

Well that sucks. I wonder if a Pacifistic win is possible on the higher levels.

Sure it is ... people get cultural wins all the time on diety levels. You just have to provide yourself with enough defense to repel any invaders, and play your cards right with city development. You just can't expect to be tech leader, score leader and military leader all at the same time.

 

[morchuflex]

Well that sucks. I wonder if a Pacifistic win is possible on the higher levels.

It IS possible, but much harder. After one full year of Civ4 play, I routinely win games on Prince without ever firing a weapon (except against barbs and beasts).
However, I have recently switched to Monarch level, and that's were the real difficulty starts. Not only does the AI get a bunch of dishonest advantages, but it also tends to get better start locations. When I don't get a nice starting area, I know I'm probably not going to win, and not peacefully at any rate. So far, I have started about 50 games on Monarch and abandoned almost all of them out of desparation, when I realized that no matter how carefully I play, I am stuck at the last position. I have only won three... But I can still improve, and so do you.

 

[Sabreman]

Heh. I've not been playing long - I mean, I've only ever really played Civ4 - and I'm most certainly not good at the game, but I am also a bit of a pacifist player, trying for cultural, space race or domination victories mainly. The thing is that above the lowest difficulty levels I always get completely battered by my opponents come the 20th century. I put so much time and effort into making the world a better place, so to speak, that I'm never in any way prepared for the inevitable belligerence of the computer

I know it's just going to take practice and refinement of strategy but it's always a little disheartening that the AI will pretty much always go for a military victory regardless of my relationship with it throughout the game.

 

[Ruler]

Well that sucks. I wonder if a Pacifistic win is possible on the higher levels.

I love Civ4. I think it's great. The only beef I have with difficulty level is that it lets the AI start with an unfair advantage at higher levels, which is not a valid test of skill. A valid test of skill is starting on the same playing field, and seeing who can play the game better. I guess that's probably a bit too much to ask of a casual game AI though. To get the PC to play Civ with the veracity of a human being, the AI alone would probably have added another few hundred to the game's price, and years to the production time.

I can totally understand your way of thinking and encouraged by that I can say you have hunreds of game ahead on one level above. I was playing on Prince at least one year with the same way of thinking as you on Noble and I had fun of a lifetime but then I just became too good and now it's too easy and boring and now I'm on Monarch but this is fun too but not as fun as it was before.

 

[lilnev]

Well that sucks. I wonder if a Pacifistic win is possible on the higher levels.

As people have said, peaceful cultural wins are sometimes possible, though I think it depends a lot on having the right neighbors. The basic problem with trying to play peacefully at high levels is that you won't have enough land, and land is power. The AIs will expand more quickly than you because of their bonuses. You can't make land, so you have to take it. I don't think you have to war throughout the game, but I do think an initial war is required to secure enough land. Where you go from there is much more flexible.

To get the PC to play Civ with the veracity of a human being, the AI alone would probably have added another few hundred to the game's price, and years to the production time.

My guess is that in about a decade, maybe two, you'll have your wish. Computers are becoming more powerful, and the science of AI is advancing, but there's still a long ways to go.

peace,
lilnev

 

[anonymous-c]

My guess is that in about a decade, maybe two, you'll have your wish. Computers are becoming more powerful, and the science of AI is advancing, but there's still a long ways to go.

peace,
lilnev

People have been saying this for over half a century and the field of AIs of today aren't anywhere close to being where we expected them to be just 10 years ago.

Plus, it is a stretch to Civ really has an AI. Real AIs learn and are able to adapt to new situations which aren't expected or actually implemented into the code.

 

[Galileo44]

To answer one question asked by the OP, i don't think it is possible to play pacifistic MP unless luck is on your side. The only thing I see is a FFA where everyone else gets bogged down in war and leaves you alone. This is highly unlikely, because when one player gets a lead in FFA, everyone gangs up on them.

 

[50_dollar_bag]

I've won a true diplomatic 2.08 Monarch game on custom continents standard size as Ghandi where i started isolated and managed to nab the first 6 religions (a personal best) Ramses managed to get Islam the turn his caravel found me, I traded for optics and then sent 1 buddhist missionary to every heathen nation in the world all 5 of them (that had to be the easiest religious conversion ever) So from there I beelined Mass Media and got everybody bar Ramses to vote for me on the first round of elections.

Having said that it's one of the only games I've won without war, and that was greatly helped with not having to decline consistent pleas about 'give me this tech' or 'stop trading with this Bozo' which is probably one of the biggest strain on relations when trying to play peacefully. I think I only had on -4 traded with our worst enemy negatives.

I play most of my games with not particular win in mind until about 1000ad and if war is needed then so be it. I'm probably more inclined to play peacefully if I'm isolated, or Ghandi or both.

 

[morchuflex]

People have been saying this for over half a century and the field of AIs of today aren't anywhere close to being where we expected them to be just 10 years ago.

Unfortunately, you are right. Computers are now about 100 times more powerful than they were by the time of Civ1, but AI has only marginally improved. It is easier to increase the amount of eye-candy and obviously that's the path the game industry has chosen.

 

[spoooq]

Unfortunately, you are right. Computers are now about 100 times more powerful than they were by the time of Civ1, but AI has only marginally improved. It is easier to increase the amount of eye-candy and obviously that's the path the game industry has chosen.

There is an unfair implication to your statement. Any programmer (not just games programmers) would give their first-born child to be the first to create real AI. It's not a matter of trying harder, it's a matter of some of the best minds in academia and industry over the last 50 years failing to find out how to even begin.

There may be a break-through tomorrow that noone expected, but it would have to be quite revolutionary to succeed, and despite all the respect I've got for the guys who wrote Civ, it's extremely unlikely they'll be the ones to crack the problem.

 

[morchuflex]

Spoooq, I have to agree with you. And I am quite aware of the difficulty. Still, things could be somewhat better with less eye-candy and more CPU power allocated to the AI. Furthermore, I wouldn't really mind having to wait longer between turns if that would mean more "thinking" effort from the AI. I think the AI suffers a lot from the fact that it has to play its turn in as little time as possible, so that the average consumer doesn't get tired of waiting. Don't you think?

 

[spoooq]

More time spent in algorithms does usually yield a better result, although not always proportionally. The AI could (does?) use some of the players turn to think.

As far as eye-candy goes, I like the old 2d style graphics. A good, clear, hi-res version of them would win me over. I understand that modern video cards are much happier rendering in 3d, and once that technical decision is made, a 3d art style is hard to argue against.

To come back to the original point of the thread, improved diplomacy is the key to avoiding war (that sounds like something Henry Kissinger would say). In Europa Universalis, a nation is given "bad boy points" when they attack another country without casus belli (reason for war). Do it enough times, and other countries don't want to be your friend any more. It doesn't encourage peaceful play as much as appropriate warmongering, ie you need to have the diplomacy in place before you attack. Shouldn't the AI be allowed to learn during the game that some humans are evil, by observing how they treat others around them? AI personalities such as Ghandi would be particularly repelled by that sort of behaviour. At the moment, the AI only notices if its immediate interests are involved.

 

[thelibra]

Well, the preliminary results of the next level in difficulty are back. I did random everything, except for my civ, which I chose Carthage for (my new favorite), and ended up with a fractal medium sized world with medium oceans (yay, random). Fortunately, two big continents emerged, with Me and America on one, and everyone else crowded into the other. As soon as I got Numidian cavalry, I wiped out Roosevelt, despite his offer to be a vassal state, and by about 100AD, I was the sole power on that continent, with plenty of room to expand to the best spots RIGHT before discovery by the other civs, who miraculously had the ability to sail ocean tiles hundreds of years ahead of me, and with me in 2nd to last place (last place being Roosevelt at 0 pts).

My one and only advantage was that I had all that land mass entirely to myself, and enough military already produced and in place to keep the AI from wanting to invade (even though my military was pretty far behind, tech-wise).

What followed was a balancing act of specializing in defensive military, research, and financial tech as needs demanded, and concentrating my wonder-building only on research or military (like Pentagon or Oxford U, etc...) I completely ignored GPs, content to let them develop as needs be, and used every GP for long-term benefit, had one GG from war with Roosevelt, and one from discovering facism first. I used them for Instructor (+2xp) and one in Leadership (to get Medic 3, and a level 6 unit).

As a result, I had the following city breakdown:

2 production cities
* military - barracks, stables, drydocks, Pentagon, West Point, great instructor, combined XP bonus of... a lot, right out of the gate, centrally locate to all my cities, I can pump out veteran units of whatever my current miltech is.
* cultural - Now cultural, since it's in the 5-digits culture-wise, might be worth investing in a potential cultural win, but doubles as a science city when there's nothing culturally interesting to build in it (producing science instead of gold).

2 science cities - Scientist GP Building in each, Ox-U in one, one based off cash, the other based off production.

8 commercial cities - cheddar cheddar cheddar...

By 1500 I'd clawed my way to 2nd place in the scorelist, by 1800 I'm now leading the list by about 200-300 points, and everyone is begging me to fight their wars for them, which for the most part I'm staying out of unless the person being warred on is in 2nd place, and even then I'm only declaring war and not actually fighting overseas. So far, it seems to have worked well.

So... while I haven't been Pacifist the entire time, it looks like a passifist win is possible on at least one diff level higher. I felt bad about wiping out Roosevelt, though. By the end he was begging to be a vassal, and I just heartlessly wiped him out. I guess great games are like that; they make you examine your conscience. What I did was best for my people, but it still felt wrong.

 

[luniz]

People win deity with cultural? I have great difficulty believing that. Unless they are seriously playing with settings and stuff...to even fit in 3 cities would be exceedingly difficult, unless you war at the beginning.

 

[thelibra]

People win deity with cultural? I have great difficulty believing that. Unless they are seriously playing with settings and stuff...to even fit in 3 cities would be exceedingly difficult, unless you war at the beginning.

Nah, if you have stone, iron, and marble and a spiritual/industrious civ like Egypt, it could be done I bet. It wouldn't be easy, but the combined 1/2 of 1/2 production cost for wonders, and the increased number of cultural buildings you can get if you persue religious founding, and the added gold it would give you.... I bet it could be done. Just focus entirely on culture culture culture, founding religions, and keep only enough military around to drive off barbs and deter the PC from attacking.

Of course, the odds of starting off right near stone and iron and marble are not exactly favorable, but I might try out this approach soon.

 

[PMabey]

People win deity with cultural? I have great difficulty believing that. Unless they are seriously playing with settings and stuff...to even fit in 3 cities would be exceedingly difficult, unless you war at the beginning.

Check out the hall of fame.

While we're on the "make Civ less war on higher difficulty levels" I'll throw in my opinion. Firstly i have to say i agree - winning shouldnt be about just war, it should be about diplomacy, culture and research and smart trading which i feel is lost on levels above emperor. The way to fix this IMO is to get rid of the AI's ridiculous ability to upgrade all their units in 1-2 turns. (i didnt come up with this idea, im just repeating it because i hope it gets done) I know that its nigh on impossible to make the difficulty harder without letting the AI "cheat" in some ways, unless you really really spend time on the AI, and i mean a hell of a lot of time. But that dosent mean go OTT. EDIT: i mean dont go OTT on the cheating, not on the improving AI

Fine the AI get a couple warriors, archers, workers or even settlers at the start but that can be caught up with and sure the AI get research bonuses but theyre all scaled up with difficulty and you scan still keep in touch. Whereas whatever level you play at some point you'll get a huge surge in the power graph and you'll say **** he has tanks. With every new era that comes, the human player must delete (or leave lying around) all the units he doesnt have enough money to upgrade. BUT the AI just upgrades everything. Very basic maths here (im ignoring the fact that production will increase exponentially as new cities are founded): 2 civs have same production capacity (20 units/era) the AI's units will stack. 20 more units every era so thats like well over 100 by modern era. The human player can only upgrade x (thats a small number) units per era, therefore he has a much smaller army as game progresses. He must keep building units to prevent military vulnerability.

HOWEVER at least one war to secure enough land will always be necessary on higher levels whatever happens.