Are we being FORCED to start a war?

[Stiel]

I’ve read a lot of info regarding CIV III now, just like you guys do. I’m curious what the deal with the great leaders now…. For instance you’ll need great leaders to speed up the construction of a wonder, which is sometimes very important because other civs are building the same wonder.

I’m curious how we get the great leader, is it only possible to get one after a unit has fought a lot? Because that would mean that you’re FORCED to fight with other civs… there goes my peaceful game.

I think it is very important to have great leaders but I wouldn’t like it if the only way is by fighting. That wouldn’t fit with a cultural strategy, would it? Who can clarify this to me…..?

 

[Knight-Dragon]

My understanding is that these leader units will be very rare because they will have a very powerful effect on the game. So even if you war constantly you may not get that many of these leaders (or even one).
Until we get the game and start playing, it's hard to say for sure for now.

 

[DaEezT]

hum
The great leader unit is mainly for fighting anyway so why would a peacful player need a unit that is maily used for non peaceful actions. as far as i know the only peaceful effect is the rush buy. Peacful players are better off spending their resources on buildings so raise their culture instead of building units and desperatly trying to get a leader.

 

[Serg]

Originally posted by Stiel
...I’m curious how we get the great leader, is it only possible to get one after a unit has fought a lot? Because that would mean that you’re FORCED to fight with other civs… there goes my peaceful game...

Yes, this is a pity for peaceful player. But the history shows that high level of culture were reached by the civs who were closely acquainted with war.

 

[Vinc]

Actually I think when somebody declares war to you, he wants to attack you in the near future. But you still can play a peaceful game, focusing on culture and techs, just build a few units and deal a mutual protection with a friendly Civ...

 

[GhostMutt]

if we are indeed commanding a civ for 6000 years, I find it unlinkey others won't ever declare war on me, even if I am peaceful. So even the peacenik players will have a shot at developing great leaders.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Fight to retain your peace!

Merely stop the enemy taking your land if you want to maintain peace or give them what they demand in diplomacy.

No-one likes someone with lovely cities and no military...or why else do they get attacked?

In civ2 mulitplayer there are too many peaceniks who want to bribe everything away and pop boom in republic.

 

[Graeme the mad]

Two things: firstly it is very unrealistic to play a peaceful civ: for most of their existence in the real world civs have been fighting.
In civ3 you are going to have to battle with barbarian cities and so some combat is going to be required.
Secondly: I think it is only right that great leaders come from being militaristic, if you are going to play a peceful little empire it is unlikely to produce a great leader, such men (or women) are only brought to light in war.

Incidentally I agree with you on the English Stiel and if you havent received one already heres my welcome to you from civfanatics.




Hmmm, something wrong with me, that post was almost sane.

IGOR! - bring me my Medicine

 

[GhostMutt]

It may seem like syntax but the leaders are "great," NOT "the greatest ever."
Forgive me for a bit of inference, but the best analogy to a "great leader" might be a Joan of Arc. After all, she has broad support from the masses, and did help rid France of the English.
It seems all the peaceniks are thinking of Alexander the Great, or Napoleon, or Caesar when they think of a "great leader."
My point is, I don't think you have to be a war monger to get a great leader for your civ.

 

[Heffalump]

Well I hope that we shall have to fight just to survive, particularly in the eras prior to modern times when wars had the steady inevitability of waves at the beach. That's life.

Wars should be less common than in CivII (or at least start for more meaningful reasons), but be far more devastating and tenaciously executed.

Admittedly I wish they'd found a way to incorporate other, non-military great leaders into the game, like Great Artists, Great Entrepenuers ("You're Bill Gates unit has arisen. Would you like to build a monopoly?"), etc. But I hope we'll all have a shot at great militarists. A game of Civ without a war? No way. Shouldn't be possible. Tis like a day without the night, summer without winter, laughter without the tears...

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Joan of Arc was a human firelighter mate

The fact that France is filled with Frenchies was the main problem for the English.

 

[Stiel]

I agree... I like starting a war but my problem is that you will receive a Great Leader if ONE unit has fought several times and has survived the battles.

I'm afraid that you have the fight a LONG war to get a Great Leader

 

[Stiel]

Thanks for welcoming me Graeme, I think your replies a very amusing and interesting to read........

 

[GhostMutt]

I most emphatically stress the fact that if we don't fight wars, CivIII will be an unmitigated disaster!
If we don't start war, the war will defineately come to our own borders.

 

[dreadhead7]

Having played more than a few games of Civ2 without firing a single shot (except to kill a few barbs), I know that I'll be able to do the same in Civ3. If you must fight to get Great Leaders, then, I won't be needing them. I see I'm going to be a culture hound, anyway.

 

[LKendter]

Of all of the things I have read, this is the one I Don't like.


The game seems like military is going to be a lot more important. My classic early fast growth with just DEFENSE units won't work anymore. It was amazing how much punishment a vet Phalanx behind city walls could take

My biggest advantage over the computer is lost. The AI wasted time building military, when I build a killer economy / industry. By the end of the game I could buy most of the cities and take over the rest. (Vet Stealth fighters are great).

I know I will need to build more military. I just hope they take away the stupid AI that will declare war on you for any reason.

 

[Robespierre]

that would mean that you’re FORCED to fight with other civs… there goes my peaceful game.

Good! No civilization in real history got great without warfare. The "peaceful strategy" is unrealistic and hampering it would make Civ3 more like real history. The great nations all got great during periods when they weren't afraid to fight and defend themselves. Isolationism, like in China, led only to weakness, while bleeding eachother white, like the French and the English, led to strength.

 

[Ilspana]

China may have been isolationalist, but it was no stranger to war. The country itself had many wars amongst itself, but eventually, when one talented 'warlike' ruler managed to make the country into one great empire by military force, they grasped onto a very important concept that would shape Chinese thinking for years to come: Unity.

Its my opinion, that this ideal is what kept China more or less its own civilizationt throughout time. No foriegn Tyrant in the past has held power in China indefinitely, and i think it was because of the people's attitude. Though the modern day situation of China certainly isnt Ideal, they are their own people.

 

[LKendter]

Robespierre,
this is the ultimate in you can't please all of the people issue.

Some such as yourself seem to see the game as a MILITARY game primarily. War and figthing are what the game is about.

Others such as myself see the game as a DEVELOPEMENT game. War is a nuisance you must put up with. My game plan that game about quickly was
1 - Great Wall
2 - UN
3 - Hugh tech / military / ecomony edge and end game blowout. I am playing one right now with a score of 2478 in the mid 1800s! I have not even upped the luxury level much, so I now I still have WTLPD coming up and massive growth. This works quite wel for me

 

[Vinc]

You won't be able to play a complete peaceful game. You'll have to defend yourself when others are attacking, and get rid of barbarians disturbing you .

But, the best way to play a peaceful game, is by fighting only to defend, not attack others. But I think it would be a bit boring, since millitarisc strategy was a big part in world history...

CivIII will be complex.. But so much fun