Civ3 is too much about waging war

[Ultraworld]

Think that civ3 (+2 + 1) is too much about waging war with rival civs. Ok, we have things like diplomacy but most of the time that is war related too ("shall we attack x and y", "can I get steel so I can build even bigger armies so I can wage war with . . .")

Look to the new expansion pack. They won't call it Merchants or Exploration & Monopolies (think about the dutch exploring the world and monopolized the trade with i.a. the Indonesian Archipelo) or Age of Sails*. No . . . it is called Conquest.
Like I haven't been doing that millions of times when I played Civ2 + Civ3vanilla.



So my suggestion for the developpers: Make Civ4/expansion-packs less war orientated.
(*) As you've already noticed by the titles my suggestion would to give trade more attention. eg re-trade (check my sign).

(*) i would like to notice that lots of "wars" in the human history were internal wars/conflicts in a nation instead of conflict between nations. Think about nobles who want to split up or got problems with the rich cities.
This is not reflected at all in Civ3

Other suggestion are welcome of course.










* Not my own idea.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

You'll have to wait for Civ4 - a major rewrite will be necessary to incorporate the kind of things needed for more and better victory conditions - e.g. resource numbers needed for trade, improvements, a major trade sysytem overhaul, etc. I for one would like to be able to achieve an economic victory by making all other civs dependent on my superior production abilities. Well hopefully it's coming - after all they put cultural victory in civ3, so they're thinking along the proper lines.

 

[FenrysWulf]

I do agree with your assertion that a lot of history's wars were internecine (between brothers). It would be realistic if cities or groups of cities occasionally revolted and declared their own kingdom, or even more so if conquered cities of an empire that was extinct would revolt hundreds of years later and declared independence, as we know they do in real life (think Yugoslavia). That being said, it would be more realistic, but it would annoy the heck out of me. I think there has to be a point where you decide if you would rather have an extremely accurate simulation of real life or a more entertaining game. In an ideal game, you could turn on all of these features if you wanted to customize your ideal game, but that might be asking a lot for the programmers to manage.

 

[Thrawn]

You don't have to go to war if you don't want to. It is possible to win without going to war once.

 

[Dragonbarf]

Yes, Thrawn, it is possible,but on a level higher than Monarcy its EXTREMELY difficult. You nearly have to be a warmonger to win.

 

[Crowpocalyptic1]

I can't even remember how long I've been playing civ, and up until civ 3, my entire strategy was bloodlust, and I don't remember if I ever played any other way, but, when I got civ 3, I decided to try something else, otherwise it would quickly become the same as Civs 1 & 2. And, playing Civ 3, I've only seen wars in half of my games... I rarely start wars, but ALWAYS finish them

However, the idea of an economic victory would be great, in my mind. Say the first to build the World Trade Center??

 

[FenrysWulf]

Maybe war shouldn't be the main goal of the game, but you can't deny that war is a part of empire building and human civilization. Try to name a civilization that has never been at war. If you can find one it will be some obscure tribe of island dwellers, because different cultures living next to one another inevitably come into conflict, at least in the less civilized periods of history.

 

[Civrules]

Look at the world's history. There have almost always been wars.

 

[Greadius]

Wars are fun

Peaceful games tend to ...

Now, if that is what you enjoy, you might be playing the wrong game... though I don't have suggestions towards more 'others' oriented global non-conquest games.

 

[SewerStarFish]

I would have to say that Civ III is much more a war game than Civ II. I have noticed that in Civ III the occurance of unprovoked attacks by the AI is more common than Civ II.

While peaceful games all the time would be boring I have not yet had a single no war game. I have had victorious Emperor level Civ II no war games but that won't happen in Civ III. Oh well, kill 'em all and let the HOF sort it out.

 

[WillJ]

There'll probably be future expansion packs, not dealing with war....

I myself think wartime is much more fun than peacetime. I had a no-war game once, and it was pretty boring. I have no problem with the game being too war-oriented, even though it might be unrealistic. Of course, that's just me, and I'm sure all the builders out there will disagree.

 

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Dragonbarf
Yes, Thrawn, it is possible,but on a level higher than Monarcy its EXTREMELY difficult. You nearly have to be a warmonger to win.

I did it quite easily in gotm19. Diplo win. Only went to war twice.

 

[Imperium08]

War is the byproduct of one of the more frustrating, yet important aspects of the game- resources. I have had countless games with frustrating starts, namely with jungle covering half of my territory, so I get mad and after 2000 bc and a really bad start, start a new game, and get a good start (grasslands, occasionals hills, and rivers are abundant) and yet, I have no resources (only horses, or iron maybe) so I am forced to go to war (which is possible because my good start made it so I can produce a good army and have a higher science rate than my neighbors.

/end rant

Bottom line, without going to war, you most likely (only one exception has happened to me, I was the ottomans and most of the good resources were in my starting territory) will not be able to complete the game due to lack of resources.

 

[Padma]

An interesting point is, that the addition of Culture (borders & victory condition) was intended to make it harder to be a Civ2-style warmonger. So they are trying to work along the lines suggested.

 

[R3dKnight]

ahhh yes...nothing like being a peaceful good neighbour and allying in times of conquest, and leading the tech race. peaceful times spent on stockpiling nukes and icbm. When all's ready, Rite of Passage. And then. Hell on Earth. 20 Nukes detonated in one year. *evil grin*

 

[John-LP]

They`ve done a lot to expand the game beyond simple warmongering. Give it time. The first thing they need to do is come up with yet a new trading system so there are ships to sink in the water, and increase effectivness of air power. Also, they do need to expand on the diplomatic end of it.

CivIII is still badass though!

 

[Kaiser_Berger]

Personally I think a game with no war would be totally unrealistic and not much fun to boot. But, if no war trips your trigger, you can win without it on every level. I recall seeing deity diplomatic victories accomplished through extensive trading. The trick is, you just have to be a skilled player.

 

[theGhost]

The game would be insane if you had to deal with internal affairs: imagine dealing with the French Revolution!! So i guess they would push you towards conflicts.
At least Civ3 doesnt have religious conflicts, and arranging marriages to foreign princes to improve relations. Youre stuck trading money and resources.....nothing too in depth

 

[Ultraworld]

While peaceful games all the time would be boring

No. Setting up a trade-network and gain huge profits is cool.

The game would be insane if you had to deal with internal affairs

I really don't see the problem. What is wrong with a city who wants to split off

 

[Brewster]

it is possible to compete on most levels without participating in any wars, although it is rather boring. When developing Civ3, I believe Firaxis went for a balance between realism and gameplay and found a great mix.