Civ3 is too much about waging war

[Ultraworld]

This site got a "Civilization III: War Academy". I keep telling you. This game is not about the rise and fall* of civilizations but about armies, battles, war.



Ive been playing games (regent level) in which
- . . . I was in no time in the middle ages due to intensive trade of the AI among themself and 1 wanted tech (monarchy) from me.
- . . . I haven't done a single resource-trade but still managed to enter the middle ages. In did 1 resource trade in the MA but only for the sake of trading.



Idea for Civ4: Techs only get traded if you do resource trade.



* "rise and fall"? "rise and fall"? heck . . . in this game civs don't rise & fall. They only rise or (exclusive) they fall. See my "the stronger get stronger, the weaker get weaker" post.

 

[Ultraworld]

I have no resources (only horses, or iron maybe) so I am forced to go to

Why don't you trade your horses against something else?

 

[Randolph]

Perhaps eliminating the ability of leaders to rush wonders, or creating peaceful leaders would help re-balance the game. It's ridiculous that a warmonger strategy will out build a builder strategy. Maybe there could also be other peaceful economic advantages, or warlike economic disadvantages.
The AI should also be quicker to gang up on "amoeba civs", some sort of balance-of-power AI strategy, start eating up your neighbors (e.g. Napoleon, Hitler) and you will be ganged up on.

I'm not so much for making the game less warlike, just making constant war (amoeba strategy) a less effective strategy.

 

[Ultraworld]

just making constant war (amoeba strategy) a less effective strategy.

support that

 

[Eric The Fish]

There needs to be war in the game to simulate the threat of war in real life. In reality countries need to arm themselves in case a threat arises. If the AI were less aggressive, we all would soon figure this out and spend most of our time in non-military persuits. Has there been an influential civilization in the world that wasn't also powerful militarily? I do like the idea of redoing trade so that there are ships to sink. Piracy and blocking trade routes both have a major role in history. I would also like to see gold deposits mean more than just a little extra cash in your treasury. How many wars have been fought over gold? It should be a resource in the game. Maybe you can't trade with other countries without access to gold (because you need a common currency). I don't know it seems like it should be more important than it is.

 

[Ultraworld]

I don't say we should get rid of war. There is just too much.

Gold should be able as a strat-resource so you can gather it from S-America.
1 Problem: if you builld a colony you just have access to it. You can't convert it into gold



Solution:
What we need is the ability to convert resources.
eg:
- iron can be converted into 20 shields each turn
- gold can be converted into 50 commerce each turn

After conversion you don't have access to the resource for building iron-needed-units

 

[Eric The Fish]

yeah, something likr that. Or perhaps it could be converted into a onetime payday. You could sit on it and collect a little bit of commerce each turn, or you could cash it in and get like 500 gold for it.

 

[YNCS]

I'm at 1760 in a DYP game (Regent, China, I-S) and haven't been to war once. Someone sent a privateer at me one time, but my steam frigate soon took care of that nonsense. Of course it helps that I'm on a separate land mass with the second largest military and my closest rivals, the Ottomans and Persians, have been at each other's throats for the past thousand years.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

It would be nice to create a GL through means other than war - I actually find myself wanting to go to war at least once, just so I can get a leader to build armies, which are really good for defense. The problem is how to do it without eliminating the element of chance, and thus the fun of getting one. One possibility would be to get one through enacting a new government - historical leaders often arise in times of political strife. Another way would be to have a chance of generating a leader when a specific tech is researched.

 

[farting bob]

Originally posted by FenrysWulf
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.

switzerland has never been in a war in its history, despite being about as in the middle of WW1 and 2 as is possible without siding with anyone. and they are kind of the opposite of 'island dwellers'.
and when we played footy with he germans on christmas, england won (turned out to be a good omen...)

 

[ltcoljt]

The swiss aren't exactly a civ, just a small nation of bankers and watchmakers.

 

[farting bob]

half of all new propsed 'civs' that have been suggested here are just small nations or not even that. its a country, so it counts.

 

[UFDelt]

Now in recent history Switzerland has never been in a war, but without a doubt it has been in a war. I knew that someone was going to bring up the Swiss- they declared their neutrality in 1812. Granted the last time they probably fought in a war was in the early 1300s or so... Anyways being a warmonger is fun, cultural victories are easy and boring (at least up to Regent level) and who wants to waste their time building a spaceship?? I got over that in Civ 1!!

 

[ivory]

Thomas More in his book "Utopia" (1516) sais lots of unconventional and interesting things about ways in which wars can be conducted. At one point he descibes the imaginary people of the Zapolets, "a rude, wild, and fierce nation, who delight in the woods and rocks, among which they were born and bred up." In such and other remarks, More's contemporaries quickly recognized the Swiss. "They ... live either by hunting, or upon rapine; and are made, as it were, only for war. They watch all opportunities of engaging in it, and very readily embrace such as are offered them. Great numbers of them will frequently go out, and offer themselves for a very low pay, to serve any that will employ them ... and such a regard have they for money, that they are easily wrought on by the difference of one penny a day to change sides."

They seem to have changed since then, but not a lot.

 

[Norlamand]

Originally posted by Crowpocalyptic1

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

and the Arabs get a Golden Age for knocking it down?

On a serious note, I think an economic victory is a good idea. Controlling world trade by controlling a certain fraction of vital resources perhaps.

 

[Mullet Crusader]

I've had games go to like, 1000 AD without war being declared...

 

[Esckey]

Sometimes you get games like that. I'm the middle of one, well really late part, in which no country has been to war in the past 1000 years. All the land has been occupied and not once has any country even gotten mad at another. Infact it looks like every nation is about the same size and strength of every other nation. While I've had other games that was 1 great big war. From start to finnish there wasn't a single turn that a nation was at peace with someone else.

An econimical victory would be cool, I tend to go for my own economical victory in which I set some goal(X amount of money and resouces, by N year) it would be cool to actually see how much points I get for it instead of just declareing myself the victor

 

[Pongui]

Originally posted by Ivan the Kulak
One possibility would be to get one (Great Leader) through enacting a new government - historical leaders often arise in times of political strife.

That is a very very very good idea. How about revolution often generating a leader, which could then immediately form a new government, make happy faces, etc? Leaders could still lead a civ down the war path, by forming armies. Perhaps culture could increase the chance of gaining leaders (peacefully), and leaders could be near-essential to government progression, or they could create little golden ages, etc.

 

[Ultraworld]

very very very

3 times?????????????

 

[Dr Jimbo]

Originally posted by Ivan the Kulak
It would be nice to create a GL through means other than war

How about by building a Golden Age-triggering Wonder, if you've already had a Golden Age?