Civilization - bad example?

[Arathorn]

I wonder, that could be a challenge (or one of Arathon's variant), a pretty hard one. A game where you MUST put science slider to 0%, NEVER acquire a tech from trading, never speak to the AI, and you're only allowed to build settlers, military units and military buildings (i.e, barracks). No hut popping either. I'd call it the FPS variant (for the main and sole goal is ruthless killing). I don't think you could win on a level over regent. And I don't think you could win on a map bigger than small... Has anyone tried anything like that ?

Did almost this challenge/variant (surprised?) -- 0% science slider and no scientists, no acquiring techs from the AI, but I let myself talk to the AI for peace deals. I also think I popped the occasional goodie hut, but I probably shouldn't have, now that I think about it. It would be more in the spirit of the game....

I beat Emperor doing it a couple times, but never Deity (pre-C3C days), on a standard-sized map (always as Aztecs, and I let myself build temples, too -- starting techs allowed that). You get some funny results, like capturing the occasional city with a marketplace or courthouse or harbor that you have no clue how to build. Capturing the Great Library is kind of a surreal experience, too. Helped me win one of my Emperor games, though, because I could finally cross the water to eliminate the last foe. There might have been enough land for me to get domination without doing that, though....

You also might want to check out some of boogaboo's games/advice on getting very quick kills, in the Hall of Fame forum. Kill them before they even produce a unit! He talks to the AI, too, though, on higher levels.

Arathorn

 

[Masquerouge]

Mmmh.. That's really interesting. I think grabbing the Great Library is a must in such a game. Now beating it on Emperor... WOOW !

And yes, speaking to the AI for peace deals is okay... We'll let that one pass

 

[dmanakho]

Did almost this challenge/variant (surprised?) -- 0% science slider and no scientists, no acquiring techs from the AI, but I let myself talk to the AI for peace deals. I also think I popped the occasional goodie hut, but I probably shouldn't have, now that I think about it. It would be more in the spirit of the game....

I beat Emperor doing it a couple times, but never Deity (pre-C3C days), on a standard-sized map (always as Aztecs, and I let myself build temples, too -- starting techs allowed that). You get some funny results, like capturing the occasional city with a marketplace or courthouse or harbor that you have no clue how to build. Capturing the Great Library is kind of a surreal experience, too. Helped me win one of my Emperor games, though, because I could finally cross the water to eliminate the last foe. There might have been enough land for me to get domination without doing that, though....

You also might want to check out some of boogaboo's games/advice on getting very quick kills, in the Hall of Fame forum. Kill them before they even produce a unit! He talks to the AI, too, though, on higher levels.

Arathorn

Is there anything you can't do mighty Arathorn?!

 

[BobV]

Be involved in or be aware of what the children in your care are doing and make sure their PC activities are age appropriate. Other than that lighten up.

 

[alamo]

What do you mean by 'aggressive'? You can be plenty aggressive w/o using your units to destroy other units.

3 of the 5 victory conditions are peaceful, but to win those you will have to get the AI's to bash each other to some extent, especially if you're playing monarch or above.

Most of the game is about fighting, just like history. It is not graphic at all, though. In fact, it takes a good deal of planning and discipline to even field an effective army and win the game.

I don't think any kid would learn to be aggressive from just playing civ. I would worry about those gory first-person shooters or crime-spree games, though.

 

[keiselhorn]

Hehehehe if you are worried about violent tendencies of games on children and teens, you should direct your attention to games like GTA or Counter-Strike (nevertheless, they are great games ).

It's because if a crazy guy thinks he can do the real world the same way he does on Civ, he will be defeated in the first election. Maybe even his party would reject him for "irrealistic" opinions. hehehe

Kinda "If we want to increase the salaries for the public workers, we should build more marketplaces and banks in our country"

What is easier, a high school boy get a gun and kill his teacher because he saw that on GTA, or somebody starting a political career/guerrilla group promising "world domination based on shields and commerce" for its followers?

 

[Tholish]

I made a scenario once where I made the Mongols a civ that could only produce mounted units. I made Keshik eqiuvalent to Horseman in abilities and price, and available without any resources or tech. Played it on Monarch. It got boring and I abandoned it in the middle ages. My cities were all too far apart because I had to conquer them, you know?

 

[Kozmos]

"world domination based on shields and commerce" for its followers?

I often find myself planing world domination using civ 3 editor and a Huge Earth map I modified

 

[daengle]

... it is much easier to win a game while been aggressive.
Which is true in a real life. Aggressive empires usually controlled the world throught entire human history... Funny fact though that in many cases while invading other countries those empires always called them defensive wars. Good examples would be ancient Rome or modern USA.

Here is my point, Civilization can be a bad educational tool for younger generations. Lets say my son plays Civilization and after destroying Zulus he is thinking hard on what to do with his army and Who is the next target to wipe out of the map. Now, let's imagine this kid manages to become a president of United States and what his thoughts would be?
Something like: "Hmm, lets see, Saddam is gone, who should i target next?"

Actually, it seems to me that one of the central "lessons" in Civilization is that warfare itself becomes obsolete after the industrial revolution. I find that aggresion is the way go in the ancient and medieval eras. But, after developing Steam, Industrialization, and Sanitation I never want war again.
I'm just to busy building railroads, factories, and hospitals.

Factories and railroads make production grow without any need to expand territory. And with hospitals there is no longer any need to get new land just to have some place to keep all the people created by the population boom caused by the railroad.

An industrialized democray at peace with everyone can trade for all the luxuries it doesn't have and then all those people created by the railroads and hospitals are happy and productive. Scientific research explodes and the democracy races forward on the tech tree. The diplomatic and space race victories are the easiest by far.

Indeed, after everybody has nukes aggression becomes very difficult. Nuclear war may be lots of fun, but objectively considered it's just too expensive to be worth the bother. Cities and armies that took years to build get vaporized instantly. And while it is possible to use a combination of nuclear artillery and tanks to conquer whole continents in a single turn, that requires having a lot of ICBM's. The entire starship can be built for the cost of 7 ICBM's.

(Plus, nuclear conquest makes a horrible mess.)

 

[Yaype]

Factories and railroads make production grow without any need to expand territory. And with hospitals there is no longer any need to get new land just to have some place to keep all the people created by the population boom caused by the railroad.

An industrialized democray at peace with everyone can trade for all the luxuries it doesn't have and then all those people created by the railroads and hospitals are happy and productive. Scientific research explodes and the democracy races forward on the tech tree. The diplomatic and space race victories are the easiest by far.

Ah, but all the things you mention also make war easier. Factories allow you to produce greater numbers of units. Railroads allow you to get those units to the front lines more quickly. And hospitals allow your cities to grow bigger, which leads to greater production, both industrially and scientifically. Finally, why give up anything for luxuries when you can go and get them at the point of a sword (or the barrel of a gun at this point, I suppose)?

Of course, you are correct in your assessments--I just wanted to point out the flipside of the coin. But I definitely do agree that nuclear war is not the way to go. Having cities decimated like that puts a damper on the game. That is why you have to get ahead during the Industrial Age and take the lead into the Modern Age. Having a monopoly on nukes makes everything easier.

 

[Rammstein]

Civ is nowhere near real enough, I would think. Besides, if you actually become a leader of a nation and behave like you would playing civ, you'd end up in a hole with a gun and some money, just like Saddam Hussein. Did he play any strat games I wonder?

 

[derekroth]

All of natures dominant creatures are violent, and naturally so is man. Show me a single country in history that became "number one" (for lack of a better term) without using violence. Of course world peace is a very idealistic wish that we all should share, but is it really possible?
Maybe the more difficult levels of civ are the most realistic. Because it is true, to secure peace is to prepare for (and sometimes wage) war.