Going Peaceful

[sutton]

My last game (India) I took a new tack, and went peacenik- with great results. As the land grab made my expansion possibilities appear to be sinking, I was thrilled to find some land beyond Aztecs, who are north of me. I was building a colony, forbidden palace, (I've negotiated and renegotiated a ROP) wheeling and dealing, keeping my population happy, just pleased with what a nice guy I am instead of some fiend bent on genocide, when Babylon attacks and about 6 civs join in. (Focusing their attack on this fragment of my civ)

I will probably survive, but I think my colony will not make it. Of course at no point was any bribe sufficient to win allies. I had earlier made allies to rebuff a foolish Zulu attack, and perhaps I have not been aggressive enough in making pacts, but I was reluctant to do anything that would get me dragged into some war unneccessarily.

Any thoughts?

Sutton

 

[zekeand]

I am peaceful too and I got troubles with the world for that...
I found a solution in having great quantities of units, mostly defensive, and the capacity of bilding new offensive ones in short time.
Problem solved.

PS: I play in prince...
Good luck, let's make the world a more peaceful place to live

 

[Sodak]

Even if you play peacefully, you need a big military to thwart attack and bully at the negotiating table. If you don't build a military with the expectation of an AI attack, they will attack you - after all, they keep tabs on how many bad guys you have. Keep 3 in every city, plus some more wandering about.

If you stay likeable (others are polite to you), they seem more willing to join your side in wars. I've played a game in which I didn't fight a single battle, despite going to war twice. As soon as war was declared (I refused to give Germany contact with the Japanese for peace ), I enlisted all my neighbors to my side. About 30 turns later, Bismark comes crawling in to lick my boots, giving me gold and towns for peace. I hadn't so much as even seen a german unit! During a later war with Russia, a few Russians came within view, but were killed en route to my cities.

Two wars, no battles. Good booty, too - 5 towns and a pile of gold. All for building more cultural improvements and expanding my empire. I think the key was good diplomacy and a huge (bored) military. The downside is that I was Egypt. Those war chariots weren't worth squat in that game. No golden age, o well.

 

[sutton]

Thanks for the replies

Another questions- the Russians have plopped a worker on my only source of Saltpeter, and keep agreeing to move their "troops" (there is no remove your worker option!) but not moving him.

If I go to war over this (I chose to) am I the aggressor? It seems when I refuse to move my troops I am the aggressor. Was the above an oddity, or does this happen often?

Sutton

 

[Sodak]

You would be the aggressor. Is the worker just leaning on his shovel, but not building a road? If so, they may simply be denying you access to a strategic resource. If your military is strong enough, maybe you could renegotiate peace - demand something or other that they might accept. Scan the map for worthless towns first. Maybe after that they will move... If not, capture the worker and put him to work!

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by sutton
Another questions- the Russians have plopped a worker on my only source of Saltpeter, and keep agreeing to move their "troops" (there is no remove your worker option!) but not moving him.

There are two ways to ask someone to remove their troops. The first, you ask them to remove them and they say "yes, of course sir, right away." Then they take their sweet time doing so. The second is "remove your troops or declare war!" then the units are either removed automatically, or they declare war.

Generally, the second time you ask to remove troops you are given the second option, but maybe you don't have that choice if it is only a worker.

 

[D. Boon's Ghost]

Originally posted by Dralix

Generally, the second time you ask to remove troops you are given the second option, but maybe you don't have that choice if it is only a worker.

It seems to depend upon what government you are in. As a democracy, for example, I once spent over 80 years (game time) asking a Zulu settler & worker combo to leave my territory. They never did, despite assuring me that they were just 'checking out my border security'.
80 years!
I got so sick of it, I declared war. Of course by doing so, I was the bad guy.

Does government type, or even diplomatic relations have anything to do with this? If you are polite to a civ, will it take that much longer before you start demanding they leave?

 

[Orac]

I wonder if the AI is ever using the automatic removal to get somewhere. I recently asked a civ repetedly to remove his units,
and they just walked on until the auto-remove put them exacly on the tile I didn't want them to be on
Guess i'll have to Culture-assimilate them..............

 

[friedmad]

in my games, even if i have a HUGE defense force, the AI seems to declare war if they think they have a chance of taking just one city near their border. If is therefore imperative, if you plan on remaining peaceful, to put a defensive troop in EVERY border square - including those on your shores to deter rivals from thinking they can sneak in an attack force. when i've done this the AI has never attacked me. Although, I DO SO ENJOY having the AI attack me first when he has NO HOPE of winning a battle, so that I get the 'nationality happiness' factor and i can them blitzkreig him.

 

[sutton]

Anyone winning cultural victory going totally peaceful? I have been doing well and a tech lead has allowed me to get a head start on the wonders I need for a cultural victory. I have a fair sized high-tech (relatively) military.

But I have been beaten to the punch on a few critical wonders as the AI has used a leader (they started well after I did).

It seems difficult to get all the middle age wonders you want (need?) for a cultural win without a leader or two.

Next game I'll pick I fight for no good reason.

Sutton

 

[Heffalump]

I think the feasibility of going peaceful depends a lot on the early land grab situation

If i feel i'm boxed in and can't settle all the territory i want for a dozen-plus strong cities then i'll likely go to war. It beats building boats and looking for unexplored lands, settling them, dealing with corruption due to distance, etc.

I may go to war early on for iron as well. Particularly if i have nasty neighbors.

 

[friedmad]

you are exactly right. i started off ultra-peaceful, quietly building my wonders and researching my techs. then i discovered the steam engine and lo and behold, nowhere in my territory was there any coal! i could not build ironclads. i could not build railroads! i shared the continent with the Iroquis whom i'd always been peaceful with. 2 squares over the border, what do i see, but a resource of coal...well, damn the torpedoes man! I need that coal!.

5 turns later the Iroquios are a memory. so much for playing it peacefully....

 

[Heffalump]

I remembered this thread last night after playing an extraordinarily peaceful game.

Thus far I've not been in any wars. I've just discovered steam engine. (Thankfully have coal in my border. It's tough to go without that one)

Anyway, early on I had plenty of land for expansion despite being on a standard map with 8 civs (regent-level). Concentrated on culture and wonders. My neighbors in the hemisphere (Indians, French and Russians) and I are all so polite and gracious with one another it's enough to make you gag.

The other side of the world (Aztec, Zulu, Persians, Romans) has also been peaceful for the last several hundred years that i've had contact with them. Their borders are mixed up in a strange patchwork of cities so things will get VERY nasty there should war break out.

Gonna see if i can ride this one out to a peaceful ending. Maybe shoot for a diplo victory, which i've never tried before.

 

[argolite]

The peace strategy is the one i try to follow as often as i can. Too often I too get boxed in by rapacious neighbours. I just take what I can, and build up this core as best as I can - and a few settlers too. Often when wars erupt between AI players, many cities go up in smoke. That's when my settlers move in.

If at war, haing a good reputationl helps in recruiting allies. Most of the civs stupid enough to attack me get sliced up, with me getting their key cities!

Most of the wars that I go for are for resources. Always get a feel for the political winds, and join a coalition. Easy victories follow, with resources in tow.

 

[BCLG100]

when you are trying to do a peacful conquest there is always going to be someone who doesn't like you so what you should do is early on in the game have loads of mobile offenssive units declare war on them or get them to declare war on you and attack for about 4 or 5 turns and if you have planned it right and have you militry stationed just outside there border then you should be able to take at least half there cities so if other civs see that you can do that in so many turns they will be unwilling to go to war with you.

 

[foodguy]

I'm in the process of a game like that right now. i was practically alone on this huge continent connected by an isthmus. I could expand practically at will, but the germans and the chinese got to the extreme northern frontier before i could. i intended to have a nice peaceful game as I had 20 or so very well-situated cities already. but the germans attacked and since they had a MP with the chinese, they did too. So I fought off the germans at the bridge of the isthmus and started rolling up Chinese cities until they sued for peace. took 3 or 4 of them, then took all their techs, another couple cities and all their bank in return for peace. well, the germans didn't make peace and attacked again. when i defended, the dumb chinese were right back in it. rolled up the rest of their towns, each turn getting refused by their envoy, until they only had 2 or 3 left. in the process, i discovered steam, found coal in my newly conquered territory and not 1, but 2 cities capable of building ironworks. wild!

 

[randommushrooms]

Originally posted by sutton
Anyone winning cultural victory going totally peaceful? I have been doing well and a tech lead has allowed me to get a head start on the wonders I need for a cultural victory. I have a fair sized high-tech (relatively) military.

But I have been beaten to the punch on a few critical wonders as the AI has used a leader (they started well after I did).

It seems difficult to get all the middle age wonders you want (need?) for a cultural win without a leader or two.

Next game I'll pick I fight for no good reason.

Sutton

I'm working on a game right now. Regent level, warm, wet, huge, 5 million years old. Egyptians.

Current estimate is that I'll achieve a cultural victory around 1650 AD, all depends on how fast I can keep building cultural improvements in the cities.

But alas, I can make no claim to being totally peaceful. Just had to go and whomp on the Persians, to secure more land and more cities and more cultural improvements. Also, they were my Forbidden Palace target because of my inital land grab strategy.

I built my first 9 like this. The capital in the center, then one 3 spaces up, then 3 spaces down, then 3 spaces left and right. Then I filled in the four corners making a box. After that, I began to more or less space them with only one tile in between going left, right, up, or down. So after that initial core, I built a number of densely-packed cities with the idea that they'll all be getting temples, librarys and cathedrals.

But I wanted a second good productive, where the cities wouldn't be packed as tight, allowing for fuller growth after factories. Hello Xerxes, so nice of you to have settled those grasslands and hills. Yummy.

 

[sutton]

Going peaceful (follow-up)

The peaceful strategy brought this civ newbe his first (non cheifton) win.

Oddly enough, I won diplomatic victory while going for a cultural. I didn't realize that 100,000 cultural points will not gain you victory if someone (in this case the continent-sharing, more militarily powerful French) has more than half of your total (they had about 2/3rds). When I crossed 100,000 and didn't win, I realized that diplomatic victory was the only available possible strategy for victory.

But having been such a nice guy, a few bribes (I had crazy gold) won me the election. And to tell you the truth, I'm still not certain what the elements of a diplomatic victory strategy are.

My current game I am Japan on a war-tear. What do I have to say for it?- leaders, leaders, leaders.

Sutton

 

[Heffalump]

One noticeable side-effect of my recent, mostly-peaceful game was how quickly it went. Usually in the 19th and 20th centuries I get bogged down micro-managing units on my various military campaigns. But this time the years just flew by.

Here's how my peaceful game went.

Early on I somehow managed to peacefully expand to a reasonable 16 or 17 cities, despite the relative crowding of 8 civs on a standard map. I had iron and horses and that's when i decided to hang tight, focus on culture, and take a peaceful route.

I shared a sizeable border and a long inland sea with the French. They were friendly and i figured that a war with them would be intense due to their proximity and strength, so very early on i decided to keep them happy. This bit of diplomacy proved to be the key to the game since they remained faithful allies the whole time. Later in the game we formed and MP and this dragged me into a couple wars, but i was able to mostly stay out of things and not be bothered by my overseas opponents. Especially since France had the largest navy

So i spent virtually all of the 19th and 20th centuries as a democracy while the rest of the world went to communism and fought the usual world wars. This allowed me to open up a pretty dominating tech lead. 5 or 6 ahead of anyone else. I had modern armor not long after everyone else build their first tanks.

So there's something to be said for not fighting, although the practicality of that is not always so high.