Non-military MP options

[Lochleinn]

I recently persuaded my wife to join me in various Civ 4 games. Neither of us enjoys the militaristic side of Civ much. We've played with always-peace, though, and there seems to be something missing. We've come to the conclusion that military is an integral part of the civ experience, but there's too much of it. Does anybody have suggestions for settings that might provide more balance? Where civ military could be important, but not the ultimate be all and end all of civ?

Yes, we could always just agree to only commit to enough military to hold off our enemies but not attack each other, but we're both strategy gamers, and want to play to the utmost within the confines of the rules.

Ideas we experiment with:

Different maps, especially archipelago, can postpone the importance of military a bit.
Permanent war/peace?
Restrictions on leader selection?

Thoughts? Basically, we want to play the way we would as a single player game, but with other people.

 

[2metraninja]

Hello there,

What you are asking for is maybe best achieved with finding a players who are with the right mindset who prefer to build instead of wage war. Besides this, it is in any case somehow artificial limiting the natural flow of the game.

War is (as you say yourself) a natural and integral part of Civ and is quite ballanced and linked with the overal development of a given nation actually. The defender in civ have already big advantage - defensive terrains, walls, fortification, movement advantage, colateral initiative, etc, etc. In a FFA game where every player is playing for himself, it is disastrous for one to go to war and being defeated or stalling. It is bad for the one attacked too, as he gets pillaged and he is forced to invest in army to defend, but still it is set back for the attacker too. So all the other players are moving forward, while the attacker and defender are being set back. Will a good strategist do such thing as attack if he is not able to win decisively? I think no. And if he is able to win decisively, then the defender was either far far behind in tech and development, so he was doomed to lose the game anyway, or he was not paying attention to geopolitics at all and failing to prepare himself for basic defence.

To be on topic, things that limit the possibility/desirability of war waging at least to some stage of the game:

- play pitbosses. this is a way of playing civ where you play 1 turn a day roughly. you connect to the server, which runs 24/7 and play your turn when you have time, same goes for the other players. the games last like 6 months or whole year, but there you have time to think, plus the other players are not like the most of the online players "make chariot rush each game and if it fails, quit". In pitbosses, there is still war, but it is not all about it.
- bigger maps (if everyone have lot of land, it postpone the time when all available land will be filled and the need for war will come)
- quicker game speed (in quick, units are obsolete quicker and this leaves very narrow time window for actually putting your advantage to use)
- maps with natural obstacles (the forementioned archipelago, hub maps - separated landmass for each player plus tiny and easy defendable chokepoints) But be sure those only postpone the war. If someone is developing better than you, there will be a point where he will come with destroyers and transports loaded with tanks and if you dont have such advanced weapons of your own, you will still lose the war badly.
- artificial house rules (i.e. no declaration of war till t100 or t200 or whatever.

Hope this helps.

 

[Si_Lurker]

A really popular multiplayer option was equal islands OCC always peace (each civ gets equal own island with lots of bonus resources). Oracle, pyramids and great library were banned. Usually good players could launch spaceship by turn 200 (late 1800's) on quick.

You need to find the map and put it in map scripts folder.

Another option is to put you two in a team and play against other 2 player AI teams.