On playing a peaceful game

[bladex]

I was trying to play a peaceful game, but France walked an unescorted settler righ under my nose. What can I do? I grabbed the settler

of course you have to stop them from expanding into your territory and stealing your resources after all. soon as i see 1 ai settlers near any of my cities it's GO time

 

[paxis]

How changed the peaceful style after the last updates? Do you recognize some changes? Do you have some new tricks to avoid early wars?

 

[qadams]

Playing a completely peaceful game in Civ6 is boring.

For me, war is boring. It takes too much time and it's a distraction from what I really enjoy doing, which is building wonders and great cities.

 

[Zaarin]

How changed the peaceful style after the last updates? Do you recognize some changes? Do you have some new tricks to avoid early wars?

The AI seems more aggressive, but that could be because I'm playing on Terra and land in the Old World is limited. None of that aggression has been directed at me, however; I'm friends or allies with everyone in my current game--even Suleiman and Chandragupta, who I got a good laugh when I discovered they started next to each other. Tamar and Gilgamesh destroyed Hojo very early on, though, and Amanitore is unwillingly playing a one-city challenge (and doing surprisingly well at it).

 

[kb27787]

I intend to play peaceful... I give my neighbor gifts and routes, etc. To me, it's more fun to build wonders.
But if they return evil for good and declare war anyway, then I change modes and will accept no surrender. That accursed race must be exterminated and all their cities removed from the face of the earth, except for their capital which I cannot raze.

And then, guess what, everyone thinks I'm the bad guy and I am left with a highly promoted army... Tsk tsk... If anyone denounces me, formal war will be declared on the very turn.

 

[Victoria]

On higher levels playing peacefully is harder than warring. Naturally play to the rules that suit you but once you are a warmongering steamroller with everyone denouncing you it is easy to continue and seems pointless to stop.
I quite like the middle ground, taking a few select cities when the time is right. It feels more accurate also,

 

[Chefofrats]

The AI certainly feels more aggressive since the last patch. In almost all of my recent games the AI declared wars right and left, against other AIs, but sometimes also against me. In a way this makes it easier to play peacefully-ish, since using emergencies and taking advantage of the grievances the AI generates I can conquer some cities without the whole world hating me for it. In my current game I conquered half of America and Maori, including their capitals, after they declared on my friends or CSs I was suzerain of. At no point in the game did I generate more than 100 grievances against me, and after those sensible conquests my Civ is easily the most powerful out there, on the way towards a peaceful victory. This does not satisfy the requirements for peaceful play suggested by the OP, but it seems like the next best thing.

 

[Victoria]

This does not satisfy the requirements for peaceful play suggested by the OP, but it seems like the next best thing.

To me this is the nice middle ground, it just feels right. Peaceful play feels like restriction domination becomes a board wargame.

 

[GrumboMumbo]

Playing a completely peaceful game in Civ6 is boring

I find it is the opposite. For me playing a domination game is boring, as someone already said, beating the AI through war feels like an exploit. So for this reason I mainly play peaceful games.

 

[Deadly Dog]

For me, war is one element of the toolkit available for playing and winning. With GS I've had at least 3 games where war/conquering cities never came up, a culture victory with first Kristina and then with Kupe. I'm pretty sure when I played Eleanor (France) there was no conquest just a bunch of late game city flipping on one neighbour (Chandragupta) who'd tried and failed to conquer my cities early in the game.

Often I use DOW's against me to nab a border city or two, which is sometimes all it takes in a game of otherwise decent settling and city building to catch the AI.

I usually don't like to run an entire game without a military campaign of some sort, even its just a "rebalancing" war that doesn't involve tons of grievances. I wouldn't count those as peaceful as I'm liable to target certain resources and districts for pillaging if I'm not actually conquering cities.

 

[leandrombraz]

I always play peaceful unless I'm going for domination, for obvious reasons. Even when I'm going for domination, I still try to be diplomatic and hold on to allies for as long as possible. I also keep all Civs alive and i try to improve my relationship with leaders that I already took their capital, if possible.

 

[Ferocitus]

For me it depends on who I'm playing as.
Australia's great strength is the production boost for liberating cities, so I'm happy using it to my advantage when necessary.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Coincidentally, I'm playing a peacenik game lately: Sparta, Emperor, Epic, Huge Continents & Islands. I wasn't intending to play that way, it just happened that I had a large area all to myself, and I was able to found 16 cities without fighting any wars. In the Medieval Era, Russia declared a surprise war because I hadn't upgraded my Classical-Era army and the AI's calculation doesn't take into account the fact that it sucks. So I spanked Russia and took 3 of their cities. Two of the three cities were former City-States, and in retrospect I regret not liberating them. I also recently colonized a large island, so I have 20 cities even if I don't conquer Russia, which is more than enough. I might reload a pre-war save just so I can liberate those 2 CS's and get those bonuses (I don't think liberating a CS automatically makes you their Suzerain, but iirc you get something like 100 Diplomacy Points). It looks like I could coast through this game without ever declaring war on anybody or ever capturing any cities.

How changed the peaceful style after the last updates? Do you recognize some changes? Do you have some new tricks to avoid early wars?

No, it doesn't seem like anything has fundamentally changed in the couple of years since I started this thread. The recent changes to coastal cities make a pacifist strategy more effective, inasmuch as they make an isolationist strategy more effective. Coastal cities ought to improve international trade, which would in turn promote the growth of navies and the "international entanglements" that would draw you into foreign wars. But they don't. Oh, well.

The challenge to a pacifist game remains (a) founding a lot of cities early, when simply taking them isn't allowed and (b) what to do about a 'runaway' AI civ, when declaring war on them isn't allowed.

One thing I didn't address in my first post was Emergencies. I guess the question of whether to allow yourself to join an Emergency that requires declaring war depends on whether you think liberating a City-State from the clutches of a warlike civ counts as "maintaining the peace" or not.

 

[steveg700]

I was trying to play a peaceful game, but France walked an unescorted settler righ under my nose. What can I do? I grabbed the settler. I took a city from them in 800 BC or so, and I'm still getting denounced for occupying one of their cities in 1860 AD. Look lady, I've had the city longer than you did, and somebody name me a city that existed nearly 3000 years ago that hasn't changed hands a few times.

Welll, you could always let the settler settle near you and get flipped by loyalty. That's something the AI has no condition to resent at all.

 

[leandrombraz]

Welll, you could always let the settler settle near you and get flipped by loyalty. That's something the AI has no condition to resent at all.

The thread is old. This commentary was made in February 2017, one year before loyalty became a thing with R&F.

 

[steveg700]

Generally speaking, I try to befriend anyone willing to show me a green smiley. I don't want to chickenhawk civ's, so I let them mature a bit before I thump them for their bad behavior.

The thread is old. This commentary was made in February 2017, one year before loyalty became a thing with R&F.

I'll either get a reply or I won't. Making these kinds of posts helps no one.