Peace is important

[IamRonin]

I have played several games of Civ II. Before reading FAQs and tips from the well informed peeps here I have always lost the game, either by space race or being caged in by hordes of enemy.

One of the most important things that I did learn from my own experiences is Peace. Previously I forgave nothing and was generally intolerant. This meant I had to spend resources attacking and defending. Often against larger and stronger opponents.

I recall one of Sun Tzu's main war doctrines is to only fight opponents you can defeat, this is so true in Civ.

Nowadays, after the standard defensive measures for each city, everything is spent on science and happiness improvements and advances.

This doesn't mean I forget enemy indiscretions like stealing techs and sneak attacks. They are ALWAYS tallied in my mind for when my cities are ready, I open the biggest can they can imagine.

I like revenge movies, in Civ I often live one.

 

[Dark Ascendant]

Good policy. Let me add to that. Avoid war on multiple fronts. You could fight multiple enemies, but only fight in only one direction. Also, avoid wars of attrition. That means you shouldn't send four crusaders to their death for a single walled cities guarded by two phalanxes. That tactic is a waste of good resources and won't get very far. Attack when you have the appropriate technology.

 

[blackthorn]

I attack any and all who dare to test my Peace treaties.
I rarely 'lose' a civ game. and I have been known to fight in all directions at once, depending on the game.

 

[The Person]

So true. I always try to maintain peaceful relations to my neighbours for as long as I can. (At least until I out-tech them.) But I always go for spaceship.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

Many times I find myself fighting a war with an enimy that is very far away... Worry more about your closser neghbours than the ones halfway agross the map (unless you play small maps) and don't play like the comp. The best way to defend yourself if your enemie is on your continent is to find narow strips of land, and build cities on the most defencible terrain there. Then build city walls, stalk your best defenders (preferably two or three) and watch the comp trow dosens of units at it. Watch out for barb partisents though, they will sneek past the the trap.

 

[Dark Ascendant]

Originally posted by Prof. Garfield
Many times I find myself fighting a war with an enimy that is very far away...

I too have that problem. A good way around it is to conquer cities between the enemy and yourself and have a springboard to attack before having a war.

 

[Old n Slow]

Welcome IamRonin.

Peace is also a state of mind. Sometimes when a boat of mine is at sea, it may come across a new civ. Contact occurs. They declare war & I sail away -- mayhap years will go by and no additional contact happens.

So what? I've ignored them and they are far away. No harm, no foul.

Other times, I'm near a civ & we are "at peace". But perhaps they are too close for comfort and are abridging cherished lands... perhaps we need to force the issue. So even during these peaceful times, we'll begin the preparations for...land acquisition.


One of my paramount rules of play is to acquire and maintain a defensible location for my core cities. The core could be as small as four, or it may expand to cover half a continent. Once that is established, my inner cities need not fear (too much) from incursion, and some may have no garrison at all. Most will have no city walls.

At my fringe (until I cover the entire rock) I’ll have the best defenders available and a dip/spy+ with some offensive capability. And there, I might stay whilst the economy and science are stressed. So I agree, peace is good, but “peace” with a strong defense & ready offense seems better to me.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

If I'm on an island, I find myself feeling more secure when I'm at war. I hate looking at stacks of navel units and wondering if they are planing an asault. I wish that there was some kind of rule that would allow a player to inspect a transport in that players "territory" and expell it if it had military units or dips/spies. I don't like caravans establishing trade routes, as they get bounuses, but I think that it is a peacefull endevor. That is why sometimes I like being on a contenent with choke points that the comp. will attack if it chooses to declair war. I don't think that the ai is smart enough to use a transport to go around a heavily defended area. I can protect myself from landings by surounding my isle with units, but this takes alot of effert and time (I used mech. inf. in fortresses in a prince bloodlust), though I supose that I could use spies to at least make them declare war before they land...

 

[Ace]

There is no such thing as peace! Only war and preparing for war! When you use MGE, peace is not an option. Its not a question of going to war, its a question of when the AI will attack you. :rocket:

 

[blackthorn]

I so much love the war. War is good.....War is great......Enough with the chanting its time to kill!!!!!

I have been known to play this way,it is definately my fav style,and the easiest.

 

[scloopy]

Originally posted by Ace
There is no such thing as peace! Only war and preparing for war! When you use MGE, peace is not an option. Its not a question of going to war, its a question of when the AI will attack you. :rocket:

I have tried often to make it without war and it is impossible. As true as it is today everyone attacks the strongest civ. I will one day figure out how to do battle well. For now I build defense first and try different tactics till I find one that works then add each game. So I shall own the world in one game at the higher levels soon, but It is slow going for me.

 

[ElephantU]

I've played many games without fighting anyone. A few times they have declared war on me; I just ignore them for a while and give them a few things and eventually they make peace. I don't think the "peace bonus" at the ending score is based just on your own wars, though; I think it considers all the "players". Once my research empire gets going they are so far in my dust it doesn't matter any more. My limited experience with the MultiPlayer Gold version of Civ2 leads me to believe that this kind of play is near impossible; even the smallest, most backward AI civ seems stupidly belligerent. But you don't have to wipe them out - you can ignore them or bribe them or take one city and they will sue for peace. I haven't played many Bloodlust games in the last year (GOTM38 being a notable exception), but even there you could look at bribing almost like a Civ3 "culture flip".

In spaceship games, though, wars are a distraction from the main goal. The best war is one between AI civs that would otherwise be picking on you. If you are playing Classic you can usually butter them up with your older techs while you surge far ahead.

 

[Ace]

The peace bonus is based on no war, period. If two ai civs decide to duke it out, there goes the peace bonus. And it really only counts at the end of the game. In order to get the bonus, the entire world has to be at peace for the last 30? turns. I have seen one miserable little greek horseman ride up to my fortified ring of tanks around their only city and arrogantly demand tribute or they will wipe me out. It is ludicruis except that the greeks will declare war and cost you the peace bonus.

I think that in GOTM games, players using classic should be assessed a penalty when comparing their scores against another player using MGE!

 

[SVAndrei]

Well, maintaining peaceful relationships with your neighbours is a good strategy at the beggining of the game. Later on, if you are technically superior to another civ, you shoul consider wiping it out. If you aren't try to maintain peace for as long as it takes. Remember, violence is not the answer. (of course, it depends on what was the question...)

 

[bellisaurius]

I think sun tzu's doctrine should be altered to "fight only the wars your strategy requires you to."

If one is a conquest type, strategy requires taking cities to win, any effort in this direction helps your goals. If the opponent is bigger, you just want to start the war in such a manner that he has less at the desired point of attack than you do. Followed up with a quick peace, an opponent is eventually worn down. The key is to avoid fighting him when he has an adavantage.

If one is a peace/tech person, fighting a war is costly because it takes away production and gold from developement and trade(until the end if a decisive advantage exists). However, even a hot peace (as opposed to a cold war) can cost a good proportion of one's economy, so potentially fighting a bigger opponent to get a critical tech, or to beat up an overextended group of attacking units near one's territory may be worthwhile.

Basically this all adds up to the clausewitzian approach. Fight because one should. Both avoiding and overfighting can result in bad things if they lay outside of one's politics.