Peacemongers unite

[Toon Link]

I noticed a topic about marathon games a few lines down, so I decided to start this one for anyone else like me (or not).

Is there anyone else who likes to play long, drawn-out games, but also is horrible at winning? Because anytime I try to play any speed game, I always end up at the bottom of the score chart. I think this is because I don't like to get involved in wars, because I don't ever have enough resources when I start out.

So how about you? Can peacemongers ever have a chance at winning? Or are we always doomed to fall? Because I don't think this is fair that the guys who are always going around destroying each other, or else making alliances against me by trading techs, always win!

 

[Jastrow]

Up to at least monarch/emporer, you can play completly peaceful and beat the AI to space regularly. On Immortal, it is starting to get trickyer, and at least one war is probably required on most maps. Deity is beyond my abilities, so I cannot comment on it.

 

[gps]

Good question. In generall and in RL I am quite a peaceful guy, so it took me some time to be aggressive enough in the game, use war to expand my territory, conquer neighbours before they are able to make trouble. But as a result my game scores improved drastically. So I am also very interested to learn comparatively succesful peaceful strategies.

 

[vandermerwe]

On Monarch, which is about my level, I usually find it easy enough to maintain & upgrade enough forces to deter declarations (or maybe the odd defensive war and quick peace treaty) and then win space. That might work on higher levels in the hands of a better player. What I can't do consistently without getting fatally attacked at that level is the classic culture win, with the slider at 100% post Lib or Mass Media. Better diplomacy is probably the answer.

 

[Turquoiside]

I like to engage in one or two wars in my games, one to get a foothold (but then who doesn't?) if needed and to have fun with a nice world war if it comes around. Besides that though, I have a pathetic military game. I barely have an Archer per city by Feudalism and essentially survive by praying no one notices I exist.

But Marathon + peace? Isn't that an oxymoron?

 

[s.bernbaum]

But Marathon + peace? Isn't that an oxymoron?

Not at all. It is my favorite way to play. It allows me to really get into the artificial history aspect of the game. Think of it as a type of non specific role playing. I mostly fight wars only when attacked, if I'm badly hemmed in at the start, or to stop an AI from achieving a culture victory before I achieve the one that I have targeted. I also plan on no victory until all or nearly all of the tech tree has been completed. I enjoy that aspect of the game. Once in a while, I will go for a military game on marathon/huge for variety but mostly not. However, I find it more enjoyable to get as many of the other civs as I can to be my pals, culture flip my neighbors' cities, and have enough military to keep the war mongers at bay (and whip their butts if they get nasty). Even when I do go for the military victory, I still enjoy the long game, so I wait until the modern era.

 

[Um the Muse]

What s. bernbaum said applies to me too, except that I tend to abandon games when my land is totally developed.

Marathon tends to give you more time to maneuver without having everything (especially technologies) change on you. Much better if you're interested in MM'ing. It's also easier to see when you're testing out a new approach.

That said, I've been toying around with faster speeds (and smaller maps). The economy is simpler to deal with, which has its own merits. I'm considering moving on to Normal speed with larger maps or fewer opponents. The idea is to give me plenty of room to expand into while enjoying a faster game pace.

 

[Htadus]

It all depend on which non war victory you are playing and how well you know and deal with neigbors.

If you can claim your percentage of the map and keep up with techs, you can win any VC up to Emperor if you keep mongers friendly and is in the middle of the pack with respect to power.

Space become a problem at immortal since there is a chance someone will get a culture VC in BTS. Other peaceful VC's are still a go. So in a normal game with 7 AI, if you can claim about 13% of land (good Land) you are halfway there. Now it is up to diplomancy which include maintaining a deterance force. Basically be in the middle of the pact, keep an eye on mongers and helpout other civs to keep a balance.

One of the best tricks I've heard of involve gifting obsolete units to an AI you want to help. They can insta upgrade units to max at higher levels dur to bonus's. Like warriro to infantry kind of stuff.

 

[Um the Muse]

There's an article in the War Academy about winning a diplo victory on Deity mode without building units. I've never been able to do it, but the article claims that it is possible (thanks to Permanent Alliances).

 

[TheWilltoAct]

I think my playstyle emulates Um the Muse's approach, except I play strictly Normal speed.
Heavy micro and a slower pace, you masochist!

My theory is that the micro decisions side of Civ 4 is compelling but focusing on micro alone results in a slow decline as your perfectly efficient empire is strangled by monolithic imperialists. The war game aspect of Civ is simply too powerful for the auxiliary game play to match, which will result in ideal tile assignments but only ten cities in my empire.

 

[Um the Muse]

^^Which I showcased perfectly in my one game write up, if you recall That was pretty much my last Marathon game on SP, though I still play on that speed for co-op games.

If that's your cup of tea, btw, you might consider a hub map so you can pretty much guarantee a long, peaceful build-up phase. Just don't cheese the map too much! (the GLH is always very useful on this map and you can provoke the AI to attack you by land through a narrow chokepoint, but I think those are cheap tactics)

 

[Pisskop]

Marathon and peace can be so boring, but it is fun to see careful diplomatic planning come to fruition... of course purposefully not building an army makes it that much more suspenseful!

 

[Toon Link]

Wow, a lot of posts.

But yeah, marathon and peace strategies are my favorite, except for the random occurences such as...

1. I'm quietly minding my own business when Mansa Musa (who always hates me in every single game for no matter what reason), who didn't even come in this game yet, appears on the diplo screen with -16 "You traded with our worst enemies!" came up and demanded tribute.

2. In 1966 AD, Bismarck of Germany (I'm Greece, RFC Warlords) comes one tile down and captures my best city, and won't do something different, even if I keep reloading. He just sorta declared war on me for no reason whatsoever, and when I tried to get people to declare war on him, they were "afraid of his military might", which was reasonable considering he was the only one who had marines, transports, and tanks.

 

[Antilogic]

So when are the warmongers invading this thread?

I think the highest-level peaceful game I played was on Monarch--I was attacked by a few AIs, took some cities in return, then beat them to space since I hadn't seen a spaceship in awhile.

I suppose there needs to be a distinction made--does taking cities in a defensive war still count as a peaceful game, or do you need to sign status quo ante bellum treaties for it to count as peaceful?

 

[Ramesses-Rules]

I am a dedicated peae-moinger unless I see a clear early rush opportunity. You can win cultural victory with good diplomacy even at Immortal level.

 

[Kjotleik]

I suppose there needs to be a distinction made--does taking cities in a defensive war still count as a peaceful game, or do you need to sign status quo ante bellum treaties for it to count as peaceful?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the UN say something in the line of: Land taken in a defensive war (where you have been declared on) does rightfully belong to the defender?

If so, then conquered cities in a defensive war should also be allowed in a peaceful game of Civilization IV, I think. After all, you do try to make peace as soon as the attacker is willing to negotiate?


Yours Sincerely

Kjotleik of Norway

 

[Antilogic]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the UN say something in the line of: Land taken in a defensive war (where you have been declared on) does rightfully belong to the defender?

If so, then conquered cities in a defensive war should also be allowed in a peaceful game of Civilization IV, I think. After all, you do try to make peace as soon as the attacker is willing to negotiate?

I figured I would ask: if it wasn't at least somewhat ambiguous, the Israeli-Palestinian situation wouldn't be so thorny.

To answer the question seriously, I don't believe so (wiki link for the interested). UN Resolution 3314, strictly speaking, only defines wars of aggression, but there are other agreements listed that indicate the UN does not recognize the right of conquest.

However, let's not derail the thread into modern politics and keep this Civ-related; I could see ways this could cause confusion. If the ever-truculent Antilogic makes 20 demands of a single AI, infuriating them to the point where they will declare war on me, and then we recognize my right of conquest to the cities I take from the attacking AI in the war, I would argue that I'm still being a warmonger. I'm just going about it in a different way. I would argue there's a fair degree of player intent involved as to whether you classify your game as peacemongering or warmongering.

 

[Ramesses-Rules]

I figured I would ask: if it wasn't at least somewhat ambiguous, the Israeli-Palestinian situation wouldn't be so thorny.

To answer the question seriously, I don't believe so (wiki link for the interested). UN Resolution 3314, strictly speaking, only defines wars of aggression, but there are other agreements listed that indicate the UN does not recognize the right of conquest.

However, let's not derail the thread into modern politics and keep this Civ-related; I could see ways this could cause confusion. If the ever-truculent Antilogic makes 20 demands of a single AI, infuriating them to the point where they will declare war on me, and then we recognize my right of conquest to the cities I take from the attacking AI in the war, I would argue that I'm still being a warmonger. I'm just going about it in a different way. I would argue there's a fair degree of player intent involved as to whether you classify your game as peacemongering or warmongering.

Good points there! Perhaps the better way to look at the whole question is what kind of victory condition you are targeting. I ALWAYS target cultural victory and use early rush sometimes to gain land. I spend the rest of the game trying to avoid wars and peacefully get my 3 best cities to 50K. That is what I enjoying doing, it is why I play the game. I have read some say cultural victory is "boring". Their preferred victory strategy is domination, and they are almost endlessly at war. To me, this is the big divide between warmonger and peacemonger. Agree?

 

[Htadus]

snip
1. I'm quietly minding my own business when Mansa Musa (who always hates me in every single game for no matter what reason), who didn't even come in this game yet, appears on the diplo screen with -16 "You traded with our worst enemies!" came up and demanded tribute.
So do you give the tribute? if not you are inviting trouble. However it is quite possible he does not have access to your land due to him having many enemies. If that the case who cares what Mansa has to say? You are having trouble not because you play a peaceful game but you play a poor diplomacy game and likely do not pay attention to the "F#" screens and also likely not exploring well. If you want to play all peaceful then you need your neigbors to be your friends. If you are going to trade with everyone, then expects 1 or may to hate you.

2. In 1966 AD, Bismarck of Germany (I'm Greece, RFC Warlords) comes one tile down and captures my best city, and won't do something different, even if I keep reloading. He just sorta declared war on me for no reason whatsoever, and when I tried to get people to declare war on him, they were "afraid of his military might", which was reasonable considering he was the only one who had marines, transports, and tanks.Was Bis your neigbor? If I recall correct Biz is not a back stabber. But unless he is at least pleased with you or you were powerful, there is chance of getting Dowed. Specially if you share borders. Reloading the save will not do any good since AI plan to DoW many turns before and move forces in. Unless you pay attention to the Diplo screen/ or talk to the AI and place cursor over "Will Declare" line in tradeing screen to see if it say that "We have our Hands full" You have no idea if they are planing war. Then you need to figure out who they are planning war against. You do this by checking the diplomacy screen and power graph. Also if you are their worst enemy and is sharing borders, there is like 100% chance it is you they are after.

The problem you have very little to do with being a peacemonger. It has much to do with relationships you foster with your immidiate naigbores and types of AI they are.

Here is some thing I found a long time ago at these forums done by a better mind than mine. Hope it helps.

 

[Antilogic]

Good points there! Perhaps the better way to look at the whole question is what kind of victory condition you are targeting. I ALWAYS target cultural victory and use early rush sometimes to gain land. I spend the rest of the game trying to avoid wars and peacefully get my 3 best cities to 50K. That is what I enjoying doing, it is why I play the game. I have read some say cultural victory is "boring". Their preferred victory strategy is domination, and they are almost endlessly at war. To me, this is the big divide between warmonger and peacemonger. Agree?

Are you truly a peacemonger when part of your strategy explicitly includes annexing other Civ's lands, even if you are going for a "peaceful" victory condition? Could I conquer up to 1% short of the domination goal, then attain a culture or space race victory and be still be considered a peacemonger?

Although you bring up an interesting counter-argument on the divide--the time spent at war defines a warmonger. After all, you would expect peacemongers to be at war for less time than warmongers, right?

So what if a warmonger uses a fast offensive war, overwhelms a smaller Civ, and vassalizes them, thus preventing war between them ever again? Compare this to a peaceful player who respects international borders, who refuses to invade and take cities, and while he demands tribute in return for peace, he leaves the other Civ a viable, independent power. In the future, the other Civ can still declare another war and fight again. Paradoxically, the warmonger may have more turns of peace than a besieged peacemonger.

Most players don't end up playing out those extra turns of peace, though, instead opting for the victory screen and a new game.