Peacemongers unite

[Ramesses-Rules]

If a true peacemonger is one who never voluntarily enters any war, bribes other civs into making a war, or deliberately provokes other civs to attack his own civ, then I am not a true peacemonger. However, I would be happy to go the whole game without a war and still get my Cultural Victory. I am finding that very difficult at Immortal, and so most of my Immortal wins so far have required limited early wars to gain land. Whereas I start every game with the intention of cultural victory, there are probably lots of players (probably the majority) who start the game with the intention of a domination win. There are a few (really excellent players) who say they keep all options open and don't target a specific victory condition until later in the game when the optimal path becomes clearer. Which of these three categories do you think fits most players?

 

[Htadus]

Peaceful games are the hardest type of games to play since it deny the player the powere needed to escape AI harrasment and more time consuming (this depend on player's micro level).

When I first started, I was a full on monger and soon found it to be boring. Then I was, for a long time, a purest type of peacemonger with the exception of not giving tribute. So I kept my tech pace and military big to deter wars. Then that became boring too.

Now I consider myself a Play the Map kind of player. I do what needs to be done to reach the (peaceful) Victory type I choose. So if the map demand that I need a good sizeable empire to get to where I need to be, then by all means I will capture or expand to it.

After that it is all about playing the diplo tango. Anyways, being flexible is the way for better and less stressful Civing. Any strict rules is not simple civing, instead it is Civ roleplaying.

 

[Ramesses-Rules]

Peaceful games are the hardest type of games to play since it deny the player the powere needed to escape AI harrasment and more time consuming (this depend on player's micro level).

When I first started, I was a full on monger and soon found it to be boring. Then I was, for a long time, a purest type of peacemonger with the exception of not giving tribute. So I kept my tech pace and military big to deter wars. Then that became boring too.

Now I consider myself a Play the Map kind of player. I do what needs to be done to reach the (peaceful) Victory type I choose. So if the map demand that I need a good sizeable empire to get to where I need to be, then by all means I will capture or expand to it.

After that it is all about playing the diplo tango. Anyways, being flexible is the way for better and less stressful Civing. Any strict rules is not simple civing, instead it is Civ roleplaying.

The old adage "practice makes perfect" applies to civ4. I run light on military for most of the game to focus my resources on building temples and cathedrals. That requires diplomacy to avoid wars. I have become very experienced at those aspects of the game, but not warfare. If I every get to winning with more consistency at Immortal, I think I will try to learn one of the other peaceful victories -- maybe Space or Diplomacy. Have you ever won a Diplomatic Victory? If so, what level? I guess one could do it by killing everybody except one civ, but I think it would be really hard to do at Immortal or Deity with 6 or 7 civs voting.

 

[Htadus]

I only play up to Immortal and can and have won all the VC's. BTW you need total on 3 surviving civs(including player) for UN VC.

Best Diplo games do not need wars(yes wars help) but knowing the neigbors is a must. There are several easy ways to gurantee a win as long as you build the UN or are number 1 in pop. Some times you can be number 2 in pop as long as number 1 population Ai build the UN. But that is a risk. The following 3 ways are sure fire first vote winning UN strats.

1. Using Vassals to vote for you. You need to provide the remaining population.
2. Having your potential opponant as the common villan and you are local hero. All the AI will vote for you.
3. Building and gifting the UN city to a very small yet common villan AI as long as you are the largest pop civ. This is best if your best buddy will be your UN opponant. This works even better if you capture the target AI's city and rush UN with 1 or 2 GE's and let the Ai capture or give back for peace. Other option is to choose an opponanat you know going to be a monster and place a blocking city. Use the blocking city as UN city. He/she will be happy to accept it.

 

[Ramesses-Rules]

I can see that my big problem is going to be getting largest population (at Immortal) without warmongering to gain more land/cities. The military dudes who run Monarcy to spam units usually have cities at 20+ population. Second, they are not likely to be my "best buddy." He is usually more friendly with the other military civs. It's that "peaceweight" formula. In my game today, I needed to get Tokawaga (Japan) to trade with me, so I gifted him a low level tech. He went to "pleased" and traded with me. But by the time i was ready for another trade, he was back to "cautious" and not trading. So I would need to bribe him big-time right before the UN vote to get him to vote for me or else gift UN to his "worst enemy."

 

[JBryan314]

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!

Well, that is the ways things are in history. Unfortunately, the most effective way to get something done (or prevent someone from doing something detrimental to you) is through force.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Well, that is the ways things are in history. Unfortunately, the most effective way to get something done (or prevent someone from doing something detrimental to you) is through force.

If you have the right attributes, the quickest way to get something that you want is with a wiggle, shimmy, or the batting of eyelashes and pretending to be helpless. (hee hee. )

Since we can't do that in game terms, and I doubt it would work for you boys out there, JBryan314 is right. The answer is war. Sometimes you just have to do it.

I usually play a peacful(ish) game, but I'm not above taking out a civ or two early on. Especially if they have good resources and have the potential to become a powerhouse civ, or are the Vikings or Zulu. I don't need an out of the blue DoW when I think things are going well. I prefer to think of my play style as balanced and adaptable. Depending on the direction the game is taking, I'll adapt and become more peaceful or warlike, as necessary.

And then there are times when I'm just cranky and kill everyone.

 

[Ramesses-Rules]

If you have the right attributes, the quickest way to get something that you want is with a wiggle, shimmy, or the batting of eyelashes and pretending to be helpless. (hee hee. )

Since we can't do that in game terms, and I doubt it would work for you boys out there, JBryan314 is right. The answer is war. Sometimes you just have to do it.

I usually play a peacful(ish) game, but I'm not above taking out a civ or two early on. Especially if they have good resources and have the potential to become a powerhouse civ, or are the Vikings or Zulu. I don't need an out of the blue DoW when I think things are going well. I prefer to think of my play style as balanced and adaptable. Depending on the direction the game is taking, I'll adapt and become more peaceful or warlike, as necessary.

And then there are times when I'm just cranky and kill everyone.

My peacemongering tendency has really messed up my current game. I did an early war for copper with Khan. I took the city and made peace. That leaves him with no metal, and it leaves me with good land enough for 8-9 cities. When I got Alphabet and traded for Mathematics, I could have gone for Currency and Construction and then used my Elephants to wipe out Khan once and for all. But he has strong Buddist allies (Alex and Tokagawa), and I worried about them coming to his aid. So instead, I went the standard Liberalism race track and did Literature and COL (actually founded Confucianism) and built the Great Library. Now, Khan just put a city next to the corn in the city I took in the war (taking over my corn tile) and must have done a culture bomb with an artist, because it took out a cottage and a mine also (even though I have an Oblisk and Library up there)! As you say, that is making me very "cranky" toward Khan. I am going to replay from Alphabet, and DoW with the Elephants. If Alex doesn't like it, too bad. I'm a peacemonger on the rampage now.

 

[Htadus]

snip....... Now, Khan just put a city next to the corn in the city I took in the war (taking over my corn tile) and must have done a culture bomb with an artist,Actually he alsready had culture on that tile from what you said. (captured city) So the moment he placed his city, his culture become dominant instantly due to culture from the past. because it took out a cottage and a mine also (even though I have an Oblisk and Library up there)! As you say, that is making me very "cranky" toward Khan. I am going to replay from Alphabet, and DoW with the Elephants. If Alex doesn't like it, too bad. I'm a peacemonger on the rampage now.

Don't have to reload. Just dow him if you have advanced units. The problem with reloading is that you will continue to do the same mistakes again and again because you know you can reload if needed. Once you stop reloading, you will also start making different (usually better) decisions. I used to reload when I was learning and trying to compare different ideas. The fact that you are winning in Immortal tells me you know the game well. just need to experience different VC's. So drop back to emperror and go for other VC's.

 

[Ramesses-Rules]

Don't have to reload. Just dow him if you have advanced units. The problem with reloading is that you will continue to do the same mistakes again and again because you know you can reload if needed. Once you stop reloading, you will also start making different (usually better) decisions. I used to reload when I was learning and trying to compare different ideas. The fact that you are winning in Immortal tells me you know the game well. just need to experience different VC's. So drop back to emperror and go for other VC's.

I am not going with Swords against a million Archers with Walls and 40% city bonus. It would be a long war of attrition without Currency or Construction researched yet. Been there, done that. I am going to reload and do it correctly with Cats and Elephants. I need the warfare experience and, besides, I am feeling cranky! Also, I want to gain the knowledge re whether Alex and/or Tok will join the war in defense of their Buddist ally with whom they are "pleased." I need TMIT or somebody to explain what determines their decision in that situation.

 

[noto2]

I used to be a "builder" type player, back when I started playing Civ 2. I only fought defensive wars. Then Civ 3 came along and I toyed around with the Roman legions and had a lot of fun conquering empires in the classic age. Now in Civ 4 I enjoy both. Some games I wonderspam and get a cultural victory. Some games I fight a lot of defensive wars and launch a space ship. But there are many games where I delightfully smack my rivals down with swords, rifles, tanks, you name it. I highly recommend getting comfortable winning different ways. Just try it. If you're a builder type, try playing as the Mongols and just focus on Keshik rushing someone, or play as Boudica and sword/axe rush your neighbour. Just give it a try.

 

[Ramesses-Rules]

I used to be a "builder" type player, back when I started playing Civ 2. I only fought defensive wars. Then Civ 3 came along and I toyed around with the Roman legions and had a lot of fun conquering empires in the classic age. Now in Civ 4 I enjoy both. Some games I wonderspam and get a cultural victory. Some games I fight a lot of defensive wars and launch a space ship. But there are many games where I delightfully smack my rivals down with swords, rifles, tanks, you name it. I highly recommend getting comfortable winning different ways. Just try it. If you're a builder type, try playing as the Mongols and just focus on Keshik rushing someone, or play as Boudica and sword/axe rush your neighbour. Just give it a try.

I will try in this game if you will give me some advice. He will have 5 or 6 cities defended by Archers and Chariots (no metal in his empire and he is a long way from getting construction. I will have construction, Elephants, War Chariots, Swords, Axes, Spears. How many of each military unit should I build before I DoW on him?

 

[Htadus]

I do not know the mechanism, but the chances are very good that they will. Specially if Ganghis has Alpha and a tech to offer. If you are weak alex will join for nothing. Toku will likley not. basically he plays with the attitude that it is non of his buisiness untill you defy him or offend personally. he is an odd AI. On BTS he will learn alpha as fast as anyone but torment human player by not trading. I do not like him.

 

[MilesBeyond]

As my sig says, I peacemonger as much as humanly possible. I will very rarely declare war, and when I do it will usually be only under one of two conditions: Either I'm playing with other humans and gobbling up an AI is the only way for me to stay competitive, or I start off next to someone who will kill me if I don't kill them (Shaka and Monty come to mind). I even go a step further in peacemongering and try to actively control the AP or UN to call off wars between different AIs. Expansion's never an issue for me: I find that so long as I've got enough cities to get the National Wonders, I'm both happy and able to win, and I can almost always found those myself.

I play using K-Mod which has pushed me to be a bit more defensive because diplomacy alone isn't always enough. If your lands are nice, juicy and poorly defended, it doesn't matter how friendly the AI is with you.

I too enjoy pursuing the Space Race because it allows me to experience the full breadth of the game. I used to go for Culture Victories a lot but got a bit tired of games ending in Renaissance or Industrial. Also, late game really is much more interesting with BTS. I do enjoy Corporations, and they've also made the Broadway, Hollywood and Rock N Roll wonders much more enticing since they give tons of trade bait for corp resources. Plus watching your cities become more and more developed with Public Transit and Research Labs is satisfying.

But what's REALLY fun is the diplomacy on a Huge 18 Civ game when most if not all of them are still alive by the time the UN is built. The politics get very complex and it's really enjoyable.

 

[noto2]

I just started playing with Kmod as well and wow...the difference in AI competence is staggering. I used to win about 40-50% of emperor games. I just lost 5 monarch games in a row with Kmod.
@Ramases: There really is no hard and fast rule. If you declare too soon you don't get the element of surprise and might have to face more whipped archers, but if you wait too long your opponent could get longbows. The only piece of advice I can give is that since it is the early game, if you're going to launch a war, go for it 100%. Make all cities alt build units and start whipping in your cities that don't have much production. Forget wonders, forget infrastructure, go 100% military and don't stop until you're ABSOLUTELY SURE that you have conquered your opponent. By far the most common mistake I've seen in countless games is players building an army, starting to win a war, figure they won it and switching to building infrastructure, and then their gains get pushed back. If your opponent has been limited to chariots and archers just build swords/catas at a 2-1 ratio and the odd archer to defend the cities you capture. I'd build 1 or 2 spears however, and save them for the very likely possibility that your enemy will get horse archers before the war is over. It might be wise, too, to have 1 axe in your stack in case they happen upon metal, for example by trading for it.

 

[Ramesses-Rules]

I just started playing with Kmod as well and wow...the difference in AI competence is staggering. I used to win about 40-50% of emperor games. I just lost 5 monarch games in a row with Kmod.
@Ramases: There really is no hard and fast rule. If you declare too soon you don't get the element of surprise and might have to face more whipped archers, but if you wait too long your opponent could get longbows. The only piece of advice I can give is that since it is the early game, if you're going to launch a war, go for it 100%. Make all cities alt build units and start whipping in your cities that don't have much production. Forget wonders, forget infrastructure, go 100% military and don't stop until you're ABSOLUTELY SURE that you have conquered your opponent. By far the most common mistake I've seen in countless games is players building an army, starting to win a war, figure they won it and switching to building infrastructure, and then their gains get pushed back. If your opponent has been limited to chariots and archers just build swords/catas at a 2-1 ratio and the odd archer to defend the cities you capture. I'd build 1 or 2 spears however, and save them for the very likely possibility that your enemy will get horse archers before the war is over. It might be wise, too, to have 1 axe in your stack in case they happen upon metal, for example by trading for it.

He now has no access to horses or metal. He is very backward on tech, but he does have Math so the danger is that he gets to Construction and makes Cats. That would be nasty. I am only 7 turns in Thebes from having the Great Library, so I am willing to delay making Cats there. I also decided to forego Elephants in favor of the more mobile Horse Archers who should be able to take out the Archers once the Cats lower eliminate their cultural defense and maybe do one collateral damage hit. Or should I make a couple Elephants anyway? Not sure about that.

 

[noto2]

If all he has is archers and you're trying to end the war before he gets catapults out, then I'd say go with horse archers. You want a cheaper unit that can be built quicker because you want this war over ASAP.

 

[Ramesses-Rules]

If all he has is archers and you're trying to end the war before he gets catapults out, then I'd say go with horse archers. You want a cheaper unit that can be built quicker because you want this war over ASAP.

Maybe I can do it just with War Chariots. I need to check the building time difference between HAs vs. WCs. On the other hand, I should probably make a few HAs just in case he does manage to get to Cats. Hard to figure.

 

[Kjotleik]

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

I didn't try to make anyone think of this conflict. In my head, for it to be related to Civilization IV, it has to be two equally recognized nations that are locked in war. In the Israeli-Arab conflict in Palestine there is one nation vs arabs rebelling against the Israeli government. And if you think that last sentence makes me an all out pro-Israeli person I can only say this: I do recognize wrongdoings made by both parties in this prolonged conflict. I find it difficult to symphatize with any person viewing this conflict as a pure Right/Wrong kind of conflict in terms of how they behave towards each other.

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.

Hmm. Maybe I need to update my head a bit, then...

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.

I agree that to be a peacemonger you shouldn't provoke the AI into attacking you. However, denying to comply with Montezuma's wishes cannot be seen as provoking him as long as he is the one making the demands.

In my opinion taking a border-city from an aggressive neighbor that has declared war on you should be considered fair play. At least as long as you have some culture in said border-city prior to the hostilities. Then it can be "liberated" to fall under your command by force as long as you manage to get it before the aggressor is willing to negotiate for peace.

Another aspect of what should be considered "not allowed" for a peacemonger is using Spies and Privateers. Using Spies to destroy improvements and/or buildings is not OK by me. That means you lower the quality-of-life of the citizens of your opponent without actually removing him from power. Using Privateers to blockade and/or pillage seafood falls under the same category.

My conclusion: Privateers must not be used by me if I am to claim to be a peacemonger. And Spies should only be used for Counter-espionage and other non-aggressive missions. Or be kept within your own cultural borders.



Yours Sincerely

Kjotleik of Norway

 

[Um the Muse]

Aww, going by that definition, then I disqualify, I think. I use spies on occasion for more than stealing technologies and I've employed privateers, which I agree should disqualify me. They are lightning rods for trouble, after all.

Still, lowering quality of life is not the same as being warlike. Using spies to steal from the royal coffers may, in some round-about way harm citizens, but it doesn't cause conflict unless you're caught repeatedly Spreading culture (propaganda) or destroying espionage buildings also are not acts of aggression, even though they're not very nice.

I agree that taking cities shouldn't count; it brings an end to the conflict faster, after all. But maybe you should give the cities back?