[R&F] Rise and Fall encourages Wars

In Civ4 this is the thing, if you eliminate a civ all its original cities become loyal to you and will not revolt back anymore. (If you don't eliminate it the cities will revolt with a 10%/turn prob unless you put a full stack of army in it.)

Actually, in Civ 4 cities will not revolt back to the original civ regardless if you capture them, but they can revolt and become non-functional. Eliminating a civ does remove all the cultural pressure on the city though, and it is true that will not be the cause of any more future revolts (any in progress will still go on.) However, it's more accurate to say that the cultural presence in the area has been eliminated, as if you banish them completely from the surrounding area, it'll have the same effect, though of course annihilation is the only surefire way.

That doesn't mean they are loyal to you though. A third party's culture can still flip away your city if it already had a strong presence.

That being said, annihilation really is as such though, so it's not a big deal either way.

Conversely, if the enemy city was already heavily influenced by your culture already, it'll never revolt beyond the initial capture as long as your culture there remains stronger than anyone else's.
 
Last edited:
Currently conquest and domination is too strong in C6, every proper victory contains mass wars.

For Rise and Fall, this is not balanced, but add more power to wars.

1: Conquest cities give Golden Age Points. And Golden Age is very very strong.
2: Warlord's Throne basically give +20% prod thorough the game. (Since you're sure to capture city within 5T frequency.)
That's it?

Conquering cities awards GA points, Don't other things give GA points too? If conquering civ's *didn't* award GA points, you could maybe start arguing that R&F penalized conquest.

Similar goes for Warlord's Throne. It's one of many buildings. This one's geared toward domination. Others geared towards other goals.

Just to be sure, are you saying you believe a player is certain to capture a city every five turns of the game? Am I reading that right?

At any rate, the very fact that alliances are being improved goes a way towards saying peace is encouraged. Of course, the AI needs to be configured to value peace in some instances and conquest in others. You can have great systems, but they're pointless if the game doesn't utilize them.
 
Because real life encourages war much more than it encouraged science, culture, or religious victories.
Real life doesn't have those things.

You are buying into historical hype that portrays history as mostly just a series of wars. There's plenty of periods where peaceful trade and cooperation produced prosperity between civilizations. Your examples of Rome and the Mongols are instances of people who went the path of imperialism because they needed more than they could offer, so they had to take it. If you're stuck in the desert hills like the Hittites or the frost like the Norse, that's when taking by force becomes the de facto alternative to extinction.
 
Just to be sure, are you saying you believe a player is certain to capture a city every five turns of the game? Am I reading that right?

The normal conquest rate is 1~2 turns/city. At least I never found a map which a normal player conquest at slower than 3T/city rate after he started his domination.

If you cannot conquest every 5 turns I suggest you practice more before making rude critics like this .
 
Real life doesn't have those things.

You are buying into historical hype that portrays history as mostly just a series of wars. There's plenty of periods where peaceful trade and cooperation produced prosperity between civilizations. Your examples of Rome and the Mongols are instances of people who went the path of imperialism because they needed more than they could offer, so they had to take it. If you're stuck in the desert hills like the Hittites or the frost like the Norse, that's when taking by force becomes the de facto alternative to extinction.

I respectfully disagree. I find it exceedingly difficult to find periods of history that were not driven by war and conquest on some scale. Indeed, I believe war to be the most vigorous author of human history. Thousands of petty wars have been fought over things such as dynastic succession, religious dominance or simply because two rulers didn't like each other. Clan wars, range wars, gang wars and family feuds may seem tiny in scale but they form the basis of just some of the reasons that can fuel large scale conflicts that involve multiple nations and continents.

Indeed, for all of its destructiveness, war has also been the driving force for nearly all other aspects of human history. Technology, commerce and art have all been profoundly affected in different ways and at different times by war. Religion and ideology have produced some of man's greatest works in both condemning and glorifying war. We hate war, and yet we are captivated by it. We vilify the murderer and glorify the warrior, though sometimes the distinctions are blurry. Whole peoples and languages have been eradicated and born anew through the process of war. Every nation has risen and fallen, suffered and succeeded through the auspices of war. We weep for the fallen and celebrate the victors. It is the greatest and worst of human endeavors. Perhaps that's why mankind has found endless excuse for the waging of war.
 
I respectfully disagree. I find it exceedingly difficult to find periods of history that were not driven by war and conquest on some scale. Indeed, I believe war to be the most vigorous author of human history. Thousands of petty wars have been fought over things such as dynastic succession, religious dominance or simply because two rulers didn't like each other. Clan wars, range wars, gang wars and family feuds may seem tiny in scale but they form the basis of just some of the reasons that can fuel large scale conflicts that involve multiple nations and continents.
The Great War (aka the First World War) began because a young Serbian nationalist assassinated the archduke and his wife, which served as a catalyst.

There are many factors, but that one assassination led to a whole chain of events making the Great War a great war.
 
The normal conquest rate is 1~2 turns/city. At least I never found a map which a normal player conquest at slower than 3T/city rate after he started his domination.

If you cannot conquest every 5 turns I suggest you practice more before making rude critics like this .

I know I'm not the best at this game, but sometimes it takes me more than five turns to even get from one city to the next, particularly because I like to establish a siege.
 
War has been really common. Conquest though, is another story, and it's quite hard to hold down conquered lands. Look how fast the biggest empires in the world crumbled, and certainly not overrun so easily like AIs!

In the end though, great civilizations leave behind their cultural dominance which prevails long after they disappear. That's why so many places speak English and Spanish.

Although I don't really care about any of that. Game balance comes first and it would be unfortunate if it's possible if there's wonderfully designed mechanics but you can just ignore them by just slamming units into cities. (Well that's already kinda true, but...)
 
Last edited:
The normal conquest rate is 1~2 turns/city. At least I never found a map which a normal player conquest at slower than 3T/city rate after he started his domination.

If you cannot conquest every 5 turns I suggest you practice more before making rude critics like this .
I take much longer than that! :help:


I respectfully disagree. I find it exceedingly difficult to find periods of history that were not driven by war and conquest on some scale. Indeed, I believe war to be the most vigorous author of human history. Thousands of petty wars have been fought over things such as dynastic succession, religious dominance or simply because two rulers didn't like each other. Clan wars, range wars, gang wars and family feuds may seem tiny in scale but they form the basis of just some of the reasons that can fuel large scale conflicts that involve multiple nations and continents.

Indeed, for all of its destructiveness, war has also been the driving force for nearly all other aspects of human history. Technology, commerce and art have all been profoundly affected in different ways and at different times by war. Religion and ideology have produced some of man's greatest works in both condemning and glorifying war. We hate war, and yet we are captivated by it. We vilify the murderer and glorify the warrior, though sometimes the distinctions are blurry. Whole peoples and languages have been eradicated and born anew through the process of war. Every nation has risen and fallen, suffered and succeeded through the auspices of war. We weep for the fallen and celebrate the victors. It is the greatest and worst of human endeavors. Perhaps that's why mankind has found endless excuse for the waging of war.
Technology and war is an interesting topic; for thousands of years people killed each other with a variety of pointed sticks and little else. Tactics evolved but it was only really with the scientific revolution that people began to realise the power of having more advanced weaponry. :ar15:
 
Where is this 5 turns per city thing coming from? Are you talking the entire game or just during a war? During the early game that's pretty much impossible if you are including movement to get up to the city. And yes, movement counts, it's why wars take as long as they do. 1 or 2 turns can be done if you bring overwhelming numbers. But if you are just using archers and warriors it takes a while longer. Swordsmen can usually punch through pretty fast though. And swordsmen with battering rams are quite effective, but that usually takes 2 turns IF you bring lots of swordsment. Sometimes I only bring the bare minimum to take a city, I'm not concerned about how long it takes. I sometimes am taking 2 cities at once with 2 different groups.

As for English dominance a lot of it wasn't based solely on wars, but also on their economic power, technological power, infrastructure and shipping, and their ability to colonize. Sure they engaged in many wars, and military was an important part of their colonization. But it's hard to qualify any wars with natives on Civ6 scale terms. There were no sieges of large cities and massive battles. Most of the natives went out with a whimper, and were pushed back.
 
The normal conquest rate is 1~2 turns/city. At least I never found a map which a normal player conquest at slower than 3T/city rate after he started his domination.

If you cannot conquest every 5 turns I suggest you practice more before making rude critics like this .
Lily, when it comes to making bizarre claims about how every game of civ plays out, you may have topped yourself this time.

Have you ever thought about starting a YouTube channel? You could show everyone how effortlessly a master like yourself conquers one city every turn or two of a game, or wins a science or culture victory within 200 turns, and so on. You would be famous for teaching everyone the right way to play.

Where is this 5 turns per city thing coming from? Are you talking the entire game or just during a war? During the early game that's pretty much impossible if you are including movement to get up to the city. And yes, movement counts, it's why wars take as long as they do. 1 or 2 turns can be done if you bring overwhelming numbers. But if you are just using archers and warriors it takes a while longer. Swordsmen can usually punch through pretty fast though. And swordsmen with battering rams are quite effective, but that usually takes 2 turns IF you bring lots of swordsment. Sometimes I only bring the bare minimum to take a city, I'm not concerned about how long it takes. I sometimes am taking 2 cities at once with 2 different groups.
Just to provide context, Lily makes a lot of assertions about the effortless speed and consistency with which every game of Civ is played, and he portrays this as the norm that everyone should judge by. For instance, when other people comment on how ubiquitous economic districts are, he comments that they are pointless because the game is over so fast that there's no time to bother building them.

So, either he's the most hardcore early-rusher in the world, and believes everyone else is or should play that way, or he's just pulling people's legs.
 
Last edited:
I respectfully disagree. I find it exceedingly difficult to find periods of history that were not driven by war and conquest on some scale. Indeed, I believe war to be the most vigorous author of human history. Thousands of petty wars have been fought over things such as dynastic succession, religious dominance or simply because two rulers didn't like each other. Clan wars, range wars, gang wars and family feuds may seem tiny in scale but they form the basis of just some of the reasons that can fuel large scale conflicts that involve multiple nations and continents.

Indeed, for all of its destructiveness, war has also been the driving force for nearly all other aspects of human history. Technology, commerce and art have all been profoundly affected in different ways and at different times by war. Religion and ideology have produced some of man's greatest works in both condemning and glorifying war. We hate war, and yet we are captivated by it. We vilify the murderer and glorify the warrior, though sometimes the distinctions are blurry. Whole peoples and languages have been eradicated and born anew through the process of war. Every nation has risen and fallen, suffered and succeeded through the auspices of war. We weep for the fallen and celebrate the victors. It is the greatest and worst of human endeavors. Perhaps that's why mankind has found endless excuse for the waging of war.

You are living in the most glorious era of human civilization yet, and life as the majority of highly successful nations experience now is not driven by war. Is it built on a nation's security yes but security and warmongering are two entirely different things.

The false assumption that the world today would have been worst off if there were no wars is a purely darwinian perspective, and we all know a darwinian society is devoid of moral values, culture and what it means to be human.

The argument that war contributes to technological advancement makes the false assumption that greater innovations could not have been developed through cooperation instead.

The truth is the vast majority of all military technologies were developed from Civilian perspectives. Gunpowder. Dynamite. Electricty. Radio. All these began as innocent ideas meant for the benefit of society and if it can be developed through peaceful means it can be improved through peaceful means.

If there was progress in war, how much more through peace and cooperation?

War has its place in survival and defense in the context of limited resources, that is given. That doesn't mean it should take priority in Civ 6.
 
Last edited:
Besides, if we want to go for that sorta edgelord Darwinian narrative, it still wouldn't be war..

It would be disease. And that got taken out of civ.

The Native Americans were not defeated by gunpowder. They were defeated by smallpox.
 
Last edited:
We hate war, and yet we are captivated by it. We vilify the murderer and glorify the warrior, though sometimes the distinctions are blurry. Whole peoples and languages have been eradicated and born anew through the process of war. Every nation has risen and fallen, suffered and succeeded through the auspices of war. We weep for the fallen and celebrate the victors. It is the greatest and worst of human endeavors. Perhaps that's why mankind has found endless excuse for the waging of war.

People who actually live in the middle of a war are not tantalized by carnage. People who are being eradicated are not fascinated with the duality of their eradicator being both a luminary and a monster. It is only people who are fortunate enough to live lives relatively insulated from violence that regard with a sense of grandiose appreciation.

Speaking to the original point that I was countering, which essentially contended that historically war is a better way to advance a civilization than peace, that declaration is simply too facile. While history fans like to hold up the Roman empire as the epitome of a great civilization for all of the territory they conquered, they often overlook that this empire was ultimately corrupted and undone by this unchecked engine of expansion.
 
The false assumption that the world today would have been worst off if there were no wars is a purely darwinian perspective, and we all know a darwinian society is devoid of moral values, culture and what it means to be human.

In no sense did I intend to draw the conclusion that the world would be worse off without war. Nor did I conclude that technology would not have advanced without war. Nor do I believe society is incapable of progressing without it.

My only argument is that war has been the greatest (as in largest and not most noble) engine of human history. Man did not invent the airplane in response to war, however, aeronautics made its greatest and swiftest advancements in two world wars. Great men were always studying and advancing medicine, but the science of triage and first aid advanced most rapidly under battlefield conditions. Warfare has inspired profound and notable philosophies on exactly why we should avoid war. The atrocities and bloodlust of others has hastened our own understanding of tolerance and desire for peace.

My point was not a moral one. I was not trying to argue some ethical reasons for war. My point was entirely pragmatic.

We are where we are today because of all the steps taken yesterday. Most of those steps were trod through fields of war. It is in that context that I believe warfare should hold a prominent place in a game called 'Civilization.'

People who actually live in the middle of a war are not tantalized by carnage. People who are being eradicated are not fascinated with the duality of their eradicator being both a luminary and a monster. It is only people who are fortunate enough to live lives relatively insulated from violence that regard with a sense of grandiose appreciation.

Again, I am not trying to prop war up as some noble pursuit of mankind. Nor am I trying in any way to lessen or deny the immense suffering the wars of our history have caused. But, for good or ill, whether we like it or not, we cannot deny that war has governed nearly all of history.

I do not believe mankind could never have advanced technologically or socially without war, however, we cannot deny that wars brought us to where we are. We can speculate on how much better or worse the world might be without war, but that is a game of alternate realities which can never be proven. We only know what is now and what has been.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In no sense did I intend to draw the conclusion that the world would be worse off without war. Nor did I conclude that technology would not have advanced without war. Nor do I believe society is incapable of progressing without it.

My only argument is that war has been the greatest (as in largest and not most noble) engine of human history. Man did not invent the airplane in response to war, however, aeronautics made its greatest and swiftest advancements in two world wars. Great men were always studying and advancing medicine, but the science of triage and first aid advanced most rapidly under battlefield conditions. Warfare has inspired profound and notable philosophies on exactly why we should avoid war. The atrocities and bloodlust of others has hastened our own understanding of tolerance and desire for peace.

What you say on one hand you just took back with the other. You say you don't conclude on those points but you support the superior importance of war in game using the very conclusion you deny. What has happened in history is not evidence for what the game should value as "progressive" for society. If war was not definitively the best way for progress in real life why is it presented as the De Facto best way in Civ 6? We're not denying that war should have its place, we are contending its absolute hegemony in the state of strategy in the game. Where are the equally powerful strategies of cooperation and building in the game?

My point was not a moral one. I was not trying to argue some ethical reasons for war. My point was entirely pragmatic.

That's ironic because that's exactly what Social Darwinism is at the core, separating Morality from course of action through Pragmatism. If anything, the game should at least reflect the price of war properly but it doesn't.

We are where we are today because of all the steps taken yesterday. Most of those steps were trod through fields of war. It is in that context that I believe warfare should hold a prominent place in a game called 'Civilization.'

Sorry but no, history does not record much of peaceful days because it's not "exciting" or "relevant". Have you seen the news? Has anyone ever reported how peaceful the day was? That's right military conflict is illustrated the most and that's why you have the impression that most of Humanity is always involved in war. There were many years of peace required to build up the resources for war you know? Much more than periods of war.

Again, I am not trying to prop war up as some noble pursuit of mankind. Nor am I trying in any way to lessen or deny the immense suffering the wars of our history have caused. But, for good or ill, whether we like it or not, we cannot deny that war has governed nearly all of history.

Oh, this. If we were to put in percentages the amount of time civilizations were engaged in war vs time of peaceful development. I'm pretty sure you'll begin to see the numbers skewed in the very opposite direction.

I do not believe mankind could never have advanced technologically or socially without war, however, we cannot deny that wars brought us to where we are. We can speculate on how much better or worse the world might be without war, but that is a game of alternate realities which can never be proven. We only know what is now and what has been.

Again, given with one, taken back with the other. We can't speculate that the world could have been better without war, so we go with what history has shown that happens to support that war is good for progress. How convenient!

Except you can. Based on how much progress peace has brought us, based on how most military technologies were conceived peacefully and as much as the greater encompasses the lesser if such progress can be achieved through conflict, then much more can be achieved through cooperation. You can't say for sure but we say the same for evolution anyway and it is accepted.
 
Last edited:
War has been really common. Conquest though, is another story, and it's quite hard to hold down conquered lands. Look how fast the biggest empires in the world crumbled, and certainly not overrun so easily like AIs!

In the end though, great civilizations leave behind their cultural dominance which prevails long after they disappear. That's why so many places speak English and Spanish.

Although I don't really care about any of that. Game balance comes first and it would be unfortunate if it's possible if there's wonderfully designed mechanics but you can just ignore them by just slamming units into cities. (Well that's already kinda true, but...)


Rapid collapse of large empires would be a good mechanic....easy to conquer a city... very hard to hold.

hard to defend, easy to reconquer
 
Lol, my comments regarding war being the only realistic part of the victory conditions was more in jest. The other victory types don’t have an actual winner in real life. Since real life doesn’t have victory conditions (but it does have lose conditions!).

Using the conquering peoples like Rome and such was to emphasize the part where they eventually “lost”. They didn’t snowball out of control, they lost their leaders who were capable of ruling the excesses died.
 
Well, if I didn't believe that R&F encourages war before, with Temüjin's First look I am starting to agree. It looks powerful and exciting. I think tomorrow we will get more about how this civilization will play into the new mechanics though. I don't see a clear connection yet.
 
Top Bottom