1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Soooo... war all the time? Why choose any other victory path?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - Strategy & Tips' started by Bleser, Oct 7, 2010.

  1. Bleser

    Bleser Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2002
    Messages:
    442
    Location:
    USA
    I'm in the middle of my third Civ V game and was hoping to peacefully expand and go for a victory type something other than domination/conquest (my first two games ended in conquest wins, one on Prince and the second on King).

    This game is an emperor/pangaea game (playing an archipelago map alerted me to the AI's serious pathing issues with embarking and weakness in waging naval wars), and although I try to just build and be peaceful, I've been in wars from the beginning with three separate AIs. Babalyon, England, and Russia all declared on me (thankfully at separate times) and I assume it's simply because I was weaker than them. Through three wars I've amassed some crack troops and quite an army and taken two capitals, which only makes me want to continue and hurry to yet another domination win. Siam has taken out France so sitting back and being cultural doesn't seem like an option.

    Which begs the question... when/what could I have done to avoid this fate? When WON'T the AI attack you on higher difficulty? Should I just play defense and let them come at me all the time?

    The question of boredom is a whole other topic... just endlessly clicking next slowly accumulating culture or science seems far more boring then moving/planning wars. I'm thinking this Civ is the most war-friendly Civ thus far, which isn't what I was hoping for. :(
     
  2. budweiser

    budweiser King of the Beers

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,251
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hidden Underground Volcano Lair
    I think the proper dynamic is kill first, build later. If you let them live, they just fill up all your space with their crappy cities and eventually out tech you.
     
  3. madscientist

    madscientist RPC Supergenius

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    6,954
    Location:
    New York City
    THIS, is my concern at the moment. If you border any leader, they seam to always attack eventually. You need a strong military defense, and even then you likely get suckered into a major military game. I understand the AI coming after you on occasion or even usually (depending on the leader).

    To me there really needs to be some sort of diplomatic way to consistently keep some leaders off your back if you can. LAtest game I thought I had Hiawatha diplomatically appeased, being on the same continent with nice talk and trade agreements with a continual research pact. Even though we shared a large border and I STOPPED expanding towards him after an early BC city he DOWed on me out of the blue.

    I understand war is a part of the game, but is should NOT be completely unavoidable when you share a border.
     
  4. budweiser

    budweiser King of the Beers

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,251
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hidden Underground Volcano Lair
    Well, pick a country, any counry in this world that shares a border with another country and tell me if they never fought a war against each other.
     
  5. stii

    stii Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    268
    I don't think it is unavoidable, not expanding towards them helps a huge amount. I've had a number of high level games where no one decalred on me early-mid game at all.

    You don't need a huge number of cities right at the start, as long as you have a bit of space to back fill later it is fine. You probably need some amount of war later on to win but that is mostly because diplomatic victory requires you to liberate city states while space race would take huge amount longer.
     
  6. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,818
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    @budweiser

    Czech Republic and Slovakia, Indonesia and Papua Guinea, France and Monaco , France ( and Spain ) and Andorra , Italy and San Marino ...

    That is enough for you? :D
     
  7. Acidrain

    Acidrain Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2008
    Messages:
    89
    Military is way far the easiest and best victory to go for... They should fix this.
     
  8. KingMackem

    KingMackem Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    68
    Location:
    Durham, England
    Russia and China? Not too sure but don't think so...
     
  9. uncarved block

    uncarved block Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    I would suggest that the problem is less that the AI always attacks you- anyone who played Civ2 had more than their fill of it- but rather that there's not enough balance between the AIs to keep the warmongers from eventually rolling over their neighbors. Almost every single one of my games (on Pangaea, or other land heavy maps) has followed the same pattern, whether I REX early or not: everyone plays fairly nice with each other up until the late Medieval era, then one of the militaristic AI (often Bismarck) slowly starts grinding up neighbors and city-states until they control half or more of the world. Even the other military AI have trouble slowing them down, as I've seen Bismarck just crush Caeser and Monty in different games, in situations where the smaller civ still had a fair amount of resources.
    So the issue is that war isn't just the only option for the human player, but that it's the only successful strategy for the AI as well. When every end game- or at least a lot of them- are going to involve a late game human vs AI showdown, there's just not a lot of reason to avoid getting an early leg up on the eventual competition.
    I'm not sure what a fix would look like. Different AI to AI diplomacy? Different mechanics for CS getting involved in AI vs AI wars? Allowing CS to expand to two cities each, so that all that empty space on the map doesn't go to aggressive AIs? Just don't know.
     
  10. Slowpoke

    Slowpoke The Mad Modder

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,321
    The mongol empire was partially in russia, so yeah :)

    I think this is a problem dealing with city defense. Cities fall to easily. I'm working on a mod for this right now. There is also one existing one that does fix castles to make medeival warfare tougher.
     
  11. madscientist

    madscientist RPC Supergenius

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2006
    Messages:
    6,954
    Location:
    New York City
    I think you can include the USA/Canada border here. The war of 1812 was while Canada was an English Colony and once Canada got it's independence/Autonomy there has never been issue not resolved diplomatically.
     
  12. Feyd Rautha

    Feyd Rautha Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    583
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    Canada and the U.S.

    India and Nepal

    India and Bhutan

    Australia and New Zealand

    Austria and Hungary (or was that split a civil war?)

    Lithuania and Latvia

    Texas and the United States

    Mexico and their Central American neighbors

    Anyone got others?

    Also, the wars between neighbors always have some buildup. Not a DoW out of the blue.
     
  13. aimlessgun

    aimlessgun King

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    782
    So let me get this straight.

    You started a game intending to do a non-domination victory and play peaceful.

    And then you captured 2 capitals. See anything wrong with that?

    You have control over what you do. Just because the AI attacks you doesn't mean you have to go out and conquer them.

    Anyways you can avoid wars. I'm at 900 AD in a deity game with 4 AI's bordering me and have not been declared on once, despite my military consisting of 4 units. Keep trading with them, do not expand near them more than once, don't mess with their city state buddies, don't break any secrecy pacts, don't DOW anyone or capture any cities, and you stand a good chance of being left alone.

    As for clicking end turn over and over, yeah, that can suck. And you may be right that it sucks more in a slimmed down civ with maybe a little less to do every turn. Not sure what to do about that though :/
     
  14. stii

    stii Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    268

    I did this too then suddenly at 1400AD multiple players declare on me for no real reason. I could hold them off but they conquered almost every CS I had, so you need to be careful :)
     
  15. Lyoncet

    Lyoncet Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2009
    Messages:
    1,676
    Location:
    Minnesota
    While this obviously wasn't a factor in the first DoW, the subsequent could have been because you were out capturing cities. That rubs the non-militaristic civs the wrong way, and of course the militaristic ones don't need an excuse to attack you.

    I think that once we get a better grasp on the leaders' diplo AIs, we'll be able to avoid things like this to a degree. Even though I can support some diplomatic opacity (makes it feel like you're not negotiating with a spreadsheet, even if you know you are), IMO there should at least be something in the manual to the effect of "Hiawatha: loves trading, hates it when you settle near him." That would at least keep us from feeling entirely estranged from/subject to the diplomatic system.
     
  16. drlake

    drlake Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    1,247
    Location:
    Plattsburgh, NY
    I'd eliminate those who are largely blocked by natural barriers like Australia and anyone (since they have no land borders at all). What you are left with is a very short list, so while there are pairs of neighboring countries that never fought each other most of them have only existed for a short period (e.g. Czech and Slovak republics) or geography makes war very difficult to wage (e.g. Brazil and Ecuador). The vast majority of countries with any kind of longevity have been at war with most of their neighbors at some point.
     
  17. Bleser

    Bleser Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2002
    Messages:
    442
    Location:
    USA
    Agree 100%. However, I wasn't giving the entire picture in my OP.

    Mid-BC, Russia DOW on me, I defend only.
    Late-BC, Babylon DOW on me, I defend only.
    Early-AD, England DOW on me, I defend only.
    Early-Mid-AD, I become more powerful, Babylon DOW on me, I take them out.
    Early-Mid-AD, Enter agreements with England and Siam to attack Russia, my warmongering.

    So really only one out of my five wars I have provoked/started, and that decision was made based on my history with the beginning of the game. My point in my OP was I was uselessly attacked by all of my neighbors multiple times and am very careful about breaking agreements/signing pacts/expanding/etc. Didn't seem to matter - it was only a matter of time.

    Meanwhile, Siam has taken over France and USA has taken out Egypt and all close city-states. Ugh.
     
  18. uncarved block

    uncarved block Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Slowpoke, it's very, very clear that the AI ability to fight is number one on the list of fixes, as well as the diplomacy. I was trying to plant the suggestion that it's not just the human vs AI diplomacy that's part of the problem right now.
     
  19. Seanirl

    Seanirl U-Boat Commander

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    629
    Location:
    Éire
    Hasn't this been true of every Civ? That war is the best way to go by far and if you neglect a strong military you'll be picked on and surprise attacked? That's what I've always found anyway...
     
  20. Tale

    Tale Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Messages:
    38
    You were playing on a map with Catherine. That's your problem. She's a conniving bleep. She can be the entire other side of the continent and she will buddy up with people near her to attack everyone else.

    She teamed up with me and America to attack England. Then she teamed up with America to attack me while still in that old war. Don't trust her. Oh, and somehow she conned Germany into a suicide attack against me. When he was ignoring everyone before and after.

    Babylon only ever attacked me much later (and I deserved that one). Arabia, also on the continent attacked nobody. But America still wanted his land.
     

Share This Page