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

The non-aggression principle

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Jonathan, Apr 2, 2017.

  1. Jonathan

    Jonathan Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    370
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
    As an experiment, I've decided to adopt non-aggression as a principle when playing Civ 6. For me, this has the following implications:
    1. Don't declare any wars.
    2. Don't capture any cities.
    3. Turn off barbarians. Because they're designed to be intolerably annoying unless you wipe them out. Anyway, the distinction between barbarians and civs is a false one: in real life, 'barbarian' is just a stage that tribes go through before turning into civs.
    So far, the experiment seems moderately positive. I don't really enjoy the repetitive hassle of capturing cities or squelching barbarians, and I can concentrating on founding and developing cities. I don't need to bother with battering rams, catapults, etc., because I won't be using them.
     
  2. Robo-Star

    Robo-Star Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2008
    Messages:
    533
    What implications does that have on Policy Cards used?
     
  3. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,812
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    As City States are a false distinction also. Both serve a purpose in game though...
     
    Olleus and Jonathan like this.
  4. LuckyAC

    LuckyAC Immortal

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    569
    Yeah, I generally play that way (at least not capturing cities, don't care about barbarians), just because it's not fair fighting wars against the terrible AI. Makes deity quite challenging, although Immortal is still easy (you start out behind in tech, but once you hit enlightenment, you shoot ahead) - there's a surprisingly big jump in Ai teching speed.
     
  5. PYITE

    PYITE Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2016
    Messages:
    392
    Gender:
    Male
    When I play peaceful is seems like my neighbors are usually the leading civs that I have to catch up to. Less wars to fight (especially ones against the human opponents) makes the AI much more successful. No barbs is also a huge boost to the AI.
     
  6. Jonathan

    Jonathan Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    370
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
    So far, I haven't noticed much effect. I still want most of the things I wanted before, apart from battering rams, siege engines, and catapults. There are probably some policy cards that are less useful, but I didn't tend to use them anyway because there are others that I found more useful.
     
    Robo-Star likes this.
  7. Kyro

    Kyro Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    599
    I usually play peaceful games as well unless the ai forward settles me or captures a city state I like.

    I still field a peacekeeping force that's sufficient to fend off inevitable wars and annoying barbarians.

    It makes the game more challenging than just eating everyone I meet.
     
    craney1987 likes this.
  8. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,812
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Or builds a wonder you wanted. Then you go full on genocidal ;)
     
  9. PlayAsPericles

    PlayAsPericles Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2012
    Messages:
    33
    I've always played civ this way. I do notice that this version it seems that civs settle right on your border far more often which always REALLY ticks me off and makes me raze that city though and then try and make peace.
     
  10. Jonathan

    Jonathan Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    370
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
    After experimenting with non-aggression for a while, I appreciate spending less time and effort pursuing wars.

    However, (a) I still have wars to fight from time to time, even if only defensively, (b) fighting less often and less hard doesn't seem to benefit my non-military sector as much as I'd hoped, and therefore (c) I don't get high scores.

    So I'll probably start allowing myself to capture cities, again; though I'll keep barbarians turned off for now as the game seems more pleasant without them.
     
  11. Scaramanga

    Scaramanga Brickhead

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,158
    Location:
    Canada
    Would the non-combat Australia Tycoon scenario appeal to you?
     
    nzcamel likes this.
  12. Talcove

    Talcove Slayer of Spies

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2013
    Messages:
    792
    Location:
    Mississauga
    Playing 100% peacefully/defensively sounds like a really cool challenge. However, aside from that and role-playing, for regular play it is just an unnecessary handicap. If you can do better by playing aggressive, then why ignore an entire large section of the game?
     
  13. Yzman

    Yzman Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,692
    Location:
    Illinois, USA
    I normally play peaceful unless I have some specific achievement I am going after or the civ calls for war.

    I feel it makes the game harder and closer to how it is truly intended to be played. War trivializes much of the game.
     
    qadams likes this.
  14. Kyro

    Kyro Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2014
    Messages:
    599
    Because that aggression bias that the Devs advocate is depised by many players who don't treat Civlization as command and conquer. To play that way is to accept that game direction and destroy the need for change.
     
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2017
    Photi and sonicmyst like this.
  15. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,812
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Yeah, cos Civ is a sandbox game where others don't try to impose their will on you :rolleyes:
     
  16. Jonathan

    Jonathan Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    370
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
    Possibly, but so far I haven't bought any DLC and don't know exactly how that scenario works. For example, I see that it's limited to 60 turns, so I suspect that it doesn't start in the ancient period; and I like starting in the ancient period.

    I suppose I could buy the DLC and find out. Although latecomers such as Australia (America, Brazil) strike me as rather out of place in a game starting in ancient times.

    Thanks for the suggestion.
     
  17. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,812
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    I never start the main game anywhere else but ancient too; but scenarios feel different so I find it's okay. I really enjoy the outback scenario and would recommend it. I'd just like them to do some longer scenarios!
     
  18. Gotag001

    Gotag001 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2016
    Messages:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Good luck with Gorgo if she's a neighbour and declares on you. She's a tough cookie to make peace with if you don't lay a beating on her.

    Gotag
     
  19. Jonathan

    Jonathan Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    370
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
    Because I find that capturing cities is a repetitive and tedious process, and I get bored with it. I have captured quite a few cities in the past, but I have more fun founding my own cities than capturing other people's. If I don't enjoy a large section of the game, it seems rational to ignore it. Unfortunately, the way the game is, it seems hard to play successfully without capturing cities.

    It's not the only large section of the game that I try to ignore. I also limit all my games to 220 turns (on a standard map), so I never play the second half of the game as designed. I've played every version of Civ since Civ 1, but I've always enjoyed the start of the game most. My aim is to cut off the parts of the game that I don't enjoy, as far as possible. The game is large and complicated, so I can cut off chunks of it and still have a game to play.

    If I could, I'd also cut off religion, as I don't think the religious part of the game is well designed. As I can't cut it off, I ignore it by not building holy sites.
     
    KumaChan likes this.
  20. nzcamel

    nzcamel Nahtanoj the Magnificent

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,812
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Christchurch, New Zealand
    Have you considered playing Civ Revolution? Might be more up your ally...?
     

Share This Page