The non-aggression principle

[Jonathan]

Have you considered playing Civ Revolution? Might be more up your ally...?

Thanks for the suggestion. I haven't considered it, because I have none of the funny little gadgets on which it runs: I use a computer running Windows. However, it seems to be much the same sort of game as Civ for Windows.

 

[LuckyAC]

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?

Because it ensures meaningful decisions for most of the game - if you play aggressively, you quickly remove any real tension, since the battles themselves against brainless AI are boring, and you can quickly snowball, so there is no AI threat, and it becomes about tedious mop-up to a foregone conclusion. Without capturing cities, the AI is usually more advanced until quite late, and many have a bigger army, so there is the constant tradeoff of expansion vs. defense, forward-settling vs provocation, tech vs. production, building settlers vs size for districts etc, with the threat of a surprise attack keeping you on your toes. Basically, Civilization is a game about balancing constraints and making tradeoff, but playing aggressively lobotomizes that, because your only constraint is units, which will quickly ensure all the science, culture, production, etc. you need.

It reminds of a story that my dad tells. The first time he saw people playing tennis (as a young child), he was very frustrated by the constant stoppages, and asked, "Why don't they just get rid of the net? It would make the game much easier." And indeed it would, but making something easy is not the same as making it more meaningful or entertaining.

 

[cazaderonus]

Got to agree that you can basically win 100% of deity games by just playing a warmongering game. I started a game as brazil 2 days ago, not exactly the best civ to go full war as it was randomized.

After 25/30 turns, i get forward settle by barbarossa and as i had 3/4 archers for barb defense i decided to go to war. Result is that at turn 80 i had seven cities including 3 from germany. I could have easily push on to take his capital but didnt want to play an offensive game after that early war. But if i had wanted to go for a guaranteed win, i could have rushed xbows right after and just pown the rest of germany and poland that is also close.

Playing deity and going for domination is an easy win that mostly involves shifting units and spamming commercial hubs and a few campuses.

 

[Kyro]

With the overpowered ease of warmongering I don't see how playing peacefully equates to Civ 6 being a sandbox. Warmongering is cheap, easy to abuse in Civ 6 and removes the real challenge of playing on higher difficulties which is to go toe to toe with AI cheats. Peaceful play is difficult. Warmongering is not. Therefore I posit that warmongering is the real sandbox.

 

[Scaramanga]

Dear Non-aggressors, an open letter from multi-player

There is a limited pool of great scientist, merchants, engineers, and artists and I'm not going to sit and watch you win the game economically or worse let you develop such a huge tech league that you destroy me with overwhelming firepower. There can only be one winner or winning team so trying to talk me down from achieving my goals militarily will only make you seem phony. Does it not seem passive aggressive to hoard all of the great scientists and merchants? I'm sure the Pedro AI would agree. If knowledge is power why don't you check the information screen and note that I have a great general or two and I've adopted the Crusade belief, and then react accordingly? Would it hurt to build a well-placed encampment or two?
Sometimes I too feel unable to cope with the onslaught of horsemen and battering rams but then I find out the hard way that not everyone online shares my placid mood. At least, play as France so you can check what I'm doing, Australia so you can react to a declaration of war, India to stamp me with elephants, or Greece (Pericles) to line up hoplites against me.

Regards,
Scaramanga
An Aggressive Spaniard

 

[nzcamel]

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.

Yeah, cos Civ is a sandbox game where others don't try to impose their will on you

With the overpowered ease of warmongering I don't see how playing peacefully equates to Civ 6 being a sandbox. Warmongering is cheap, easy to abuse in Civ 6 and removes the real challenge of playing on higher difficulties which is to go toe to toe with AI cheats. Peaceful play is difficult. Warmongering is not. Therefore I posit that warmongering is the real sandbox.

What I am saying Kyro is that aggression is a big part of history. If you refuse to deal with aggression (regardless of how good or bad you think the AI is at waging war), that isn't the devs fault. I know this is something you are imposing on yourself (like much of your game play). But that doesn't make the game a failure. 1UPT may make conflict too easy, but (as said elsewhere) that isn't your actual complaint.

 

[Talcove]

It reminds of a story that my dad tells. The first time he saw people playing tennis (as a young child), he was very frustrated by the constant stoppages, and asked, "Why don't they just get rid of the net? It would make the game much easier." And indeed it would, but making something easy is not the same as making it more meaningful or entertaining.

That's not a very good analogy for your argument. In tennis, the net is a part of the game, just as in Civ war and conquest are a part of the game. To say that removing the net would make the game easier but less meaningful kind of seems like it's going against your main point of the game being better without a certain chunk of it being played.

 

[Jonathan]

Dear Non-aggressors, an open letter from multi-player

Clearly, this thread is about the single-player game. To win a multiplayer game with a policy of non-aggression (and not taking cities) would certainly be a challenge, but probably too much of a challenge.

That's not a very good analogy for your argument. In tennis, the net is a part of the game, just as in Civ war and conquest are a part of the game. To say that removing the net would make the game easier but less meaningful kind of seems like it's going against your main point of the game being better without a certain chunk of it being played.

The non-aggression policy that I've described is just a voluntary decision by the player. It doesn't necessarily involve any change to the game or its rules.

 

[Kyro]

@nzcamel

Whoever said anything about not dealing with aggression? The course of discussions is always miscontrued by false assumptions like this.

("This player is complaining about barbarians; it he must be because doesn't build warriors/slingers to clear them."

"This player is criticising war in the game. He must be a SimCity sandbox player."

"This player is saying some strategies are way better than others and overcentralize gameplay around one aspect. He must be very inflexible.")

In this discussion the assumption is already this: "Players who complain about aggression want it out of the game altogether/Players who have issues with aggression with the game simply don't know how to deal with it.")

Clearly no one so far said anything about removing aggression from the game I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

The issue at hand concerns the balance of gameplay strategies and affects the diversity and freedom of playing the game.

We are saying that War is overpowered, it needs to be nerfed. That or not going to war should have advantages as well. Peaceful play needs to be potentially just as powerful as warmongering, there needs to be powerful advantages of playing peacefully that warmongering can't have. If this is not the case then War will always be the best strategy when it clearly shouldn't be in the game.

IE. Something is wrong with the game when 1 single strategy type (warmongering) prevails over all others in a game that is supposed to be full of diversity. If you always enter discussions with the basis that there is nothing wrong with the game then there is no room for discussion.

 

[Victoria]

I have no issue playing a mix of games and mixing up a single game.

What I do not do is wipe out a civ....this game encourages the wiping out of civs and the gaining of warmonger points has little affect to stop people. To many domination players it's about wiping out everyone rather than taking capitals. It not hard to do and it's fun.

I love the variety.

 

[nzcamel]

@nzcamel

Whoever said anything about not dealing with aggression? The course of discussions is always miscontrued by false assumptions like this.

("This player is complaining about barbarians; it he must be because doesn't build warriors/slingers to clear them."

"This player is criticising war in the game. He must be a SimCity sandbox player."

"This player is saying some strategies are way better than others and overcentralize gameplay around one aspect. He must be very inflexible.")

In this discussion the assumption is already this: "Players who complain about aggression want it out of the game altogether/Players who have issues with aggression with the game simply don't know how to deal with it.")

Clearly no one so far said anything about removing aggression from the game I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

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.

I'm only going off your words bud.

Take the whole discussion about starting with a scout vs starting with a military unit, and look at it from the reverse angle. You were very unhappy that you felt that VI forces you to play more aggressively by not realistically being able to choose a scout over a military unit as your first build in the game. It's a Clayton's choice - i.e. no real choice at all. Yet actually, V was pretty much the same. Your first city in V was so secure that you would have been a mug to build anything but a scout first up. Either way there is an optimal choice (of course I love VI for doing a very good job of making the game much less "optimally driven" overall; or rather -to satisfy the pedants- making the optimal path vary greatly each game and even change multiple times mid-game. But that is almost a whole nother topic).

So if we look at the way you framed this before, then equally, in V the Devs had a peace bias that they advocated and was despised by many players who don't treat Civ as Sim City! (For the record; this is kinda funny, cos I'm an empire builder for the most part, not a war monger.)
So in V I am "forced" to start with a scout, and in VI I am "forced" to start with a military unit. I do what it takes *shrugs* I adapt.

As to this specifically: 'he must be very inflexible'
You are. You admitted so yourself. Which is fine. But the game cannot be made to cater to that. If you want to play the game at harder levels where you have to tighten your game, and cut the fat out, then you too will have to adapt.

The issue at hand concerns the balance of gameplay strategies and affects the diversity and freedom of playing the game.

We are saying that War is overpowered, it needs to be nerfed. That or not going to war should have advantages as well. Peaceful play needs to be potentially just as powerful as warmongering, there needs to be powerful advantages of playing peacefully that warmongering can't have. If this is not the case then War will always be the best strategy when it clearly shouldn't be in the game.

IE. Something is wrong with the game when 1 single strategy type (warmongering) prevails over all others in a game that is supposed to be full of diversity. If you always enter discussions with the basis that there is nothing wrong with the game then there is no room for discussion.

I am open to looking at the balances of different win conditions.
Having said that; if your idea of playing peaceful is to not have much of a military, and then get annoyed when others take you out cos, say, you didn't have auto walls to protect you... then that is the natural result of not playing the game. That does not mean that warring is over powered. If on the other hand you play peacefully as the Swiss do, then I'll take your point more seriously.

I have no issue playing a mix of games and mixing up a single game.

What I do not do is wipe out a civ....this game encourages the wiping out of civs and the gaining of warmonger points has little affect to stop people. To many domination players it's about wiping out everyone rather than taking capitals. It not hard to do and it's fun.

I love the variety.

I wonder...were it easier to shed said war monger points if people would return to more peaceful play easier. I mean, maybe they should escalate more when you dow on a 2nd then 3rd Civ; rather than end up hated "forever" over a one off dow (though I think the ancient discounts etc on war mongering are okay...) Whereas some feel; "well, that's it, the die is cast". And they carry on warring as it seems to much hassle to get back to any semblance of good relations with other Civs.
I think more nuance can be added. Like if you are dowed on, and you take one city (maybe two max) in response to make your borders more defendable from aggressive Civs (and at the 3rd city would be when the hammer falls diplomatically); if you do that without suffering much animosity from other civs, then maybe people will feel that they have greater options.

There is a slight obstacle to wiping out Civs - taking any Civs last city earns you extra ire from everyone else. But I suspect for many it doesn't matter as they are so far gone in their own minds from being able to get good terms back. You and I have made some great progress at getting on with the Civs with looking at what they feel about others...but I suspect that stuff is going under most people's radar at this stage, and they haven't realised how easy it can be (mostly haha) to stay on the good side of a few Civs. Even just sending them a trade route, that +2 points can really help.