THE only thing I miss about Civ 3

[one_man_assault]

was the world wars...it was awsome how at least once everygame a small occurance would usually trigger a world war (almost always in the later parts of the game) because of the entanglement of alliances...wars in general are way less frequent...even on the aggressive setting and alliances are really hard to come by...so most of my games I can even go with out a war...but other than that

 

[s.c.dude]

empire build until modern and then attack. by then most of them are allied

 

[SpartanEvolved]

Man, I launched a two prong offensive in the early 1900's (Earth map) and after attacking Spain, I was at war with 4 civs. Attacking Germany brought it up to 6. For those who are wondering, I crushed one of the civs, demanded heavy tribute from 3 (too inconvenient to attack but no threat to me) and am still at war with 2.

 

[lbhhh]

I think the original post was referring to situation where 3 or more civs would be at war with 3 or more other civs, hence the WW effect. I do miss this as well. The other thing I miss from civ3 is the musketman unit, way better looking than the new one.

 

[NKVD]

there were more WW for the simple fact that when you had a military pact with a nation and you would go attack another nation the defensive pact wld trigger as soon as your ennemy was counter attacking.

Right now with CIV 4 if you declare war all your defensive pact are cancelled.

it would be nice to have a defensive pact and a military pact option

 

[TopDog]

yea your definitely right. They used to happen every single game I played in the modern ages, but in civ 4 the modern age just isnt quite as good, imho.

 

[Thedrin]

it would be nice to have a defensive pact and a military pact option

Enable permanent alliances. The introducation of vassals can create some massive wars much earlier than they occured in CivIII.

 

[Mango]

Vassals, at least for me, tend to be inconsequential. I've yet to get a vassal that was worth a damn from a military standpoint. The best way to get a war started is to instigate it. I've found leaving a nearby city unguarded (of course, have guards nearby so you can defend it on a moment's notice) and then demanding ridiculous tributes will start a war pretty easily (you might have to wait several turns though). If you have alliances then that is a good way to get people fighting. After that you can make it interesting by bribing the crazies like Monty and Alex into war. Always good times.

Wish they'd happen more often without me having to instigate them though. I don't want to turn on aggressive AI, but I'd like for them to be a little more violent.

 

[asabahi]

You can instigate a war, but you have to make the right friends. A good example is Bismark, he will go to war with a civ he is pleased with for a tech or two. On the other hand Ghandi, or Mali would not. Actually those builder civs are useless as allies, because they will never attack an enemy that is beating on you, will not give you great deals on techs, and probably will beat you to the spaceship.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

^^When I put on aggressive AI in Warlords, I have lots of World Wars. The Vassals help a lot. I had a Vassal, and a Defensive Pact with Roosevelt who had 2 vassals. Alexander (who had 2 vassals) declared directly on Roosevelt, therefore his 2 vassals declared, I declared, and my 1 vassal declared. Also, Alexander's vassals declared. A couple turns later, Isabella declared b/c she was buddies all game with Alexander. BAM! 5 vs 4.

 

[Pogel]

It's definitely something that changes as you get higher up in level (and more experienced). My first games were much more peaceful than my games now, not just from my wars but from wars I help instigate (directly or indirectly). Manipulating religion, trade arrangements and outright bribery can cause some great wars.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Hell yeah. If the whole world is divided into 2 religions with a couple of religious fanatic leaders on each side will always help WW get initiated. Isabella is real good for this.

 

[automator]

Indeed. Given the right circumstances, a world war can and will erupt in the 19th or 20th century. Usually has something to do with a religious split, like if the civs are divided evenly on two large continents and one religion dominated each.

My last game ended with a war involving all but one civ that lasted from the early 1900s until a spaceship went off in 2015. At one point there was even a nice triangle where Bismark was at war with Monte and Toku, Monte was at war with Toku and Bismark, and Toku was at war with Bismark and Monte. Totally awesome!

 

[Sullla]

was the world wars...it was awsome how at least once everygame a small occurance would usually trigger a world war (almost always in the later parts of the game) because of the entanglement of alliances...

The original poster is correct; the AI in Civ3 was well-known for getting involved in largely pointless endgame wars. But was this really such a great thing? Civ3's AI had an amazing ability to throw away seemingly insurmountable leads, handing the game to the player on a silver platter. On Deity, the AI's endgame self-destruction through world wars was as regular as clockwork. I can't tell you how many games I won as a result of mindless AI warmongering at that level.

Isn't it better that Civ4's AI is intelligent enough to avoid the trap that the Civ3 AI fell into? It seems to me that Mansa Musa is acting much smarter by going for a spaceship win, instead of wasting his strength in pointless wars. But maybe that's just me.

 

[TopDog]

The original poster is correct; the AI in Civ3 was well-known for getting involved in largely pointless endgame wars. But was this really such a great thing? Civ3's AI had an amazing ability to throw away seemingly insurmountable leads, handing the game to the player on a silver platter. On Deity, the AI's endgame self-destruction through world wars was as regular as clockwork. I can't tell you how many games I won as a result of mindless AI warmongering at that level.

Isn't it better that Civ4's AI is intelligent enough to avoid the trap that the Civ3 AI fell into? It seems to me that Mansa Musa is acting much smarter by going for a spaceship win, instead of wasting his strength in pointless wars. But maybe that's just me.

I spose, for you who are quite good at the game. However, I was young when I played so i was never very good and i played for fun and not for a challenge, and these world wars were fun. I can see your point though, if you wanted a challenge.

 

[Smidlee]

I spose, for you who are quite good at the game. However, I was young when I played so i was never very good and i played for fun and not for a challenge, and these world wars were fun. I can see your point though, if you wanted a challenge.

Which leads back to having either a weaker (stupid) but fun AI for novice players or a challenging AI for the experience players.

It didn't take me long to learn just how easy it was to get the civ3 AI to self-destruct itself through world wars.

 

[jUNGLE cHRIS]

Which leads back to having either a weaker (stupid) but fun AI for novice players or a challenging AI for the experience players.

It didn't take me long to learn just how easy it was to get the civ3 AI to self-destruct itself through world wars.

Maybe if the AI was better at tactics and planning they would be able to survive a WW and stay ahead. I tried to get a WW started, but for some reason my enemy's buddies were too scared to get into it. So instead it became a crushing 3 vs. 1, and I was allied with the other 2.
All wars in general should be more frequent.