Time to get mobilized!

[darski]

No, he is telling us that he didn't fire a single shot. And I, for one, have absolutely no problem believing that, as I have played games like that myself. And if I am not entirely misunderstood, I have even had games with no war whatsoever, but I can't completely vouch for the ultra early phase.

But he is denying the assertion that war is built into and is foundational to the game. If one single AI had one single attack on one single city, it shows that War is built into the game. Whether he fired a shot or not does not negate the intrinsic nature of war in Civ... starting with Civ1 and I presume it continues into CivRev.

 

[Spoonwood]

If one single AI had one single attack on one single city, it shows that War is built into the game.

No. Just because a war did happen in that *one* game, that doesn't mean there exists some sort of hardwire in the program which ensures that war will happen in *every* single game. You need a lot more than that to show that war comes as hardwired into the game.

And even so, the game fundmantelly isn't about the AIs going against each other. If it were, the programmers would have spent a lot more time developing their tactics. I maintain the game fundamentally about the human player vs. the AIs. In this respect, it doesn't fundamentally end up a war game. Of course, you can always play it as a war game if you like, but you need not do so.

Hence when Argetnyx said

it kndi depends on how you play it, doesnt it?

I responded

Maybe argentyx, maybe.

and unfortunately mispelled his CivFanatics name.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

But he is denying the assertion that war is built into and is foundational to the game. If one single AI had one single attack on one single city, it shows that War is built into the game. Whether he fired a shot or not does not negate the intrinsic nature of war in Civ... starting with Civ1 and I presume it continues into CivRev.

I fear the argumentation doesn't really work like that. In the same vein you could argue that Civ is a building game. If only one single AI placed one single non-military improvement, for example a temple, it shows that improvement building is built into the game. Whether you place some or not ... etc pp.

But as I said, it doesn't really work like that. Firstly I think it would be important to define what one means by War Game. Is a game a War Game just because it is possible to war and win the game through it? Or is a game a War Game because the only option to win is war? Or is a War Game where there is only war without even any built-in option for peace?

In any case though, I think the fact that in Civ the default diplomatic stance is "Peace," in combination with the deliberate inclusion of non-military victory conditions as 100K, 20K, Dip, and SS give good clues that warring is not the end to all means in Civ.

 

[Fiddlin Nero]

I always wondered about "wartime" mobilization... and I admit to having forgotten completely about it until... well, just now. So, what do YOU do?

Well it was a good thread about War Mobilization!

 

[Higher Game]

Seriously, I have a 1st place HoF finish where I never fired a single shot, and I think the second place game on that table also never fired a shot. I took second in a gauntlet without firing a single shot.

You never fired a shot, but you still had guns.

Surely these should be the other way around? (Though not strictly necessary, as spoonwood's examples show, most games involve war and almost all involve at least building a military of some kind)

Going to war isn't necessary. Being prepared for it is.

In any case though, I think the fact that in Civ the default diplomatic stance is "Peace," in combination with the deliberate inclusion of non-military victory conditions as 100K, 20K, Dip, and SS give good clues that warring is not the end to all means in Civ.

It's not Simcity. The AI won't sit back and let a builder win, unless that "builder" has a deterrent army.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

It's not Simcity. The AI won't sit back and let a builder win, unless that "builder" has a deterrent army.

Sure, war is possible. And if that means to you that Civ is a war game, then fine. Although I would draw stricter lines. Close Combat, or Crusade in Europe are (or better were, long, long ago) a better fit for "War Game."

And besides, I've often had games where I had military forces that wouldn't deterr anything much, and have yet not been attacked. Games where I had a few exploring warriors early on, and later on only built military units for disbanding elsewhere.

 

[Spoonwood]

You never fired a shot, but you still had guns.

Going to war isn't necessary. Being prepared for it is.

People have won games without building any military before. Darski actually linked me to a no military domination game once.

It's not Simcity. The AI won't sit back and let a builder win, unless that "builder" has a deterrent army.

Well, the game I reference you can read here. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=296795 I played it at Deity level as Sumeria. My notes read

My final save says 1 rifle, 4 infantry, 6 mech infantry, 8 modern armors, 1 artillery, 3 medieval infantry, 16 enkidus, and 2 mobile sams. I didn't do any upgrades, and I think I disbanded 2 or 3 enkidus at some point.

So, in the early middle ages when the AIs had knights, longbows, medieval infantry I had some enkidus (they *could* have crushed me). In the latter middle ages/early industrial ages I had maybe now had a mere few medieval infrantries and those enkidus, while they had cavalry. Then they have rifles, and then infantry also. The modern armors didn't come to the middle of the modern age, as I didn't research there first.

I think there's still a thread where you can see something *about* 9 or so different tribes running over my land, when it's the industrial ages and I have only some warriors in my cities. I might have had some mounted warriors or knights out somewhere else, but I certainly had plenty of vulnerable spots. Not enough of an army to qualify as a deterrent that's for sure. *And* I had the aggressiveness set at maximum in that game.

 

[Jokeslayer]

Going to war isn't necessary. Being prepared for it is.

Which still doesn't make war the point of the game.

 

[Spoonwood]

O.K., you can find the screenshots of the Deity Iroquois game I mentioned before here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=6928291#post6928291 My notes say that I have "Spanish, Greek, Persian, Celtic, Egyptian, Hittite, Sumerian, Arabian, and English units all in my territory." I also say in the notes there "I have 3 pikes in my military (mostly built for the Zulu GA-trigger war... although I didn't end up needing them), 11 knights, an archer, and 36 warriors in my military... oh... and 7 king units. It's a Deity game... and as you can tell... a pangea one at that. I have max aggressiveness on. The AIs *could have* rather easily wiped me out centuries ago." and I have a save. You might also want to check out the *Sid* save I posted at tail end of my HoF thread I referenced above. If I hadn't have messed up trading, I *might* have managed a diplomatic victory in that one, and I have very little military there. Really, any war would crush me quickly in that one. Here's a no military vanilla Emperor game entitled "Mongolian Peace Corps" http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=43471 Here's a no military Sid game http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=84619 So, at least in certain cases, the AI will sit back and let a builder win. Not only do you have the word of Quartermasters (meaning we've won several HoF games for several victory conditions) like myself and Lord Emsworth, but you have examples which more or less demonstrate such. Don't misunderstand us here, this is NOT an argument that you should minimize war. A variety of factors determine the optimal strategy for the game you play. But, since players have played games with little to no war and military, you *can* waltz your way to victory while the AI sits back and lets you win, at least sometimes.

 

[Higher Game]

That's an issue with the AI failing to play to its best ability within the given rules, not the game itself. It's sheer luck, too; I've been an angel, and with a great military, only to get butchered by a 3+ AI deity dogpile. 2 of them broke 20 turn deals to get my head, so even a RoP wouldn't have saved me. When the AI plays properly, it most definitely is a war game.

 

[Spoonwood]

I disagree higher game. I think the AI plays much better if they stay at peace in a Republic or Democracy and researches faster. It's not a matter of *sheer* luck either. Did the 20 turn deal put the other tribe's attitude at polite or gracious? If not, it probably didn't do you much good. Also, what sort of relations did the AIs have with each other? If you had only cautious or polite relations with say the Iroquois, but the Iroquois had gracious relations with all the other AIs on the map, I'd bet you'll get attacked. Figuring out AI-AI relations doesn't work out so easily.

Whether it comes as the AI playing to the best of its ability or not, however the AI plays comes as part of the game. And it always plays according to its programming without any idea of "better" play. So, accordingly, the game doesn't fundamentally end up a war game... since the programming of it permits otherwise.

 

[Spoonwood]

I've changed my mind, the AIs play better when they build more culture earlier.

 

[Higher Game]

I disagree higher game. I think the AI plays much better if they stay at peace in a Republic or Democracy and researches faster. It's not a matter of *sheer* luck either. Did the 20 turn deal put the other tribe's attitude at polite or gracious? If not, it probably didn't do you much good.

All were polite. It doesn't matter how the AI feels about you if your military lacks a certain critical mass. If you're extremely weak, even a gracious AI will gobble you up. On the flip side, a furious AI never messes with a massive enemy who could crush it. It's all about military power.

Also, what sort of relations did the AIs have with each other? If you had only cautious or polite relations with say the Iroquois, but the Iroquois had gracious relations with all the other AIs on the map, I'd bet you'll get attacked. Figuring out AI-AI relations doesn't work out so easily.

It was the first major war of the game. The AI is 80% hivemind anyway, with intra AI conflicts merely window dressing. I had no distinct resources, technologies, or excess gold, and each AI would be better served picking other targets, but the human player is flagged differently. Luck is always a factor; sooner or later the onslaught was coming no matter what, and it caught me too soon. It happens, it's the nature of the game.

Whether it comes as the AI playing to the best of its ability or not, however the AI plays comes as part of the game. And it always plays according to its programming without any idea of "better" play. So, accordingly, the game doesn't fundamentally end up a war game... since the programming of it permits otherwise.

Just because the AI plays poorly doesn't change what the game is. It's obvious what the programmers were aiming for.

 

[Spoonwood]

It doesn't matter how the AI feels about you if your military lacks a certain critical mass. If you're extremely weak, even a gracious AI will gobble you up. On the flip side, a furious AI never messes with a massive enemy who could crush it. It's all about military power.

Already disproven by the examples given.

The AI is 80% hivemind anyway, with intra AI conflicts merely window dressing. I had no distinct resources, technologies, or excess gold, and each AI would be better served picking other targets, but the human player is flagged differently. Luck is always a factor; sooner or later the onslaught was coming no matter what, and it caught me too soon. It happens, it's the nature of the game.

You could have had modern/industrial age resources or luxuries. I seriously don't consider intra AI conflicts "mere window dressing" as I've seen a lot more of them than getting attacked. The AI can't evaluate if it will win a war really or how it will do, as it can't predict how well the human player will fight a war (at least not this program). So it can't know if a better target exists.

Just because the AI plays poorly doesn't change what the game is. It's obvious what the programmers were aiming for.

Not at all. They did NOT want to make this fundamentally a war game. How do I reason to this? They put in things like culture, diplomacy, etc. The first two civs only had space, conquest, and histographic as victory conditions. The existence of a space race already makes it more than a war game fundamentally. And you could plausibly win civ II histographically without fighting at any level (provided you didn't get attacked, of course). But, I can much more admit those games somewhat close to working out as fundamentally war games. However, when you throw in two cultural victory conditions and a diplomatic victory condition, the game clearly becomes much more multi-faceted.

I think if you look around you can actually find a programmer of the game saying they wanted to create a game more complex than a fundamentally war-driven game.

 

[Rodent]

It is a matter of choice. Argument finished

I do not use Mobilization all that much, mainly because it does not benefit artillery and i don't have the heart for MMing