To war or not to war: Is playing peaceful the better option?

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

It's possible Tubman just sucks. I'm unlikely to play with her again.

It seems like many civs and leader have a specific way to play and I think Tubman is one of them. Find a leader who agenda doesn't like you and forward settle them. If your playing Egypt avoid war so you can use your production to build Tjaty and wonders.

If I do chose war the mistake I make is going after the capital. The AI seems to throw everything the have at defending the capital making it costly so it's better to take the lightly defended cities as they are worth the same victory points.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

My experience is that you can avoid war completely, but you have to work at it, because you can't really stay Allied to anybody for long: to the AI, Alliance = Let's Go Fight Someone!

- And if you use up your Influence Suzing Independents, you will inevitably have someone (or several someones) try an Endeavor with you that you have no Influence left to reply to, and after a few of those somebody is Denouncing you and getting ready to fight you.

On the other hand, once in a war the AIs are remarkably quick to end it. Even with no settlements having changed hands, and my forces having made no advances into the opposing territory, I have had AI Leaders propose giving me a settlement in a peace deal - when they were part of an Alliance and so had nobody else threatening them. I can only conclude that War Weariness really punches all the AI's buttons, even when it doesn't register anywhere in the UI (as in, we are both showing the same War Weariness numbers)

And player tend to lose so many friends just to hook oneself allying with any other player. As Benny Franklin who runs the US of A, Pacachuti running Mexico is surprisingly a good friend that allying with him 'will shake the world, (with Pumas and Jaguars roar in the wake)'. (just like what he claims he can do when goes to war). so make friends with everyone, but ally with none. especially if player can do Railroad Tycoon winning, this requires that player is NOT at war with anybody.

 

[aelf]

And player tend to lose so many friends just to hook oneself allying with any other player. As Benny Franklin who runs the US of A, Pacachuti running Mexico is surprisingly a good friend that allying with him 'will shake the world, (with Pumas and Jaguars roar in the wake)'. (just like what he claims he can do when goes to war). so make friends with everyone, but ally with none. especially if player can do Railroad Tycoon winning, this requires that player is NOT at war with anybody.

An alliance is a double-edged sword, but as soon as you have an enemy on your continent, it's safer to have one. An enemy can ally with another civ and gang up on you, and the other civ will happily attack you even if friendly. Unless you're far more powerful than them, but this is often not the case on higher difficulties.

To make matters worse, compared to the initial release of the game, it's harder now to get an alliance because the AI seems reluctant to have more than one ally, so you gotta commit to it early.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

An alliance is a double-edged sword, but as soon as you have an enemy on your continent, it's safer to have one. An enemy can ally with another civ and gang up on you, and the other civ will happily attack you even if friendly. Unless you're far more powerful than them, but this is often not the case on higher difficulties.

To make matters worse, compared to the initial release of the game, it's harder now to get an alliance because the AI seems reluctant to have more than one ally, so you gotta commit to it early.

And risk getting World War when not ready?

^ My second victory. as Benny Franklin. and quite a peaceful winning. possible by doubledealings with both sides of conflicts.

 

[aelf]

In my experience, being double-teamed is much worse than having a 2v2.

It is definitely possible to pick a bad ally, so that's one pitfall you should avoid.

 

[Kurtbob]

Seems every game that I start and decide I want to play peacefully, I end up conquering half the world....some AI just hates me and can't help declaring war or my ally drags me into war.

Every game I start with the intention to be a conqueror (choose aggressive leader/civ) never ends well....I think setting up a stable economy base prior to conquering is key...peaceful leaders and civs are better at getting established and maintaining a conquered empire. My best games are where I have the money and happiness to expand/conquer/upgrade towns to cities with ease.

 

[MutilationWave]

An alliance is a double-edged sword, but as soon as you have an enemy on your continent, it's safer to have one. An enemy can ally with another civ and gang up on you, and the other civ will happily attack you even if friendly. Unless you're far more powerful than them, but this is often not the case on higher difficulties.

To make matters worse, compared to the initial release of the game, it's harder now to get an alliance because the AI seems reluctant to have more than one ally, so you gotta commit to it early.

I hate alliances. They pull me into wars I don't want or am not prepared for, then they either don't help at all or they come in at the end and try to snipe a city I'm attempting to get full pillage value from.

Seriously this game I had my ally show up with three ballistae which is exactly what I needed to help crack the well fortified city I was working on. They were within range of the fortifications, at war with the civ, and never fired once.

 

[aelf]

I hate alliances. They pull me into wars I don't want or am not prepared for, the they either don't help at all or they come in at the end and try to snipe a city I'm attempting to get full pillage value from.

Seriously this game I had my ally show up with three ballistae which is exactly what I needed to help crack the well fortified city I was working on. They were within range of the fortifications, at war with the civ, and never fired once.

I dunno. Maybe I'm never unprepared enough to fight a war alongside an ally, but I do find myself overwhelmed fighting two neighbours (an enemy plus their ally) at the same time without an ally of my own.

 

[MutilationWave]

I dunno. Maybe I'm never unprepared enough to fight a war alongside an ally, but I do find myself overwhelmed fighting two neighbours (an enemy plus their ally) at the same time without an ally of my own.

Oh for sure if I get double teamed I ally up. I always have one if not more other civs on helpful to grab. What really bothers me the most is if you have open borders for exploration and deny an alliance request, you get locked out of their borders until open borders expires. This can end your exploration, or even worse trap your units. I'm certain it's a bug.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I dunno. Maybe I'm never unprepared enough to fight a war alongside an ally, but I do find myself overwhelmed fighting two neighbours (an enemy plus their ally) at the same time without an ally of my own.

There are some interesting dynamics with 'Alliance' wars, which I saw explicitly illustrated in my last game.

Tecumseh and Himiko were allied for virtually all of Antiquity and Exploration Age. Went to war with them three times during those Ages. In two wars, had Battuta as an Ally, but he was on the far side of the continent from me: not ONCE did our units ever cooperate in anything. I don't think I even saw more than 3 of his military units besides Scouts.

On the other hand, Tec and Him didn't cooperate either. They never took a city from Bat, and he had several in extremely vulnerable positions. They never even invaded me, except with scouts and single units, but after the first two wars had given up 3 cities to me in peace deals - without me ever threatening them at all.

Pachacuti, my immediate neighbor to the south, joined their alliance in the first war. We stared at each other across a Navigable River for 10+ turns and made peace. Never so much as shot an arrow at each other. Since then we have been neutral or friendly with each other.

Lessons: (reinforced, because I've seen them before)

1. Allies are mostly handy for dividing the enemy's attention. I have never seen even a 3+ Civ coalition make major attacks on more than one opponent at a time, so either they pile onto you, or ignore you while they try to pile onto your Ally.

2. Alliances of AIs are really bad at cooperating. When I have seen armies from two Civs try to attack, they spend a good deal of time getting in each other's way. Mind you, the same thing can happen with your AI Ally, since the detailed planning of the Joint Allied Command in WWII is utterly un-modeled in Civ and always has been. There is no provision at all for putting your units under another Civ's command or vice-versa, and all the political problems that can arise from that (read up on Montgomery' relationship with Eisenhower in WWII, or Deighton's scathing critique of Churchill's relationships with the Australian and New Zealand governments). The Great Elector's maxim is apparently part of the Civ design canon:

"Alliances, to be sure, are good, but forces of one's own are still better" (1667)

3. Just by being part of a war, regardless of what, if anything, you actually do and totally regardless of any threat you ever posed, can still get you settlements in a Peace Deal. By the beginning of the Modern Age in that game, after 3 'major' (alliance) Wars, I had 3 cities that had been gifted to me in Peace Deals, one settlement that 'flipped' to me in the Antiquity Crisis period, and 2 cities that I actually took with military forces (in the third war). Just hanging around the edges of a war can be as lucrative as actually fighting one.

- And, by the way, 2 of those gifted settlements were in Distant Lands, so after converting them to my religion they gave me almost half the points I needed for the Exploration Military Legacy path - basically, without firing a shot!

 

[RaidandTrade]

Alliances of AIs are really bad at cooperating

Except Independent Powers… I’ve had units from multiple IPs pounding at the gates early game…

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Except Independent Powers… I’ve had units from multiple IPs pounding at the gates early game…

I've had them coming at me from different direction - with many Antiquity starts literally surrounded by 3 - 5 Hostile IPs, but I've never seen units from two different IPs cooperate to attack one of my units, which is what I mean by cooperating. Being at war with all of them when they are all close enough to send units at nearly the same time is a nasty situation which pre-empts anything else you thought you were going to accomplish, but it is not the same as if they were 3 - 5 settlements from the same AI Civ all coming at you.

 

[MutilationWave]

Except Independent Powers… I’ve had units from multiple IPs pounding at the gates early game…

I was one turn from losing the game to IPs on my current game. Got enough gold to buy a warrior the turn before I would have lost. I play very greedy and reckless in the early game.

 

[chazzycat]

I do feel that major-civ diplomacy is important and generally beneficial to be taking an active role in. Wars with the AI can just suck up a ton of resources on the higher levels. I am pretty sure at this point that AI is doing some kind of "pointy stick" assessment behind the scenes before they declare war, and this includes your allies military strength as well. So if you want to play "peacefully" (to the extent possible) alliances are crucial. Let the AI spend all their crazy production on units that act as a deterrent for you, while you build more productive stuff to win the game.

There's also the argument to be made just in terms of yields. Early game science & culture endeavors are quite good. Longer-term, culture, science, and econ trees ALL have a node for "+10% yields per alliance". Then there is the repeatable +5% ALL YIELDS in the diplomacy tree as well. So this can be a very strong way to pump yields, if you are in position to get some of those nodes and maintain a few alliances.

There is a real tradeoff to consider when it comes to influence, though. City states are attractive as well, and there's no denying that major-civ diplomacy sucks up a lot of influence. That is probably the most interesting aspect of diplomacy.

 

[MutilationWave]

I do feel that major-civ diplomacy is important and generally beneficial to be taking an active role in. Wars with the AI can just suck up a ton of resources on the higher levels. I am pretty sure at this point that AI is doing some kind of "pointy stick" assessment behind the scenes before they declare war, and this includes your allies military strength as well. So if you want to play "peacefully" (to the extent possible) alliances are crucial. Let the AI spend all their crazy production on units that act as a deterrent for you, while you build more productive stuff to win the game.

There's also the argument to be made just in terms of yields. Early game science & culture endeavors are quite good. Longer-term, culture, science, and econ trees ALL have a node for "+10% yields per alliance". Then there is the repeatable +5% ALL YIELDS in the diplomacy tree as well. So this can be a very strong way to pump yields, if you are in position to get some of those nodes and maintain a few alliances.

There is a real tradeoff to consider when it comes to influence, though. City states are attractive as well, and there's no denying that major-civ diplomacy sucks up a lot of influence. That is probably the most interesting aspect of diplomacy.

I always avoid alliance. I spend almost all my diplomacy getting city states, sometimes I reserve 120 to avoid a denouncement when I'm not ready for war. The positives of alliances are undeniable, and usually you can weather the -30 for refusing to let them drag you into war. Something happened in my current game that I've never seen before though. I refused alliance with Himiko, it dropped our relationship to friendly, then something happened to make her helpful again so she asked for alliance again two turns later. The -60 I got from this will be harder to overcome. Maybe it would be better to be allied and occasionally take the -30 from refusing to join a war. You're gonna get it from refusing alliance anyway and it could become worse as I just said.

I think I'll go for more alliance from now on.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It's possible to play peacefully without alliances at least up to immortal (although on immortal it's already pretty random). Probably deity on archipelago could work too, if you amass enough military and play towards AI leader agendas.

But I believe alliances are much more natural way to play, so you have occasional wars even if you don't plan to conquest.

Playing with strong alliances is a bit challenged in modern, once everyone start picking ideologies, they don't seem to take alliances into account, but in my experience you usually still keep old allies even if they have different ideologies and enemies who share your ideology, mostly stay enemies.

 

[MutilationWave]

It's possible to play peacefully without alliances at least up to immortal (although on immortal it's already pretty random). Probably deity on archipelago could work too, if you amass enough military and play towards AI leader agendas.

But I believe alliances are much more natural way to play, so you have occasional wars even if you don't plan to conquest.

Playing with strong alliances is a bit challenged in modern, once everyone start picking ideologies, they don't seem to take alliances into account, but in my experience you usually still keep old allies even if they have different ideologies and enemies who share your ideology, mostly stay enemies.

That's interesting. It's hard for me to believe that an old ally is going to stick with you despite -160 from different ideology. This really happens? If it's true it will definitely change the way I play, and this thread already has me convinced to make some changes.

 

[stealth_nsk]

That's interesting. It's hard for me to believe that an old ally is going to stick with you despite -160 from different ideology. This really happens? If it's true it will definitely change the way I play, and this thread already has me convinced to make some changes.

Yeah, I managed to keep alliance with leaders of opposite ideology with agreements and trading, at least for some time.

 

[pmarc]

I always avoid alliance. I spend almost all my diplomacy getting city states, sometimes I reserve 120 to avoid a denouncement when I'm not ready for war. The positives of alliances are undeniable, and usually you can weather the -30 for refusing to let them drag you into war. Something happened in my current game that I've never seen before though. I refused alliance with Himiko, it dropped our relationship to friendly, then something happened to make her helpful again so she asked for alliance again two turns later. The -60 I got from this will be harder to overcome. Maybe it would be better to be allied and occasionally take the -30 from refusing to join a war. You're gonna get it from refusing alliance anyway and it could become worse as I just said.

I think I'll go for more alliance from now on.

I was surprised to see -30 for refusing alliance vs. -30 to quit alliance when they get attacked. It seems there is no drawback for being a temporary ally? I was expecting the 2nd (quitting alliance) to be worse since you're breaking your word.

 

[protocol7]

In my experience on deity you can freely refuse calls to war if you want, and the AIs will keep loving you and you can remake it once their war is over, treating it like a one-way alliance.

But nothing can overcome them picking a different ideology. Maybe they won’t instadeclare, but they will hate you. The maluses might be different on different difficulty levels, I’m not sure.