Whats the point in playing without war?

[Sparrowhawk]

Originally posted by civfanatic41
that was funny Vague (dumb leading the dumb!!.. ) I agree,I find myself asking the same question what's the fun of this repetitive city building

Oh grow up and go play Red Alert or something.

 

[Jason_Els]

Actually I agree. War is SO discouraged in this game that I feel like I'm playing "Diplomacy" even though not all the other cultures are playing the same game. Actually going to war costs me a whole hella lot more than it does the AI civs. I lose precious time and technologies while they continue merrily along seemingly able to research and conduct all-out war at the same time. Worse, holding on to what you've won is next to impossible.

I have won several times now by becoming SG of the UN and launching my spaceship. All that wonder building (WITHOUT the great movies does get tedious and if someone else gets JS Bach or Sistine Chapel then fugettabout the cultural victory without substantially greater cost to you.

 

[Vague]

I hear that, i have myself just come back from a game where ive launched a massive offensive against the chinese, its proving difficult, i must have spent sooo long massing my forces at the border, making railway lines to easily get troops up there and generally havin what must be at least 80 units (infantrymen & artillary), i launch my offensive and do you know where them 80 units have got me? 4 sodding citys which are in ruins, not even a temple in em after loosing up to 5 units per 1 of there infantry men, so had to bombard the citys, there in starvation, full of corruption and basically worthless, ive only just managed to repel there counter attack!!, ive literally got no spare units left. I'm looking at the screen and out of the dark i see massive stream of horsemen coming out 10 units a pop, im killing em and there STILL coming!! Bloody cheatinbg AI, in the main offencive and the counter attack my guess is i destroyed about 40-50 of there units and now im getting a dozen a time back?


Oh yes i almost forgot, i have to also mention the fact that the computer has been forceing constricts in those citys which "I" have to deal with after ive taken it. Yet they blame ME for what the previous government did!! whats up with that.

P.s little bit of info for you..a city 1 enemy infantryman, defeated my 4 Man elite infantry army (4 men, im using the pentagon)!! Pathetic.

 

[Morten Blaabjerg]

Up to warlord level I don't have any problems with waging wars while researching... I can't say much about Regent, because I haven't played so much on this level.

If the AI's can research better than you while waging war, it must be because you don't destroy their infrastructure, when you go to war. You gotta plunder their fields, mines & roads, and bomb their cities down with artillery or airplanes. Thats a fine way to get them to back down production-science wise. Especially if you wait and nurture good allies. Just beware, though. Former allies can become your next enemies, if they get too strong waging your wars.

 

[ChickinSht]

Well, I have to agree that city building and non-military pursuits are somewhat dull at the lower difficulties, but once you hit monarch, it gets a LOT harder. Keeping ahead culturally and scientifically of even the weakest computer opponents is impossible in the ancient era, and damn hard in the following ages. As for diplomacy, if you're doing it right, it should take more than five seconds.
But, while you're posing your question, I'll pose one of my own: How is it fun to simply build military units and send wave after wave at whomever you see until you get a victory screen? I enjoy Civ a lot, but I do believe that the weakest element (after the modern era) is the military aspect. Armies are useless, and take up an extra space on transports. The begining of the game is all about horsemen and mounted units, while the latter half is all about artillery. I mean, I barely declared war in any games until I hit monarch diff, at which point I just sent wave after wave after wave of units at the enemy until they crumpled. The only hard part to that was taking the only source of iron on the continent, and that took a whole 3 turns. That game was the shortest and least interesting I've yet played. So, please, before you come demanding answers, why not enlighten those of us who are not so quite so pixilatedely-bloodthirsty as yourself.
I'm not saying military is utterly useless. It's fun sometimes. I'm just saying it isn't the prime focus of the game. I mean, it is a turn based strategy game after all...

 

[Jason_Els]

No joke, there was 1 vet spearman defending Ninevah which was, admittedly, behind walls but it took out 9 vet Hoplites and repulsed 2 waves of 6 horses. You don't even want to know how many Hoplites got eaten up trying to get Babylon. And for the fifth time I was dropped right next to the Zulu at start of game. From now on the Zulu are out of it. I'm tired of the AI using every cheat in the book to win while I get penalized for responding to it. I'm not happy with Civ3 right now.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

May I suggest not using defensive units to attack. Even with no computer "cheat", a hoplite that attacks at 1 is very unlikely to defeat a fortified spearman that defends at 2.

 

[Eliezar]

I think the original poster actually has a concrete idea.

Because trade, like in Civ 2, and terraforming, like in AC, are not microintensive or not even existing there is truly less for a peacesful civ to do in Civ 3 than in some of the earlier games.

Still the toughest victory condition to meet is probably UN, second toughest is definitely conquest.

Eliezar

 

[Moulton]

One of my complaints about earlier civ games was the requirement for war. Either go to war, defend in war, or build enogh defenseive power that they leave you be--but that is expensive.
However, Having achieved enough power in this game to be King of the Hill--no one will attack me, I have excellent relationships will all civs but one--whose kingdom I took away from her early--Owning all of the two american continents (Marla's world) I have become bored enough to start a war. the Iroquois sent a settler into my territory every turn, and retreated when I threatened war, but came back every single turn. So finally I declared war on him. Without the war, at this point it takes 1/2 hour per turn (AMD 950). Half that is my moves, but he other is ??? nothing to do. I have a110,000 points in culture, but cant win because Egypt is too close. Maybe I can win the UN, with my good relations (97% aproval, even being at war), but it will take 11 turns to build the UN, now, and that's 5 hours of waiting.
Waiting for the spaceship is 4*7 tech research at maximum speed--14 hours of waiting.
Maybe I will have to go destroy some Egyptian culture
Maybe I need two computers so I can play two games at once....

 

[Gruntboy]

Can't you set some options to make turns go quick? Automate settlers, make it so moves aren't seen?

I agree, war *is* difficult in Civ3. I think they've done this on purpose. If war were easy, we'd all be long gone by now.

I think Civ3 does a good job of approximating warfare, diplomacy etc. There are still ways of winning military in this game though.

 

[eyrei]

I don't really understand what is so boring about building and managing an empire. I usually fight one war in the ancient age to gain a little more territory, then I try to be as peaceful as possible for as long as possible. It is certainly a challenge to try to get to a tech which allows a wonder before anyone else, and this is far less likely if you are constantly having to pump out units for a war. Plus, empire management will be very necessary in MP because wars will not be nearly as easy to win, since humans are much better strategists than computers. A human player will not give you all of his techs and money when you have him down to one city, since he knows he will be basically out of the game, and he will not want his enemy to win. I do hope we eventually get MP.

 

[Sam_Catchem]

How is war discouraged?

The only way to gain points is through real estate. I think it is setup not to discourage you from war..but actually for you to make sure if you go to war...that you see it through. You take no rep hit from genocide. Go figure.

 

[Gruntboy]

OK Sam, I meant war is discouraged because fighting is difficult - attacking defended cities is difficult.

You are, of course, correct that cities plus terrirory gives you more points (hence to win with most points you are encouraged to go to war). But getting the territory is the hard point.

You go up against insane defences, multiple civs, war weariness, technology greeds snapping at your heels and the like. Not me of course, I thrive on a challenge and can waste the AI in combat

Oh yeah, cities flip back after you've taken them, you have to waste them down to control them, there's massive corruption, unrest and ethnic memory and so on. Not really worth it sometimes.

Good point about genocide. The direct result of conquering civs in Civ3 is massive population loss. They got that sickeningly accurate.

 

[Moulton]

It is not that I find empire building boring. I own two continents, and am getting ready to take the third. The problem comes in how long it takes the comp to figure out what is happening. It actually takes longer for it to go through my cites(53) and record happenings than it does to manage the other 11 civs. Makes me glad I did not take all 16.
It also takes real plannig to build this empire--and that's good.
At this point I have to decide: do I continue to take the Iroquois? I rolled over the 5 cities on my continent in two turns. His homeland will be harder, and I will have to take it all, or lose it back to him. Maybe just take all but one of his 1-square islands, and leave him with that as capitol.
Once there, Move on and take down the Egyptians a notch?

But this is war--the point of the original post.
If I declare peace I go back to waiting for the end. At this point, I could put all my cities on wealth, and have absolutely nothing to do exvcept clean up pollution, wait for tech to finish, and 4/tech, win the UN when that finishes -- maybe -- or finish the tech and build the spaceship all at once. No chance of competition, unless I sell Egypt some rubber. Havent checked to see if she has Uranium. Not likely, since I have 4 sources.
I guess it falls out this way: I enjoy building an empire, but it needs a little war from time to time to spice it up.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Moulton
It is not that I find empire building boring. I own two continents, and am getting ready to take the third. The problem comes in how long it takes the comp to figure out what is happening. It actually takes longer for it to go through my cites(53) and record happenings than it does to manage the other 11 civs. Makes me glad I did not take all 16.
It also takes real plannig to build this empire--and that's good.
At this point I have to decide: do I continue to take the Iroquois? I rolled over the 5 cities on my continent in two turns. His homeland will be harder, and I will have to take it all, or lose it back to him. Maybe just take all but one of his 1-square islands, and leave him with that as capitol.
Once there, Move on and take down the Egyptians a notch?

But this is war--the point of the original post.
If I declare peace I go back to waiting for the end. At this point, I could put all my cities on wealth, and have absolutely nothing to do exvcept clean up pollution, wait for tech to finish, and 4/tech, win the UN when that finishes -- maybe -- or finish the tech and build the spaceship all at once. No chance of competition, unless I sell Egypt some rubber. Havent checked to see if she has Uranium. Not likely, since I have 4 sources.
I guess it falls out this way: I enjoy building an empire, but it needs a little war from time to time to spice it up.

I see your point. Most of the time, I manage a diplomatic victory as soon as the UN is built, but if this does not come to pass, I eventually get bored and launch some sort of invasion, just for fun. Empire management is most fun during middle and industrial ages, it does get boring in the modern age.

 

[ouzzo]

What I find fun is what i beleive the game spirt is .
Its about leadership. leadership of a nation to be precise.
The game tries to depicit what it would be like to lead a nation and take decisions that will affect that nation ( at end game )
giving multiple pathes to win for that nation, every decision counts. wheather its to build a temple before or after a library or wheather to fight your neighbours for a resourse that if u dont get will leave you vunerable inthe future.

As you go along leading your nation to a WIN you put smaller goals(challanges) to be acheived that changes from game to game and from situation to another using all the tools that are in the game( war,diplomacy,construction,money,scentific advancment,..etc)
the real fun during the game is acheiving these small goals(challanges).
and in the ultimate end seing ur small goals merge into acheiving a win.

BTW I like to kick butt to . I somehow feel proud that i have taken the correct decision that allowed my nation to kick butt when it came to war.

 

[Tranced]

wake up to reality, it is much harder to conquer the world then to live in a shell and and win a space race. God, a newbie could do it. What's challening is getting enough units while balancing everything else to blow the living hell out of your neighbor. Besides, what the hell is a diplomatic victory? The various civs change their ideas so many times it would last much shorter than simply conquering the world. I mean, who cares if everybody likes you because you give them gold, the more challenging thing is demanding respect by obliterating them into nothing. MWAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[jc011]

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Can't you set some options to make turns go quick? Automate settlers, make it so moves aren't seen?

Yes, in a game, press Ctrl-P, and a popup will comeup...there will be options like animate friendly moves, animate enemy moves, etc, just check off the ones you don't want.

Well, yes, war is difficult, but other people like to play in different ways, and besides, what do you do in a war?? move units around a watch them beat the living crap out of the other people...big woop, I can make that sound boring too!

 

[Aslan]

I like going for the non-military strategy from time-to-time. It's a good way to play.

 

[Rymiss]

I find both war and emprie manangment fun but when MP comes out for Civ3 both diplomacy and war will be alot more fun i reckon because you will have to actually think of strategies in your wars and stuff instead of just massing the biggest units you have and beating up AI that think their tough then have a cry when you take most of their cities.

And human players wont be stupid enough to give you all their gold and tech when you beat them down to 1 city.