Will Civ still be predominantly a war game with G&K?

[headcase]

I'd say Civ 5 is currently a more wargame than not, only because it doesn't have mutually beneficial trade. If civs with open borders could make gold\culture\science per turn off of each other, that's when I'd stop seeing it as a wargame primarily. Not that it needs trade, but, well, if you played the game with no other civs, it would be pretty boring, ergo, more wargame than not.

 

[ShahJahanII]

This is exactly what I am pointing at. Currently, conquest is the (easiest) answer to all questions, and I wish it weren't so.

I think Religion and espionage can balance conquest out, if they themselves don't throw other features off balance.

 

[gaiko]

There you go; One says it has never been a wargame, the other, that is always been "war-centric", which is kind of hedging one's position. But the discussion doesn't clearly distinguish between the stated traditional design intention and the resulting implementation.

I think that clearly the *design intention* of the Civ series up to CivV was, as the slogan stated, "To BUILD an empire to stand the test of time", e.g., to be primarily a builder game with a "wargame" after-effect. Hence the primitiveness of "warfare" in traditional Civ. Of course the series has always been plagued with adequately balancing the two, so that a determined warmonger couldn't just knock over all the builder pieces on the board at any time. Hence the "warcentric" impression, but that is only the result, not the design intention.

So in the case of CivV, I think the designers said, the heck with it, let's just convert it into primarily a wargame with the builder aspect as a tag-along. Hence 1upt and play to win on an individual AI level (the collective AI should always play to win! Not distinguishing between these two levels is another common confusion seen on these boards), were the design points of departure.

Civilization has always been a war-centric series of games. It doesn't mean that every game have to involve warfare (I run about 33/67 because I think 1upt has been - back when I played real wargames - a lot of fun). It is not hard to stay out of multiple wars, you just have to understand the reasons for it and adjust accordingly. The reason that I say that it's war-centric is because that's the constant threat in any interactions or circumstances. And because in strategy games with warfare, that's the easy things to do - always been that way.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The biggest problem Is that war is the best solution... because
1. bigger is always better
and
2. the cost of war is the combat AI, which is bad, so there is a low cost to getting bigger through war

 

[KillingMeSoftly]

War has defined the world throughout all of history. It wouldn't make any sense if war wasn't a major factor in Civilization; whether you become a warmonger or not is entirely your choice and how you want to re-write history. There are plenty of other victory conditions to go after and they are all viable without ever conquering the world or much of anything. Conquest may be the easiest victory condition especially considering the general weakness of combat AI. But only until recently (in the grand scheme of things) has war become diminished through the founding of the U.N., nuclear weapons, etc.

 

[headcase]

War has defined the world throughout all of history. It wouldn't make any sense if war wasn't a major factor in Civilization; whether you become a warmonger or not is entirely your choice and how you want to re-write history. There are plenty of other victory conditions to go after and they are all viable without ever conquering the world or much of anything. Conquest may be the easiest victory condition especially considering the general weakness of combat AI. But only until recently (in the grand scheme of things) has war become diminished through the founding of the U.N., nuclear weapons, etc.

Well said. The amount of war isn't really a problem imo, though sometimes I wish there was a little more to do on the not-moving-units side of things. G+K should help with this (and every new feature is also integrated nicely with war and diplomacy).

 

[MkLh]

War has defined the world throughout all of history. It wouldn't make any sense if war wasn't a major factor in Civilization; whether you become a warmonger or not is entirely your choice and how you want to re-write history. There are plenty of other victory conditions to go after and they are all viable without ever conquering the world or much of anything. Conquest may be the easiest victory condition especially considering the general weakness of combat AI. But only until recently (in the grand scheme of things) has war become diminished through the founding of the U.N., nuclear weapons, etc.

More than war itself, the problem is that on CiV, war feels completely artificial thing as it has no real connection to diplomacy etc. When you see an AI civ that is already fighting three wars (without being especially strong or something) declaring a new war, it's painfully obvious that war is just like a random event that is thrown there to offer human player a "challenge" (in reality, mindless warmongering of AIs probably make winning easier for a player). The "random event" type of war on CiV does not add realism but on the contrary breaks immersion.

 

[ohioastronomy]

In the real world waging war can be ruinously expensive and nations at peace have large economic benefits from trade. Civ 5 doesn't just fail because the computer algorithms perform poorly at giving a good war game. It fails because it provides such a poor simulation of history and the actual challenges and incentives faced by empires throughout history. And it fails because it deliberately sabotages alternate ways of playing the game (e.g. the technology and culture victories) - by making war, as opposed to competition on peaceful grounds, the way that the computer opponents deal with a credible non-military threat.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think cost is an interesting point. If I have a large army, I sometimes think it's too expensive not to use. While this has been true historically as well, I could see something for dramatically increasing support cost for units in enemy territory. I would also increase the expense for units in territory of a city that is still resisting, so you don't suddenly save a lot of money by conquering a city.

 

[Buccaneer]

In the real world waging war can be ruinously expensive and nations at peace have large economic benefits from trade. Civ 5 doesn't just fail because the computer algorithms perform poorly at giving a good war game. It fails because it provides such a poor simulation of history and the actual challenges and incentives faced by empires throughout history. And it fails because it deliberately sabotages alternate ways of playing the game (e.g. the technology and culture victories) - by making war, as opposed to competition on peaceful grounds, the way that the computer opponents deal with a credible non-military threat.

Give me a break. A real simulation of history would include much more "warfare" then we see in the game. Also, you still haven't seen an AI opponent win via technology? Besides, if you or an AI is going for a "peaceful" victory, are we/they supposed to simply be left alone? Civ doesn't fail because you desire it to be a different kind of game.

Every Civilization game have been a predominately war game simply because of they way it's laid out (like a wargame board).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Give me a break. A real simulation of history would include much more "warfare" then we see in the game. Also, you still haven't seen an AI opponent win via technology? Besides, if you or an AI is going for a "peaceful" victory, are we/they supposed to simply be left alone? Civ doesn't fail because you desire it to be a different kind of game.

Every Civilization game have been a predominately war game simply because of they way it's laid out (like a wargame board).

Well its not the amount of war that makes it a wargame, its the utility of aggressive war as a strategy.

90% of the time an aggressive war is the best strategy for the human player.


(There are a few other problems with it, like how good+easy it is to control a large empire)

 

[Buccaneer]

Well its not the amount of war that makes it a wargame, its the utility of aggressive war as a strategy.

90% of the time an aggressive war is the best strategy for the human player.

Or an aggressive defensive war can also be the best strategy.

The amount of war should increase because despite to suicidal tendencies of the AI in all Civ games, it adds a layer of decision-maker for the human player as they should not go through long periods without warfare, offensive or defensive, on whatever scale. The situation where you can build an early archer and call it good for 2000 years (50-75 turns) doesn't make sense. Also, whereas an aggressive defensive war is a great strategy, the AI needs to really ramp up its defensive abilities even more, particularly around it's capital.

Warfare/combat units has to be part of any strategy in a Civ game. Whether you use such units to affect change or to maintain the status quo, it doesn't matter. A no-war-none-of-the-time gameplay doesn't make any more sense than an all-war-all-the-time gameplay for a hybrid game.

 

[snarzberry]

I think cost is an interesting point. If I have a large army, I sometimes think it's too expensive not to use. While this has been true historically as well, I could see something for dramatically increasing support cost for units in enemy territory. I would also increase the expense for units in territory of a city that is still resisting, so you don't suddenly save a lot of money by conquering a city.

You've just touched on part of my daydreaming fantasy about how I would design combat in civ 6. It has to do with what you're talking about, high cost of supporting military units outside your borders and supply lines.

On the OP, I think you can make a case that war is the most important part of the game, but there's enough going on that it'd wrong to call it a 'war game' specifically. I am hoping G&K adds a lot more depth to the alternative playstyles, and that's clearly a key driving force behind the theme of the expansion. Will it suceed? Who knows.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Or an aggressive defensive war can also be the best strategy.

The amount of war should increase because despite to suicidal tendencies of the AI in all Civ games, it adds a layer of decision-maker for the human player as they should not go through long periods without warfare, offensive or defensive, on whatever scale. The situation where you can build an early archer and call it good for 2000 years (50-75 turns) doesn't make sense. Also, whereas an aggressive defensive war is a great strategy, the AI needs to really ramp up its defensive abilities even more, particularly around it's capital.

Warfare/combat units has to be part of any strategy in a Civ game. Whether you use such units to affect change or to maintain the status quo, it doesn't matter. A no-war-none-of-the-time gameplay doesn't make any more sense than an all-war-all-the-time gameplay for a hybrid game.

I agree that war should always be a consideration.

However, the fact that war to take the cities of the AI (either to raze or sell or keep) is the best way to win is a problem.

 

[nokmirt]

I do know one thing. The idea is to get your enemies off the map. Not to keep them in some useles city for no purpose, in your rear, or flank. Most times you can't even do that, they end up with a great city, in your rear, or flank. But if you destroy them you get huge diplo penalties. Thank god they are changing the diplo system.

Saying that I feel civ to me has always been predominately a wargame. I jave played since CiII and have always appreciated the military aspects in the versions of the game.

 

[Buccaneer]

I do know one thing. The idea is to get your enemies off the map. Not to keep them in some useles city for no purpose, in your rear, or flank. Most times you can't even do that, they end up with a great city, in your rear, or flank. But if you destroy them you get huge diplo penalties. Thank god they are changing the diplo system.

No, the idea is to win. If an AI wants to play passive in your rear or flank and leave you alone (which happens too much, unfortunately), then let them. If you must fight, there are ways to get them to fight (DoW) you instead. There are also ways within the current diplo susyem to get others to fight them. And there are ways to pacify them through the current diplo system. All options currently available to you without needing to change anything.

 

[nokmirt]

No, the idea is to win. If an AI wants to play passive in your rear or flank and leave you alone (which happens too much, unfortunately), then let them. If you must fight, there are ways to get them to fight (DoW) you instead. There are also ways within the current diplo susyem to get others to fight them. And there are ways to pacify them through the current diplo system. All options currently available to you without needing to change anything.

Whats the best way to win in a strategy game? Destroy your enemies thrpugh domination via elimination. You simply remove them completely from the map, so they are a memory, a rumor of having existed. I do not feel I should have to allow the enemy to survive. Even if they leave you alone. They still do have political pull and the power of denouncement. A weakened enemy many times can be just as formidable as a strong one. Its better to do away with them just in case. This is how it should be in strategy games. That is how it is in just about every strategy game I can think of, from Risk to Total war.

Yes, sometimes you can get them to declare war. Usually, in this game though it is easier to get someone to declare war on your enemy, rather than having your enemy declare war on you. Especially, in a domination game, where for the most part you keep a rather strong military. Simply because you begin to have more and more enemies as the game moves forward. The system does need to change, this dogpiling needs to stop. Although, I am not at that point in my game, its pretty much inevitable, they are going to dogpile me at some point. Probably sooner than later. In any case the system is going to change whether some of us like it or not. Thats great news to me.

In any case Buccaneer, I have a thread in the strategy forum for CiV. I have been posting screenshots of my current game. Look it over if you would and let me know, how you would proceed diplomatically in my current situation. I want to understand this system, it just seems beyond me at the moment. Perhaps you can shed some light on diplomacy in a domination game for me. Here is the link to my thread. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=454539

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Whats the best way to win in a strategy game? Destroy your enemies thrpugh domination via elimination. You simply remove them completely from the map, so they are a memory, a rumor of having existed. I do not feel I should have to allow the enemy to survive. Even if they leave you alone. They still do have political pull and the power of denouncement. A weakened enemy many times can be just as formidable as a strong one. Its better to do away with them just in case. This is how it should be in strategy games. That is how it is in just about every strategy game I can think of, from Risk to Total war.

That is how it is

That should not be how it is.

With Risk yes... but not with Civ.

Civ should not be a wargame.

The problem is the best strategy is eliminating opponents and gaining their territory through military conquest.
More costs need to be introduced for that.

Even if you win through Conquest, it should not be a wargame. While war (as in battles of units) is important in the concept of conquest, the concept of integrating the conquests is important too.

The City Flipping of Civ 4 was good, but far too easily stopped (and far too random).

The fact that a war between Human and an AI empire of equal size means Human autowin (due to better human use of units) even with massive AI bonuses, is very bad.

Yes, sometimes you can get them to declare war. Usually, in this game though it is easier to get someone to declare war on your enemy, rather than having your enemy declare war on you. Especially, in a domination game, where for the most part you keep a rather strong military. Simply because you begin to have more and more enemies as the game moves forward. The system does need to change, this dogpiling needs to stop. Although, I am not at that point in my game, its pretty much inevitable, they are going to dogpile me at some point. Probably sooner than later. In any case the system is going to change whether some of us like it or not. Thats great news to me.

Actually the dogpiling is just fine... it means the AI Recognized that you are willing to advance yourself through war, and therefore the best way to deal with you is eliminate the threat. (the fact that they incapable of fighting well means that that thier decision is wrong... but their recognition is right... the problem is they are incapable of dealing with a human player tht wants to win through conquest)

In any case Buccaneer, I have a thread in the strategy forum for CiV. I have been posting screenshots of my current game. Look it over if you would and let me know, how you would proceed diplomatically in my current situation. I want to understand this system, it just seems beyond me at the moment. Perhaps you can shed some light on diplomacy in a domination game for me. Here is the link to my thread. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=454539

 

[nokmirt]

That is how it is

That should not be how it is.

With Risk yes... but not with Civ.

Civ should not be a wargame.

The problem is the best strategy is eliminating opponents and gaining their territory through military conquest.
More costs need to be introduced for that.

Even if you win through Conquest, it should not be a wargame. While war (as in battles of units) is important in the concept of conquest, the concept of integrating the conquests is important too.

The City Flipping of Civ 4 was good, but far too easily stopped (and far too random).

The fact that a war between Human and an AI empire of equal size means Human autowin (due to better human use of units) even with massive AI bonuses, is very bad.




Actually the dogpiling is just fine... it means the AI Recognized that you are willing to advance yourself through war, and therefore the best way to deal with you is eliminate the threat. (the fact that they incapable of fighting well means that that thier decision is wrong... but their recognition is right... the problem is they are incapable of dealing with a human player tht wants to win through conquest)

Keep in mind I am talking about a domination victory game. I am not talking about diplomatic victory, or building a spaceship, but a military victory. In Civ when you play to win militarily you always conquer and destroy the other civs, your rivals. Just like in any strategy game. Don't be so in the dark about it. Its not that difficult to understand. And from CiII to CiIV thats the way it was.

Well there is no sense arguing about it anyway. It will go back to a more realistic system. I will not have to fight 10 on 1 anymore. Perhaps 4 to 1, or 4 on 2, maybe 5 on 2, or 5 on 3, or one on one. Maybe on a good day six on one, but not 16 on 1. I feel you should have some enemies, just not everyone be an enemy, especially when most of the civs are warring types. Anyway, the dogpiling is not just fine, because you should not have to fight the whole world at once, it just makes the game no fun. Too frustrating to be able to have fun. Its no fun that is why they are changing things, and too many complained about that and rightly so. If you like the dogpiling well then stick to CiV vanilla and enjoy. I am moving on to a more realistic finished version. A more logical experience. Thank you though.

 

[PreLynMax]

If there was a way to hamper or punish warmongering, Civ5 wouldn't be considered a war game. I suggest in G&K they bring war weariness back. It is impossible to play a completely peaceful game. In fact, it was going to war that made me give up the last game. It just wore me out. I say if you want to go to war, you must have some punishable consequence that goes along with it.