World Wars

[Aramda Master]

Ever since playing Civlization 3 for the first time in 2003. I was amazed at the World Wars the occured. Allies leaving treaties and breaking them. Once powerful civs collasped. World order collasping and the AI changing it's government frequently to quiet those citizens. I had a war with Russia in the middle ages, and it was soon destroyed. 400 years later.... 1932, china demanded tribute (I was rome), and i refused.... A world war began. My civ was No 2. in historygraph. By the end, the axis had won.... I was an allied but got out of the war by the 1960's.

Axis: China, Greece, Japan

Allied: America, France, Rome


I would really like to see World Wars improved. Do you want to see improvements?

 

[Dida]

What's really annoying is at one moment one civ can be on your side, and the next he would be declaring war on you. This is really stupid.
Other times, there will be civ that's fighting single handily with both sides. how stupid.

 

[Aramda Master]

What's really annoying is at one moment one civ can be on your side, and the next he would be declaring war on you. This is really stupid.
Other times, there will be civ that's fighting single handily with both sides. how stupid.

But that can happen in war. Unexpectness..... Only if the Civs are under very good relations.

 

[Colonel]

Dida: Most of the World War allainces in the real world, one or both sides needed the other for some reason. Best example, England-America WW2, America needed a stageing point to take back Europe, while the English needed Supplies. Had either side not needed the other they would have been allies or maybe would and one side would have declared war on the other for no real reason. As to the point of this thread, yes we need better World Wars, and they should somehow be distinguishable from regular wars.

 

[garric]

Ok, what was the point of asking "Should world wars be improved?" as if someone wants World Wars not to be improved, or anything in the game not improved.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

What kind of improvement are you talking about? I agree with garric, most things could be improved and of course most of us would like civ as good as possible....

 

[sealman]

What's really annoying is at one moment one civ can be on your side, and the next he would be declaring war on you. This is really stupid.
Other times, there will be civ that's fighting single handily with both sides. how stupid.

I agree. However, I think that this is more a diplomacy aspect than a military one.

 

[Aramda Master]

What kind of improvement are you talking about? I agree with garric, most things could be improved and of course most of us would like civ as good as possible....

How the A.I acts during a World War. For example: lessen the frequency of broken alliances.

 

[dh_epic]

It's not just an AI issue, because I do believe the AI is working properly in a lot of ways.

The most competitive and advanced players will break an alliance at the most opportunistic moment, sweep through 6 cities, and have enough momentum to achieve domination victory. The only way the AI is able to compete with this is to be equally as ruthless, opportunistic, and paranoid as a Hitler or a Napoleon or a Caesar. Hence the fact that you never really see a clear world war. There's perpetual war in the entire game, with no real sides. Just a bunch of selfish individuals.

At the core of it, there has to be a reward for honoring your alliances. Reputation isn't worth much in this franchise. Beyond that, there has to be a reward or an imperative that drives players to form real committed blocs -- for Fascist Nations to get onside, and Democratic Nations to fight them in kind.

But a lot of players hate that because it means there's a price for declaring war on whoever they want whenever they want.

 

[sir_schwick]

The most competitive and advanced players will break an alliance at the most opportunistic moment, sweep through 6 cities, and have enough momentum to achieve domination victory. The only way the AI is able to compete with this is to be equally as ruthless, opportunistic, and paranoid as a Hitler or a Napoleon or a Caesar. Hence the fact that you never really see a clear world war. There's perpetual war in the entire game, with no real sides. Just a bunch of selfish individuals.

I will reply with this poignant quote:

The only rules that really matter are these – what a man can do and what a man can’t do.

 

[dh_epic]

If Captain Jack were right, and everyone in history agreed with him, then we wouldn't be here today. Things would look much, much different. And, truthfully, history would have been a lot more boring.

In other words, world wars would never occur. ... although there would probably be just as much war overall, if not more.

 

[Aramda Master]

It's not just an AI issue, because I do believe the AI is working properly in a lot of ways.

The most competitive and advanced players will break an alliance at the most opportunistic moment, sweep through 6 cities, and have enough momentum to achieve domination victory. The only way the AI is able to compete with this is to be equally as ruthless, opportunistic, and paranoid as a Hitler or a Napoleon or a Caesar. Hence the fact that you never really see a clear world war. There's perpetual war in the entire game, with no real sides. Just a bunch of selfish individuals.

At the core of it, there has to be a reward for honoring your alliances. Reputation isn't worth much in this franchise. Beyond that, there has to be a reward or an imperative that drives players to form real committed blocs -- for Fascist Nations to get onside, and Democratic Nations to fight them in kind.

But a lot of players hate that because it means there's a price for declaring war on whoever they want whenever they want.

Um.. I have played in some games, that the Civs formed strong alliances. Alliances in real life can be broken but not easily. Some people are afriad that it will take a hit at reputation in the world (CIV 3). Reputation means that the world exists and people will remember your actions.

 

[sir_schwick]

The reason that real countries do not backstab is the economic disruption. If there was a significant volume of trade, especially between allied nations, breaking those alliances on a whim would be expensive. Fix it so that cooperation yields massive amounts of trade and you make alliances work along economic rather than land lines.

 

[azzacanth]

The reason that real countries do not backstab is the economic disruption. If there was a significant volume of trade, especially between allied nations, breaking those alliances on a whim would be expensive. Fix it so that cooperation yields massive amounts of trade and you make alliances work along economic rather than land lines.

I've had AI's more than 20 turns hike from my borders, set up trades with me and then a handful of turns later show up with HUGE stacks of military on my borders. Then also declare war on one of my allies who had been trading profitably with them the whole game. (this is a multiplayer epic with a few AI's)

Now does that make sense??

Late middle ages/early industrial, btw.

 

[Esckey]

What I don't like is the different governments in the alliance. I thought Democrates were suppose to hate dictatorships and commies, but not in my game. Seems that what the civ's listed prefered government doesn't apply, nor does the listed governemtns prefered governments apply. Hate fighting against an alliance with a governemtn of each type

 

[rhialto]

What I don't like is the different governments in the alliance. I thought Democrates were suppose to hate dictatorships and commies...

Kinda like how USA was chummy with South Korea in the cold war, installed the Shah in Iran, and sponsored quite a few juntas in South America. Yep, democracy hates dictatorships all right. That is, democracy hates enemy dictatorships. And not forgetting the US-UK-France-USSR alliance in WW2.

Convenience makes strange bedfellows in politics.

 

[knorman]

Kinda like how USA was chummy with South Korea in the cold war, installed the Shah in Iran, and sponsored quite a few juntas in South America. Yep, democracy hates dictatorships all right. That is, democracy hates enemy dictatorships. And not forgetting the US-UK-France-USSR alliance in WW2.

Not to forget the Greek colonel junta.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think Sir_Schwich and DH_Epic are both on the right track-reputation should be an incredibly vital part of forging any and all diplomatic agreements-but most especially alliances and trade pacts. Also, even trades that don't involve money changing hands SHOULD generate income-at least in those cities through which trade routes pass (commonly cities situated on major road, rail and river connections). The money a trade deal earns should be higher amongst true allies, and should increase over time (up to a set limit). Another factor is that, as I have stated in other threads, an alliance should be more than just 'hey, lets go to war against this guy together'. It should be a broad pact of cooperation on many levels-a pact that would be far more detrimental to break.
These elements would both disconnect success somewhat from territory size AND discourage players from blind betrayal for short term territorial gain.
Another problem, though, is that MPP's as they stand can force a player into very difficult diplomatic situations, they want to maintain good relations with BOTH nations, but has to choose to either honour an MPP and upset the other nation, or dishonour the pact and hurt their rep with the first nation. The ability to end wars is vitally important if diplomacy is going to be more important than perpetual war.
Just FYI, though, in my most recent game, I (Egyptians) have been in a very close relationship with Carthage for over 1000 years. We had two wars in the mid-BC part of the game but, once we established our territory, we have gotten along like a house on fire !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker

 

[Aramda Master]

World Wars should cause war wearness to drop signifcantly because citizens get out of their houses and join or help the war effort.

 

[dh_epic]

It's true that politics make for strange bedfellows... but let's put it this way. In World War 2, the biggest threat was Fascism, and thus the Communist and Democratic Nations got along quite well.

After World War 2, it was Communist versus Democracy, and even Islamic Fundamentalists were considered good allies against "Godless Communism". To some extent, that's how Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda got their CIA training to fly American Airplanes.

The 90s were kind of a strange political case, but it's definitely the case that Islamic Fundamentalism (and its relationship to international terrorism) is next in line, after Communism and Fascism.

Yeah, it's true that politics makes strange bedfellows of everyone... but Civilization has never done anything CLOSE to this in any of my games, unless it's been arranged by Scenario. Or if I'm desperately trying to play with verisimilitude in mind, against AI opponents who know there is ZERO advantage to honoring their alliances or playing "realistically".

Sir Schwick does raise a top point, though, about increasing the importance of trade. You don't generally bite the hand that feeds you. And if any Nation on the planet -- including China, America, or Russia -- were cut off from all other trade, they would collapse.