Three questions about "Always War"

[MoonWolf]

1) Do you have war weariness when running this option? I assume not, but want to be sure.
2) Is capitulation an option or will the AI fight to the bitter end?
3) Is it easy to change some code(s) in the xml-files that always war means also always war between the AIs? Agressive AI would help here, but not be the same.

[DaveV]

1) Full strength war weariness. Prepare for some serious happiness issues.
2) The bitter end. No negotiation is possible. Death before surrender!
3) Sorry, I don't know.

[Krill]

1) Yes, but it always decays at the same rate as if you were at peace with every civ.
2) I don't think capitulatin is possible
3) Easy depends on your skill level.

[snoopy369]

1) As Krill said, it decays as if you were at peace - so it's not the same as if you had a regular game and just went to war with everyone. It's not 'full strength'. Basically, the things that increase WW are normal, but the WW goes away slowly just as if you were at peace, so if you don't do anything warlike for a while it goes away.

2) I don't recall, but i'd bet no.

3) Assuming it's not already the case (I thought the AIs would also be at war; certainly in a MP game I think this is the case), there are a few ways to do this:
a) Play it as a MP game with only yourself and a bunch of AIs - I think this would work
b) Go to Custom Game - I'm fairly sure there's a place to set relations to war here. It's been a while since I tried this, though.
c) Go to Worldbuilder - you can set relations manually here. I don't recall how easy it is to set them to stick, but it should be possible.

I think a) or b) is the best solution, assuming it works - I think it will, but i'm not sure 100%. Changing the XML files won't do it I'm fairly sure, you'd probably have to change the SDK, which if you're asking the question means probably that's a no-go

[Krill]

TBH I thinkthat a no WW option hould have been in the game. It is regretable that the devs thought that giving players a choice was a bad idea.

[MoonWolf]

Thanks! If I use the worldbuilder, then I'd see everything but it is an option! I can try the MP one, that could be a good idea. Maybe if I'll get time, I can try to make a mod for this which maybe also includes no WW.

I agree, Krill, no WW should be an option but maybe it's too hardcoded?

[Krill]

Nope, Alex (Mantzaris) said that making a no WW option was not a good idea. The context was that WW in ladder MP games sometimes got completely out of hand and some MP testers said that a no WW option would at least allow that segment to enjoy the game. Alex said that it would destroy the balance in the game.

IIRC, anyway, as this was back before warlords came out.

[snoopy369]

Having WW in an AW game be effectively identical to the non-AW game seems like a good compromise to me... if you want an all-fighting MP game, go play Starcraft

[Krill]

...And that is the reason that the majority of the testers and devs for CIV are disgraces Snoopy.

IF it were standard I'd agree with you, but refusing to introduce it as an option because you think that the game shouldn't be played that way is both bad business practice and incredably arrogant.

[Blaupanzer]

Originally posted by Krill
...And that is the reason that the majority of the testers and devs for CIV are disgraces Snoopy.

IF it were standard I'd agree with you, but refusing to introduce it as an option because you think that the game shouldn't be played that way is both bad business practice and incredably arrogant.

I agree. "ARROGANT," by cracky.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Krill
...And that is the reason that the majority of the testers and devs for CIV are disgraces Snoopy.

IF it were standard I'd agree with you, but refusing to introduce it as an option because you think that the game shouldn't be played that way is both bad business practice and incredably arrogant.

The point is that:

1. You can't have everything as an option or it becomes too cluttered (MS Office 2003 anyone?)

2. The game should NOT be balanced such that a particular playstyle becomes superior. In this case, the entire point of WW is to penalize warmaking slightly (or even, significantly) to encourage building.

CIV IS NOT A WARGAME and was never intended as such. You pick up SimCity, are you going to whine that you can't declare war on another city? Of course not. Yet, you pick up Civ and whine that it is not made to be a wargame...

Civ is a game about building empires, and should - in EVERY way - be balanced for both building and warmongering. Civ4 is a very good balance between the two, and for those who prefer to play it very warlike it is certainly very possible to do so - but there are elements that allow you to play somewhat less warlike as well, and still do alright.

I think it is incredibly arrogant of the subset of testers/players who feel that the Devs must change everything to be exactly how they want it, frankly. How many other commercial blockbusters have nearly this much fan involvement in the decisions that are made? I'd be surprised if the answer weren't none, at least not for games that are still supported by the developers. You whine that devs don't make significant changes to permit a particular subset of play, that is played by a very small minority of players - and it is absolutely that, a very small minority - and can't even be bothered to make the changes yourselves, in a game that was specifically designed to be the ultimately moddable game.

So yes, forgive me if I am arrogant in believing that you should not put in an option to specifically unbalance the game in a significant way just to mollify a small portion of the game population.

[Krill]

1. CIV is modable for SP only. The amount of safegaurds put in place to stop people from modding the game to give themselves advantages unbeknownst to other players destroyed the chance of CIV MP being moddable before the game even hit the shelves. Is this a god or bad thing, is a completely different argument, but it does mean that MP could never rely on modding to change the rules of the game, only to add new maps.
   
2. WW was only ever an issue at one point; after an attack that used hundreds of units, of which there was at most two in a single game; otherwise WW was never encoutered. It was frankly just annoying and never stopped people from warring because if you didn;t build units you get killed and if you you are behind in points and fail to kill someone on an attack even if you crush their economy you'd be fvcked over by the WW anyway so there was no point in carrying on. Making it an option would have allowed a "tiny" subset to go about playing the game happily; it also would have allowed for some very interesting games in SP, alas, some people think differently.

Yes, I can't code in python, or Cwhatever, and can read a little XML but frankly the amount of people who play civ and can code in those languages probably isn't all that great in absolute terms either.

[Krill]

And should civ be a war game with periods of building, or a building game with periods of war? One could argue for either point...but civ has to be able handle both, and if civ ever wants to go mainstream MP, it will have to face the fact that warfare is where the majority of people want to focus; it is also possible to do this and not lose anything from the building side of the game. Options are one way of doing this, and there are others.

[snoopy369]

Civ is highly moddable for MP. The players are just too lazy to use mods. They're not required to do anything beyond what hundreds of SP players do, for example for the CFC HOF game (which is content protected identically to MP). It only takes one person to code the mod (and frankly, I'd bet about 20% of civ MP players could do it, it's a very simple thing to add).

WW exists to be a strategic element that encourages not-war. It exists because otherwise war is too powerful; without WW, there would be no strategy but war (that could potentially be successful). The fact that it makes warring harder is a good thing to the game. If you don't like it, then take the 30 seconds it would take to mod it out, or find someone to do it in the MP community if it's that important...

Civ does not want to go 'mainstream MP' as you put it; it is at its heart a SP game, and is not really meant for MP primarily. It is playable MP, and there are plenty of people who enjoy playing it so; but don't assume it should ever be intended for 'mainstream'. It is the game it is.

To your last post: Civ is an empire-building game. It is NOT a war game. You can feel free to play it with more periods of war than peace - many do - but don't expect it to be balanced like a war game (ie, RTS). If you want to make Civ4-RTS, in the ladder game style, then just mod it to that ...

[Krill]

The mod can be created and then played, but you obviously have never tried going into the lobby and telling the MPers there that want to play to go to a site, download it to a specific folder, reload civ with the mod, and to rejoin them...It just doesn't happen partly due to separate lobbies screwing with communication for alot of mods. I wish you could get casual players to do so, but unfortunately they won't, and pissing off the casual MPer is killing a pretty big ****ing market for Firaxis. That's a problem with the CIV design. Alas.

You say that Civ does not want to be a mainsream MP game; I'd say that your grammar is fvcked up. The developers and marketers didn't want civ to be a pure MP game, and to be honest, they lost out on making some money there.

Your comments on WW being a good thing I haven't disagreed with. None of my comments have been directed at the epic game; they've all been directed at MP, where WW isn't a good thing, diplomacy and trading are better most of the time. If you think that WW should always be part of the game because it is a balance mechanism, stuff like Disabled Vassals, Always peace, being able to disable victories, no barbs, all the options, even random events should be removed, because the game is balanced for all of them not to be used (how can you 'balance' for random events?!). So it is kind of hypocritical to claim that one option shouldn't be coded for and ignore the ther options.