Anyone ever played peaceful to the end?

[Mr. Smiley]

Hello all,

Do you always play for world conquest (or the spaceship), or has anyone ever tried to play peaceful too?

I don't play to win 'asap' or with the largest scores.. I just like to play (silly me eh)

Normally I pick 3-5 civs (me included), very large map and only islands on the king difficulty. That gives me time to develop my umpire and when I get contact with the others I try to remain as neutral as I can.

In the end the civs who remain are often stronger than I, but I tend to be wealthier (I buy their peace).

So, have you got similar experiences? If so, post your opinions about this type of playing.

Mr. Smiley

[Ecthy]

I do that regularly... conquering world isn't worth the effort and building a spaceship is neither... so I just build up and win by powergraph-means..

[EdwardTKing]

I too am quite content to peacefully out build and outgrow the other tribes if I can. However I do not necessarily bribe belligerents. If I can detect the AI pattern of attack; I may just build city walls and defend myself at point of assault; albeit sending in diversionary pillagers etc; developing elsewhere. This strategy sometimes works with 3 or more players in multi-play; but breaks down if playing a strong opponent in a duel when it is often the case of who gets their attack in first or with the most.

[Eli]

I also prefer to retire peacefully.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

It seems that when I play this way, the AI doesn't like it. I get sneak attacked all game long. As watching the AI corpses pile up outside the walls can get tedious, I end up sacking a city to get peace. In the end I control most or all the world. O well, I try. At heart, tho, I try to stake out my turf and develop it fully.

[The Mad Monk]

Same here--I prefer 'peaceful co-existance', if I can get it.

If I can't get it, I neutralize (with subversion, if possible) any enemy cities on my continent(s), and blockade the ports on other continents with my fleets.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I generally play peacefully with an eye on AC. But have you ever had a game where you never went to war? I have, once. King level, I think (maybe emperor), everyone on one large land mass, I'm on a penninsula where I control the chokepoint and share its border with the Americans -- but they have land borders with the Greeks, Vikings, and Spanish, all of whom keep them very busy. All I ever heard were rumors of war; it was pretty sweet.

[lord of the mark]

I think ive played and won completely peaceful, but not since i've played on deity.


LOTM

[Caesar the Great]

Yeah, sometimes I go on a large archipelago on king, develop my 1 island civ very much with an SSC, make sure the AI can't get on it to steal techs, then either watch the AI or start up my war machine and flood the AI with units and watch them die quickly... peaceful gets boring after a few thousand years

[Odin]

I'm a peacenick too, I always try to BUILD my way through the game and I only go to war when some imperialistic player, Human or AI, tries to pound me 6 feet under (At least the AI sucks )

[Bereta_Eder]

I am best at quiclky building a modern state with 8-10 cities and I've never lost a game if I do that. But I need peace (and space) to do it.

I usually know what to expect from the begginning. If I have the greeks, vikings, russians or other warlike civ next to mine I don;t let them live very long because I know they'll be causing me a lot of trouble throughout the game.

If I am next to the Babylonians (and there is enough space for my cities) I can carry the game up to the very end without EVER going to war with them

Actually, I almost NEVER go to war when I play Deity!

From Deity downwards it's pretty bloody. It has to do with the pwergraph. In Deity I'm rarely first and the others don;t give me much attention (untill I launch my spaceship that is )

[Trdi]

I make a few cities and I really take care for them, making them big and strong. I usually prefer playing peacefully, but I need time to do it. I think the strategy allways depends on your geographic position. That's whay I like playing on islands.

[Zopperoni]

Me likes war ...I tried to play it out peacefully once and it worked...but I just like to make my enemies mad and make wars

[Juggler_Bob]

I tend to play most of my games almost entirely without military aggression. I think it is almost impossible in a 2.42 game not to have the AI declare against you at some point, unless you give them everything they want, all of the time.

It is, however, entirely possible to always act without overtly hostile intentions throughout the game, and there are several benefits to doing so...

1. Production is not wasted on large numbers of combat units, and rather go towards other things of greater value to completing the game: settlers, caravans, wonders, SDI defense, spacecraft components, etc.

2. Many AI nations (depending on color/proximity/superiority) are less likely to initiate unprovoked hostilities if you have no history of doing so yourself.

3. Happiness is easier to control if you don't have large numbers of units "in the field" (I never could get the hang of the Shakespeare's Military City strategy [too much trouble to 're-home' all of those military units ])

Of course, a "no overt agression" game requires judicious strategy. Defenses must be solid, and diplomacy/espionage is crucial.

In fact, this makes for a good challenge, which I will also post as a new thread...

The Olive Branch Challenge (OBC)

Race to A.C. without ever declaring war or taking an action which directly leads to an AI opponent declaring war against you. The goal is to attempt to maintain (overtly) peaceful relations whenever possible, throughout the game.

Disallowed actions:
Sneak attacks or other combat actions against an AI player with which you are not currently engaged in warfare against.

Any combat action against an AI unit/city that you *are* at war with which is not directly related to the immediate defense of your units/cities.

Bribery or other diplomat/spy functions that harm the AI civs' units or cities which is not directly related to the immediate defense of your units/cities.

Provoking a state of war through any other overt actions. Common sense should be your guide, but some examples include:

• Refusing to leave radius of an AI city. (Exception: when an AI city is built so that its radius intrudes upon the radius of one of your own cities [see below]).
  
• Demanding tribute. Requesting a 'gift from your gracious ally' is still allowed.

The basic idea is that you will not (overtly) attack the enemy except in those cases in which the enemy (during a time of war [which you did not initiate]) directly threatens your units or cities. This does not mean that you cannot take hostile subversive measures against your opponents; by all means, you are encouraged to do so...

Allowed actions:
Bribing or taking an enemy city that has been built so that it interferes with one of you city's production radius.

Attack/bribe enemy units within (near) striking range of your units/cities. Note: in order to attack/bribe them, a state of war should exist (or at least cease-fire). If not, you must provoke war indirectly before attack/bribery. (Demand withdrawal...but not tribute, that's too direct )

Attack/bribe enemy cities within the radius of one of your existing cities. If the AI pulls this trick, feel free to wipe the offending settlement off the face of the earth; however, you should still (indirectly) provoke war before taking action. This shouldn't be too hard in this situation, and it is permissible on this occassion to provoke declaration by refusing to withdraw troops (so long as they are within your own territory [your city's radius]).

Perform espionage. This includes embassies, tech steals, and bribery (related to the immediate defense of your units/cities.) Nukes, poisoning, revolts, or sabotage should be considered as direct military action.

Convince another AI to initiate hostilities against an enemy AI. Preferrably, you should only do this when you are already at war with the target AI. It is also allowable/suggested to bolster your ally with units/gold/tech to assist their fight (indirectly). It is not necessary to end the game with a spotless reputation.

Defend yourself. Any units which remain in the radius of one of your cities or pose a direct threat in a time of war are fair game. You should still get your enemy to declare war (by word or deed).

Recover cities taken by the AI. Like the previous example, you should still get your enemy to declare war (by word or deed). Do not use this as a technique to advance against the enemy. You should not build an undefendable city in enemy territory, and use it as an excuse to attack the enemy, and surrounding cities that are "by coincidence" within the ('recovered') city radius.

Declare war against an AI that performs espionage against you. You should still only take direct combat action against that which directly threatens your units/cities. You may also expel diplomats/spies.

Any actions against barbarians are permissible, as is any support for barbarians against your enemies. (Can you 'gift' units to barbarians with whom you have established embassies??? )

Again, let your common sense be your judge. The challenge is to make it to A.C. without ever taking any overt action against your enemy, except in those cases in which you are defending/recovering what is rightfully yours...

Good luck,

-Bob

[SlowwHand]

Are you talking MP or SP ?

MP "Diplo" games, to my experience, are bor-ing.
I'm not a war monger, but I don't like other Civs setting up camp in my lands.
Why I'm not a big Strategic Alliance joiner.
I'll make peace, but if you try to push it by going where you don't belong, that's when the peace treaty goes away.