Thinkers Guild : What does it mean to be a builder ?

[DAVOUT]

I wrote this for me, because it was not clear in my mind if it was really possible to adopt two different attitudes in a civ game, feeling that it was probably more a difference of degree that a difference of nature. I was quite surprised to see at the end that I was wrong, at least as far as the demo game of Apolytonia is concerned.



At the beginning of the game, a builder has often to recognize that early wars are necessary, only for survival at the very beginning (as it was the case for Apolytonia), then for gaining a position from where a victory can be contemplated.

Then, the builder?s civ reaches a level where its strongest competitors are polite, and no longer threaten it, and the builder is in a comfortable position to wisely develop industry, commerce, science and culture. During this period, he must nevertheless update the army to the last technological discoveries, just to avoid the other civs to be tempted by an easy prey.

This job done, peacefully if the other civs refrain from attacking, it is time for the builder to choose the type of victory he wants to reach ; the space travel (often), or the cultural win, or the UN. But this choice is not made freely, it depends of the relative strength of his civ, compared to the others. And if one or several among the other civs are more advanced on the way to victory, the builder is again led to accept the necessity of war, just to be able to win a peaceful victory. A situation where a peaceful victory is beyond reach can also certainly happen in the worst case for the builder.

For the warmonger, the beginning is not different, except that from the start the warmonger plays for a military win. Then he will drive the development period in view of accelerating the discovery of military improvements, and will use any significant advance to wage conquest wars, without neglecting elements of industry, commerce, science and culture participating or sustaining his military power. And, in due time, if he sees that any hope of military victory is lost, he will switch toward a peaceful victory.

It results from the above that when collectively played, as it is in our Apolytonia game, the players must find an agreement, from the beginning, on the kind of victory they want to obtain. Staying in the ambiguity would be detrimental to our game. But clarifying the ambiguity would be detrimental to the active participation of either the builders or the warmongers.


Don?t tell me it?s obvious, I just understood it 5 minutes ago !

But all other comments very appreciated.

[GodKing]

So what type of victory do you wish to go for?

[Inverse Icarus]

Warmongers don't neccessarilly go for the Conquest / etc win, we just believe the military is a major tool for our empire.

The military can get us many great things. As we've seen, it can get us more land, techs, maps, and gold.

And anyway, look long term. Back in Civ2, a player known as "Eyes of Night" from Poly told me "Only one can win". This still applies to Civ3. All your allies will be enemies down the line. They'll all be building their spaceship, building the UN, building up their culture, WHATEVER.

If you leave them alone the whole game, they'll grow huge and powerful. Why would you leave them like that? Why would you give yourself the oppurtunity to lose? More importantly, why would you pay for things you could just take (resources, luxuries)?

War is the way of life.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by GodKing
So what type of victory do you wish to go for?

I like the game enough to be interested in all type of victory ; but I am also focused on historical realism which leaves room for ceaseless military operations.

[GePap]

For me, a builder is someone who seeks to be the greatest power not by the size of empire, but by the wealth of it. I builder reaches his goal when you go the the info screen (F11) and see that, even if you're not #1 in size, or #1 in military, you have the greatest productivity, the greatest PCI, the greatest industrial output and population. Becasue at that point, if it comes to a spaceship victory, which is more satisfying than diplomatic or culture, and right now, porbably the wisest to aim for, you will win_ you will outproduce your enemies and you will be the first, specally in the new system where everyone must go the same route and you can't no longer aim for a smaller, fast ship.

A builder strategy needs a good chunck of land and lots of money- war has gotten us those things for now, but there comes a point, and this becomes more and more true as the game, especially this game with its vastly more destructve form of war, when the cost of warmongerring, in lost time, lost shileds, lost improvements, cities and so forth, jumps ahead of any possible gain, outside those of hubris. Right now we are gaining from war, but we will reach the point when cost benefit annalysis of having every city building units versus building imporvements will come and bite us in the ass.

I don't think a builder strategy leads to amore peaceful world- we will still be fighitng wars and need an army- its just that it will give us the edge, the ablity to afford guns and butter- nstead of just guns and then going hungry.

[Spiffor]

Warmongers don't neccessarilly go for the Conquest / etc win, we just believe the military is a major tool for our empire

Is there any warmongerer here who doesn't wish a domination / conquest victory ? (serious question, not a troll)

[The military] can get us more land, techs, maps, and gold

True for land, which can only be grabbed by the military at a given time of the game. However, the military is one of the 2 paths to acquire techs and money. The other is building a great infrastructure. Building is more reliable, because it allows to get the techs you want, and not what the AI has.

If you leave them alone the whole game, they'll grow huge and powerful

If they let you alone the whole game, you'll grow huge and powerful. Besides, they tend t be warring with each other. Diplomacy is the key in not letting the AI grow too powerful : you look at the balance of power outside your borders, while you increase your infrastructure / power within.

why would you pay for things you could just take (resources, luxuries)?

Maybe because building all these units, and losing some of them would be more expansive than buying the goods, thus avoiding further wars (trade partners are much more patient towards you).

"Only one can win".

Absolutely, esp. when playing MP. But the AI doesn't always understand it : an AI will favor its survival over taking too many risks to win, once it's crippled. I've yet to see an AI running for conquest/domination victory. And, most importantly : an AI might vote for you in the UN, and a human will NEVER do so.
All AI Civs are not our rivals to victory, only the most powerful ones.

So what type of victory do you wish to go for?

I wish a spaceship victory. It's the victory of our industry, and I'm an Industrialist (a Democratic Industrialist of Apolyton, that is).

DAVOUT :
You're right to start this thread now. After the French campaign, war will stop to be a necessity for our survival, because we'll be big enough to match the AI, should we have a good infrstructure within this land of ours.
There will be a choice between warring again, with knights, or waging peace for a long time, until we'll have to prune a true rival to victory.

After the French campaign, our Democracy will have crossed a threshold : it will be possible to plan long-term, and not to care only on short term survival.

[DAVOUT]

Uber,

Fundamentally you are right, except that war is not a way of life for individuals, but an absolute necessity for tribes, nations, states, as demonstrated by History over centuries.

The problem I was adressing is that there are here a number of so called builders which can only be desappointed by the way the game is played.

[Spiffor]

Davout :
I am a builder, and I'm not disappointed by the way the game is currently being played. At the contrary : I suck at war, and I've learned great strategies here (the efficiency of early wars, which I never wage).
I'm still pleased with the way the game is played, because I know from the beginning the debate builder / warmonger would arise as soon as our survival isn't in danger. This time is close now, just after the French campaign, and your thread (along with my DIA threads) are rpelude to this big debate.

IF we went for a warmongering game after having secured enough land, I will be very disappointed. I will do what I can to avoid this game being pure war (which I deem to be boring).

[UnOrthOdOx]

Similarly for me.

If the game turns into a builder game, I would have much to learn as I have not played that way. I generally play as a warmonger because that is what I enjoy and find fun, but would also like to learn about other strategies.

[Aro]

This game is a “survivor” game, by now. Without the Great Leap Forward, we couldn’t make it. One more war and we will get the necessary terrain to grow up. In the future, for sure, we will be involved in other fights, and IMHO we are doing what we want to do… You see, there's a lot of people watching, thinking, suggesting, complaining all the time. This is why I don’t believe this game turns into a builder or warmongering game, strictly.
BTW, I’m a builder, but I’m not bored. I’m learning a lot.

[DAVOUT]

Almost all your answers indicate that the pure builder from A to Z does not exist ; only the middle part of the game has room for a building policy to take precedence over warmongering ; on the contrary, the existence of the pure warmonger is no longer a scientific hypothesis, there are indications that a nearly perfect case hides in the General Headquarter of Apolytonia.

A very rich idea is introduced by Gepap when he says :

Right now we are gaining from war, but we will reach the point when cost benefit analysis of having every city building units versus building improvements will come and bite us in the ass. (see post above).

At that point the choice between the two attitudes will be made rationally. Considering that the score gives a significant advantage to early victories, it would be presumptuous to forecast the issue. But in any case, the gap between the two attitudes will have been reduced.

[Aggie]

I personally do not like the term builder or warmonger, because that implies a course that does not vary. I usually will use war if it gets what I need or build if that suits that particular moment. Most good players do. Use our own game for an example, we had no choice at first and curently but to go to war. After this war the concensus is, including such diverse people as uber and spiffor, to build ourselves up and go forward(not counting the mop up wars). Beyond this there will be division, some say war others say get our research and economy into gear. Both could be victorious and most certainly both will be used depending on the time. After this period intelligent and experienced players can differ. Usually I go with a slightly more builder strategy once I can research on my own. However, I always prepare for the next war on the side. But both strategies feed off each other. They both want to get ahead in the tech race and then stay there. Once you have a lead you can build more improvements and better units, etc. One game I had only one country near me in culture, so I invaded and took enough of his country to give me a culture victory. Also in terms of the diplomatic victory my policy is generally if a civ votes against me they will have a GOOD reason to vote against me next time.
So the miltiary is largely a tool used for accomplishing non military goals,and only in one game did I win a domination victory. Sometimes in the industrial age the AI will get into a mpp and war fest and usually then I go into build mode, since they will all soon be in communism I can out research them( I do keep several large armies in case an ai gets isolated, never say I don't take freebies.) So basically we all play the game that suits our situation at the time.
Aggie

[Robber Baron]

The leadership within the DIA have demonstrated they appreciate the constructive value of war. I predict that in a short while, many within the UFC will demonstrate that they appreciate the soundness of consolidation and (dare I say it?) building a powerful infrastructure and cultural base.
Eventually we may grow more bitterly divided, perhaps over the issue of what kind of victory to pursue. But circumstances may well nudge us in one direction or the other.

[Harovan]

There are no builders and warmongers. There are only good and bad players.

A good player knows, when it's time to go for easy prey, and when to settle down and build up infrastructure for culture, science, commerce and production.

There are 2 types of bad players. Those who don't care about science and commerce, but only about conquest adventures. Such players often get outresearched and at some point fail, when they meet superior units or well developed and very productive empires. The other type of bad player is the so called wimp. He never goes to war. He's content with a tiny "empire", builds up no or only a weak army and usually gets bullied all the time and at some point crushed by a superpower.