I cannot forget the cruel oppression......

[radegast]

So, I'm an enlighted democratic leader in a Civ that has never used the whip, never drafted any troops and most definitely has never ever razed a city. Even slave workers get a fair(ish) deal, once I'm at peace with whoever they've come from, or their original civ is long dead I turn them into citizens of my fair Metrolpolii. After they've worked off their indenture of course.

So when our glorious Armies liberate cities from the Jackboot of oppression why oh why are they still so unhappy that 87% of them 'cannot forget the cruel oppression that you have brought down on us'.

I'm not the oppressor, I'm the liberator! I haven't been using them as slave labour to complete my defences. Do you think the people of Paris in 1944 hated the allied armies because the Nazis had been in occupation for the past 4 year?

It wasn't me who forced them into the army to die under the wheels of my tanks. I'd imagine that most of even the Volkstruppen, and especially their families, were relieved once their duty to fight was no longer enfocable by the firing squad.

So why does this remain in Civ 3. Illogical at best, at worst it provides for another 'exploit'.

I've got this size 12 city, that I know is gonna fall soon. Why not use the whip to complete, say, a cathederal, and lose 5 or 6 citizens. And draft the rest. Then when the enemy captures it, this city will be ungovernable for decades to come. Or at least unproductive considering the number of troops/entertainers it will need to pacify it.

And in MP?

Yet another reason to raze the city to the ground and build a new one with your own settlers.

Civ 3 really ought to have had a scaled response to conquering by other civs, culture is one thing but reputation must surely be another. If I'm known as a leader who will enslave and murder my captured peoples well, I'd expect newly conquered territory to be unhappy or even rebel. But I'd be dahm surprised if anyone would want to rebel back to Atilla the Hun, Vlad the Impaler or any of the more modern infamous leaders. Especially, if they just been liberated by the .

So, please Firaxis, factor in the bad things I do when comparing whether I'm a 'better' civ than my neighbour.

[Ironikinit]

Actually, that seems to clear up pretty quickly, esp. when compared to when you do a big repeated despo rush job on one of your own cities. Then it lasts pretty much forever, or near enough.

The possible MP tactic you mention is interesting, but the only times I seem to lose cities to the AI is when I'm a republic or a democracy. If I lose cities to the AI under despotism and it doesn't look like I'll be taking it right back, I'm pretty much screwed.

[Heliodorus]

Sid Meier is by far my favorite game designer, and I don't want what I'm about to say to be taken as an ad hominem attack.

But the glaring detractors in Civ3 make me wonder whether the Firaxis team was spending most of its time "researching" gameplay for Sid Meier's golf title out on the links...

Civ3 has taken warfare and punished those who pursue it. The first two ages are difficult, the last two, virtually prohibitive. If Firaxis had wanted to do SimCity, they could have.

I quote Augustus:

"Give me back my legions!"

[Zachriel]

Re: I cannot forget the cruel oppression......

Originally posted by radegast
So when our glorious Armies liberate cities from the Jackboot of oppression why oh why are they still so unhappy that 87% of them 'cannot forget the cruel oppression that you have brought down on us'.
. . .
I've got this size 12 city, that I know is gonna fall soon. Why not use the whip to complete, say, a cathederal, and lose 5 or 6 citizens. And draft the rest. Then when the enemy captures it, this city will be ungovernable for decades to come. Or at least unproductive considering the number of troops/entertainers it will need to pacify it.

Better a domestic despot than a foreign one.

Oppression has a long history, so it must work at least some of the time. There would be no glory in doing the right thing if it was easy.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Heliodorus
Civ3 has taken warfare and punished those who pursue it. The first two ages are difficult, the last two, virtually prohibitive.

Huh.... Punished

I think it's exactly the opposite. You need to fight in Civ III to keep up, and slow the AI down. In Civ II... perfectionists could just lay back, build up a great civ, and out research the the AI. Have a minimal of superior troops for quick defense at the ready, and just blow through the science tree. Now, if you sit back and play perfectionist... you will fall so far behind that you can't catch up.

I used to play perfectionist in Civ II most of the time, and never at a problem at the hardest settings (The one city challange being the perfect example) I haven't been able to do that with Civ III yet

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Ming, I agree wholeheartedly with your evaluation.

The whole game favors warmongering as opposed to builders. Thats what made CIV2 so balanced, you could go either route. At present it appears in CIV3 you need to go to war and go to war early. The whole go to war to slow the AI down, gain techs through peace treaty and then tech whore to further slow down the AI; appears to be the most effective strategem. Shame that builders are now relegated to lower difficulty of play (or perhaps it's just my ineptitude )

Og

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Ming, I agree wholeheartedly with your evaluation.

The whole game favors warmongering as opposed to builders.

In my current game, it is 1000ad and I have yet to fight a war, though wars have been raging all around me. Indeed, the Germans have been razing Zulu cities and I have been founding new ones on the ruins. Also, I have picked up a few cities by culture, as the other civs are in ruins.

Of course, war is not always a choice we make, but sometimes a situation that is thrust upon us.

[Arrian]

Ok, call me crazy, but I disagree with both points of view. I think Civ III is pretty well balanced between the peaceful builder and warmonger styles of play.

I was the "sit back and build up" player in Civ II. Build up a large, prosperous civ, blow the AI away in tech and wonders, and then buy up enemy empires with spies, using howitzers to "convince" those cities which didn't want to be bought. Leave a size 1 AI city out there and build a spaceship.

In Civ III, I have modified my style to more of a hybrid between peaceful building and warfare. I usually fight at least two major wars in a given game.

I think where conquest gets tougher... or at least more frustrating, is on the larger maps (large/huge). There are just so many cities to take.

Managing to stay out of war in Civ III can be pretty tough. Sometimes, the AI just wants to pick a fight, and there isn't anything you can do about it. This was even more true in Civ II, but in Civ II you could largely ignore an AI civ your were at "war" with, because all they would do was send a few units each turn to bang away at that phalanx (or pikeman or musketeer or rifleman or mech inf) you had on a mountain in a fort. In Civ III, the AI at least comes at you in strength. Sure, the AI is still pretty dumb, but you are forced to actually respond to an attack.

Also, being a peaceful builder can be pretty tough if you don't have some key resources. I tend to go take them, but if that's not your bag, baby, then you'll have to pay. The AI will make you pay quite a bit, too.

-Arrian

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ok, call me crazy . . . I think Civ III is pretty well balanced between the peaceful builder and warmonger styles of play.

Ok, you're crazy. But you're right. I play both styles. It depends on the position, and the attitudes of my neighbors.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Heliodorus

Civ3 has taken warfare and punished those who pursue it. The first two ages are difficult, the last two, virtually prohibitive. If Firaxis had wanted to do SimCity, they could have.

I quote Augustus:

"Give me back my legions!"

On the contrary, those players who pursue a more peaceful approach are at a disadvantage in the game. No wars, no Great Leaders. No Great Leaders, no Army, and no rush building of Wonders. Even a few of the Small Wonders require a successful Army, so if you never go to war, you can never build them.

[Heliodorus]

I should clarify my post a bit, because I agree with those who say war is necessary, especially early.
But early war requires catapult, or horsemen, preferably both. Not to mention Iron... That's what (I mean by difficult.

Later, since you can't out-tech the computer too much, you are rather required to outproduce dramatically the opponents, or beat him with a military. And in the stage of the game past modern infantry, it's really futile to try to run military campaigns and maintain any type of fun empire at home. You either have to be a Communist/Monarch/Despot, or you have to forego war altogether as a Dem/Rep. Even if you fight one, it's the tedium that kills the war effort, in my experience.

[Skanky Burns]

Wouldnt it be nice (and much more logical) if the liberator of a city that was "cruelly oppressed" would have that amount of unhappiness converted to happiness. As time goes on, the "saved from oppression" effect would wear off, and the city would go back to normal happiness.

This would be more accurate, and possibly not hard to program - same magnitude, just different direction.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Willem
On the contrary, those players who pursue a more peaceful approach are at a disadvantage in the game. No wars, no Great Leaders. No Great Leaders, no Army, and no rush building of Wonders. Even a few of the Small Wonders require a successful Army, so if you never go to war, you can never build them.

Agreed! Leaders are what tilt Civ3 to favor war over peace MUCH more than Civ2 did. Besides the Armies & Wonders, when you need to build your Forbidden Palace (or Palace) FAR AWAY from your capital, the Pacifists will never be able to do it (due to choking corruption)... those who go to war can have theirs built in 1 turn because of leaders. Additionally, one's score is highly dependent on territory... if you never go to war your territory growth is *much* slower in part of the Medievil Age, but especially in the IndustrialAge & ModernAge than if you went to war with someone. Civ2 also rewarded players for how peaceful they were... Civ3 does not.

[Ironikinit]

Helio, I can upload several saved games where I'm fighting wars (and winning, thanks) as a democracy or republic. It's just knowing how.

I'd also like to chime in with the posters who said that it would be cool if "abused" cities would in some way welcome liberators. Cool but not a big deal.

[pauli]

You need to fight in Civ III to keep up, and slow the AI down. In Civ II... perfectionists could just lay back, build up a great civ, and out research the the AI. Have a minimal of superior troops for quick defense at the ready, and just blow through the science tree. Now, if you sit back and play perfectionist... you will fall so far behind that you can't catch up.

i don't think you're playing the same game i am

but then, i *do* play at low difficulty (moving up as i win), on 256x256 maps against low numbers of civs. but i had a blast as a builder. didn't have to fight a single war to win - well, i wouldn't have fought a single war by the time i won if i had remembered i had a cultural victory on the way (i went to war with the germans on a whim in 1959 and was wrapping up my extermination in 1970, when i suddenly got that irritating cultural victory).

in my current game, i did fight a war starting in the 1500's or so (and planning since the 1200's) with a nearby neighbor. i clearly don't *need* to fight any more wars to win (1860's, i'm well into the industrial age while the most advanced enemy unit is a hoplite ), but i probably will do so anyway.

the game can be played either way, if you've got room. how it goes on small maps with lots of civs, i have no idea, as i don't enjoy that kind of game at all.