Making war less usefull.

[Spec]

Originally posted by Ironikinit

There's been some talk that under the new patch starving out captured cities annoys the civ you captured it from.

Hmhm....As soon as you capture a city from a civ, that civ is furious with you so who gives a **** if the're annoyed with us? I dont get your point.


Spec.

[Ironikinit]

I didn't fully understand the event, actually, but I ran into it in my current game. Starving out cities might be a very bad idea now.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=192874&t=1406#post192874

[MikeV]

Re: Making war less usefull.

[SIZE=1] I've tried making the maintiance cost for all non-Anarchy units 2, rather than 1, along with giving every gov 2 more "free" units. (I need to test this more to see if it helps. I crashed and burned due to the increased unit cost in the one game I tried it in.)

Have you tried making every unit require 1 pop. point? I'd like to hear opinions on how it affects play balance, especially in the early game.

[korn469]

MikeV

in the blitz mod i made all offensive and defensive ground units in the industrial and modern era cost 1 pop in addition to their normal cost

playtesting hasn't been conclusive so far (i was experiencing a crash that prevented me from entering the middle ages, so i haven't got to test it personally yet), but it should have some kind of impact on the game

though early on each unit costing 1 pop point would probably slow the game down to unacceptable levels

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
BTW, two catapults probably isn't enough. If I can afford it next game, I'll use four.

Four! I never go to war unless I have a substantial military. Usually at least 10-20 catapults, 10-20 sword, with spearmen bringing up the rear.

I just fought a glorious battle against the Zulu. The key was a city on a hill fortified with Impi and Pikemen. Horsemen weren't appropriate due to the Impi, so sword and catapult it was. It was a struggle, but worth the effort.

[Tarquelne]

Re: Re: Making war less usefull.

Originally posted by MikeV


Have you tried making every unit require 1 pop. point? I'd like to hear opinions on how it affects play balance, especially in the early game.

No, but I think I'll try it. Have you? How does the AI do with it?

[DrFell]

Re: Making war less usefull.

'A number of people (and I include myself) keep making noises about warfare/conquest being too often the way-to-win in Civ3. So, what are we doing about it?'

The only way to solve it completely I feel is to change the game rules completely. It wouldn't be so vital though if the AI on deity didn't get such production advantages.

'I've made all the offensive units more expensive. An obvious move. (I increased the costs by, IIRC, 30% or so.)'

They're already much more expensive than the ones in civ2 (knights cost 70 shields vs 40). Probably the best bet is to make units like musketeers and pikemen a little cheaper.

'I've made Cultural boundries exapnd faster (trying to make Culture more important.) I don't know if this helped.'

I think culture needs a big overhaul in general.

[The Andy-Man]

civ2's combat was good, cos in that the game wasnt about superior numbers (in civ3, you win wars by mass producing any unit with a average - decent attck value). bassically, early in the game, you just build loadsa warriors and spearmen, and you will eventuall win a war. later on just mas produce cavalry. and you always need more then 20 to win enough cities to get peace quickly.

in Civ2, 3 veteran tanks could be devestating, as in real life - take WW2 for example, the french were using large tank formations (oetain never was interested in new techniques) where as the germans were using more compact elitist units.

not a great example though, i am not to sue of the facts. but the oint is, in RL, a small group of well trained units can be leathal in a short war, (the German/french war of 1870 - lasted 6weeks, a small modernised german force smashed the french extremly quick, civ3 for ANY military operation you need to just churn out units)

[Lorizael]

The problem with war isn't that it's the only option. I have played games where for the majority of history I was peaceful. And really that's all you can expect, after all, wars are very, very common in history.

The problem is that the AI doesn't value the consequecnes of wars enough. They go to war far too easily over insignifigant issues. I've had too many wars started because I demanded that the AI get out of my territory. If the computer were to realize the dangers of war, I think they would be less common. I think that then, a player could play a mostly peaceful game if they so chose.

But I also think that the peaceful winning options need to be worked out a little better. Just so that they are a little more interesting and a require a little more thinking to accomplish.

[maxpower]

Hey, Andy,

Good point, but bad example.

The Franco-Prussian War (1870s) was about modernization and tactics. The Prussians had advanced breech-loading handguns/rifles that shredded French troops advancing in Napoleanic lines. Same for artillery. The Prussians also had the worlds most advanced military staff (strategic and planning) and used in to their advantage.
The French's legendary ability to surrender after a few losses helped too . Maybe, say, negotiate peace, instead.

Think British troops in India, Roman legions (anywhere) or even modern US/other "elite forces" units. Better examples.

[The Andy-Man]

damn dbl post

[The Andy-Man]

there have been lots of wars inRL, but thats not to say every nation has participated in a major total war every century of its history!!!!

peacful nations can stay peacful by having militaryily strong allies, and also being economicaly strong, so much so that the AI goes the the player (or vica versa) for lones to fight his wars.

there are many ways to implement peace, like a peacful nation being the main trading nation, so other civs rely on there trade to keep an army and to keep happy citizens. so for these nations, the existence of this civ is vital, so if anyone declares war on them, every one else tries to stop the war maker, so they dont loose the vital trade etc.

and maxpower, you could consider the better fild command as being the veteran status of a civ 2 unit, which is why it has better attck, its leaders and troops are more expirienced and so have that little bit extra in terms of ability more then just longevity and hit points....

[Ironikinit]

Zach,

I'm still finding catapults a bit useless and relying more on swords in ancient wars.

A nice stack of ten catapults would probably do the trick, tho.

I've started a drinking game. Every time that DrFell mentions that he plays on deity level, I drink. I'm gonna get smashed.

Hey Doc, how bout posting that game like you said you would?

[Lorizael]

Of course there are ways to stay peaceful for a long perdiod of time, but really, for how long can a civilization remain peaceful? I can't think of a single country that has not been involved in some type of war in its history.

Eventually, tensions will increase, and someone will do something that will spark a war. It always happens. History has a pattern. So a civilization type game that was extremely peaceful or extremely warlike would be unrealistic. There needs to be a balance between the two. Balancing is always the most difficult part.

[The Andy-Man]

well obviously war will eventually start, but in RL no nation has a mssive standing army, its pointless (except aemrica, but we wont go into details), bassically, as it seems there will be war, one builds up. in civ3 you HAVE to have already built up to make sure you have supiriority in numbers. and when your sitting there with 20cavalryu waiting to attack, you get bored just looking at them...