How much real choice is there in playing Civ3 ?

[volcanohead]

This is following on from several threads where the issue of strategic choice has been discussed.

It would be interesting to know how viable a non-aggressive strategy is in Civ3. My personal experience is that having at least one assault on other civs in the ancient period and one in the modern will virtually guarantee a victory of some sort at all levels of difficulty.

On the other hand I've never successfuly played a purely defensive game, seen that I start to fall behind unless I'm ruthless and expand rapidly at the expense of other civs.

This, I believe, is a critical point. The new patch appears to have made the game into a competition between the player and all other civs combined. This means that you are forced to go to war to have any chance at all, thus producing a very linear game. Not to say unenjoyable, simply that you know pretty much the grand line you will need to take every time.

The point of this poll is to see if this idea is right, or rubbish. If we find that many people win at high levels without war then it simply means that I'm playing in a stupid way and there is more than one grand strategy to win the game.


V

[Zouave]

I often play a very defensive game. In these games, I will not start wars, and if war is declared against me, I play defense, and might take one or two cities before I sue for peace. I end up winning with a diplomatic, cultural or space race victory on monarch level. Of course, I can only do this if I end up with a good chunk of land after the initial phase of the game. I also, usually culturally assimilate a couple of cities along the way.

[volcanohead]

Zoave,

Do you find that without a large army the AI thinks you're a wimp and gives you a hard time? Do you have a strong, but purely defensive, military? Or do you get by with very few units?

And how many times do you restart befor finding a position good enough to employ this strategy?

V

[Zouave]

I always keep a strong military composed of mostly defensive units. I do not insist on using this strategy, so I do not restart if I have to go to war to secure enough land. It simply means I have to be more agressive.

[volcanohead]

And, very roughly, what proportion of games do you find yourself in a good enough position to employ the purely defensive approach?

V

[Zouave]

Maybe half. I feel like I am being interrogated.

[volcanohead]

NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!

[volcanohead]

I appreciate your response, it's interesting to see that you find the defensive approach as successful as that. As I said, I simply find that it is much easier to keep ahead hwen you knock out a civ or two who have some nice cities.

The other obvious need for war is resources. Sometimes those guys will just not trade uranium for love or money, and this limits the defensive possibility to only cultural victory.

V

[Zouave]

Resources do become a problem sometimes. Oil and rubber are the two main ones in this case. Occasionally, I have to convince a civ with one of these resources to declare war on me (so as to not ruin my reputation), and then seize a city to get it. Sometimes, I can arrange to trade for one of them though. Even without them, diplomatic victory is still possible.

[volcanohead]

Hmm, hadn't considered diplomatic victory. I usually find the game is over before the UN is available. And personally I find it pretty cheesy to win this way, unlike SMAC. But that's just me. It is another viable option. It'll be good when there are some more votes... Slight edge on 'Never' right now.

V

[The Andy-Man]

i have found that in all the succesful games i have played i was either:

a)alone on a big space, (i could fit many cities before i met the AI)
b)i declared war as soon as i met an AI.



i also have a large defensive military (3units in each city), because if i dont the AI tends to just declare war on m for no reason.

[Zouave]

Originally posted by volcanohead
Hmm, hadn't considered diplomatic victory. I usually find the game is over before the UN is available. And personally I find it pretty cheesy to win this way, unlike SMAC. But that's just me. It is another viable option. It'll be good when there are some more votes... Slight edge on 'Never' right now.

V

I don't think there is anything cheesy about winning a diplomatic victory. In some ways, it is actually harder than building a military and wiping out your neighbors. Getting UN votes is not exactly easy, especially since, in all likelihood, you will have been at war with nearly everyone at some point.

[volcanohead]

Cheesy in the sense that there is too little information regarding the process, and you have little feedback on your actions. Cheesy in the sense that in a few mouseclicks it's all over. As I said, it's my personal point of view.

But I agree that it may be harder than the military option. This is in fact the whole point. I find the easiest and most assured victory comes from military dominance. I prefer a peaceful approach, but when I see that there is such a huge advantage from aggression it is difficult to resist. Often there is little choice in the matter.

V

[The Andy-Man]

every time i try peacful, i am either 3 ages behind or having my arse whipped around the map.

[volcanohead]

Originally posted by The Andy-Man
every time i try peacful, i am either 3 ages behind or having my arse whipped around the map.

Exactly. The other problem is constructing wonders. Can be tricky without forcing a war, which usually means having to really punish some civ before they give in.