Tweet
There's been something I have been thinking about for a long time now, and I figured it was about time for me to adress the issue of war and peace in civ 3. I am just now starting work on a big mod for civ 3, and while I do plan on adding many new units, I also wanted to add techs and improvements. This got me thinking that balance in gameplay past the industrial age is something that is rarely discussed, largely because so many people don't get past the industrial age. This also is likely to make all the wonderful new modern-age units I will be adding (thanks to all the awsome unit animation that has already been done by people) will be hard to balance out, and will largely go unused 
People who COMPLAIN that they never get into the modern age because they always conquer the world or win via domination before that time, I have something to say to. Before I do, I would like to point out a debate on this forum that occured a while ago pretaining to leaders in the game. I remember reading someone say that Ghandi was a bad choice for a leader (which he is because he never lead the contry, but that's not the point) because he was a peaceful person, and the game revolves around war. Some people claimed that hitler would be a good choice for a leader, citing that in games, EVERYONE pop-rushes improvements, raises enemy cities, declares war on their neighboors for no reason, and basically that by playing civ, you are essentially role-playing a WARLORD or other conquest-driven persona. And thus, it was ok for leaders like Mao, Stalin, Hitler to be in the game because you are playing an evil person anyway (or something to that effect). One person said that it was totally innappropriate for ghandi, one of the most peaceful people ever, to be in a game that, AND I QUOTE: "revolves entirely around war".
This statement drew to my attention the fact that 80-90% of civ 3 players actually consider it a war game. 80-90% of players try to conquer the world, or win by domination, etc. To most, the thought of AIMING for a cultural or diplomatic victory does not occur to them. To them, they are just alternatives if you fail to conquer the world in time. Now don't get me wrong: everyone has the right to play the game however they want; but don't assume that there are not other ways to play it.
People who assume that are missing the point, and don't reaslise this: Sid meier never intended civilization to be a war game. When he created Civ 1, He meant for it to be a game of diplomacy, science, and building. Now obviously, It was too primative to be much fun without any warfare at all. But really, the military units were put in the game for the sake of realisim and completeness. He never intended them to be the focal point of the game. That is why even to this day WARFARE IN CIV IS FAIRLY SIMPLISTIC. Units have attack, denfense, move, etc. While more complecated thing like air missions and bombardment have been added due to the hordes of warmongers wanting warfare to be improved, SM still hopes for civ 3 to at least provide the freedom to players to play a war-filled game or a peaceful one. This is the reason for the space-race, diplomatic, and cultural victories. They are there so you can CHOOSE them, not just a fallback options in case you suck at war.
Don't get me wrong, war can be fun, and I have played the warlord in the past, but many people seem to think there is no other way. Now, true enough, the space race in civ 3 is not the greatest, which is why in my mod i plan to make it better. But the cultural and diplomatic victories are hard to get, especially the cultural victory. Personally, I consider the cultural victory the highest from of victory, becasue it means that your civilization is just so kick-ass that it is undisputedly the best one. The fact is, I hear many people complain that the game is too easy, or that they never get to the modern times because they conquer the world too early. To them, I only ask that they considerthe possiblilty of ..... not going to war... at all. ever.
Let me explain: Say your neighboorhood is having a gardening contest. It seems obvious that to win, you have to put a lot of time and effort into developing your own garden. But, you could also win by going around and pouring round up on everyone else's garden, thus destroying their chances at winning and ensuring yourself a victory. This is exactly what conquering the world is. In my view, it is taking the easy way out. It doesn't matter how crappy your culture is, or how much anyone hates you, because you can win by forcing other civs into submission. Now, BEFORE YOU GET MAD, in civ, this is a perfectly fine way to win, but in gardening, you can't truly consider yourself a winner, can you? you win by having an amazing garden, not by destroying everyone else's. Does war and conquest in civ make the game easier to win? Yes, which is exactly why you should consider not doing it, especially if you think the game is too easy. Of corse it's easy if you don't give your opponents a chance!
Here is my argument: the most challenging game is one where you use only the resources and land that you get initially by settling. When you take away land and resources from your opponents via conquest, it gives yourself an edge. Only use what you are given, and if you can create a truly great civilization with that, that you have really acheieved something. Note that you will still gain other civ's cites: they will civ-flip because of your high culture. You can settle very agresively, just never actually declare war. If your FRIEND (rival civ's should not be considered enemies by default) has a resource you need, TRADE FOR IT. Build, build, build and win after you reach the modern age. I see so many people brag and brag and show off screenshots of their saved games where they control like 80% of the world's surface or something. I think it is way more impressive to win by having a kickass civilization while only controlling 20% of the world's land surface. Yes, going to war gives you an advantage. What does this mean? it means that if playing this style of game, a totally peaceful one, sounds too challenging, than it means that you aren't really that good of a civ player.
Remeber, your small army will make you a target. The fact is, you will go through wars, you just won't start them. And even if you do, just take what you need then sue for peace. But if your opponenets are almost always more strong militariliy than you (as is the case with me) this just makes war with them more desperate and challenging and thus, more fun. Winning a war while having only a thrid the forces of your opponenet is quite satisfying, and this will be the case if you are worried about producing as many wonders and cultural improvements as possible before the 1000 AD mark ( so that their value will double after a thousand years).
This post is not directed at everone, it is directed at people who complain the game is too easy, who never reach the modern age, who think that the game is a war game. The fact is, I rarely play a totally peaceful game. usually, I play a mixed game, especially on the harder difficulty levels, (like emperor). But rarely win via domination and in all the games I have ever played, I only once won by total conquest. Yes, I find it fun to play the bad guy and conquer the world sometimes. But it isn't the ONLY way to win. I i didn't think war was an important part of the game, I wouldn't want to add more units to it, much less 40+ new units. All I am saying is to try and see civ as something other than "a war game at heart" just because you personally play it that way.
In conclusion, I wantto take my hat off to anyone who has won a game without ever pop-rushing an improvement, without ever raising a captured city, and most of all without EVER GOING TO WAR EVEN ONE SINGLE TIME. I know I have, and it was damn fun.
People who COMPLAIN that they never get into the modern age because they always conquer the world or win via domination before that time, I have something to say to. Before I do, I would like to point out a debate on this forum that occured a while ago pretaining to leaders in the game. I remember reading someone say that Ghandi was a bad choice for a leader (which he is because he never lead the contry, but that's not the point) because he was a peaceful person, and the game revolves around war. Some people claimed that hitler would be a good choice for a leader, citing that in games, EVERYONE pop-rushes improvements, raises enemy cities, declares war on their neighboors for no reason, and basically that by playing civ, you are essentially role-playing a WARLORD or other conquest-driven persona. And thus, it was ok for leaders like Mao, Stalin, Hitler to be in the game because you are playing an evil person anyway (or something to that effect). One person said that it was totally innappropriate for ghandi, one of the most peaceful people ever, to be in a game that, AND I QUOTE: "revolves entirely around war".
This statement drew to my attention the fact that 80-90% of civ 3 players actually consider it a war game. 80-90% of players try to conquer the world, or win by domination, etc. To most, the thought of AIMING for a cultural or diplomatic victory does not occur to them. To them, they are just alternatives if you fail to conquer the world in time. Now don't get me wrong: everyone has the right to play the game however they want; but don't assume that there are not other ways to play it.
People who assume that are missing the point, and don't reaslise this: Sid meier never intended civilization to be a war game. When he created Civ 1, He meant for it to be a game of diplomacy, science, and building. Now obviously, It was too primative to be much fun without any warfare at all. But really, the military units were put in the game for the sake of realisim and completeness. He never intended them to be the focal point of the game. That is why even to this day WARFARE IN CIV IS FAIRLY SIMPLISTIC. Units have attack, denfense, move, etc. While more complecated thing like air missions and bombardment have been added due to the hordes of warmongers wanting warfare to be improved, SM still hopes for civ 3 to at least provide the freedom to players to play a war-filled game or a peaceful one. This is the reason for the space-race, diplomatic, and cultural victories. They are there so you can CHOOSE them, not just a fallback options in case you suck at war.
Don't get me wrong, war can be fun, and I have played the warlord in the past, but many people seem to think there is no other way. Now, true enough, the space race in civ 3 is not the greatest, which is why in my mod i plan to make it better. But the cultural and diplomatic victories are hard to get, especially the cultural victory. Personally, I consider the cultural victory the highest from of victory, becasue it means that your civilization is just so kick-ass that it is undisputedly the best one. The fact is, I hear many people complain that the game is too easy, or that they never get to the modern times because they conquer the world too early. To them, I only ask that they considerthe possiblilty of ..... not going to war... at all. ever.
Let me explain: Say your neighboorhood is having a gardening contest. It seems obvious that to win, you have to put a lot of time and effort into developing your own garden. But, you could also win by going around and pouring round up on everyone else's garden, thus destroying their chances at winning and ensuring yourself a victory. This is exactly what conquering the world is. In my view, it is taking the easy way out. It doesn't matter how crappy your culture is, or how much anyone hates you, because you can win by forcing other civs into submission. Now, BEFORE YOU GET MAD, in civ, this is a perfectly fine way to win, but in gardening, you can't truly consider yourself a winner, can you? you win by having an amazing garden, not by destroying everyone else's. Does war and conquest in civ make the game easier to win? Yes, which is exactly why you should consider not doing it, especially if you think the game is too easy. Of corse it's easy if you don't give your opponents a chance!
Here is my argument: the most challenging game is one where you use only the resources and land that you get initially by settling. When you take away land and resources from your opponents via conquest, it gives yourself an edge. Only use what you are given, and if you can create a truly great civilization with that, that you have really acheieved something. Note that you will still gain other civ's cites: they will civ-flip because of your high culture. You can settle very agresively, just never actually declare war. If your FRIEND (rival civ's should not be considered enemies by default) has a resource you need, TRADE FOR IT. Build, build, build and win after you reach the modern age. I see so many people brag and brag and show off screenshots of their saved games where they control like 80% of the world's surface or something. I think it is way more impressive to win by having a kickass civilization while only controlling 20% of the world's land surface. Yes, going to war gives you an advantage. What does this mean? it means that if playing this style of game, a totally peaceful one, sounds too challenging, than it means that you aren't really that good of a civ player.
Remeber, your small army will make you a target. The fact is, you will go through wars, you just won't start them. And even if you do, just take what you need then sue for peace. But if your opponenets are almost always more strong militariliy than you (as is the case with me) this just makes war with them more desperate and challenging and thus, more fun. Winning a war while having only a thrid the forces of your opponenet is quite satisfying, and this will be the case if you are worried about producing as many wonders and cultural improvements as possible before the 1000 AD mark ( so that their value will double after a thousand years).
This post is not directed at everone, it is directed at people who complain the game is too easy, who never reach the modern age, who think that the game is a war game. The fact is, I rarely play a totally peaceful game. usually, I play a mixed game, especially on the harder difficulty levels, (like emperor). But rarely win via domination and in all the games I have ever played, I only once won by total conquest. Yes, I find it fun to play the bad guy and conquer the world sometimes. But it isn't the ONLY way to win. I i didn't think war was an important part of the game, I wouldn't want to add more units to it, much less 40+ new units. All I am saying is to try and see civ as something other than "a war game at heart" just because you personally play it that way.
In conclusion, I wantto take my hat off to anyone who has won a game without ever pop-rushing an improvement, without ever raising a captured city, and most of all without EVER GOING TO WAR EVEN ONE SINGLE TIME. I know I have, and it was damn fun.
but I understand that it is not that rare and heard of other people doing the same). However, it is seldom an option available at all times. Very often, you have to wage war to stay competitive.
Dunno, if it's me or the AI...
Comment