How do I not be an evil warmonger?

[ThaddeusAlexander]

Originally posted by dworkin
Cannot one be a good warmonger? Helping out poor benighted civilisations from their evil neighbours. Punish the guilty and culture flip the innocent.

Just think of it as the 'Human Player's Burden' to bring civilisation to the AI savage.

You wouldn't be a 'Good Warmonger' as much as a 'Peacekeeper' .... which isn't bad at all. So long as your main strategy is still non-militaristic, then you're not a warmonger.

However, if you declare war under the title of peacekeeper or defender (or something similar) but in actual fact its simply for personal gain then you're just a big hypocrite .... *cough*USA*cough**cough*

Cheers
~Thadalex

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ThaddeusAlexander
but in actual fact its simply for personal gain then you're just a big hypocrite .... *cough*USA*cough**cough*

Cheers
~Thadalex

Canadians really shouldn't troll that way. You live in a country that was stolen from the Amerinds just like here in the US.

[ThaddeusAlexander]

Originally posted by Ethelred
Canadians really shouldn't troll that way. You live in a country that was stolen from the Amerinds just like here in the US.

What are you talking about? Boy we just keep bumping heads don't we

What I was referring to was the US in Afganistan ... they put in charge of the country one of bush's old Oil buddies who worked as a consultant for the family's oil endeavours, and are now running a pipe to pump the oil out of the country. We all know the bush family got rich from oil and if you look in to it, in may of 2001 (before the sept11 attacks if i'm not mistaken) the US told the pakistani goverment they planned an attack in afganistan for early 2002.

How dare any country step in the way of a superpower and its oil supply.

~Thadalex

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ThaddeusAlexander


How dare any country step in the way of a superpower and its oil supply.

~Thadalex

Except that its not the US oil supply.

I remember this same arguement being used to claim that Viet Nam was about oil. There is still no oil coming out of Viet Nam. This is what makes me suspicious of claims that Afganistan was about oil. Claims regarding Iraq are of course on much better ground but its still Europe that is getting most of the Mid East oil and not the US.

Hey I don't like Dubya but I think he is acting more from fear than from greed for oil. I was mostly just pointing out that Canada is not as lilly white regarding rapacious behaviour as some Canadians try to make out.

[ThaddeusAlexander]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Except that its not the US oil supply.

I remember this same arguement being used to claim that Viet Nam was about oil. There is still no oil coming out of Viet Nam. This is what makes me suspicious of claims that Afganistan was about oil. Claims regarding Iraq are of course on much better ground but its still Europe that is getting most of the Mid East oil and not the US.

Hey I don't like Dubya but I think he is acting more from fear than from greed for oil. I was mostly just pointing out that Canada is not as lilly white regarding rapacious behaviour as some Canadians try to make out.

I don't pretend that we didn't take the land from ther mongols that got here first many a century ago like the americans did. But that was many years ago. There is a very different mentality north of the border, that you can't deny.

I've never heard oil from viet nam, but I know whats happening currently in afganistan and i know who 'dubya' put in charge of the country and the figures add up don't they? Even if the oil from the mid east is going to europe after the gulf war, its still making sure the 'free world' or the 'western world' or whatever you want to call us, has a nice supply of oil. If they never pump anything out of afgan and bring it to the US in the near future, you can bet once the US loses its supply they will. Its all about security. I think the bush family knows what they're doing... and although I'm sure the president felt sorrow for the losses of sept11 and anger towards the terrorists, he knew plans for afgan oil were already in place and this would (if i may use some civ3 terms on this civ3 forum ) decrease the war weariness of his democracy.

Thats just my two cents.

Cheers
~Thadalex

[Catt]

Originally posted by ThaddeusAlexander
. . . . and if you look in to it, in may of 2001 (before the sept11 attacks if i'm not mistaken) the US told the pakistani goverment they planned an attack in afganistan for early 2002.

[miccofl]

Now I understand "South Park - the Movie"

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by ThaddeusAlexander


I've never heard oil from viet nam, but I know whats happening currently in afganistan and i know who 'dubya' put in charge of the country and the figures add up don't they?

The figures add up to a bit of oil moving through Afghanistan from Russia anyway and I think it would be a stupid place to invest billions. Afghanistan is too volitile and has been that way for millenia. Course Dumbya may not know that.

As for Viet Nam well I guess your specialty in history doesn't cover 30 years ago. I remember it myself. It was a very popular claim that the US was there for oil. I can't rember it being on the bathroom walls or anything but it was in the newspapers and places like Mother Jones and the LA Free Press. I was in High School and College during most of the Viet Nam War. One tends to notice what is being said about a war one may be drafted into.

[vmxa1]

Just because someone is doing something that one does not care for, does not mean they do not have good motives. They may in fact be wrong, but still that does not make them evil or treacherous. When people do or say things I disagree with I do not have to assume they have a bad intend, they could belive they are correct, we both could. What I am saying is that even is every thing you say about Bush is correct, it does not preclude him from thinking it is the right thing to do. He does not have to be evil or corrupt or even stupid, he could be wrong or even right.

[vmxa1]

BTW the way some were saying we were in Nam for some neferious reason, including oil. I was in the Navy in 1963-1968, so I recall the events. I, in fact remember being told about my ship at the time the Turner Joy going on patrol in Nam and I had never heard of it. As it happens, I was transfered and did not go, but you may recall they were the catalyst for the resolution of the Tonkin Gulf.

[dworkin]

Originally posted by ThaddeusAlexander


You wouldn't be a 'Good Warmonger' as much as a 'Peacekeeper' .... which isn't bad at all. So long as your main strategy is still non-militaristic, then you're not a warmonger.

However, if you declare war under the title of peacekeeper or defender (or something similar) but in actual fact its simply for personal gain then you're just a big hypocrite .... *cough*USA*cough**cough*

Cheers
~Thadalex

I try in most of my games to be an enlightened ruler loved for his legions of elvii rather than jackbooted thugs. And protecting my poor, tactically challenged neighbours from loons like Monty and Shaka gives me most of my wars. Alas even with these high ideals there is always the temptation of the dark side. Quicker, easier, more seductive.

[ThaddeusAlexander]

I'm perfectly aware that people can be wrong. BUt this IS suppose to be a thread about Civ3 ... I have nothing against helping minor civs, did i say i did?

All i wanted to joke about is player that go "oh the poor indians are going to be annhilated by the americans. I'd help but I have nothing to gain but some corruption ridden cities on a far away continent with no luxuries." but when they're something to gain they go all "send in the peacekeepers to help this poor defenseless nation!"

Not that it really matters I guess ... this thread was suppose to be about helping the starter get more tactics on how to play a non-warmonger game and I think besides myself only one other person posted some tactics.

Cheers
~Thadalex

[dworkin]

My idea as 'peacekeeper' (BTW nice label, thanks Thaddeus) is to fight mainly defensive wars in someone else's territory. Give back worthless cities or plant them as a burden on your 'friend'. Keep the good one's, one can educate the natives. If only you speak loudly and slowly to them for say, the rest of history.

Fighting for peace seems to generate the same number of GLs with none of the incessant micromanagement a global empire requires. And your core cities are seldom at risk, not that they are beyond the early game anyway.

And build the Spaceship and leave the bickering savages to nuke themselves into oblivion.

Gave it a go at monarch (Japan). Slowly but surely assimilated neighbours and earned the adoration of the world. Then left. Only one deplorable episode when 'hawks' seized control and exterminated every single evil green Aztec after they burned down Byblos. But they were nasty.

[Ethelred]

Only one deplorable episode when 'hawks' seized control and exterminated every single evil green Aztec after they burned down Byblos. But they were nasty.

Monty is a pathological liar and eats babies for breakfast. Its not warmongering to put him down.

[ThaddeusAlexander]

My idea as 'peacekeeper' (BTW nice label, thanks Thaddeus) is to fight mainly defensive wars in someone else's territory. Give back worthless cities or plant them as a burden on your 'friend'.

I go with this strat enough ... It helps keep my closest rivals down and bump up the weaklings who really can't do much to stop me win. After all, the aim is to win Probably the only real benifit I DO get, however, is giving captured cities back to the original owners to make some new best friends in case someone sees me as a threat in the future. In any way, it makes you feel good i guess

Keep the good one's, one can educate the natives. If only you speak loudly and slowly to them for say, the rest of history.

0nly one thing to say... well put

Fighting for peace seems to generate the same number of GLs with none of the incessant micromanagement a global empire requires. And your core cities are seldom at risk, not that they are beyond the early game anyway.

As you said later in your post you used Japan so I can understand, but I rarely use militaristic civs because they don't offer a direct benifit to my goal and most of the use is wasted. I always aim for the Art of War wonder so I don't need the cheap barracks and my cities tend to outgrow wall usage fast enough (although they have saved my life in outskirt cities holding luxuries from barbs and rivals in the early game).. Japan would, however, be one of the few militaristic civs i'd use (i do play them enough actually) simply because I love religious civs as i tend to build temples in all my cities ASAP.

Okay gotta get back to werk

Cheers
~Thadalex