Am I the only one who doesn't kill kill kill?

[Sparky]

I have the feeling that I'm in the monority. I've been playing since the days of Civ1, and I don't take the all-out military approach. I often play on king level and try to maintain the most peaceful, internally wealthy, "Babylonian" style civilization that I can.

I'm worried that with all the attention given to Civ 3 military, there won't be an equal amount done for city and empire development. Civ 1 was pretty much 50/50, half the game was city development. Civ 2 changed that to 55/45 by up-playing the special combat rules in military, but leaving city improvements basically untouched, just adding more of them. SMAC did the same thing. SMAC slapped down peaceful civs by focusing 70/30 on military: tons of unit combinations, special abilities, and alternate "peaceful" ways to win that happened to go to the civ that actually was the most militaristic (case in point, the peacekeepers really couldn't win a diplomatic victory by playing nice -- Yang always conquered his neighbors, got a bigger population through more cities, and would win a diplomatic victory through what were really military methods.)

Is Civ 3 going to fall prey to this trend? I'm a loyal civer. I want to see a well-balanced game, one with equal attention to building and conquest. Leave in the new military options, but add new city options such as detailed city planning and architecture a la sim city, or transportational planning, or advanced agriculture, or a space program, or cultural evolution. Then we would really see Civilization 3 instead of Militarization 3.

[Sparky]

Religion, slavery, and prolific languages would add immensely to the game's cultural value, too.

[Nikolai]

No, you aren't! I also play peacefully, a bit because I don't am good in it. Even if I try to play a conquest game(and I have tried), I just don't manage to win in that way! Well, peace is better than war, at least for the people.......

[Ilkuul]

I fully sympathise with wanting to play peacefully! I've also been playing since Civ1, and one of the things that always bothered me in Civ1 was that I was never free to just build up my civ peacefully -- somehow I always ended up at war! And even when I did manage to reach AC first, it could never be done without significant bloodshed en route. And now with Civ2 my most successful strategy is still to eliminate my most powerful opponents militarily before settling down to build up my civ and head all out for 'spacequest'.

So, yes, I do hope Civ3 will allow alternative victory strategies that are truly 'peaceful', even if they take much longer!



------------------
Ilkuul

Every time you win, remember: "The first shall be last".
Every time you lose, remember: "The last shall be first".

[The diplomat]

No you are not alone. I like to take a peaceful approach too.
It is not just about introducing new peaceful strategies. I think that civ makes war too easy. The game needs to introduce some of the costs of war. Conflicts cause huge loss of life and loss of propriety which in turn can bring disasters on the victors as well as the losers. There needs to be a cost to war to make it more balanced with a peaceful strategy.
So, I have no problem with making war more realistic in civ3 IF at the same time, the game makes war less beneficial to balance it better with a peaceful strategy.

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[Vitmore The Great]

I would like to see more improvement in the trade and diplomacy models than combat. I wouldn't like increased focus on city management becaus ethat just means micromanagement, which just slows the entire game. I admit the city view option in Civ II is lame, but its enought for me when speaking about cities going the way of SimCity. Peaceful ways to win should be expanded, of course, but I would to see more diplomatic ways of doing so, or even economic.


Vitmore

------------------
"We should not go out and conquer the people, but give them no other choice in their minds but to be conquered." - Me

[Chris1111]

I agree with you I like to play a peaceful game to. I guess thats why Im never really successful at anything above king level game play .

Anyone play master of orion 2? In that game it was possible to never be at war and never kill another ship and still win by being voted in "leader" of the galaxy. Alliances actually meant something as your allies would vote for you. They were unfortunately annoying though and constantly demanded you attack their neighbors unless you put them on ignore :P.

[Sparky]

That's a good idea: show more of the negative side of war. For instance, in civ as it now stands, the biggest lossses you can have are cities (your population), surrounding tile improvements (part of your infrastructure) and happiness (if you're a democracy), as well as gold and techs, but only if they capture cities.

It's not realistic that well-defended city can technically lose a hundred defensive units, and yet not take one point of population loss. Losing men at that rate should hugely inpact the total population (like WWI), as well as be very financially costly. You should lose city improvements in the bombarded city (I always thought it was odd a city's improvements could always survive a nuke) as modern bombs and shells rip up the landscape (like WWII). Also, what about morale and disease? Yes, your men are more experienced, but wars like Vietnam and WWI have shown that casualties cause huge morale problems in the soldiers and the population at home.

How about this: have all civs (the AI, too) realize the huge costs of war regardless if they're the "winner." Make them reluctant to go into battle and instead vent their disapproval through embargos or subversion or espionage, diplomatic actions that are less unit-intensive.

[Sparky]

More ideas for a more civilized Civilization. What about class struggle? Civ has always taken a simple approach, using luxuries to define happy content, and unhappy citizens. Not much complexity there. Class struggle has always been a huge issue, from the time of plebians and patricians in Rome, to the Communist Manifesto, to the Polish Union that toppled the government in 1989. Civ3 should include social legislation, actually dealing with the issues of race relations and suffrage, both male and female.

Also, Civ3 could expand environmental issues beyond "smokestacks." Sanitation and deforestation have been problems since before the Greeks (By 400 BCE, they already had to sail to Thrace in search of more ship-quality timber for oars. The Romans so deforested northern Lybia that it has become the desert we know today -- the result was that silt clogged ports as far away as Ostia, Italy). Wouldn't you think that working a forest square would eventually leave it baren?

[Temptihumbaninshushinak]

i think, civilizations should become more introverted. put internal stability above simple conquest. if done well, you'll time by time have to make a war or conquer a city to restore inner stability (war as social stabilizer was often the case in history)

[This message has been edited by Temptihumbaninshushinak (edited March 25, 2001).]

[MrFun]

For me, the simple, one-dimensional slaughter conquest play style is BORING. Like the others who have posted here, I play a game that is balanced with peace and war.

I go to war in my games, but I do not seek to win the game by conquering every civilization -- too straightforward and boring that way for me.

[Chronus]

Count me in for peaceful civing as well. I don't want another game where I choose from 1,000,000 different units to attack with a possible 1,000,000 different formations utilizing 1 of 1,000,000 different tech strategies ... etc., etc.

I really feel that the Civ II model is just fine for combat with the exception of unit stacking. One unit defending for all is a bit absurd. They should all be able to attack as one group as well. Once this is fixed, I think simply adjusting the current numbers (attack/defense/hit points etc.) can resolve most of the peculiarities we have now. Please, no more new statistics and/or hundreds of new units. DOH! Okay, let's add the Range Attack value (from CTP) and bombardment ... but that's it! (Sheesh, and to think that I advocate simplicity!)

Adding new units only means a quicker obsolescence. A few new ones is fine ... just no overkill.

I enjoy focusing on economy/infrastructure/diplomacy. Unfortunately, the payoff for winning a war is high. Peaceful progress is tough because your rewards too easily become somebody else's rewards (either through combat or espionage). By the way, can we tone down the tech stealing ability? It sometimes make research a moot idea. Or perhaps a spy/diplomat unit can be eliminated when it fails instead of merely sitting there outside of the city or getting expelled.

I very rarely declare war and tend to seek peacful resolutions. But I also want an "evil empire" out there that's desperate to take me over. There's nothing more fun to me than to defend my hard work against an aggressor.

[Zanzin]

I've mentioned in other threads, that Civ3 should be a game that encompasses all aspects of a civilization, rather than focusing on one or two (like war, or trade (as others sem obsessed with doing))

War is an important part of the game that can't be disregarded. I like Chronus' idea that there will be other civs out there hell bent on destroying me for the purpose of expanding borders.

The best way, i believe, for the game to reflect the problems inherently associated with war is that when you build a unit, you loose one population...this will reflect a strain on production (less production because your men have gone off to fight etc).

In CTP1/2, war was the only fun part of the game for me (I don't know how others felt - personally, I didn't feel inspired to finish the game any other way).

We must remember that war has it's merits - it's a good way to expand your borders, and in early times, Greece/Roman empires, this was how they expanded. It also has it's downsides. Lets pray Firaxis can find the right balance (And not forget about other aspects of the game as well)

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 03-25-2001 04:19 PM It is not just about introducing new peaceful strategies. I think that civ makes war too easy. The game needs to introduce some of the costs of war. Conflicts cause huge loss of life and loss of propriety which in turn can bring disasters on the victors as well as the losers. There needs to be a cost to war to make it more balanced with a peaceful strategy. So, I have no problem with making war more realistic in civ3 IF at the same time, the game makes war less beneficial to balance it better with a peaceful strategy.

Agreed! War in Civ should be an option, but often an expensive one!
I used to fight with enemy in Civ and SMAC, mostly because I can't keep them at a realistic diplomacy table. If they went seeking trouble, I did my best to help them finding a lot

But I must add that last Sid interview make me fear alot about "light heart" elements added for Fun. After months of debate about realism and best balancing I have a strange feel of incoming Civ III derailing for unnecessary humor...

You know, all that Deja Vu about "Wars are fun", "Smiling leaders" that add special effects (Magic? Super human? :eek to your army...

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Hasdrubal]

Agreed!

I'm also more interested in intricate management than into the fire-power of a panzer-tank or whatever. We don't need the next command and conquer.

And I'm glad that Chris1111 brought Master of Orion up. Now there's a game that they should borrow heavily from.