Separator
War and Peace: Two Stories of Conquest and Catastrophe in Civilization 5
Robsavillo
Friday, October 01, 2010

James: As Rob began to realize -- a bit later -- that Civilization 5 is burdensome with a strict militaristic policy (at least if you want to see the full breadth of the game), I continued to grapple with my nearly ascetic pacifism. I finally settled into an effort that allowed me some breathing room.

Originally, we decided that I would only permit myself one military unit per city. Also, I was to give social polices that reinforced liberty and peace primacy. The game that finally took had a few revised rules. I decided to allow myself to pursue any social policies as long as the majority were peace-minded and liberal. This meant that while the ban on war declarations was still intact, I could take a military policy that gave me an attacking bonus against barbarians -- who, by the way, are much more of a nuisance than in prior Civilization entries.


Barbarians left unchecked....

Also, I focused on the Tradition tree rather than the Freedom tree. The social policies in Tradition aren't explicitly militaristic or pacifistic. Instead, they focus on growing a smaller, more dynamic civilization, with a stronger emphasis on culture and science.

Finally, I was able to produce a few more military units than my total number of cities -- something which helped my early game immensely. For instance, when I started up, I allowed myself a scout and a warrior. This let me explore my surroundings more effeciently and make better, more informed decisions about future city locations. Things went much more smoothly this time around...at least until the Renaissance.

Rob: I'll second James's observation that barbarians are much more of a nuisance than in Civilizations past. Once I razed the remaining Iroquois cities, the continent opened up for barbarian settlement (these savages appear in unmonitored fog of war on the map). The problem got to the point where nearly all of Onondaga's (the former Iroquois capital) tile improvements were in ruins.

While razing those cities bought joy to my people (or eliminated the unhappily occupied from the governed -- take your pick), I still couldn't balance the budget. In an effort to stuff the treasury, I sent my remaining forces to America's continent to plunder their lands for gold: two samurai, three knights, one horseman (forgot to upgrade!), and two great generals (these non-combat units bestow strength advantages to other adjacent soldiers).


Japan's conquest of America.

Although I was up against minutemen (America's unique unit), my combined forces destroyed Washington's civilization before the mid-19th century. This time around, I immediately razed all cities to mitigate unhappiness among my people. I have to say, though, Japan's Bushido trait feels like cheating: I watched one samurai unit eat four volleys of ranged fire, successfully defend two attacks from full-strength enemy units, and survive.

James: So here's the deal: Unlike Rob, I didn't have any problems with any of the game's various "progress" metrics. While my happiness usually tottered close to the zero line, my people were always pretty upbeat. I didn't have any draining military occupations to worry about (the undisputed, biggest boon of a stict non-war ethos).

Using my limited resources, I also managed to eek out decent science output that kept my civilization abreast of the rest of the world technologically. Culturally, my society was a bit lacking, which was a bummer because the new social-policy system is probably my favorite addition to the game. That said, I wasn't egregiously uncouth, either. I like to think that members of my civilization could at least hold court in polite society.


Al-Rashid's encroachment on Siamese territory....

The biggest problem I confronted was my inability to gain sway with the surrounding leaders, which was ostensibly the very thing I was trying to do. In my opinion, gaining political traction is all about developing your military. To be fair, that's far from the only thing you do in the game, but in the end, if you want your neighbors to pay attention to you, it's probably a good idea to spend your time and money on more than a couple advanced military units.

Even though I tried to curry favor with the two other cultures on my continent, as I thought the enlightened Ramkhamhaeng might, al-Rashid of Arabia eventaully wiped out the third guy, Washington. Since I had no landmass or military to speak of, it was only a matter of time before he set his sights on the rest of the continent. And guess who was standing in his way....

 
Pages: /5
< 1 2 3 4 5 >
7
ROB SAVILLO'S SPONSOR
Comments (8)
10831_319453355346_603410346_9613365_6156405_n
October 01, 2010


It will be interesting to see if any of the concerns raised here will be met by the inevitable expansion(s).



I found that a Pacifist approach could work well in Civ 4 under the right starting conditions -- mostly you needed lots of territory to expand into and easy access to the coast. But I think it's always been easier to play Civilization games with warmongering strategies than pacifist ones.


Jamespic4
October 01, 2010


This was a ton of fun to work on! I ended up playing Civ way more than my schedule should have allowed to get it done.


Randy_kalista
October 01, 2010


In Civ IV, I never achieve -- or doggedly pursue -- a Domination or Conquest victory. Time, Cultural, Space Race, and Diplomatic victories ... that's just how I roll. Of course, there are plenty of games (plenty!) when I simply tip my king over and quit to desktop when some warmonger dashes all my pacifistic hopes.


Robsavillo
October 01, 2010


Considering these responses, I find Firaxis's decision to completely overhaul and refine warfare instead of diplomacy, technology, or culture in Civ 5 doubly interesting.


Default_picture
October 01, 2010


Yeah, I almost never used my military in IV, even though I always built maybe the strongest one in most games. Today maybe the first first time I can even think that I've used my military in an unprovoked attack in what turned into three Civ wipeout of France.



Honestly, I can't say I've really ever found warfare in Civ games that enjoyable. I'm acually more interested in it in V because of the fact they took out the lazy ability to just stack instead of strategize. I never have had to think about terrain or range before really.  Granted, my netbook can't handle V, but if it could, I'd have to do so.


Robsavillo
October 01, 2010


Gerren, Civ 5 has a strategic map view, which should run fine on you netbook. Sure, it makes Civ look more like a board game, and you'll have to suffer through the load times of the graphic-intense view at first, but you'll be able to play it.


Jason_wilson
October 01, 2010


I wish I could speak cogently about Civ 5...I haven't played enough yet to address many of the things people are talking about. I may get a chance this weekend, though! I'm enjoying what I'm playing thus far, but as I'm still in the Classical Era, I haven't experienced enough yet. 


Default_picture
October 02, 2010


Rob, I hope so. Everything I see in the requirements make it seem well beyond my netbook. But I'll try and give a whirl if I can and cross my fingers. I don't need the fancy graphics. I just want to play the game.


You must log in to post a comment. Please register or Connect with Facebook if you do not have an account yet.