A thougt about Civilization - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  A thougt about Civilization

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   A thougt about Civilization

Kirel posted 11-17-98 05:07 AM ET
I had an annoying thought the other day
For a game that is called Civilization (and the other one too),the gameplay is,strangely enough concentrated on war.
War's not very civiliced,is it?

dushan posted 11-17-98 07:49 AM ET
I'd personally like to have more chances for peace too. I'd like to perform UN style peace keeping missions. Unfortunatelly, strategy game without war might be very, very boring (sort of like not very good simcity :-) ).
To be controversial, why is war not civilised? Since the dawns of civlization, wars were fought to unite and expand empites.Egyptians, Romans, Greeks all fought great (and bloody) wars. And the tribes before them did too. Unlike animals, we have perfected war into a kind of art of killing. This has degraded in wars like WW1, but with new tech, it's becoming poetic again (seeing those beautiful jets just makes me want to join the RAF and kick some Iraqi ass :-) ).
Ok, seriously, I'm personally a pacifist. I condemn wars, however I love playing war games. I don't quite know why.
Our civilization is what it is because of the wars we faught. Now I hope that we've learnt enough over millennia and that the only wars we'll fight will be on SMAC. :-)
Dushan
MikeH II posted 11-17-98 07:54 AM ET
It's a nice hope dushan, for some reason I can't see it happening just yet.
Kirel posted 11-29-98 03:19 PM ET
I strongly disagree with Wuff.
War is as old as humankind,civilization is much younger.
If war is a prerequisite for civilization,then several monkey speices are civilized.
And we don't think they are,do we?
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey posted 11-17-98 08:03 PM ET
But how would the born warrior survive in a world without war??? Just a thought.
YYYH
Arnelos posted 11-29-98 07:43 PM ET
The key in Civ2 (from what I've done) seems to be avoiding war at all costs. If you can avoid war, allowing your cities to be building libraries and marketplaces rather than tanks, you will have a development edge in the game. Since democracy and republic are the best development governments, it is usually always best to have one or the other as your government. However, democracy makes war very difficult to manage unless you have huge cities (at which point you have so many entertainers that the population hardly notices that there are 8+ units out fighting a war for each city :-) ). Republic makes war more affordable, but it is ALWAYS better to building infrastructure than a warmachine. Building military units slows down your development (and raising taxes for warfare or buying military units rather than infrastructure slows down your development even more). So I avoid war at all costs. When I do get into a war, I go all out and crush the opponent as hard as possible in as little an amount of time as possible (eliminating as many forces as possible) and accept peace normally at the first oportunity. This forces the opponent to go rebuild his military for the next 50 turns while I imediately switch back to development. He gets farther behind, I get farther ahead. It's that simple.
Gord McLeod posted 11-17-98 08:44 PM ET
Who says Civilization is focused on war? I've played at least one game I can think of where I was *never* involved in a war (even including Barbarian attacks!), and in the vast majority of the games I play, wars that I become involved in are either very brief or are hollow diplomatic states with little or no actual combat.
BorgBTD posted 11-29-98 08:57 PM ET
About the units; The only units which are going to have a huge effect on the world are military units. Guy drives down the street in a car, who cares? Guy with a gun drives down street in tank, that gets on national news. This is a sad truth.
About the technology; Almost all technology can be used as a weapon. Airplanes, blastingpowder (gunpowder), ships, computers, and even tamed animals. Even the most civilized inventions are turned to war. This is a another sad truth.
About war itself; Believe it or not, war can be good. During war alliances and rade agreements are made. War cam be very civilized when it is preserve freedom. good wars; WWII and American Revolution; Sadly war most often waged for all the wrong reasons, resouces, land, just because you disagree, and instating a dictatorship. bad The only wars don't mind are the defensive kind. The object of war should not be to gain anything material.
War in Civ; Sadly CivilizationI&II seems to encourage bad war. Take over your enemies to gain land, cities, resources, technology, and win the game, and even just because you can. That is all.
Brother Greg posted 11-17-98 08:52 PM ET
Well, I have never played ANY game of CIV II where I wasn't involved in at least one war. That might be due to the fact that I NEVER say yes to demands for this or that though. It's the principle of the thing.
I wouldn't say that CIV is focused on war per se, but it is fairly accurate of human life on Earth to date. If we had accurate enough records, I doubt that there would have been a single year in human history where someone was not at war with somebody else.
And to a certain extent, CIV reflects this.
Sad, ain't it?
Brother Greg.
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey posted 11-17-98 11:05 PM ET
I read this somewhere. Out of humanity's entire written history, there have only been a total of 3-400 years without a war going on somewhere in the world. Sad if you think about it, but if you don't think about it, it's ok, I understand.
WAR!
Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general,
YYYH
Kirel posted 11-18-98 05:32 AM ET
We Are Right!
Wuff posted 11-18-98 06:56 AM ET
Well, Civilisation itself is basically an emulation of how humankind developed into what it is today. I suppose gamers are attracted to it...probably the thought of being able to 'shape' history itself gives them an illusion of power.
Back to the topic. As a civilisation grows, it comes into conflicts with other civilisations. Even if there are no other civilisations, conflicts will also arise within the civilisation itself. These conflicts can be resolved either by negotiation or war.
As you can see, war is part and parcel of a civilisation's survival. Without war and fighting, civilisations will crumble easily
Steel_Dragon posted 11-18-98 04:12 PM ET
Give Civ( and CIV2) credit it was the first conquer the world game were peace was an option. Although I find myself in wars if my jealous nation it was an option. I wished the AI learned that attacking me meant suicide, It would have been so much easy to matian trade relations. Speaking of which, I found mannually establishing trade routes a pain!
Grosshaus posted 11-18-98 04:56 PM ET
You speak the truth and nothing but the truth. I don't bother sending caravans to any else cities than the ones on the coast.
Mortis posted 11-19-98 02:10 AM ET
The only reason I was ever in wars was because I had too much pride to pay the Mongols 50 lousy gold pieces. I took me ages to get oved doing that.
dushan posted 11-19-98 06:14 AM ET
Me too :-)
Until not that long ago I've categorically refused to give in to extortion.
I was surprised how easy the higher difficulty settings became when I got over that :-)
talon54 posted 11-19-98 07:46 AM ET
YOU MAY NOT HAVE AN INTEREST IN WAR, BUT WAR HAS AN INTEREST IN YOU

-----TOLSTOY
AUH20 posted 11-29-98 07:07 PM ET
I only got into a war a few times. Like when I helped the Russians advance. I mean, all that territory and still in the industrial age? They had to be added to the Greater Persian Empire. And the Japanese-well the Japanese were occupying an island I wanted. And the Germans had acess to all those wondeful forests, and they provoked me besides. And the Aztecs had acess to the Panama Canal, which I needed. So as you can see, I only wage war when I really need to. And I only use nukes when I have ground forces to occupy the city...Or if it's a major metropolis and I'll cut heavily into industrial and economic growth...
Arnelos posted 11-29-98 07:44 PM ET
The key in Civ2 (from what I've done) seems to be avoiding war at all costs. If you can avoid war, allowing your cities to be building libraries and marketplaces rather than tanks, you will have a development edge in the game. Since democracy and republic are the best development governments, it is usually always best to have one or the other as your government. However, democracy makes war very difficult to manage unless you have huge cities (at which point you have so many entertainers that the population hardly notices that there are 8+ units out fighting a war for each city :-) ). Republic makes war more affordable, but it is ALWAYS better to building infrastructure than a warmachine. Building military units slows down your development (and raising taxes for warfare or buying military units rather than infrastructure slows down your development even more). So I avoid war at all costs. When I do get into a war, I go all out and crush the opponent as hard as possible in as little an amount of time as possible (eliminating as many forces as possible) and accept peace normally at the first oportunity. This forces the opponent to go rebuild his military for the next 50 turns while I imediately switch back to development. He gets farther behind, I get farther ahead. It's that simple.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: A thougt about Civilization
Kirel	posted 11-17-98 05:07 AM ET I had an annoying thought the other day For a game that is called Civilization (and the other one too),the gameplay is,strangely enough concentrated on war. War's not very civiliced,is it?
dushan	posted 11-17-98 07:49 AM ET I'd personally like to have more chances for peace too. I'd like to perform UN style peace keeping missions. Unfortunatelly, strategy game without war might be very, very boring (sort of like not very good simcity :-) ). To be controversial, why is war not civilised? Since the dawns of civlization, wars were fought to unite and expand empites.Egyptians, Romans, Greeks all fought great (and bloody) wars. And the tribes before them did too. Unlike animals, we have perfected war into a kind of art of killing. This has degraded in wars like WW1, but with new tech, it's becoming poetic again (seeing those beautiful jets just makes me want to join the RAF and kick some Iraqi ass :-) ). Ok, seriously, I'm personally a pacifist. I condemn wars, however I love playing war games. I don't quite know why. Our civilization is what it is because of the wars we faught. Now I hope that we've learnt enough over millennia and that the only wars we'll fight will be on SMAC. :-) Dushan
MikeH II	posted 11-17-98 07:54 AM ET It's a nice hope dushan, for some reason I can't see it happening just yet.
Kirel	posted 11-29-98 03:19 PM ET I strongly disagree with Wuff. War is as old as humankind,civilization is much younger. If war is a prerequisite for civilization,then several monkey speices are civilized. And we don't think they are,do we?
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey	posted 11-17-98 08:03 PM ET But how would the born warrior survive in a world without war??? Just a thought. YYYH
Arnelos	posted 11-29-98 07:43 PM ET The key in Civ2 (from what I've done) seems to be avoiding war at all costs. If you can avoid war, allowing your cities to be building libraries and marketplaces rather than tanks, you will have a development edge in the game. Since democracy and republic are the best development governments, it is usually always best to have one or the other as your government. However, democracy makes war very difficult to manage unless you have huge cities (at which point you have so many entertainers that the population hardly notices that there are 8+ units out fighting a war for each city :-) ). Republic makes war more affordable, but it is ALWAYS better to building infrastructure than a warmachine. Building military units slows down your development (and raising taxes for warfare or buying military units rather than infrastructure slows down your development even more). So I avoid war at all costs. When I do get into a war, I go all out and crush the opponent as hard as possible in as little an amount of time as possible (eliminating as many forces as possible) and accept peace normally at the first oportunity. This forces the opponent to go rebuild his military for the next 50 turns while I imediately switch back to development. He gets farther behind, I get farther ahead. It's that simple.
Gord McLeod	posted 11-17-98 08:44 PM ET Who says Civilization is focused on war? I've played at least one game I can think of where I was never involved in a war (even including Barbarian attacks!), and in the vast majority of the games I play, wars that I become involved in are either very brief or are hollow diplomatic states with little or no actual combat.
BorgBTD	posted 11-29-98 08:57 PM ET About the units; The only units which are going to have a huge effect on the world are military units. Guy drives down the street in a car, who cares? Guy with a gun drives down street in tank, that gets on national news. This is a sad truth. About the technology; Almost all technology can be used as a weapon. Airplanes, blastingpowder (gunpowder), ships, computers, and even tamed animals. Even the most civilized inventions are turned to war. This is a another sad truth. About war itself; Believe it or not, war can be good. During war alliances and rade agreements are made. War cam be very civilized when it is preserve freedom. good wars; WWII and American Revolution; Sadly war most often waged for all the wrong reasons, resouces, land, just because you disagree, and instating a dictatorship. bad The only wars don't mind are the defensive kind. The object of war should not be to gain anything material. War in Civ; Sadly CivilizationI&II seems to encourage bad war. Take over your enemies to gain land, cities, resources, technology, and win the game, and even just because you can. That is all.
Brother Greg	posted 11-17-98 08:52 PM ET Well, I have never played ANY game of CIV II where I wasn't involved in at least one war. That might be due to the fact that I NEVER say yes to demands for this or that though. It's the principle of the thing. I wouldn't say that CIV is focused on war per se, but it is fairly accurate of human life on Earth to date. If we had accurate enough records, I doubt that there would have been a single year in human history where someone was not at war with somebody else. And to a certain extent, CIV reflects this. Sad, ain't it? Brother Greg.
Yo_Yo_Yo_Hey	posted 11-17-98 11:05 PM ET I read this somewhere. Out of humanity's entire written history, there have only been a total of 3-400 years without a war going on somewhere in the world. Sad if you think about it, but if you don't think about it, it's ok, I understand. WAR! Your faithful & hell-bent NIMadier general, YYYH
Kirel	posted 11-18-98 05:32 AM ET We Are Right!
Wuff	posted 11-18-98 06:56 AM ET Well, Civilisation itself is basically an emulation of how humankind developed into what it is today. I suppose gamers are attracted to it...probably the thought of being able to 'shape' history itself gives them an illusion of power. Back to the topic. As a civilisation grows, it comes into conflicts with other civilisations. Even if there are no other civilisations, conflicts will also arise within the civilisation itself. These conflicts can be resolved either by negotiation or war. As you can see, war is part and parcel of a civilisation's survival. Without war and fighting, civilisations will crumble easily
Steel_Dragon	posted 11-18-98 04:12 PM ET Give Civ( and CIV2) credit it was the first conquer the world game were peace was an option. Although I find myself in wars if my jealous nation it was an option. I wished the AI learned that attacking me meant suicide, It would have been so much easy to matian trade relations. Speaking of which, I found mannually establishing trade routes a pain!
Grosshaus	posted 11-18-98 04:56 PM ET You speak the truth and nothing but the truth. I don't bother sending caravans to any else cities than the ones on the coast.
Mortis	posted 11-19-98 02:10 AM ET The only reason I was ever in wars was because I had too much pride to pay the Mongols 50 lousy gold pieces. I took me ages to get oved doing that.
dushan	posted 11-19-98 06:14 AM ET Me too :-) Until not that long ago I've categorically refused to give in to extortion. I was surprised how easy the higher difficulty settings became when I got over that :-)
talon54	posted 11-19-98 07:46 AM ET YOU MAY NOT HAVE AN INTEREST IN WAR, BUT WAR HAS AN INTEREST IN YOU -----TOLSTOY
AUH20	posted 11-29-98 07:07 PM ET I only got into a war a few times. Like when I helped the Russians advance. I mean, all that territory and still in the industrial age? They had to be added to the Greater Persian Empire. And the Japanese-well the Japanese were occupying an island I wanted. And the Germans had acess to all those wondeful forests, and they provoked me besides. And the Aztecs had acess to the Panama Canal, which I needed. So as you can see, I only wage war when I really need to. And I only use nukes when I have ground forces to occupy the city...Or if it's a major metropolis and I'll cut heavily into industrial and economic growth...
Arnelos	posted 11-29-98 07:44 PM ET The key in Civ2 (from what I've done) seems to be avoiding war at all costs. If you can avoid war, allowing your cities to be building libraries and marketplaces rather than tanks, you will have a development edge in the game. Since democracy and republic are the best development governments, it is usually always best to have one or the other as your government. However, democracy makes war very difficult to manage unless you have huge cities (at which point you have so many entertainers that the population hardly notices that there are 8+ units out fighting a war for each city :-) ). Republic makes war more affordable, but it is ALWAYS better to building infrastructure than a warmachine. Building military units slows down your development (and raising taxes for warfare or buying military units rather than infrastructure slows down your development even more). So I avoid war at all costs. When I do get into a war, I go all out and crush the opponent as hard as possible in as little an amount of time as possible (eliminating as many forces as possible) and accept peace normally at the first oportunity. This forces the opponent to go rebuild his military for the next 50 turns while I imediately switch back to development. He gets farther behind, I get farther ahead. It's that simple.