12-06-2001 04:39									#1
	World conquest - only possible for an alliance? Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

This began life as a post in the "civil war" thread, but it was suggested that it might provoke wider interest as a thread of its own - so here goes:

It's looking as though out-and-out aggressive militarists are going to find it much harder to hold on to their conquered territories in Civ3, if one considers the comments that have been made about the culture factor and likelihood of rebellions, etc. And this is realistic historically: VERY large empires simply cannot be maintained for long. Areas that are geographically far removed from the centre of govt. will always want to split off and go it alone.

So in a realistic Civ3, anyone with a very large empire should EXPECT civil war as a matter of course. And what would really be great -- IF Firaxis have implemented "minor civs" in the way I hope -- is if, instead of settling everything on the battlefield, you could instead ALLOW rebellious provinces their freedom (as new minor civs), but then set up a close alliance with them. This would allow a de facto world power to be sustained, not as a single civ, but as an alliance of civs with a common cultural heritage and mutual interests. And the ALLIANCE (not a single player) could then be in a position to achieve world conquest (with the major credit of course going to the HP leading the largest member state).

In fact some might go so far as to say that it should be virtually impossible - or at least EXTREMELY difficult - for a HP to achieve world conquest single-handedly with only one civ.

What do people think?

	13-06-2001 00:00									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Ilkuul In fact some might go so far as to say that it should be virtually impossible - or at least EXTREMELY difficult - for a HP to achieve world conquest single-handedly with only one civ.

Hmm! This is a bump-reply, because I think this topic needs a second chance. Frankly, Im a little surprised that not more war-hawks have responded to this subject.

I agree, that world-conquerings should only be possible indirectly by the clever use of allied vassal-civs. Even then, this particular victory-alternative should be one of the hardest to achieve. And not the easiest one - as in Civ-2. Maybe 75% direct/indirect world-control could be the minimum to achieve this victory-condition.

	13-06-2001 00:05									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Civ/smac/etc have always been a game of global conquest, wether by economic, cultural, militarty, or any other means you can think up.

i really dont like how "anti-military" this little fourm society is.

i always play startegy games as a militarist, even though in retrospect, all previous games were centered on it.

i will probably bring my militarist attitude over to civ, and if that is how i want to take over the world, i should be able to do so. you can take over the world with your temples and flowerly peace accords.

who said im not better than the Nazis?

	13-06-2001 00:30									#4
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

So you're saying you don't want much of a challenge, or to have to balance many aspects in order to dominate the world militarily? Diplomacy would be essential for world conquest, as would vassal states. Hitler had Finland, Vichy France, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Croatia as puppet regimes, and that was just for the conquest of Europe

	13-06-2001 00:49									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by UberKruX I will probably bring my militarist attitude over to civ, and if that is how i want to take over the world, i should be able to do so.

Yes, but why should the militaristic victory-option be the easiest one to achieve, as it was in Civ-2? Whats wrong with a tougher conquer-the-world challenge? Particulary, if it also adds gameplay and more realism to the game.

Some update-info already indicates that conquering other Civ-cultures will be much harder in Civ-3. The AI:s ability to conduct "alternative warfare" against the human player have been greatly enhanced. The AI-civs can now sign pacts and effectively strangle both your trade (needed for unit-support) and your special resource-import (without it, you cannot produce more combat-units, unless you have these resources currently under city-area or colony-control).

You can counteract this somewhat by establish trusty ally-relations with at least 1-2 AI-civs, and/or choose nationalism or communism as somewhat less blockade-vulnerable government-types. But, the point is: You cannot (and should not be able to) conquer-the-world in arrogant "splendid isolation" anymore. You MUST use your brain also - brawns alone shoudnt be enough.

	13-06-2001 00:57									#6
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I think that the important aspect to understand here is that there is no historical analog to complete military world domination.

The British came close in the 17th/18th centuries but even then their control was build on alliances/subjecation treaties.

This is not say that complete world conquest should not be possible, but pretty damn hard - after all if individuals like Napoleon and Alexander could not manage it why should we be able to repeat it in every single game of Civ that we play.

	13-06-2001 01:41									#7
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: quoted from Ralf Yes, but why should the militaristic victory-option be the easiest one to achieve, as it was in Civ-2? Whats wrong with a tougher conquer-the-world challenge? Particulary, if it also adds gameplay and more realism to the game.

i never said i wanted it to be the EASIEST option available, im just contesting all the people who wish to almost eradicate it from the game.

i'll go point by point.

quote: ]quoted from Ikull historically: VERY large empires simply cannot be maintained for long. Areas that are geographically far removed from the centre of govt. will always want to split off and go it alone.

the point of civ is to "rewrite the past" -- Sid Mier himself said that.

quote: quoted from Ralf I agree, that world-conquerings should only be possible indirectly by the clever use of allied vassal-civs. [...] But, the point is: You cannot (and should not be able to) conquer-the-world in arrogant "splendid isolation" anymore.

who were the romans allied with? i honestly can't say who.

but they took over a lot of land.

and hell, if civ 3 is evil about me taking overf other culture's cities, i'll just pummel them into the ground.

military victory again.

	13-06-2001 02:06									#8
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by UberKruX who were the romans allied with? i honestly can't say who. but they took over a lot of land.

They didnt take enough - Rome never conquered the planet.

China at the time was about just as large, and just as powerful empire, as Rome was. They lived side by side, and they hardly even knew about each other existence.

	13-06-2001 02:11									#9
	Tired of ads?

ah ha my friend. Rome did conquer the world. the KNOWN WORLD anyway.

	13-06-2001 02:28									#10
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by UberKruX ah ha my friend. Rome did conquer the world. the KNOWN WORLD anyway.

Yeah, what was KNOWN to them, mostly, they never conquered the Germanic Tribes, nor the Persians. But if all you want to do in Civ is conquer the "KNOWN WORLD" I suppose you're just contented the second you build your first city. After all, that is all the world that is known to you, isn't it?

	13-06-2001 02:29									#11
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by UberKruX: who were the romans allied with? i honestly can't say who. but they took over a lot of land. and hell, if civ 3 is evil about me taking overf other culture's cities, i'll just pummel them into the ground.

The Romans didn't ONLY pummel people into the ground! They actually paid a lot of respect to local systems of government and traditions, allowing conquered nations to continue governing themselves wherever possible (cf. the Jews, many Greek city-states, etc.); and they often entered 'client' or vassal agreements with existing rulers rather than pummelling them into the ground (cf. Herod the Great).

Let me say this, though: I sympathise a lot with what you're saying. I've been a shameless civ militarist for many years -- I enjoy conquering the world! But it just seems that in Civ3, after we've pummelled cities into the ground they won't STAY pummelled! We'll have endless revolts to deal with, our hard-won empire will start falling apart, and we'll be in for a lot frustration if we don't adapt to the new conditions and learn how to develop culture, build alliances, etc.

Adapt or die about sums it up! And I suspect alliances will be a crucial part of it.

	13-06-2001 05:01									#12
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

World conquest should be very hard to achief. And if you warmongers want to conquer the whole world anyway you can always play on chieftain level

	13-06-2001 05:52									#13
	Tired of ads?

Paul: you wanna fight the first day we get civ 3?

my "war mongering" ass will leave you begging for mama.

	13-06-2001 06:11									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

No UberKruX, the cities you conquered from me will revolt and return under my rule, because they so much like my fabulous culture

	13-06-2001 20:13									#15
	Increase Your PM Length

the concept of revolting and rejoining an old ruler is vauge to say the least.

i'm sad to say more than half of the game, as we know it, has been pieced together on two-bit theories we all came up with.

i bet civ 3 is going to be a real suprise to all of us.