Building war for peace
In Civ 4 one builds a huge army, some defense and a few pillage armies. There you go. If your enemy is weak you take his land, grow bigger thus you have practically won the game.
I think that lots and lots of weapons, biological and nuclear would pose such a big threat to the world and economy that people rather NOT go to war. Disrupting democracy and posing as a threat should have negative consequences for the civ in question.
Like in todays political climate I would like to see all the incentives for not going to war in industrial and modern age, and bigger benefits for wielding trade and economy, diplomacy, and building a civilization in general.
My two cents =)
I think historically the world has shown us otherwise. I mean, the amount of money countries like the US and China spend on military is enormous.
Plus, a large part of Civ is pre-modern era where wars were far more common anyways. I see no need to take warring out on a basis of realism. Plus, the realism argument is always dumb since this is a game.
I think it is an interesting point. Look at countries like Switzerland who are both economically developed and disinterested in building up any kind of military: as a result, they have fairly good relations with everyone, and enjoy the positive trade relations that result from that.
I feel like there is already benefits like this in Civ 4, but what's really missing is a deeper AI reaction to such a strategy in my opinion. If a given country doesn't develop their military but they have proved useful to an AI country in terms of trade, I feel like that should be weighed more heavily in their decisions to attack said country (which, as far as I can tell, is pretty much just determined by relative military strength and whether outright donations have been given to the AI country).
For instance, in the real world no one would bother to attack Switzerland. Not because they have nothing of value, but because of the knowledge that they:
* Provide beneficial goods and services
* Stand little chance of posing an actual threat
* Hold complex and deep relations with many other countries that would result in ill will and potential counterattacks if someone were to attack them unprovoked.
It's that subtle relationship that could stand to be improved in Civ 5, though that is obviously no easy task.
The difference though is that Civ is a game with objectives. You're trying to win, not improve the quality of life for your cities.
I mean, winning is really not something you can ignore, this isn't some SIM game. If conquering another nation gets you closer to victory you should do it regardless of what the real world parallel would have done.
That's right, this isn't a typical sim game. However that doesn't mean you can't have a more realistic diplomacy/improving on already existing ideas.
And we already have religious, diplomatic and space race victory, so why not invest a little more in them. It wouldn't hurt to make stuff a little more realistic in that sense either, it would only give more dimension and immersion to the game.
Originally Posted by Cashew
Winning should entail improving the quality of life for cities. If war was always the better option then that would be a sign that the diplomacy is broken. The fact that a country like switzerland can prosper in real life and not get attacked is something that Civ V ought to attempt to model better. It also helps improve gameplay- that I can continue playing from behind - play a game where I work on being a useful trade partner to stave off war rather than just giving techs away/building troops.
I do think the key here is including some of the economic and trade-route type enhancements that have been floating around these forums
I believe that time period where war was common was the dark ages. They didn't advance for a reason. They had too many funds spent towards military and war and not science or education for example.
Originally Posted by Cashew
I think this dude is on to something.
Erm, that's sort of nonsense though. In classical times there was great enlightenment, fueled by the acquisition of slaves which was in turn fueled by the many many wars the mediterranian empires fought in.
Originally Posted by satsui
I hope I don't have to go into any more detail about why the above statement is nonsense