My First War Victory - Is it normal to feel this bad?

danieladler - Again, I don't get it. Unless you play an ENTIRELY passive game (no barb farming, no capturing workers from CSs, no war to get cities in a peace deal), you are committing major felonies of moral turpitude. How do you "morally" justify one and not the other?
committing major felonies of moral turpitude?lol I think those things are common even in reality.
 
Even Gandhi will DoW you if you're weak enough. It's rather funny seeing him say "It wasn't very nice of me to pretend to be your friend, but I need your stuff" or whatever it is they say when they DoW a Friend. :p
Hypocrite. But i kind of like this unpredictability. If the traits of every leader are 100% cut and dried ,this game will lose many lusters.one big charm of the civ is that every game is a brand-new game and you have to handle different situations cause you can not take anything for granted.
 
For me, it depends on the civ as well. I generally don't regret eliminating Alex, Attila or Shaka out of the game, but it's harder sometimes; watching Pacal defeated has always dismayed me...
I also do not regret eliminating Alex as well. Some warmongers receive no mercy even in a virtual game.
 
This must be why I rarely play domination. I normally can't bring myself to attack civs who haven't done anything to me. That's why the schizophrenic AI that everyone loves to complain about actually makes things somewhat easier in that department, by more often doing things that make you want to kill them.
The Schizophrenic AIs sometimes demand something from me and behave like they treat me as their best friend, then when another hegemonist denounce me, they follow. So irritating to see this sort of ungrateful bastards.They do not know that I actually tried very hard to balance my own fiscal situation or happiness rate, when they want me to help them out. I was naive enough to think that if I am friendly enough, I will be rewarded or at least not be betrayed. Then more often than not, it turned out that I was indeed too naive.
 
Well, let's see:

- Barb farming is murdering non-combatants;
- stealing workers from CSs and barbs is kidnapping/slavery, also international slave trade;
- going to war and killing civilians and taking their land - could be war crimes - just because the opponent gives the city as a peace deal.

I think these would qualify as felonies in most jurisdictions, and are crimes of moral turpitude.
 
Don't forget genocide and purgery of religions.
 
War victories can take long sometimes since cities can often be guarded by a range of mountains that prevent your ranged units from firing. Not having most of the capitals by the 1800s can often seem like you have wasted your time..
 
I would wish that the game was designed so you actually did care a bit more about your decisions and their consequenses, moral etc. But you just see a city hex with a number on it that gets halved from 20 to 10 after you have nuked it, and a bit of fallout and pillaged terrain that you can clean up fast with your workers. After a few years there will be no signs of a nuclear holocaust at all. No long term effects, no suffering just halved numbers on city tiles and you just clean it up and life goes on. No atomic winters, no disastrous increases in death from cancer, no lands that are radioactive wastelands for a thousand years. The people in the land that had one of its cities nuked will actually be happier because happiness stands in relation to the number of your population. If it decreases people get happier. Facepalm. What a wonderful world with easy sollutions to the most horrible weapons ever made! And all the civs are mad at you because you waged a war, no matter if you used nukes or not. The civ games have always been a bit sterile when it comes to these matters.

If you feel any sadness or remorse when you destroy cities its because of your own imagination and roleplaying, not the game itself unfortunately. Civs that act as irrational as they do in CiV are not waking up any emotions in you, except emotions of frustration and hatred over how false and backstabbing they all are. Building a relation with a civ is non existent. The most friendly civs will join the wave of denounciation or dow against you any turn, no matter how much you have done for that particular civ. A small civ will even hate you for defeating civs that attacks that small civ. You dont feel a thing when you wipe a civ from the map, because you know that all the civs will sooner or later try and do the same to you. Thats the basic game mechanics.

This is a good thread though, because it points out one of the major issues with the basic concepts of the Civ-games.

While the loss of global warming as a development consequence is unfortunate (seriously, why'd they eliminate that?), 1000 year radioactive wastelands are a fantasy of the anti-nuke camp. Nagasaki and Hiroshima are living vibrant cities today, not nuclear wastelands.
 
I have a similar problem, but possibly worse. I don't even like attacking some of the warmongering civs, just because I like their leaders, such as Dido and Askia... it always breaks my heart when they attack me. if I end up winning, I can never bring myself to wipe them out, and end up trying to nurture and protect their last city and capital in the hopes they'll reform into a friendly and peaceful neighbour.

Spoiler :
Except Shaka, that guy can be flayed alive for all I care.


1000 year radioactive wastelands are a fantasy of the anti-nuke camp. Nagasaki and Hiroshima are living vibrant cities today, not nuclear wastelands.

This is false and demonstrates a very poor understanding of the subject.
 
Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
This is false and demonstrates a very poor understanding of the subject.

Really? So they aren't healthy modern cities? I call shenanigans.

Don't get me wrong, there are definitely consequences of nuclear detonation. But permanently toxifying an area is not usually one of them. (Certainly not when used offensively as a destructive weapon - ideal destructive conditions correspond to the lowest fallout impact. Namely, to destroy the most stuff, you want the weapon to detonate in the air).

This is reasonably accurate and agrees with analyses by actual nuclear physicists and ground measurements: http://zidbits.com/2013/11/is-nagasaki-and-hiroshima-still-radioactive/
 
This argument is off topic, ill conceived, ignorant, culturally insensitive, and conducive to tasteless tangential debate. The current state of Nagasaki and Hiroshima mean about as much where the long term effects of modern weaponized nuclear weapons are concerned as an example of a pin prick proving sharp objects aren't lethal. I shouldn't even respond to this, but I hope to diffuse this before it de-rails the topic by pointing out the state of those two cities was not what I was declaring as false.

There is a wealth of information all over the internet I suggest you take a look at if you're interested in the subject. I will not respond again so don't bother arguing here.
 
Nagasaki and Hiroshima are living vibrant cities today, not nuclear wastelands.
Those were two minuscule bombs compared to the thousands of missiles we have on Earth that are thousands of times more powerful.

Moderator Action: Please see the warning in the post above and heed it. Thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Anyhow, it would be neat if you could adjust how powerful bombs would be and that would change cost and resource usage.

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
 
I have trouble taking out my friends, If everyone that's hostile to me gets defeated and only friends is left....?

I go for diplomatic or science victory and end the map and forget about my domination attempt.

But if friend backstab me after thousands of years of friendship my Panzers will roll across their borders and take all their cities for myself. :)

Unless I'm so close to winning and they backstab me like five turns before my victory then i will stay on track anyways and ignore their upset cries as I proceed to win the map and end it.

Although I've been backstabbed once then became friends again somehow. Temporary lapse in insanity I say.
 
Warmonger. The world will be burnt into ashes if you were the president of the USA .lol

Warmonger reporting for duty. No qualms - kill them, kill them all. Even the friendly ones cause offense just by being there, in my way. :mad: Not with nukes though; more fun up close and personal.

Lucky it's only a game. :lol:
 
When I saw that the newest post in this thread was by someone named "warmonger", I figured it was pretty certain that they wouldn't feel "bad" about warring. :D
 
And I like how his logo is the tech picture in civ IV for corporation. :lol:


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
 
There has to be some kind of metaphor for how evil corporations are but I like my stuff. :p


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
 
Top Bottom