Conquering seems to be the only way sometimes

starshooter

Chieftain
Joined
May 17, 2013
Messages
1
No matter what I seem to do, the game always forces me into conquering the world or losing. There is seemingly no way around it.

For example, in a recent game as Netherlands I decided I would make a tall nation that traded, was friendly with most people, and dominated the world economically. I founded two cities and was immediately beset by Alexander, my southern neighbor.
I won the war (barely, my capital had about one hit left at one point but I had killed all his melee units), and managed to continue with my strategy. I made friends and trading partners out of Ethiopia and the Ottomans, traded with the Indians, and watched as The Mongols were demolished by Rome. Alexander was denounced by basically everyone, and I built 3 more cities and settled in at 5 giant cities. Using Polders, Rotterdam grew to over size 40 before the industrial era.
But later on, Rome attacked and I was once again forced into conflict. I took over some Roman cities, and tried to trade them away but ended up puppeting them.
That was about when I met the other continent. Washington was in the Atomic Era while I was just beginning the industrial. To catch up, I had to conquer Greece, Rome, India, and the Russians on the other continent. Otherwise, I would have lost.

There is no way out, in civ 5 you will always have to fight. It annoys me.

Moderator Action: Renamed the thread.
 
No matter what I seem to do, the game always forces me into conquering the world or losing. There is seemingly no way around it.

For example, in a recent game as Netherlands I decided I would make a tall nation that traded, was friendly with most people, and dominated the world economically. I founded two cities and was immediately beset by Alexander, my southern neighbor.
I won the war (barely, my capital had about one hit left at one point but I had killed all his melee units), and managed to continue with my strategy. I made friends and trading partners out of Ethiopia and the Ottomans, traded with the Indians, and watched as The Mongols were demolished by Rome. Alexander was denounced by basically everyone, and I built 3 more cities and settled in at 5 giant cities. Using Polders, Rotterdam grew to over size 40 before the industrial era.
But later on, Rome attacked and I was once again forced into conflict. I took over some Roman cities, and tried to trade them away but ended up puppeting them.
That was about when I met the other continent. Washington was in the Atomic Era while I was just beginning the industrial. To catch up, I had to conquer Greece, Rome, India, and the Russians on the other continent. Otherwise, I would have lost.

There is no way out, in civ 5 you will always have to fight. It annoys me.

War is a part of the history of mankind, no matter witch civilization, conquering was necessary. But, which dificulty are you playing on? The only dificulties that force you to conquer to win is Deity Immortal, other than that you can win without conquest.
 
Could you name a great empire that never fought? Neither can I.
 
Have you tried a game with domination shut off as a victory condition? The other option is to play with an island map which negates or delays war for a long time.

I too like playing peaceful games, but more and more, I have found war to be necessary. I am still used to Civ IV where you could just grow your borders and make these beautiful cities with just a few troops to defend.
 
Top Bottom