Civilization - bad example?

Weird idea was put into my head...

I want to ask Civilization gurus... is it possible to win levels emperor and above without using aggressive tactics???
The only way i can win emperor myself is by beeing aggressive and by keeping more or less constant warfare.
Anybody won diety as a peaceful builder while having defensive wars only??
I am sure some people did, but I am also sure it is much easier to win a game while been aggressive.
Which is true in a real life. Aggressive empires usually controlled the world throught entire human history... Funny fact though that in many cases while invading other countries those empires always called them defensive wars. Good examples would be ancient Rome or modern USA.

Here is my point, Civilization can be a bad educational tool for younger generations. Lets say my son plays Civilization and after destroying Zulus he is thinking hard on what to do with his army and Who is the next target to wipe out of the map. Now, let's imagine this kid manages to become a president of United States and what his thoughts would be?
Something like: "Hmm, lets see, Saddam is gone, who should i target next?"

As i said it's just a weird idea, and i don't want to raise a political discussions here, but I just find it funny when i am imagining our president having a multiplayer game with Rumsfeld for example.

...IMHO they mistakenly *think* they play 'Regicide', that's why a couple of things go wrong


On topic:
While at least some aggressions are usually better, it is very well possible to win the game completely Pacifistic, without building a single military unit ever. And the whole Diplo victory condition makes peaceful strategies doable. Civ may be a bad example sometimes (Nukes!), but I think you can be more peaceful here than you ever could be in RL.

Some how I have a feeling that if your child is able to aspire to president he wont be influenced by a Civilization game, althought I wouldnt stake my reputation on that, since Bush isnt a genius himself. However, parents just need to make sure children understand the difference between a game and reality. I've been playing civilization since I was very young but I dont want to go out and conquer the world (well some times I do ;-)). But I just get tired of ppl blaming games for things kids do, and I'm not accusing you of doing this at all. I'm just hoping the day never comes where someone blames someone else for doing something because they played civilization, cause that would just be ridiculous.

EDIT: On a quick point for educational value, I think that Civ can be a great educational tool. The civolopedia is full of information about the different civilizations, units etc... And although this knowledge is pretty basic, it could enspire a child to go out and learn about these things. History is a useful thing to know, and Civ is definitly pretty good at teaching some of the basics and inspiring to learn more. I will say that some of the gameplay of civ may greatly "simplify" how things actually worked out, but it still is a good stepping stone of knowledge.

IceBeast said:

But I just get tired of ppl blaming games for things kids do, and I'm not accusing you of doing this at all. I'm just hoping the day never comes where someone blames someone else for doing something because they played civilization, cause that would just be ridiculous.

Click to expand...

i do agree....not blaming civilization... I think it is a great game....

It's just i can't get that visual out of my head of some above mentioned individuals playing Civilization. And know when I've been told they must be playing regicide it makes it even funnier.

It is pretty funny

I won a game without taking any cities on demigod as Egypt once. Continents.
Well, practically won, but then some bastard built the UN and got voted leader, but i was by far the most powerful and technologically advanced nation and winning the space race would've been a walk in the park.

Dogmeat said:

I won a game without taking any cities on demigod as Egypt once. Continents.
Well, practically won, but then some bastard built the UN and got voted leader, but i was by far the most powerful and technologically advanced nation and winning the space race would've been a walk in the park.

Click to expand...

Well... but you lost it.. so it doesn't count.. Although i do believe and I know it is possible to win game in a peacefull way, it is just not as easy as simply all your apponents.

Granted, it was "only" Emperor, but check out Charis's game with no military at all...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=43471

I've certainly won on deity with minimal to no military action, other than defending myself. How about deity OCC games, which are fairly common, where people win? It's certainly not necessary to bonk some heads to win.

I've not seen Sid beaten peacefully yet, but I'm not sure anybody's really tried. I'd wager pretty good odds it could be done.

Arathorn

Of course it's possible to beat the game without aggression. I just can't seem to win on Emporer and higher with aggression.

Tomoyo said:

Of course it's possible to beat the game without aggression. I just can't seem to win on Emporer and higher with aggression.

Click to expand...

I will have to learn how you guys do it...
I can't win a game without beating crap out of AIs first.

this is how u win any game kill two Civs off early on then u will win or
even easyer way is just copy the Ai strategy just keep building cities and when i say build cities i mean do what they do find a little piece of land in there terroity and build there and on little islands make it so there is no open place on the map excluding ocean squares and once u build all those cities build temples colleseums,etc but do that after u built a couple settlers

Crossed my mind too. It does instill a sense of necessity of war.

Colonel said:

this is how u win any game kill two Civs off early on then u will win or
even easyer way is just copy the Ai strategy just keep building cities and when i say build cities i mean do what they do find a little piece of land in there terroity and build there and on little islands make it so there is no open place on the map excluding ocean squares and once u build all those cities build temples colleseums,etc but do that after u built a couple settlers

Click to expand...

I am not sure i understood what you wanted to say..
If you suggest to kill two Civs early that means you are not a peaceful builder but aggressive one.

A person must be able to separate reality from video games, so I do not think that Civ in itself sets a bad example. There are plenty of anti-war people on these forums (just go to OT) who are vicious when it comes to playing Civ. Despite what the media would have us believe, video games are not the cause of violence in our society, and I do not think that Civ is a promotor of war.

i think all OCC Diety SGs are examples of peaceful diety games.

I can already imagine the trial of the next world tyrant : "It's not my fault, I played Civilization when I was young"

But CIV is never a purely agressive game. You always need to research tech, use diplomacy, build infrastructure to win, even in small amounts.
...

I wonder, that could be a challenge (or one of Arathon's variant), a pretty hard one. A game where you MUST put science slider to 0%, NEVER acquire a tech from trading, never speak to the AI, and you're only allowed to build settlers, military units and military buildings (i.e, barracks). No hut popping either. I'd call it the FPS variant (for the main and sole goal is ruthless killing). I don't think you could win on a level over regent. And I don't think you could win on a map bigger than small... Has anyone tried anything like that ?

I have never won on Deity without going to war.

A question from my girlfriend's six year old sister one night over dinner: "Michael, do you think i should make peace with the Romans and then kill them all?". Deathly silence. "Ummm, that depends..."

Sweeeeet moment.

On whether or not they have contact with other civs?

That's funny, tho.

Waiguo_Chaoren:

She will probably become a presidential advisor... hawkish republican perhaps...

This was really funny!

Waiguo_Chaoren said:

I have never won on Deity without going to war.

A question from my girlfriend's six year old sister one night over dinner: "Michael, do you think i should make peace with the Romans and then kill them all?". Deathly silence. "Ummm, that depends..."

Sweeeeet moment.

Click to expand...

Reading this brought me first smile this morning
It is funny