Well, if ciV is a war-game its a pretty crappy one. I suppose tactics ogre is a wargame? Maybe tower-defense is too? Units must be bought and killed in both.
The ai sucks, the naval side is a mess, strategy is limited and (if war is all that matters) its techs are ass-backward...
How you play is your choice, but do not push your misguided concepts upon me. Maybe the critics and rating associations got the game's genre wrong? Maybe all the fans are wrong? Fix trading? Nope, why? CiV is a wargame... Alliances? No, this is a wargame. While the genres of gaming are increasingly blended, this is outrageous.
It's nothing to do with genres 'blending', it's a fundamental misunderstanding by the OP about how game mechanics work. Some games have unlimited stacking, regardless of genre - games like previous Civ computer games or the wargame Risk - others have limited stacking (Tactics, Civ the original boardgame, Total War campaign mode [sure, a 20-unit limit is a big stack, but it's still a limit] etc.), and others 1UPT (chess, Civ V, Tigris & Euphrates, Settlers of Catan...). Mechanics are tools used by different genres - Civ-like tech trees were pioneered by the Civ series, but now turn up in everything from RTSes to RPGs. The same with the Civilopedia, which has given rise to in-game encyclopedias that are almost universal. Civ V adopts a social policy selection system derived ultimately from the tech system introduced in the first Diablo game, but that does not entail that Civ V is a hack-and-slash. Civ IV had talking units when you clicked them, an RTS staple first introduced in Warcraft (I believe). Was Civ IV an RTS? Any game is a product of the way multiple mechanics are incorporated into the whole, and the purpose they serve.
I really wish Civ 5 had a more Total War type of combat; SoD for main map movement and then combat on a separate map. It would help the AI immensely in terms of combat. Imagine a pseudo-chess like combat
Though as I detailed elsewhere the AI in Total War, while better than Civ V's, does some pretty dumb things, and tends to favour overly-predictable tactics in the combat view that are readily-exploitable.
As a complete aside, since there's been a discussion about the origin of certain game types, to describe the dual-map system as "Total War style" surely does the X-COM series an injustice. UFO: Enemy Unknown used a base-management and movement campaign map with a separate tactics-based battle map back in 1994 (although the global map was real-time while the battle map was turn-based until X-COM: Apocalypse), while Shogun: Total War was only released in 2000.
No, the original DooM. The whole idea of using a First-Person camera came from Wing Commander.
Are you sure about that? Wing Commander was released for Atari, but many pre-Atari era RPGs had first-person views, even back to the days when they were mainly text-based. The graphics capability didn't exist to make video first-person views, but look at (say) The Bard's Tale from the late '80s, in which the main view was a first-person perspective that shifted from one still to the next as you moved. The computer version of Space Hulk, released a couple of months before Doom, used a first-person camera view in a shoot-em-up, and it wasn't hailed as anything especially innovative then.
Since when hasnt civ been pretty much a wargame? I mean sure, it charades around like it has all these other features and junk, but for the most part its just a turn based RTS.
Read this back to yourself slowly, paying particular attention to the meaning of the phrase Real Time Strategy. A turn-based Real Time Strategy game is ... a strategy game? RTS games vary; traditional RTSes, like the Warcraft or Age of Empires series, are not wargames in any meaningful sense - more than anything they're economy sims, where the goal is to build a bigger economy and smash your opponent's. You turn bits of your economy into things called units that go out and do damage by costing the enemy equivalent or (ideally) greater amounts of resources, but the fact that they have graphics that make them look like marines with guns or orcs doesn't entail that you're playing a wargame, any more than the fact that chess has static, peaceful-looking pieces without weapons implies that chess isn't a wargame. You don't meaningfully employ tactics in a classic or classic-style RTS - flanking has no more effect than attacking frontally, for example, and few RTS games offer meaningful formation options such as forming your units into ranks.
With the exception of the phenomenal wargame RTS Cossacks, which is rather unique in the RTS pantheon, it's only in more modern, wargame-inspired RTSes like Company of Heroes that such things as terrain, line of sight, cover and morale exist; in these latter games you fight for territorial control of key sites, but this is not the case in a game like Starcraft where the objective is just to damage and ultimately destroy the other guy's bases. There are even RTSes that have technological or other victory conditions that don't rely on wiping out the opposition, such as the Age of Empires system where scenarios can be won by advancing to the next era or by controlling all the wonders scattered around the landscape (the latter a precursor of the Company of Heroes/Dawn of War style territory control system).
In short, yes Civ has many gameplay elements in common with an RTS - it's based on a system of 'bases' that produce resources which are poured into units and technology, it rewards players who expand early and often, and a common route to victory is to wipe out the opposition's bases (although only a few RTSes actually allow you to commandeer your rivals' bases once conquered) - but it does not follow that it's a wargame because RTSes are varied and, in their traditional form (which was derived from games like the existing Civilization, rather than vice versa) are not wargames but are wholly strategy (i.e. management) focused.
...
And that further proves how bogus this entire argument of yours is.
Eeeh...
