Are you a warmonger or a builder?

[GuitarHero]

I'm a habitual Builder, but when I get pissed at somebody or they take a City spot I wanted......................I GO ON A FREAKIN' RAMPAGE!!!!!!

RUN MONTEZUMA! RUN! I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU FOUND ISLAM FIRST AGAIN! I DARE YA!!!!!!!

Ow. My head feels like it's going to pop.

 

[GenocideBringer]

Even though I play with aggressive AIs on and am definitely not opposed to the occasional war, I consider myself a builder. I see war, when I DO use it, as a means to strengthen my empire and make other victory types more likely.

 

[DigitalBoy]

If I have the opportunity, I wage a classical era war on a neighbor. If my rivals are too far away, I wait for a mideval war. In my current game, I bum-rushed Louis XIV and conquered France by 100BC.

 

[magicalsushi]

I'm definitely a builder, but I usually manage to cripple or eliminate one unlucky rival during a game, using my tech advantage to build a small army capable of taking a city at a time without losing many troops. The only exceptions are when I aim for cultural victory or play a OCC - in those cases, I'm far too busy building must-have wonders to worry about mustering a decent attack force. In all other cases, I try to leverage my unique unit, and/or launch an attack wave when a new type of seige weapon becomes available. I never have enough troops to take on more than one rival per game though; instead, I have endless cottages and lots of sciencey buildings in almost every city.

 

[LiberiGlacialis]

Builder-warmonger hybrid. I've been going on rampage in the last few games I've played, but I usually have the needed infrastructure to support a few stacks and a few sacks before attacking. Only on Warlord level right now, though...

 

[Orion071]

I'm a building for sure, but I'm also an opportunist. I usually have a small but advanced army, and if a neighboring civ is falling behind in tech, well all the Macemen in the world won't help you defeat my Infantry.

 

[nbcman]

I'm a building for sure, but I'm also an opportunist. I usually have a small but advanced army, and if a neighboring civ is falling behind in tech, well all the Macemen in the world won't help you defeat my Infantry.

I'm the same way-or if see an early opportunity to weaken or knock out an AI. Other than that I am a pretty steady builder.

 

[Diamondeye]

I agree with Garbageinhere - see page 1.

Also, I noticed 3 people voted "Meep-meep"... Whackies...

 

[vixafox]

Builder by nature, but I cannot win on the higher levels just by building, so I make war as necessary. Usually that means fighting until I control one continent.

 

[Grimz101]

Warmongerer at the start, then since i fall behind in tech i go builder mode, and get stuck in it.. i mean in my last game Mansu declared war on me.. sure he was annoyed.. and had double my power rating since i did not upgrade my macemen/knight stacks.. funniest thing was though he invaded with Sam Infantry, Artillery, and Anti tanks My Cavalary raped his more advance units, i then pillaged about 10 turns untill i got tank tech, then i proceeded to wipe him off the continent .. i keep thinging ill build units when i get tanks.. so if i dont go for anyone when rifle techs come around, there is that whole gap between rifles and tanks for someone to invade me since i dont build any military units really ..

 

[Silence101]

With my production cities I'm a warmonger - with my commerce cities I'm a builder... so I end up with some strange hybrid of warmongering and building. (Though, I've always considered myself a warmonger.)

 

[Black Mech]

For me it's one early rush to eliminate a weak neghbor. Then build up my civ like mad and upgrade till i have cavalry, then look out world

 

[Bluetooth]

I consider myself a builder but my favorite leaders are Tokugawa and Ragnar, so I decided to vote a warmonger/builder. Probably that’s true.

 

[Snerk]

A definite warmogerer. Crouded maps and agressive AI is my kind of game. But although i love wars, i hate wars fougt with tons of units vs. tons of units.
Its booring and tedious. But nonetheless, im a definite warmongerer.
I civ to battle and i battle to civ. (or something like that i dunno...)

 

[GeezerGamer]

Yea, I'm a builder in a game that focuses on war.

No wonder why I don't do well.

 

[Matty R]

I'm a mix. I fully develop my empire while my rivals fight amongst themselves. I defend my borders and negotiate peace as soon as possible. Near the end of the tech tree I build my army, defend every city, set up defensive lines along my borders then turn to Warmonger, mercilessly annihilating everything.

Then I turn my PC on to have a break from my day job.

 

[Arlborn]

WAR????!?! What is that?

< builder

 

[DraconisRex]

I'm a builder because I find it's easier to win being a warmonger. With the most recent expansion pack, I'm having a harder time with the whole builder thing... Which is why I'm reading the forums again..

 

[KMadCandy]

i used to be a builder. now i wouldn't really call myself either. i think i'm kind of a diplomat so that i don't have to be pure warmonger. what i mean is, i'm not actually "buildering" in the typical sense, i'm doing whatever, maybe getting ready for a war (since i like to be realllllllllllllllllllllly ready when i declare). but i intensely focus on diplomatic relations so that i can use one or more AIs to warmonger with me or for me if somebody declares on me before i'm ready, or if i want to start crippling somebody ahead of time, etc.

but often what i'm doing is beeling my OCC to a diplo victory, which i don't think is typically what people mean by "builder". some of those games i don't go to war at all. some games i do stuff like gift people techs up to liberalism/FR so that religious tensions go away so that they don't go to war, because i want the world to stay peaceful so that i can trade without them coming at me with those annoying "worst enemy" demands.

i always qualify my posts with "i'm not a warmonger". but when i think about it more, what i really mean is that 95% of the time i don't fight my wars alone. my military power is never restricted to just what you see on the powergraph, i have power i can hire. power i don't have to spend hammers on or pay support for, and that whoever's preparing to bash me doesn't know about. that comes in really handy. downside is the helper gets to take over some cities/resources/land. in OCC that's not a downside as much, since i can't take over the cities myself in any case, altho i might have to raze them from the helper instead of the original owner if i'm going for conquest. in non-OCC it's just a calculated risk/benefit choice.

if "oddball" was an option i'd check that one!

 

[Silence101]

but often what i'm doing is beeling my OCC to a diplo victory, which i don't think is typically what people mean by "builder". some of those games i don't go to war at all. some games i do stuff like gift people techs up to liberalism/FR so that religious tensions go away so that they don't go to war, because i want the world to stay peaceful so that i can trade without them coming at me with those annoying "worst enemy" demands.

OCC scares me! No, usually my goal when I play is to take as much land as possible and expand my empire, so that by the end game I'm in position for a conquest victory or a space race victory - probably my two most common. I'd imagine with the OCC, I'd probably have to try a completely different way of thinking. It still blows my mind - I don't know how people do it. Obviously I've never played OCC... maybe I'll have to try it sometime.