I am technically a warmonger, but with egypt i build in my capital and bigger cities and get 20 GP or such with obelisks before they obsolete. I use all of them to improve my capital (If they're prophets) and watch the enemy suffer.
I try to rule my civilization according to how I would rule a modern-day country. I try to be nice and almost never attack anyone, but if I am attacked, I will defend myself aggressively of course.
I think Civ 4 is much more fun trying to optimize your civ with peaceful means. Warmongering is more suitable to RTS-games...
I like building... BUT whether I'm #1 on the power graph or at the bottom somebody wants a fight. So I have a tendency to war with that civ until I vassal them or they destroy me. Then if I win 'Oh my whatever will I do with this stack of troops?' thus begins the next world war.
On the one hand, I find a totally peaceful game boring and will sometimes just maneuver myself into a war...on the other hand I'm simply not very aggressive, so my early game is not only very builder-esque, it's SLOW. I usually have maybe 3-4 cities by the AD's, instead of the generally recommended 6-8...
i love the idea of two very well developed and powerful nations going for a good old fashioned slog without nukes.... so i guess im a builder in the early part of the game and turn warmonger in the latter part
I'm a builder. I would much rather found a religion or build a wonder then to take one from someone else, and I rarely declare war(Though if someone DoWs me I will generally take 2-3 of their cities if possible). I will declare war on another if they either threaten me(For example, my neighbor founds an opposing religion. I generally want to wipe them out before their religion can spread) of if they have a resource I need or some other economic advantage I can't obtain without going to war.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.