At Last: Warmongering

[binhthuy71]

In all of the time that I've played Civ (Since 1991) I was always a reluctant warmonger. Nothing against it (In a game) I just tend to be a builder and warmongering interferes with building. The game was becoming a bit stale so I decided to investigate the possibilities of warmongering. It's breathed new life into the game for me. Although the basics of building a robust empire are the same the options for diplomacy and some of the teching change a bit when war is the goal from the outset.

Has anyone else gone from peaceable builder to warmonger or vice-versa and, if so, why?

 

[Antilogic]

I was a peaceful builder back in Civ2. I liked pretty cities and the farmland.

Since Civ3 came out, though, I've gotten more aggressive on the board (call it teenage angst ). My Civ4 games are 80-90% domination and conquest wins, with 10% other (combined diplomacy, space race, and cultural).

 

[Glassfan]

The game was becoming a bit stale so I decided to investigate the possibilities of warmongering. It's breathed new life into the game for me.

In touch with your inner barbarian! Welcome to the dark side.

 

[binhthuy71]

In touch with your inner barbarian! Welcome to the dark side.

There is a mad joy in taking all of the techniques of careful tile development, use of specialists, etc., and turning them to destruction.

 

[AlphaShard]

Personally I love destroying Civ's while it's still the 3000 BC era.

 

[naterator]

I go back and forth, but i was born a builder. It's a tough habit to break but more fun than a warmonger going builder.
To really kill those builder urges, sometimes i like to go full-on destruction mode as well, razing every city i take, sometimes keeping a vassal or 2 if i need an airbase on a long haul. Conquest victory on huge maps with 12 cities is about as non-builder as you can get. Hunting down the random cities the AI settles in the void you create is annoying, but cavalry on auto-explore do it well, and winning a conquest victory because barbarian riflemen conquered some city you can't find is hilarious.

 

[Monsterzuma]

I may have been builder-ish as a kid playing Civ1. Nowadays I am an all-out warmonger. In my opinion, the competition element of war is what distinguishes civ from a stagnant, boring game like Sim City. It gives the "building" a competetive purpose and elevates the gameplay beyond "just always make the best investment" to "make as good investments as you can get away with in the political situation". The need to balance investment and mobilization is what gives the game the needed additional dimension to keep it interesting.

 

[mariogreymist]

I would say my first 50 wins at Civ IV (mostly on vanilla) were cultural or space race wins. At this point, it's been so long since I've gone for either, I can't remember how (not really). What I noticed was that as I moved up to Monarch level, I needed a significant military to execute a cultural win. (to defend my territory) The problem was, my "significant" military often became so strong that there was no reason for me to not kill off a weak neighbor and work all his cottages for myself. And once one starts down this path, the tendency is to build leads in both power and tech which make each successive conquest easier than the last.

So now I play for a military win, and (when not playing bloodlust, which I do often) if the potential for a certain (AKA not 99.9%) win via space or culture becomes simpler than the conquest/domination route, I will take it. Not that it ever happens, except when I am so far ahead in tech it's irrelevant what path I take.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Personaly I am a builder but I have an interesting strategy.
I only ever allow conquest victory and I build my self up completely ignoring the AI. I laugh at their threats and I slowly tech away untill they atack me. Than I counterstrike, conquer their lands and continue building them up.
Eventualy, this ends with a conquest victory every time.

 

[w2w2w]

i used to just go for a time victory... but that got harder as you went up the difficulties. war mongering is.... entertaining... how when you capture some one they want to end the war abruptly but when they are winning they would never end the war quickly. But my favorite is the UU+ forest growing on hills+ barracks and general. that makes it nearly easy to destroy some stack of units.

 

[ICNP]

I tend to wait for the next military tech. But in my current OCC vs. Aggressive AI, being a builder is extremely boring once you have every non-BFC tile covered in Mines/Fort (I have way too many workers).

Just had that game go from Peace to 3 front war in 3 turns. I razed 5 cities before I was done. It felt good...until the AI just sent out settlers to the spots again. I have a problem getting the production needed for long wars, especially without additional cities to back me up.

 

[kochman]

Has anyone else gone from peaceable builder to warmonger or vice-versa and, if so, why?

Yes, and the reason why is that is how I am able to keep up in the harder difficulties... the computer can grow better in emperor and immortal (haven't dared deity yet) that I can't seem to compete without brute force and ignorance.

 

[Rosebud]

I used to be a builder too (since Civ1) but now I've seen the errors of my ways. After all, what's the reason that prevents me from building everything in every city ? Those pesky AIs, of course ! They just won't leave me alone minding my own business.

So I just get rid of them. THEN, when the game is over and the world is mine, I can build everything I want in peace.

 

[Antilogic]

Heh, we have a lot of converts to the "Peace Through Strength" philosophy.

 

[kochman]

Heh, we have a lot of converts to the "Peace Through Strength" philosophy.

Its been applied in history pretty efficiently too... then you get the strength through strength types that just don't know when to stop... or the strength through peace types that live in lala land.

 

[mariogreymist]

Heh, we have a lot of converts to the "Peace Through Strength" philosophy.

The world will be peaceful...


...when my enemies are dead.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I was initially a builder (believe it or not, it's true but it pre-dates my time on the forum when I was most active). However, at the time I was a high level gamer in several other games (warcraft III still, gears of war, and Madden) and as such well accustomed to making adjustments to improve. In an attempt to climb the difficulty ladder, I was racing toward space on warlords, when a DoW by a more-backwards civ that nevertheless had enough units to cripple me was a heavy blow and one I'd not easily forget. These days the one interrupting space is usually me.

From there, I learned that war would be the easiest way to climb in this game for quite some time...specifically I'd not struggle significantly again until emperor, where the game forces players to have passable ability in multiple aspects.

 

[Shafi]

I was initially a builder

..... NOOOOOO

And now he's a butcher

 

[Ataxerxes]

I build too much. Even so, I always build up an army and, well, waiting for space when I have a strong army doesn't make sense. I only make it so space on an OCC. I usually end up with a "Diplomation" victory.

 

[ICNP]

I build too much. Even so, I always build up an army and, well, waiting for space when I have a strong army doesn't make sense. I only make it so space on an OCC. I usually end up with a "Diplomation" victory.

Ah diplomacy, its like winning the Nobel Peace Prize after killing millions. Or just promising to stop warring...