Builder or Warmonger?

[brennan]

How many discussions on thiis forum end up as an argument between builders and warmongers?

A builder says "Build libraries and temples, don't overlap your cities it looks ugly and they won't grow to maximum size. Research your way to victory with an SS win or go for a major, late war". We like having lots of improvements, we may well limit ourselves to playing on Monarch, hell some of us plant forests on unused tiles just because it looks good. Huge maps allow for bigger empires and more opponents to defeat (eventually). Games are slow and largely peaceful and last for ages.

And then along comes a warmonger and says "No, no, no, this is all wrong, you should be playing Deity at least, on a small world so you can achieve domination faster. Why are you using tanks, you should have finished by now? What's a Manufacturing Plant? Use ICS, never have more than 12 tiles per city, micromanage your socks." They play the game literally as a game; instead of trying to behave as though they are in charge of the fate of a world they work out how to win, hence Always War, ICS and micromanagement.

Are these two points of view totally incompatible? Which are you? (like we can't tell!) Do you think one side or the other, or both, is missing out?

Edit: please treat this in good humour...

 

[Pentium]

we may well limit ourselves to playing on Monarch

No.
I myself am a Deity builder, and I know there are more of us.

 

[Tomoyo]

That depends. I think I'm a better builder, and I can consistantly win on Demi-God that way, but, on Diety, I have go somewhere in between.

By "better", I was curving it on how effective both strategies have the potential to be. Just because I can win on higher levels with ICS and stuff like that, doesn't mean I'm a better warmonger(er).

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

Warmongerer! If a game is peaceful for too long, I just snap and start rolling over the AI with the massive armies I have compiled during peace time

 

[Shujaa]

I play as a balance of both. No overlapping cities, go on the offensive during medieval age (unique unit/golden age), but play defensively the rest of the time. Prefer to see the game play out to the Modern Age, early victories are boring.

 

[Zelda's Man]

War mongerer on higher levels. I still don't know what radar artillery are used for. I built one during one game, but never used it. Builder sometimes on lower levels, but nothing is quite as satisfying as a domination win to me.

 

[Tomoyo]

I play as a balance of both. No overlapping cities, go on the offensive during medieval age (unique unit/golden age), but play defensively the rest of the time. Prefer to see the game play out to the Modern Age, early victories are boring.

Sounds like a pure builder to me. No overlap? One offensive?

 

[Shujaa]

I used to never fight offensive wars... only defensive

 

[Drakan]

Funny thread.

I guess I'm more of a builder at heart but now I'm trying very hard to polish up my warmongering skills in deity (I'm not a very good one).

You can be a builder in deity and win on a SS victory in a huge pangaea against 15 civs (I at least do it with agric civ and resorting myself to build the GL). Never played Sid except on C3C scenarios and mods Pentium

 

[Symphony D.]

I tend to like building with the intent of using what I've built to go beat the snot out of somebody. Within a certain amount of space I tend to be rather peaceful and build but if the opposition is within that area I tend to work toward... removing them.

Really sort of a balance I suppose. "War when needed" would be a good descriptor I guess.

 

[Tomoyo]

"Opportunistic?"

 

[Wolfwood]

I like building, but I also like to have a small offensive going on to keep things interesting. As I play on huge island maps, I concentrate on building my main island (if I find that I'm sharing it with someone else, I decimate them immediately) and capture the other islands one by one.

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

I tend to go with a mixed approach, but I'm definitely a builder first, warmonger second.

My current game, I'm trying to play warmonger first. Few culture buildings. Mainly settlers and swordsmen as I expand, expand, expand.... It's an interesting exercise.

 

[Ansar]

I like building, but I also like to have a small offensive going on to keep things interesting. As I play on huge island maps, I concentrate on building my main island (if I find that I'm sharing it with someone else, I decimate them immediately) and capture the other islands one by one.

Sort of what I do, conquer anybody who is on your island first , then go for the rest,

 

[Slyk]

I guess I am some sort of mutant. I don't do AW as it is too draining. I play the biggest maps I can find; go for a stable build process to keep the masses happy and grow as many cities to their best ability. I place my cities based on resources then strategic choice...nothing else matters. I will build a library and temple in every city, regardless. I never ever use the luxury slider. It's all research or treasury, nothing more. Mid to late game I build markets to improve happiness. I want my empire growing and consuming, purging those who wear clothing in colors other than my empire. I'm an opportunist in war. I plan WAY ahead for each one with very specific goals, I get in and out as quickly as possible but will beat the opponent to extinction if I can or need to by preventing another opportunistic civ from eating up some territory.

Depending on the map and the victory conditions, I will build wonders, but in many games I go for Lighthouse, AoW and Magellan the most. Military value above all else.

 

[Sandman2012]

I used to be a builder on lower levels of the game. As I went up I had to learn to do wars better. Now I'm just getting the hang of Monarch level and I'm still experimenting with new styles of play (new to me that is). I tend to balance my play, going to war for resources I don't have, surgical strikes etc.

 

[Tone]

What's a Manufacturing Plant?

This struck a chord with me! I guess that you'll classify me as a warmonger from your criteria but I'm really just a peace lovin' guy (once the world is mine, of course )

Seriously though I think I would put myself in Tomoyo's camp. I build with a purpose and wage war with the same thing in mind. I've played games that have had no wars, AW games and allsorts inbetween and I love them all as this is such a great game with so many layers to it.

I don't build Manufacturing Plants though

 

[budweiser]

War! If I havent killed someone with an archer rush, then it's time to start a new game. Seriously, I feel if I am not attacking someone then I am not doing everything I can to win.

I think a game of civ is shaped like a bell curve with building and war at both ends and 'equal amounts of both' in the midlle. That means a builder game or a war game can both be won in the same amount of turns, but if you start to mix in too much of both, then it takes longer to win.

 

[Gato Loco]

I tend to be an opportunistic warmonger until I've gotten all my non-corrupt core cities secured. After that I usually go into building mode unless I've got my heart set on domination or the AIs are all so far behind that I want to put them out of their misery. But there's something hugely unsatisfying about sending your troops to die if you don't actually gain anything from it but a few 95% corrupt cities and a luxury you could have traded for anyway.

 

[Tomoyo]

I think a game of civ is shaped like a bell curve with building and war at both ends and 'equal amounts of both' in the midlle. That means a builder game or a war game can both be won in the same amount of turns, but if you start to mix in too much of both, then it takes longer to win.

I think a pure building game would be finished just as fast as a pure warmongering one because both would result in losses because, by definition, neither building or warmongering involves expansion (peaceful expansion, or course).