Does CIV REQUIRE war?

[needsomesleep]

So,
I've been playing CIV for a LONG time, much more now that I upgraded my computer, but not the version I'm playing yet. So, this is still related to the Vanilla version. My question is, why does it seem to me that any kind of success with Civilization requires war? I've read lots of the strategy articles and many of them recomend warfare as part of the strategy for winning in pretty much any style. Diplomatic: capture enough cities to vote yourself winner. Conquest: obvious. Space Race: kill the competition, etc...
It seems like the game is designed to require you to go to war.
Now, I understand that the single most common element in mankind in all areas of the world is the desire to kill your neighbor, in some form or another. So, did the Civ creators to this just to try and mirror real life? Warfare is a very real part of life, so it makes sense to make it a part of the game, but it seems to me that warfare is the dominant element to the game. I'm an economist , so my biggest thrill from the game is building up an empire, discovering new techs and resources, and I prefer a space race victory over all others. If I just wanted to kill everyone, I'd play a different kind of game.
What are your thoughts on this? Is warfare an appropriate proportion of the game or is it too much of the focus of the game?

 

[Quotey]

Nope. If you google Kylerean's website, in the games section he document a nonviolent Gandhi game. Not special? He also didn't build any millitary units. A lesson in diplomacy.

 

[needsomesleep]

oops, is there any way to move this thread to "general discussions"? Sorry everyone.

 

[KMadCandy]

well, i'm an oddball, but a lot of my games i never go to war at all, probably more than half. one thing i loved to do in warlords was OCC diplomatic victory without using the "kill the ones that don't like you" method, instead trying really hard to get enough folks to like me more than they do the other guy. i didn't always win, but OCC games are quick so it doesn't take me long to lose . i haven't tried it in BtS, the AP kinda scares me.

in all of the games that i started knowing i wanted to aim for cultural victory, only one has ever involved war on purpose. that one was a Realms Beyond event that was set up to make us go to war *giggle*.

i'm reallllllllllllllllllllllly bad at early rushes. you only joined last month so you might not have read it yet, but i say maybe 18 times a week that to me, an early war means before steel.

part of what i like about the game is that there are so many different ways to play it. when i do want to go crush skulls i can do that; when i want to test my jedi mind-tricks and play limbo to see just how low i can go on the powergraph without getting beat up, i can do that.

probably i'd get a higher score more often if i rushed really early and got an enemy capital as my 2nd or 3rd city. but i don't give a hoot about the score, i just play to have fun. so even if that means that there's a bit too much focus on warfare in the scoring (and i'm not sure it does mean that, mind you), it doesn't bother me a bit. i use my own scoring system. how much did i giggle, did monty die, did i do anything new for the first time, did i get a city with pigs and iron together in the BFC (i love that!!!), that sort of silly thing.

"What are your thoughts on this?" there ya go. thoughts from an oddball permanoob .

 

[madscientist]

My enjoyment is to play alot of different games and see how things shake out. Warfare is part of this game that is how the majority of these civilizations were built and destroyed.

You can expand peacefully and try to win a space race. Ultimately, you will either 1) have to defend yourself, 2) fall behind because another civ is bigger and teching more, 3) incite the world to burn in flames while you saty at peace.

To me games where I end up teching peacefully into space with Ghengis Kahn or dominating the world with tank playing as Ganhdi make the game excitign, fresh, and unpredictable.

trying to get a peaceful win without initating any wars is an achievement by itself (what I am trying to do in teh current RPC).

 

[AmazonQueen]

I've managed victories at noble (which is the highest level I've played at yet) without wars. Best ways to prevent war as far as I can see are:
1) Prepare for war - The AI likes picking on easy victims.
2) Try and maintain good relations with your touchy neighbours. Of course if your nearest neighbours are Monty, Shaka and Genghis it probably won't do any good. In that case an early war or several will probably do more for peace overall than waiting for them to start it.

 

[DaveMcW]

If you're playing on Noble or below, war is not required.

But on higher difficulties, the AI gets economic "cheats" that makes beating them very difficult without war.

 

[futurehermit]

My first BtS game was as Dutch on Monarch Big & Small map, normal speed/standard size.

I build in the neighbour of 20-25 cities peacefully and won space without going to war.

It was one of the most enjoyable games I ever played in civ4.

 

[twinmfg]

I'm a die hard builder that almost always goes for a cultural victory. I also have a personal goal of never being involved in a war. I'm usually successful, but I must keep an army around just in case.

If you dont want any wars, play custom games and select Always Peace. In fact, my latest self-imosed torture is to win a Domination victory this way.

 

[kcmarkwell]

on higher levels of AI difficulty and multiplayer, yes, goto war or get killed =)

 

[KMadCandy]

If you're playing on Noble or below, war is not required.

But on higher difficulties, the AI gets economic "cheats" that makes beating them very difficult without war.

that's part of the fun! to me war is also "very difficult" but in much less fun way, because i'm terrible at war, even at noble probably. come to think of it, i'd be the worst judge of all as to whether the game is too biased toward war. even if it is, playing that way wouldn't actually do me personally any good most of the time, because i'd lose those wars if they're too early. so how the heck would i be able to tell? i better sit back and read *giggle*

on higher levels of AI difficulty and multiplayer, yes, goto war or get killed =)

multiplayer, yeah i imagine it's pretty required there!

 

[Murky]

It only requires war if you want to win by domination or conquest.

 

[Gliese 581]

I don't think its strange that success should require war if indeed it does. Look at empires of the real world, none of them got established without bloodshed. Rome, Greece, England, Russia, France, Spain the US etc.. heck even my tiny little country at one point owned Norway, Finland, countries along the baltic sea, parts of Russia, most of Germany and occupied Denmark, at its height during the 1630s. This certainly wasn't achieved by diplomacy. Look at Holland and their mighty trade empire, lasted them for a while but then a more warlike civ (the English) put them out of empire bussiness.

 

[Smokey McDope]

The short answer is yes

 

[Verge]

Moderate warring is good. When I play a builder, I usually identify a defined territory that I would like to control, then go about conquering it ala Manifest Destiny. After that, I just maintain an army for self defense and the occassional overseas war for plunder.

Alternatively, you can go for a "cultural conquest" to get the territories you need peacefully. I did that in a recent game, works quite nicely if a bit slowly.

 

[KMadCandy]

It only requires war if you want to win by domination or conquest.

nah. you can win domination by culture not war. Sulla has a write-up of a vanilla game he played with the "Always Peace" option here.

i did some domination wins to get leaders i didn't really want to play out of the way for QM, without checking always peace but never going to war . really easy, a 9 year old could do it even on deity (yes, i'm serious) if they know a little bit about city placement. might be some opponents who'd get mad enough to pick a fight i suppose. future start, duel map, one opponent, you can play random leader it really doesn't matter. run an engineer or 3 from turn 1, rush eiffel tower, spam settlers and culture. plop early settlers (the extra 2 you start out with if feasible) close to the enemy capital to box him in. spam more settlers, keep boxing him in, grab land, grab more land with more settlers, profit! or did you mean non-cheesy wins? oopsies. *gigglefest*

gosh, i'm really really good at sitting back and just reading not posting huh? /slap self.

 

[Belisar]

Now, I understand that the single most common element in mankind in all areas of the world is the desire to kill your neighbor, in some form or another. So, did the Civ creators to this just to try and mirror real life? Warfare is a very real part of life, so it makes sense to make it a part of the game, but it seems to me that warfare is the dominant element to the game. I'm an economist , so my biggest thrill from the game is building up an empire, discovering new techs and resources, and I prefer a space race victory over all others. If I just wanted to kill everyone, I'd play a different kind of game.

Civ is a game after all, not a real-life simulation.
But the game designers were inspired by how empires evolved during history so the option of war is there as well as the option to build up peacefully.
I compare it with a chess game, where you also try to "kill" your opponent's king without further implications, you see, just a game.
If you want a "peacefull" game, play always peace or other games (economic simulations).

 

[futurehermit]

The nice thing about the warfare aspect is that if you want to play peacefully you MUST pay strict attention to diplomacy. You can't just decide to play peacefully and that is that.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

The short answer is yes

It's also wrong answer

 

[Murky]

nah. you can win domination by culture not war. Sulla has a write-up of a vanilla game he played with the "Always Peace" option here.

i did some domination wins to get leaders i didn't really want to play out of the way for QM, without checking always peace but never going to war . really easy, a 9 year old could do it even on deity (yes, i'm serious) if they know a little bit about city placement. might be some opponents who'd get mad enough to pick a fight i suppose. future start, duel map, one opponent, you can play random leader it really doesn't matter. run an engineer or 3 from turn 1, rush eiffel tower, spam settlers and culture. plop early settlers (the extra 2 you start out with if feasible) close to the enemy capital to box him in. spam more settlers, keep boxing him in, grab land, grab more land with more settlers, profit! or did you mean non-cheesy wins? oopsies. *gigglefest*

gosh, i'm really really good at sitting back and just reading not posting huh? /slap self.

Try that crap in multiplayer and see what happens.