Fall 2017 Update Info

[Yokel]

No, not complete trades, which is what I think you're implying, but
"science pressure", or "meme diffusion", similar to the way that
religious pressure will work after today's iteration.

Not sure how to do the religious-style pressure method, but you could easily apply it to trade routes. Basically, trading with a civ that has techs you don't will provide some small number of beakers per turn toward one of those specific techs. It would be a boost to research, but it wouldn't replace it.

 

[God of Kings]

didn't civ 2 had a fantastical and sci fi expansion though? I don't think i'd mind that expansion if it was easy to deactivate reactivate for different games.

Civ II's Test of Time had a fantasy scenario.

There's even a race of bird people who can settle on clouds (and eventually, the other races can walk on clouds).

It's even possible to walk on clouds in Civ V:

 

[x2Madda]

What a load of nonsense. Civ is as much a wargame as Age of Empires is a builder's game. I get it that some people are worse warmongers than Civ5's Shaka, but that doesnt mean that it's everyone (or even the majority).

Please don't post without actually adding something constructive, for example give your reasons why you think I am wrong rather than just say "you wrong, you dumb" as it is not constructive.

Civ games have always featured war front and foremost, you can disagree with that all you want but we can look at every civ game, even civ 1 and they have all, always had more (unique) military units thank anything else.

Also you speak of the majority? Majority of what? I assume you mean players? Do you have a single fact to back up your statement?
This is civfanatics not steam, we expect a certain quality of posts here.

Kind regards.

 

[Amrunril]

Civ games have always featured war front and foremost, you can disagree with that all you want but we can look at every civ game, even civ 1 and they have all, always had more (unique) military units thank anything else.

Civ games have always had warfare as one prominent component, but they've also always had strategies, goals and playstyles that don't depend on war (except when necessary for self defense. This is a major contrast to games like Crusader Kings or Europa Universalis (or Age of Empires, I'm guessing, though I've never played it), where economic systems exist but don't ultimately accomplish much besides strengthening your military, and I'd argue it's one of the greatest strengths of the civ franchise.

 

[Cerilis]

Please don't post without actually adding something constructive, for example give your reasons why you think I am wrong rather than just say "you wrong, you dumb" as it is not constructive.

Civ games have always featured war front and foremost, you can disagree with that all you want but we can look at every civ game, even civ 1 and they have all, always had more (unique) military units thank anything else.

Also you speak of the majority? Majority of what? I assume you mean players? Do you have a single fact to back up your statement?
This is civfanatics not steam, we expect a certain quality of posts here.

Kind regards.

Yeah, that's why you came back after one week to make a completely constructive post. ...not.

Stating that Civ "always featured war front and foremost" is just plain wrong, your opinion doesn't make facts. If anything, it features empire building front and foremost, whatever that entails - be it expansion through peaceful colonisation or war. In any of those two cases building infrastructure is necessary to sustain the empire.

Of course I don't have reliable data on how many people are builders and how many are warmongers. All I have are rough estimates based on forum contribution. But if the amount of likes my post recieved compared to yours is any way to tell, I'd wager I have more people on my side.

Lastly, I'm still looking for the facts backing up your statements in your "quality" post, but to no avail. I suggest you climb down from your imaginary high horse - and drop the issue, don't wanna derail the thread, do we?