I used to play Civ 1 on my Amiga back in the days, but the only time I managed to win (on King level) was when I stole the tech that allows building of nukes, and then in one fell swoop nuked and conquered all the opposing civs cities in one turn. With no serious opposition I won the space race. Recently I used the 475.05 MS-DOS version, played as the Romans on a large map, and using the Chariot Blitzkrieg strategy it was surprisingly/disappointingly easy to win, compared to playing the peaceful civ trying to win the space race. Except for the English, all civs were located on one big continent and I comquered the continent 660 BC. I had two Chariots outside the gates of London, but seeing the City Walls I decided to move on. Much later (1635) I bombed the defenders of London and captured it with one Armor. It turned out that the English had never expanded from London despite being on a large island, and London was landloacked. I got a score of 1446 and a civ rating of 144%. But would I have gotten better or worse score if I either defeated the English ASAP (I would have built Diplomats to try and sabotage the walls) or if I won by being first on Alpha Centauri? In other words, does the game reward war, treachery and nuclear war more than a peaceful and enlighthened rule?