!
. He called the civ series a war game, so I wouldn't take the review too seriously.Repeatedly requesting a pact of friendship for leaders you just met (or haven't done anything with/for) is pretty dumb, so I have to agree with you there.
But he is right : civ games are war games ... we just tend to forget that because of the diplo coating and the fact that the AI tries to roleplay. I can't talk about civ V so far, but until now land is power in civ games and the best way to adquire land is to go Conan on a neighbour ...It seems to be mainly criticized because it hasn't been an aspect 2k has talked about as much as the new changes, so therefore it obviously must be an issue
Not to get technical, but Civ has always been a 4X game, war is only one aspect of gameplay. Building new cities and improving old ones is another key element. It's gone in CiV (sadly) but you could always, through the sheer force of your civilization's culture, acquire new cities through culture flipping, at least in CivIII and IV. And even when war becomes a necessity (or just a fun thing to do
), you've always previously been limited by war weariness, which will eventually bring your empire's growth and production to a halt if you don't keep it in check (the best way being to end the war). In a real war game, there are rarely penalties for constant war, so I disagree with the reviewer, as would anyone who enjoys playing culture victory games.
