How often do you play pacifist?

[Scipio1]

I just finished a rather enjoyable game as Korea. Won a science victory on Prince in 410 turns. Not super impressive, I know. But it was very unique game for me. I never once exchanged a single blow with any other Civ, only barbs in the beginning. I remained friends with my two neighbors the entire game, and friends with all the other civs for the entire game, with one exception, Ghengis Kahn grew to dislike me towards the end. Where it not for that, I would’ve gone the whole game with nobody disliking me. And it was a large map. I only had 10 total cities, and I had them all by turn 150 or so. Does your play style ever involve pacifism?

 

[criZp]

I don't usually start wars because I don't like having to manage all the units every turn, I only start one when some other guy grabs my city spot, or if he's expanding too fast and needs to be cooled down a little.

 

[GrumboMumbo]

I try to play peaceful in most games against the AI, domination makes the game way too easy. If you manage your troops well, you only need a small amount of well upgraded troops to sweep through an entire continent of AI's cities. Because of this, I find domination boring to play.

So for that reason I mainly play peaceful games to challenge myself and compare the balance of Victory conditions. However, on the higher difficulty levels war is often unavoidable.

 

[Vrenir]

I tend to not start wars, but when someone else does, I finish them.

 

[blackcatatonic]

I tend to not start wars, but when someone else does, I finish them.

Beautifully put. This sums up my approach too.

I'm a builder so really I like to treat Civ as an empire simulator. Just let me build loads of cities and a few Wonders and I'm a happy gal. Though, if you do happen to send your unescorted Settler my way, don't be surprised if you don't get it back

 

[iammaxhailme]

In civ 5, 95% of the time, I never go to war at all. And if I get declared on, I usually just defend and peace out.

In civ 6, the AI seems to declare war more, but I still rarely do. But often a neighbor will declare war on me early and after I kill their invaders with ranged units they often have no units at all left so I send over all my archers, buy a horseman or three, and take over their entire civilization (if it's still early and nearby my lands).

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I sometimes do an early war to get a little room, but after that I play pacifistic. If I get sucked into later wars, I mostly pillage or take cities to trade back for gains in the peace deal.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Here is what is possible in a peaceful game in which I have not done any aggression, not even converted cities of other civilizations and in that game I played without city states. All cities except for 2 are founded by me, Korea settled 2 cities too close to me so they flipped.

Farming and population is a big part of my economy, food mean more districts and more specialist for stuff like science and culture which are probably much less than in a game with city states

Spoiler :

30 turns later my science and Culture have double, Nagano went from nearly 9 population to 15 and is still producing 30+ food surplus, also Coloseum was for some reason still available so I built it in just a few turns. The reason for war with Aztec is due to Alliance with Brazil.

Spoiler :

 

[Deggial]

Never, I am afraid.

I know, military conquest is supposed to make Civ6 too easy. And indeed, as often as I tried to win without warring (for example in my Canada play-through to achieve diplomatic victory), I lost the game. But not due to the AI winning, but me giving up because I was bored to death.

Not very impressive, I know. But that's apparently how I roll.

 

[bite]

I often try to play the pacifist route but then the AI has other ideas

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Well delegation + giving the ai open borders once you get early empire tend to keep them friendly.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I try to play as a pacifist in every game, unless I draw a war focused civ (I tend to go with random). This is fine on singleplayer but does tend to lead to problems in multiplayer

My friends take advantage of my naivety with ruthless regularity but I never seem to learn.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Almost always. I am a kind and benevolent overlord.

 

[kryat]

I almost exclusively play a peace-wishing defender. I won’t start wars until around early-late game, then focus on restoring as many city states freedoms as I can. Sometimes liberating a wiped out civ as well.

 

[leandrombraz]

Pacifist doesn't describe well how I play most of my games, so I'll say that I play Diplomatic. Unless I'm going for domination, I won't go out conquering indiscriminately, but I always participate in wars, mainly to liberate city-states. If I decide to conquer a city for whatever reason, I always do it in a way that won't screw diplomacy. It often involves liberating cities.

 

[Scipio1]

Beautifully put. This sums up my approach too.

I'm a builder so really I like to treat Civ as an empire simulator. Just let me build loads of cities and a few Wonders and I'm a happy gal. Though, if you do happen to send your unescorted Settler my way, don't be surprised if you don't get it back

Can you take a settler without starting a war?

 

[Jkchart]

Usually more peaceful, unless I'm intentionally trying a more aggressive Civ/approach (though its more rare). Conquest is less fun to me because I prefer building rather than taking. That being said, I don't mind having a mortal enemy or two that I exchange blows with periodically over trivial things.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Can you take a settler without starting a war?

No, that's my point. It's one of the few instances when I will start a war if I think I can steal a Settler and get away with it.

 

[UWHabs]

Can you take a settler without starting a war?

You have to declare war to steal a settler (unless if you happen to get lucky and see their settler be taken by a barbarian).

I had a game recently where I tried to steal a settler but they had too many units nearby and simply killed my scout to steal it back. So I cheated, restarted back before I tool the settler, waited a turn until their settler had escaped their military, and then stole it there for good. It was from Norway, who ended up being one of my best friends in the game later, so they must have forgiven me (they were busy squabbling with Germany the whole game).

Otherwise, I would say around 50% of my games I tend to go power hungry and will wipe out at least one civ on the map. Even if I do that, I like to invade people with a CB if I can. I just find it more fun to have a "reason" for taking out a civ, especially if it's a noble reason like liberating a city-state.

 

[MrRadar]

Can you take a settler without starting a war?

Yes, if it's been taken by barbs. I had games where I picked up 2 or 3 such lost souls.