I seriously cannot be the only one thinking this..

[JtW]

I guess I've been playing this game wrong this whole time.

 

[anandus]

To be honest, I think war is the worst part of the Civilization games and I hope that Civ 6 includes a "always peace" (and "always war") option in the advanced settings.

Creating an empire is far more than just war. It's about culture, influence, diplomacy.

If you want to play Civ like a war game you might be better of playing an RTS game.

 

[MKI]

There are different victories, because there are different ways to play Civ. Honestly, the war path, is the easiest of all, and sometimes, when you're not the first to launch your space navet, or to oppress others cultures with massive tourism, a war is a good way to still winning the game despite being second for these victories.

Let me tell you another thing. A civilization is about developping things, and barbarians (the opposite of civilization) are about destroying things. Which one of those is the appanage of warmongering ?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Well, yes - I have to agree.

I hated certain parts of CIV5, such as the archaeologist minigame... You have to build this building to put this vase into it, or you have to create a monument on the spot (can't I just store it in a damn barn or something).

 

[Mudokon Pop]

While I enjoy a good war, I personally prefer building up and expanding earlier and then building up defense.

And religion can be a great defense - sometimes a Civ must pass through someone else's territory to get to you. Spreading a religion to a buffer state is a useful defense as they can be persuaded to close their borders. In Civ4 spreading religion gave you a lot of money per turn, funding my expenses keeping my research higher.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

I don't understand how this game could be fun if your ONLY desire is war. I mean its pretty bad for a wargame. Its a great 4x and has so much to offer and war is clearly a part of that but if that is the only thing you want to do, then you really should be playing a different game. Maybe, I don't know, Total War for instance?

 

[DWilson]

You have a very cynical view of civilisation, for me civilisation is about the progress of mankind. It is about surviving through the ages of history despite warmongering nations, it is about social progress and dreaming of a better tomorrow. Civilisation is about looking towards the stars and eventually leading mankind to space in a new era of exploration, prosperity and peace.

I don't know what your talking about but it sounds more the raging barbarians than a civilisation.

Everybody, I present the classic: Greece vs. Rome

 

[darkace77450]

I do understand it is each to their own

I don't think you do, to be honest. If the only way you enjoy playing the game is as a warmonger, than that's all well and good. But your preferred style of play isn't any more "correct" or true to the spirit of Civilization than winning through cultural dominance or extra-planetary colonization.

 

[gunnergoz]

I have to admit the new emphasis on culture and religion is impressive from a tactical depth point of view. However I can't seriously be the only one who merely reads this and thinks meh.

Civilisation isn't about spreading your Civilisation's religion across the globe for a religious victory, and it is most certainly not about building tourist/film/media centres to coast to a cultural victory. I mean where honestly is the fun in that?! Whilst I do like it being included as it adds another string to the bow, and hopefully keeps AI's distracted, I can honestly say I won't be spending a single bit of my precious resources sending any missionaries into neighbouring countries in hope of converting their nation. Or sparing workers to build a football stadium (Brazil) for that matter.

The true essence of Civilisation is about creating monster empires, with high levels of production and establishing a formidable army/navy. It's about going on a warmongering rampage to take over continents whilst trying your best to not become public enemy number 1 and at war with every nation at once. Yes stacking units has gone (admittedly that was positive as it did prolong the game) but the reason why we fell in love this game has not! Civilisation II was an incredible game, for it embodied the true nature of the game; growth, production, war.

I do understand it is each to their own and some people like playing the religious/cultural victory but how on earth is building tourist attractions/temples/museums etc as entertaining as conquering nations.

To me China, Scynthia and Germany are the way forward and the English with their artefacts and Brazil with their Carnivals will remain unused on my game.

I can see why you are not lead designer of Civ 6. Your game would be nothing more than a over-complicated version of Risk.

 

[JimmyBanks]

So have we figured out if he was the only one thinking it yet?

 

[Vasire]

Monster empire is fine. But isn't it more fun roleplaying a planetary God-Emperor dominating the world through sheer glory of your people's scientific and cultural achievements?

For me in civ it was always more fun to expand my sphere of influence through vassals, local revolts or, if you prefer, righteous defensive wars.

 

[isau]

I disagree with the OP.

I think of Civ as a race to multiple finish lines. Whoever crosses any of these finish lines first wins, and all of the win conditions are acceptable.

Your job isn't just to race straight for the goal. It's to connive and manipulate other civs, by word or by sword, to hinder them from reaching their goals first. An ideal end game state, at higher difficulties, involves having to thwart multiple opponents as each of them gets closer to reaching victory.

This is actually why I want the old Domination victory that depended on percent of world tiles back. It worked much better for the game than the "hold on to your capital" victory that basically made it so you just had to defend one spot to permanently prevent the AI from winning. In the old Domination victories, sitting on your hands while someone raced toward Domination victory, even if they weren't fighting you, was a losing strategy. You HAD to get involved if you didn't want to lose.

So it is with the culture and science victories and now religious victories. Don't want to lose? Act faster, or destroy the means other civs are using to reach their goals. Invading with troops isn't enough. This is a hockey game with multiple potential goals, and you need goalies guarding all of them if you don't want someone to score.

 

[Abraxis]

So have we figured out if he was the only one thinking it yet?

I would be comfortable classifying it under a small but inherently vocal minority

 

[Ikael]

As a builder type of civ player, I cannot disagree more with the OP even if I wanted to. Civilization was never about conquering cities. If I want a turn based wargame I may very well buy one, thank you very much. It is no coincidence that the most war focused entry, vainilla civ 5, was also the lowest rated ever. Barbarians are all about fighting, civilizations are about building, and yes, sometimes trought violent means.

Empire building may be indeed about gaining and expanding territory, but there's a reason why we're now not speaking Mongolian nor Greek. Formidable empires that stand the test of time needs culture, infrastructure, proper governance and a lot of political cunning in order to make their military victories count. Otherwise you just get a "one trick pony" type of empire that crumbles at the first change of fortunes a la Alexander.

 

[Jimdigriz]

Uhmm.. no. That's why many of us play the Civ series, for its focus in building cities, and spend in culture, science and NOT emphasizing in total war. There are many other games one should try if you only want to destroy your enemies.

If any, I hope CIV VI will let you win a game without the need of warmongering. In 5 you had to dominate by sword the other Civs to achieve a cultural or science victory, so they wouldn't get them before you.

I'm the kind of guy who likes to play random, playing with every Civilization and try to achieve all types of victories. But it was annoying that I always had to build a great army because no matter how friendly you were, every other AI would betray you if you didn't had defenses, and you always had to go for that runaway Civ to stop spreading and win the game before you. I never got to win a cultural victory (with tourism in BNW) because of this. I hope that will be more feasible in this game.

Really?! I like completing the game different ways but the BIG problem with V was the total lack of warmongering by the AI - and if a fight ever did break out, nothing much happened and it would usually end pretty quick too. Really disappointing this aspect. I never felt like I was going to be a victim of a surprise attack etc. I remember Napoleon shocking me in IV once with a massive amphibious invasion that forced me to quit and whilst I was angry I was also secretly pleased that the AI had come up with the idea.

I saw too many instances in V of nations playing to their strength (Brazil with culture for instance) whilst totally ignoring their defences etc meaning they were easy pickings. I love V a lot but the AI just wasn't up to scratch.

 

[GeoModder]

The true essence of Civilisation is about creating monster empires, with high levels of production and establishing a formidable army/navy. It's about going on a warmongering rampage to take over continents whilst trying your best to not become public enemy number 1 and at war with every nation at once.

You're wrong. The 'true essence' is to win your game. A military conquest and/or expansion spree is but one possible way to achieve that.
Any victory possibility Firaxis deems necessary to include in a game is yours to try if you wish. If only conquest victories are your thing, have fun with it.

 

[Olleus]

I agree with OP to some extent. Part of the fun of civilization is conflict and beating other civs. War is the most obvious example of this, but so is rushing a wonder just ahead of someone else.

What I like since civ4 is the ability to "wage war through other means". Culture bombing and culture victories did that. Specially the introduction of tourism in civ5. Out buying CS is another example. Espionage is also another way of doing this, although it was too costly in civ4 to be worth it and too passive in civ5 to feel like much.

But Civ6 seems to be taking the base concept further with religious combat and victory. I like the idea of subduing my rivals, and of having a range of tools with which to do this.


As for people arguing about the true essence of civilization, you're missing the point. The aim and essence is to have fun and enjoy yourself, how you achieve it is mostly secondary.

 

[Depravo]

To be honest, I think war is the worst part of the Civilization games and I hope that Civ 6 includes a "always peace" (and "always war") option in the advanced settings.

Creating an empire is far more than just war. It's about culture, influence, diplomacy.

If you want to play Civ like a war game you might be better of playing an RTS game.

This. War in Civ has always sucked - poor AI, no realism and no depth.