migkillertwo
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2010
- Messages
- 404
subject
Is anyone else worried that Civ V is just going to be a war game?
- Thread starter migkillertwo
- Start date
Riot_Starter
Warlord
- Joined
- May 8, 2009
- Messages
- 169
Nope.
Besides there being hexes, do you have any reason to believe it will be? Civ 4 had units and tiles was that a war game?
Besides there being hexes, do you have any reason to believe it will be? Civ 4 had units and tiles was that a war game?
RohirrimElf
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Messages
- 1,263
i think u can play this game however u like. Play like "Ghandi" or play "montesuma" style Rushing has allways been most effective in civ games. Not perse the most fun.
AljayBoy
Warlord
Short answer: 'no'
Long answer: 'nope'
Long answer: 'nope'
DarkMaster
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2006
- Messages
- 130
God, not this topic again.
Look, war is an important part of Civilization. It was by far the weakest part of every game in the series. Now war is awesomely cool, just like the rest of the game. That's it.
Look, war is an important part of Civilization. It was by far the weakest part of every game in the series. Now war is awesomely cool, just like the rest of the game. That's it.
Tylerryan79
Emperor
Who is worried this is a war game? Im excited for the new war mechanics, but they have added just as much on the other side of the game too.
ladedadedum
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 49
civ has always been a war game (or a diplomacy game, or a city building game, ect.), that aspect just won't suck now.
ye olde move stack of doom 1-2 spaces then wait gets old fast, glad to see it changed. it was easily my least favorite part of the games.
ye olde move stack of doom 1-2 spaces then wait gets old fast, glad to see it changed. it was easily my least favorite part of the games.
Boris Godunov
Prince
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Messages
- 401
Civ I and II were vastly more "war games" than IV. I found that it was usually impossible to avoid war in the first two installments and still win the game. Even if I was pursuing the space race victory, I would inevitably have to thrash the competition in combat to prevent them from beating me to it.
In Civ IV (I played Civ III the least, so won't comment on that one), I found that war wasn't just optional, it was a pain. At least in Civ I and II war was fast-paced and relatively entertaining. In Civ IV, war was far too time-consuming, even though it was ultimately easy since you just needed a Stack-O'-Doom bigger than the other guy.
Based on the previews and described mechanics, I'm very much looking forward to the new mechanics for war. It should make wars much more interesting to wage, and also faster to fight. But I see no reason to believe that will be all the game is about.
In Civ IV (I played Civ III the least, so won't comment on that one), I found that war wasn't just optional, it was a pain. At least in Civ I and II war was fast-paced and relatively entertaining. In Civ IV, war was far too time-consuming, even though it was ultimately easy since you just needed a Stack-O'-Doom bigger than the other guy.
Based on the previews and described mechanics, I'm very much looking forward to the new mechanics for war. It should make wars much more interesting to wage, and also faster to fight. But I see no reason to believe that will be all the game is about.
IdleEnergy
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2010
- Messages
- 80
And part of the reason (in my opinion) that it was bigger, faster, and more entertaining was that you didn't stack units in (at least Civ 1 and maybe 2... but it's been so long since I've played it). You COULD stack them, but if your best defense unit lost, you lost the entire stack.
1UPT -- which I assume is behind the anxiety over CiV being a war game -- is actually more of a return to basics than a revolution.
SeismoGraf
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2009
- Messages
- 169
No. To fight a war you need a strong military and to get it, you will utilize all or most other aspects of the game (economy, technology, social policies etc.).
Depending on game mode, diplomacy will overtrump military strength. If one backstabs a few human enemies, they will have all reasons to form an alliance and wipe the troublemaker from the map. Some wars will be lose-lose situations - e.g. because a third party is the real winner.
What I'm more worried about, is that many nuances of Civ will not matter in the most popular, faster MP modes. Some aggression is to be expected; I just hope MP will not transform into "rush lottery".
Depending on game mode, diplomacy will overtrump military strength. If one backstabs a few human enemies, they will have all reasons to form an alliance and wipe the troublemaker from the map. Some wars will be lose-lose situations - e.g. because a third party is the real winner.
What I'm more worried about, is that many nuances of Civ will not matter in the most popular, faster MP modes. Some aggression is to be expected; I just hope MP will not transform into "rush lottery".
Zhahz
PC Gamer
No.
I think war is an element they focused on reworking, and due to the fact that it's going to be so different and better it's getting a lot of attention, but civ is still civ.
I think war is an element they focused on reworking, and due to the fact that it's going to be so different and better it's getting a lot of attention, but civ is still civ.
Stuie
Laudir Agus Mir
I hope it's Panzer General with a 6,050 year campaign mode attached. 
Nope.
While they did make combat mechanics a lot more interesting, they also made it more difficult to warmonger. For example, every additional city makes it harder to adopt additional social policies. So unless you want to raze all cities you find, you will have it harder to improve your empire. Also, conquered cities bring unhappiness, so you again are screwed if you play Civ5 as a pure war game.
While they did make combat mechanics a lot more interesting, they also made it more difficult to warmonger. For example, every additional city makes it harder to adopt additional social policies. So unless you want to raze all cities you find, you will have it harder to improve your empire. Also, conquered cities bring unhappiness, so you again are screwed if you play Civ5 as a pure war game.
duckstab
Child of Noble Family
I was worried about this at first due to some early speculation about mechanics involving supply lines and so on. But since then I haven't seen anything to indicate that they were going too far in that direction.
Maniacal
the green Napoleon
Nope, but I do hope war is more fun/improved.
I will, however, start getting pissed off by units taking decades or years to move a pitiful distance. But hopefully I can work past that, as its mostly cause I haven't played civ in a few years and am used to units getting a decent movement rate in Europa Barbarorum mod for Rome: Total War and in Empire: Total War.
Though I'll never play the new Colonization again probably, bs ship movements are bs.
I will, however, start getting pissed off by units taking decades or years to move a pitiful distance. But hopefully I can work past that, as its mostly cause I haven't played civ in a few years and am used to units getting a decent movement rate in Europa Barbarorum mod for Rome: Total War and in Empire: Total War.
Though I'll never play the new Colonization again probably, bs ship movements are bs.
Every Civ has gone to War......or will have to at one point.
You Cant avoid it...Heck CANADA kicked some ass in 1812, 1899, 1914, 1939, Korea Iraq and now Afghanistan.
Some would say were the most peaceful Civ, yet in our Just over 150 year existence we been in some major Wars!
You Cant avoid it...Heck CANADA kicked some ass in 1812, 1899, 1914, 1939, Korea Iraq and now Afghanistan.
Some would say were the most peaceful Civ, yet in our Just over 150 year existence we been in some major Wars!
Similar threads
