Is anyone else worried that Civ V is just going to be a war game?

[Dbob]

If it is more of a war game I'm all for it. I normally lean on that route to victory anyway.

However, I can see where it would worry people who are peaceful builders, but in the end I think they got enough attention with the update as well.

 

[Earthling]

War is going to be far more time-consuming in civ5 than civ IV I think is the essential answer. Some will like that and some won't.

It might still end up problematically required when playing at any competitive level, but I think enough of the game otherwise is still there.

 

[generalwar]

I don't believe it's a war game. Civ 4 was more a war game than 5 because with 1 iron you could have millions of axes and spearmen and now, you can have only 5 iron based units at time if you have 1 iron resource, so you have to plan carefully your campaigns against your neighbours because now,having more resources is much more important than in previous civ games. If you think to conquer whole world,you have to have a lot of strategy resources like iron in ancient and medieval eras and oil for modern time. So, civ 5 isn't a war game .

 

[superdudeman]

Yes. I was up all night worrying about this last night. I couldn't sleep.

 

[neev]

I think previous posts summed it up very well, but here goes anyway : I'm a peacemonger, and I WANT civ 4 to be more war-oriented than civ 4.
I loved civ 4, but one of the things that annoyed me the most with this game was you could build your nice little empire without being involved in a war, EVER (at least up to monarch/emperor). The only wars I fought were (often) the wars I started. I hate that. I want my rivals to try to kill me. Or at least I want them to have a very good reason not to try to.

 

[bjbrains]

No, no I'm not.

The impression that they "only talk about combat" is because combat was the single most broken aspect of previous civ games that has been redone. The rest of the game hasn't been changed as radically. If combat is more of a focus in Civ 5, it's because it was boring and unbalanced in previous civs.

 

[falconne]

Back in the days after Civ 4 when people were discussing what they'd like to see in future versions, I was extremely disappointed that every time someone brought up tactical warfare, they were shot down by a few usual suspects who were the vocal minority. Their explanation generally boiled down to "I don't like it and I want the game to stay just the way I'm used to, to please me". I'm glad Firaxis has started to go down the tactical warfare path, but they need to go further. The Civ V model is still too half hearted and unrealistic.

 

[mqduck]

I think previous posts summed it up very well, but here goes anyway : I'm a peacemonger, and I WANT civ 4 to be more war-oriented than civ 4.
I loved civ 4, but one of the things that annoyed me the most with this game was you could build your nice little empire without being involved in a war, EVER (at least up to monarch/emperor). The only wars I fought were (often) the wars I started. I hate that. I want my rivals to try to kill me. Or at least I want them to have a very good reason not to try to.

I played a great many games on noble/prince difficulty without initiating any wars. Always, always someone would attack me unless I spent time and resources building not just a deterrent, but an insurmountable one. How much more aggressive do you want them?

 

[Thormodr]

I think warfare will be much improved in ciV. It has always been a weak point in Civs I through IV. That in itself is a good thing.

Whether they have neglected other areas remains to be seen.

 

[Mainne]

I wouldn't have thought so - glad that war in Civ has finally become interesting and not just a stack of doom.

 

[Jubbly]

Worried you mean excited? The combat in Civ 4 was awful. Who wants to control 200 units.

 

[QuothTheRaven]

I see no reason to worry too much about CiV being a "war game." Combat looks like it'll be more interesting, but that doesn't necessarily mean it'll be more important to the game than it was in CIV.

 

[matt112986]

If anything 1upt, strategic choke points, and certain social policies will make it easy to be a defensive and peaceful civ.

 

[generalwar]

I played a great many games on noble/prince difficulty without initiating any wars. Always, always someone would attack me unless I spent time and resources building not just a deterrent, but an insurmountable one. How much more aggressive do you want them?

Agree with you. I'm a noble/prince player and I have a lot of wars declared on me and they know to disturb very much, so I don't understand how is possible that someone says that AI's don't want to kill you. Especially Shaka. When I would vassalise neighbour and have to rebuild economy, that bastard would DoW on me. AI's can easily slow down your science slider.

 

[neev]

I played a great many games on noble/prince difficulty without initiating any wars. Always, always someone would attack me unless I spent time and resources building not just a deterrent, but an insurmountable one. How much more aggressive do you want them?

Alright, I'll make myself clearer. Shaka, Monty and the like WILL attack you no matter what, it is agreed. But it was so simple to avoid wars in civ 4 : you just had to know the diplo modifiers by heart and that was it. Avoid adopting the wrong religion, give away techs/gold when asked, build a large enough army to avoid being an easy target, bribe Catherine to backstab someone else than you, etc.
Once you knew all these things (which take some time and practice, I admit it), wars just became... scarce. Civ4 games where I have not been attacked a single time are countless.

Civ 5 now. CS can be friends with one civ at a time => Less straightforward diplomacy => More (defensive) wars. Focus on the military part => potentially more interesting/less tedious wars.

As a peacemonger (I'll play my first Civ 5 game as Gandhi), I like it. I hope that makes sense

 

[feelotraveller]

No I'm not worried that civ V is going to be 'just' a war game.

I am worried that war may dominate the game.

On the question of balance, however, we have to await the test of time.

 

[Schuesseled]

they have improved war in civ v definetly, but that does not make it a wargame, this is not command and conquer with a tech tree.

 

[tom2050]

I agree, it won't be a war game; but the war aspect has been mostly a major thing talked about, because it and only very few other things had big changes... with much taken out.

So in essence, they probably did this purposely, so that way expansions or DLC packs can re-add in everything else.

Hopefully they eventually make diplomacy a dynamic model... the current system is getting somewhat outdated.

 

[mqduck]

Avoid adopting the wrong religion, give away techs/gold when asked, build a large enough army to avoid being an easy target, bribe Catherine to backstab someone else than you, etc.

Giving away presents whenever asked is the one thing I couldn't bring myself to do. I'll be friendly and give a gift to a close ally or a friend in need, but I don't want to be the nerd at school who keeps the bullies from picking on him by doing their homework.

 

[neev]

Giving away presents whenever asked is the one thing I couldn't bring myself to do. I'll be friendly and give a gift to a close ally or a friend in need, but I don't want to be the nerd at school who keeps the bullies from picking on him by doing their homework.

I used to think that way, but if that kind of behaviour makes you win the game in the end (and put the bullies on their knees), I say it is definitely worth it. I agree it is not pleasant though, hence my pleasure to see that devs changed diplo a lot in civ 5.