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

[EmpireOfCats]

After thinking about this for the last couple of weeks, I think I was always more worried that Civ V would be more like a war game with Civ IV combat, which I find terribly, terribly boring after a while. The new system, where putting an archer on a hill actually means something more than that he is going to get stomped to a bloody pulp by the next SOD, might change my whole attitude towards combat. It was rather mindless, now it could be more like chess.

Ask me again in ten days. And then wait another two weeks until I stop playing long enough to come visit this forum again .

 

[JonoLith]

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!

Woot Canada!

 

[fishmonger]

It'd be nice if war wasn't the best way to win 99% of the time in Civ5.

 

[SeismoGraf]

A nicely written section from GameInformer Civ5 MP Review caught my attention, so I want to quote it a second time in this thread:

Another issue with playing cutthroat Civ V is that early all-in strategies are almost impossible to counter without going all in yourself. This is partially due to the relative shrinking of the world since unit movement speeds are so much higher than in previous Civilizations. I've generally been on the winning side of this situation (what can I say, I like conquest!), but it doesn't make for a very fulfilling strategy game when it's all decided on the Prisoner's Dilemma. Without playing Archipelago maps that forcibly segregate players across water from each other, the following set of situations plays out too often:

1. Player A rushes an early military strategy. Player B plays a typical early expansion game. A conquers B, giving A an enormous boost along the development curve.
2. Both Player A and Player B rush early warfare, resulting in a brutal war of attrition that leaves both nations weakened and behind their rivals.
3. Neither player rushes and they play nice together. At least until someone gets antsy and starts cranking out an army.

 

[sdlufkin]

A nicely written section from GameInformer Civ5 MP Review caught my attention, so I want to quote it a second time in this thread:

Aren't these points a problem in ANY multi-player Civ game though? I'd imagine multi-player goes along those lines frequently. Unless you are playing a more co-operative game with your human friends against a high level AI in a "comp stomp" of course, which is where I fall in the MP gaming scene.

 

[sdlufkin]

Oh, I see, you didn't put the rest of the article in. He addressed that point specifically in the next paragraph - he's saying (as I) that Civ isn't really designed (or fun) to be a stricly military simulation in MP but it shines as a cooperative Civ experience among friends:

Conversely, as a cooperative experience with people you know, Civ V multiplayer can be excellent. The ruleset can be tweaked extensively, allowing unlimited time for turns and customizing things like permanent alliances and allowed victory conditions. Co-op is a great way to learn how to tackle higher difficulties; the AI players speed up their development along the power curve significantly as the difficulty setting goes higher, and learning how to deal with that is a big part of success in Civilization.

 

[SeismoGraf]

Well, it is worth to read the full article. The quoted paragraph appeared to be especially relevant in regard to the worries of the OP. I like the article very much, although I would relativize:

[...] Civ is ultimately a game about building things up, not tearing them down. [..]

One of the four victory conditions (Domination) requires to "tear things down". Of course one needs to build up, before being able to do so. For "cutthroat Civ V", i.e. PvP multiplayer, I'd like to see a 50:50 balance of effectiveness between warmonger and builder approach.

 

[Lap]

I actually feel like this might be the first Civ where I feel I can play WITHOUT being a warmonger. In other Civ games I' always felt like defending a borders was utterly useless and it was really easy to go on crazy pillaging runs. Basically, it was rape their lands before they do it to you. I'm going to try playing for a win besides conflict the first few times.

 

[12agnar0k]

It'd be nice if war wasn't the best way to win 99% of the time in Civ5.

Thats the thing, its not going to be, in Civ4, the easist way to win was by war, in civ5, not so much, you can play as effectively as a 20 city empire if you put all your effort into a few cities and go for much cheaper social policies for a cultural win perhaps, or instead of spending heaps of gold on building gigantic armadas and buildings in hundreds of cities, you can put this into bribing city states to be allies for a diplomatic victory. Conquest is not the easiest and fastest method to win anymore, no not at all.

However its not likely you will be able to avoid war for the entire game (not unless your silver tounge can persaude all other leaders that your better to trade with), so even if you are winning by cultural victory or diplomatic victory, some war may still be needed to defend your territory. However warmongering and conquest need not be the best way to win, however, I'm sure most of us will agree, it will be more fun .

 

[Schuesseled]

Yeah i do like that you can make some really powrerful small number of cities.