Is Civ primarily a wargame?

Is Civ a wargame?


  • Total voters
    67

morchuflex

Emperor
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
1,389
Location
Paris
I wonder... Do you consider Civ to be a wargame?

When I began playing Civ1, I used to stay in despotism (Monarchy sucked), build no infrastructure at all and conquer the world with chariots (they were 4.1.2 in this time). It was quite some time until I discovered the charm of peacefully building an empire. :D
What about you? How important is the wargame component in you eyes?
 
I keep my games balanced. I build up, and then beat the <language translation error> out of them.
 
i think a balance is definetely needed. and its very fun to win by other means. having said that I love to kick the AI's ass!!!! :)
 
I think it's a balance because you do a lot of domestic work but war is an important aspect of the game too. For what else do you build units?
 
I like peaceful wins. I like building up my empire. Part of "building" my empire just happens to be "using" someone else's land... :mischief:
 
Woo, i'm the only one on option 1. :D

I chose it because war is SO MUCH more efficient than anything else.
Even if you are going for a culture (100K) victory or for space race, war is by far the most efficient way to get there.
 
Answer #2 - not a war game per se... the rest depends of your play style.
Personally, i love wonder building... it's just so great to see a population devoting the work of many generations to erect the Pyramids, or the Great Library, or the Sistine Chapel...
And when the job is done i come with my legions and claim everything... :D
 
tR1cKy said:
Personally, i love wonder building... it's just so great to see a population devoting the work of many generations to erect the Pyramids, or the Great Library, or the Sistine Chapel...
And when the job is done i come with my legions and claim everything... :D
Tss! naughty boy! ;)
 
Option 4.
But an interesting question is, what answers you'll get if you'd make the same poll about the MP-Version.;)
 
I chose number one too...I really hate the first thirty-sixty minutes of each game where you're building up your empire, exploring, settling, and building new cities. I can't explain my reasons really, but I just don't like that building stage. Once all of the initial borders are settled, I don't mind building so much. But the only satisfying victory for me is conquest or domination, so for me Civilization is a complete war game.

...With an annoying hour-long introduction.
 
Civ is *definitely* not a wargame. Ask any old wargamer (like me). If it were a wargame, then the warmongering aspects wouldn't be so abstracted, and you would *never* hear complaints about how a spearman beat a tank. As a civilization-building simulation, war must of course be one of the tools in the kit, but it doesn't have to be the primary tool.
 
I don't think it's a war game only, but even if you're trying for a peaceful win you need to keep at least a small number of up to date offensive units to keep the AI from conquering you

that said, even though I usually try for a space victory I go for a complete conquest of every other civ at the same time. if I'm able to build the spaceship while kicking butt that's cool, but I'm almost always expanding
 
I just love to build my empire on someone others land ;)

For a while now, haven't been able to do that, my deity attemps have been rather unsuccesfull :lol:
 
I prefer peaceful building, while I have enough land to expand. With war I expand, so that I can be the strongest. When I'm strongest, I'll secure victory by any condition. If my victory seems unsure, I'll make it sure by war.

Of course, this depends soooo much on the game. In my current game I started a war, an allied assault on Aztecs, to prevent them totally dominating the whole game. So it was a war to struggle for survival.
 
Sometimes war is nice salt in game, but mostly it's ****ing pain in the ass...for because it's "not so good" battle system.
 
Back
Top Bottom