not really beyond the sword...

[noto2]

Okay...so is it just me or is this game still ENORMOUSLY skewed towards warfare? Playing a peaceful strategy, I have a hard time winning on monarch. That is, using diplomacy and religion to get peaceful neighbours, while still building a defensive military but not an overwhelming conquering one, and getting tech leads/building wonders, etc.
On the other hand, I can usually win on emperor if I play a warmonger strategy. I just find when I play peaceful builder, I get attacked anyway, and either lose a few cities and thus the game, or I fend off the attacker but spend fortunes of resources doing so and fall behind. Plus, as a peaceful builder, I rarely have enough land to get a win. Whereas, as a warmonger I keep gaining more land, keep sueing for techs, etc, and become dominant. Another telling point is that although I do have peaceful wins, like cultural and space, they come very late in the game, like 1920's to 1950s (I play epic speed) as opposed to my domination and conquest wins which are usually around the 1700s. I really want to try to win with dif strats, but it just seems that peaceful strats are IMMENSELY more difficult than war strats. Opinions?

 

[ChiefTonfa]

so far i've won three times on emperor, two with culture and one with space race. with culture if you focus on it the whole time with a good culture team and just defend u can do it. and with space race i try to use military until i have one of the biggest empires then focus on researce and defense to win the space race. my favorite teams for these strategies are louis of native america, for easy wonder building and early defense, and wilem of england, for good empire building and research. i always play emperor, 18 players, marathon speed.

 

[Joshua368]

It's possible to get peaceful culture/space wins on emperor+, you just need good diplomacy and the ability to defend yourself if you do get attacked.

 

[Cashew]

I believe beyond the sword refers to the advancement of the military technology... and not the basic concept of warfare.

So, yeah, lol. The game isn't beyond the sword in the manner you are thinking of. Sid Meier's ad lackies scammed you good I guess.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I believe beyond the sword refers to the advancement of the military technology... and not the basic concept of warfare.

So, yeah, lol. The game isn't beyond the sword in the manner you are thinking of. Sid Meier's ad lackies scammed you good I guess.

IMO the "Beyond the Sword" was indeed more likely referring to the fact that there were now more avenues to compete in the game aside from warfare. Two big inclusions in BtS - espionage and corporations.

But how you interpret name is obviously a matter of opinion. I don't think there was any scam intended. The ability to interpret the name both ways was probably intended.


To the OP, it is a game heavy in warfare but I think it needs to be that way. In a game where warfare is a part, and is the main part for eliminating competition, I think warfare will always become a big factor in the game no matter how much you try to boost other parts of the game.

 

[mechaerik]

More things have been decided by warfare than diplomacy or espionage, and it will likely stay that way for a loooooooooooooong time. Civ4 is a game about building an empire. Empires are generally built on the blood and bones of an enemy.

 

[noto2]

Yes, yes, warfare is fun. I have literally dozens of conquest/domination wins on my HoF, with many civs from rome and persia to the celts and germany, to the zulu and babylon and even the english and maya. However, if war is all that's left, I guess I'd be done with the game. The only reason I'm still playing is to try out new strategies, winning by religious victory, for example, never done that. Rarely won by space. So I wanted to try that stuff out and I'm finding that it's WAAAAAAY more difficult than winning by force.

 

[KingLoraxII]

Okay...so is it just me or is this game still ENORMOUSLY skewed towards warfare? Playing a peaceful strategy, I have a hard time winning on monarch. That is, using diplomacy and religion to get peaceful neighbours, while still building a defensive military but not an overwhelming conquering one, and getting tech leads/building wonders, etc.
On the other hand, I can usually win on emperor if I play a warmonger strategy. I just find when I play peaceful builder, I get attacked anyway, and either lose a few cities and thus the game, or I fend off the attacker but spend fortunes of resources doing so and fall behind. Plus, as a peaceful builder, I rarely have enough land to get a win. Whereas, as a warmonger I keep gaining more land, keep sueing for techs, etc, and become dominant. Another telling point is that although I do have peaceful wins, like cultural and space, they come very late in the game, like 1920's to 1950s (I play epic speed) as opposed to my domination and conquest wins which are usually around the 1700s. I really want to try to win with dif strats, but it just seems that peaceful strats are IMMENSELY more difficult than war strats. Opinions?

Well, realistically - how many civilizations go thru thousands of years of history without waging ANY war? I think you will be hard pressed to find any. Its just something that happens - border clashes, land, politics & religions - something invariably leads to war. There is no need to be at constant war tho - just a few small ones - pretty easy to prosecute them too.

The only thing that BTS seems to have over other versions that bothers me - dogpiling. That seems a bit over the top.

 

[noto2]

I just lost a game, but oh what a game. Haha. I was Wang Kon and had a healthy tech lead over everyone. Gengis had vassalized most of the civs on the planet and I was keeping an eye on him, but he was fighting with cavalry and cannons, while I had infantry, tanks, bombers, etc, and a fairly large army, plus I was friendly with Japan (yes, Japan) and we had a defensive pact. So then Gengis attacks Japan and I figure that I should probably not let Toku fall, so I send my troops in to help out. Toku loses two cities before I can really help and suddenly vassalizes to Gengis. So then at that point it was me vs. the entire world!!!! And gengis was only a few percentage away from winning a domination victory. Not only that, but my bombers and tanks were no longer effective against Gengis' cavalry army since Toky had SAM infantry and anti tank troops in the stacks. I was doomed.