Official announcement: Hot off the presses. Next Civ game in development!!!!!!!

[topsecret]

The buzz on that is it's basically a war game where you build up a big army and then fight. Not interesting to me.

Of course this was awhile back, maybe they've updated it? Or is it still a slog to see who can build the biggest army?

What? You can definitely be a builder.

I also enjoy fighting more in Old World than in Civ6.

---

Looking forward to Civ7's army mechanics being revealed. I'm assuming there's been no real news...

 

[InsidiousMage]

Or is it still a slog to see who can build the biggest army?

Kind of but also not really. The big difference between OW and Civ6 is that you need an army in OW even if you don't intended to fight the AI because a) you need an army to clear trial sites to get access to more city sites and (this is the important one) b) you can't actually hold off the AI in a war with a few well places units. Plus, the AI will attack you if you are weak so that's another reason to need an army. You need to build an army but you don't need to really use it after the early game but you don't like having to have an army then you still probably won't like OW.

 

[bbbt]

The buzz on that is it's basically a war game where you build up a big army and then fight. Not interesting to me.

Of course this was awhile back, maybe they've updated it? Or is it still a slog to see who can build the biggest army?

They have a decent amount of ways to adjust the AI to make it less aggressive.

They also have a 'make your goals' victory (essentially imagine a series of more-elaborate CS quests to complete) that can be non-militaristic.

I'd roughly say, if you want a competitive experience/challenging AI you definitely need a big army and fighting. If you want to play on easier levels, you can get away a lot less without.