Playing the Villain?

[Wodan]

Is there anybody (besides me) who doesn't really enjoy playing the villain all that much? Gameplay aside, I find myself reluctant to play as Monty, Darius, Attila, Wu Zetian, etc. Leaders or civs who, in my mind, are quite simply the "bad guys."

I know it's entirely psychological; I guess I can't help what I feel, despite a hefty dose of sardonic self-appreciation.

(They could have interesting and enjoyable gameplay which makes them attractive despite my point here.)

Related, but an aside: When Ramkhamhaeng DOW's me, I just can't take him seriously. It's this 90-pound weakling who is normally kind of friendly, just getting all in my grill. It cracks me up.

 

[VainoValkea]

I don't like playing the villain either. A villain tries to take over the world and fails.

I prefer to be a beloved world leader instead, one who succeeds and whom no one dares to call a villain.

No one.

 

[troublmaker]

I like to play the villain and I have to temper my villanous ways in order to unlock different types of achievements. It's pretty easy these days when you conquer one city and everyone goes "I"VE TOLD PEOPLE ABOUT YOU" and then five minutes later 'HOW ABOUT WE SHARE SCIENCE!?!??!"

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Only if I'm going for Domination.

 

[Theruss]

Well, with certain Civs, like the ones you listed. It's optimal to play a warmonger trying for a Domination Victory, and thus being Villain-like. Of course, it depends on the map and the various situations though. I mean on the opposite side of the fence. You could always try for a Domination Victory as Gandhi.

 

[VainoValkea]

Gandhi is even pretty good at domination because they won't run out of happiness with their growing conquered empire.

 

[andrew00100]

Only those who loss are called villain. Sic I dont play them

 

[Theruss]

Gandhi is even pretty good at domination because they won't run out of happiness with their growing conquered empire.

Does Gandhi suffer from the happiness hit from his UA of an additional city when conquering an enemy city? Or does that only count for cities he creates? I have only played Gandhi a few times, and always a passive and peaceful victory.

 

[VainoValkea]

Does Gandhi suffer from the happiness hit from his UA of an additional city when conquering an enemy city? Or does that only count for cities he creates? I have only played Gandhi a few times, and always a passive and peaceful victory.

All cities, but also gets reduced unhappiness from population from all cities.

 

[andrew00100]

All cities, but also gets reduced unhappiness from population from all cities.

which means there's less unhappiness hit taking a city that is more than 6,7 pop
i dont know the exact number but the threshold should be around there

 

[VainoValkea]

It's six population. Every city you have should grow beyond that anyway - if not, the cities will be slowing your research anyway.

 

[Tiggurix]

There are no villains in this game. Aside from the Barbarians, that is, but they are strictly NPCs.

 

[True_Candyman]

TIL you're a bad guy when the Spanish invade and you don't hand your land over on a plate of your citizens bones

 

[Theruss]

I was just thinking. Technically you could be a Villain anytime you raze a city. That's evil!

 

[Wodan]

There are no villains in this game. Aside from the Barbarians, that is, but they are strictly NPCs.

Part of the "villain" baggage comes from real life, not the game per se.

 

[iggymnrr]

Who shot J.R.? I forget. But I remember J.R.

 

[Abraxis]

Same, all the military oriented civs kind of contrast heavily with the theme of the game, which is more about creation and celebrating our species history. Conquering stuff so you can conquer more stuff is just weird in this genre.

That being said, I have a worrisome habit of doing my best to make a paradise with the most wholesome intent of being a good little civ. Then imposing said paradise on others violently and without a shred of remorse. Then I realize these conquered cities are nothing compared to mine and are little more than slums staining an otherwise beautiful landscape, so I slaughter their populations to the last child and burn everything they've lived for so my super cities have a nice clean backyard to look at over cocktails.

Then, realizing they've sullied my integrity by making me kill them, I decide to go and shove my freedom down the throats of every other jerk-ass civ that denounces my wonderful garden of freedom

 

[njmfff]

Is there anybody (besides me) who doesn't really enjoy playing the villain all that much? Gameplay aside, I find myself reluctant to play as Monty, Darius, Attila, Wu Zetian, etc. Leaders or civs who, in my mind, are quite simply the "bad guys."

I know it's entirely psychological; I guess I can't help what I feel, despite a hefty dose of sardonic self-appreciation.

Actually, you don't have to go full Vader on them. You can just rough up your neighbors a bit, and take everything they have as peace offering (everything except their cities).

I never go full villain, even when I decide for domination victory, because if you cause too much trouble right from the start, everyone will hate you and eventually they will group attack you, which can sometimes be a problem, since you will be defending all the time and you won't be able to TR\trade\tech normal... so no matter how strong you are right from the start (let's say Attila with his horse archers), AI will eventually get stronger.

So it's better to be "bad guy" once civ at the time.

Related, but an aside: When Ramkhamhaeng DOW's me, I just can't take him seriously. It's this 90-pound weakling who is normally kind of friendly, just getting all in my grill. It cracks me up.

Same here for Dido. For some reason, I can NEVER take her seriously. or Spain. (the clueless AI of them all)