I agree with this statement, but I am not certain that I interpret it as "Professeur Tournesol" meant it. Contrary to most posters on this thread, I never play CIV as a virulent wargame on steroids...even though it is their privilege to play in that warrior style. For me, CIV is a civilization-building experiment, with role-play overtones. For example, when I play the Arabian civ, I try to maximize religion & culture in an utopian project to create a very refined caliphat of Baghdad (which is the name I give to my very first city...). Of course, then, I would not compete in MP against very aggressive human players : how the A.I. civs behave, in that context, suits me fine. It is your rightful taste to reduce CIV to a violent wargame, but as the Doc has suggested, CIV can also be treated as civilizational role-playing. Of course, then, if I chose the Mongols, I would expand with vicious virulence. P.S. (edit) > I consequently agree with Padma when he writes : "I'm with Doc on this one. In my experience, most MPers don't play Civ, they play a wargame *using* Civ. If I want to play a wargame, I will play a *real* wargame. If I want to play Civ, I won't play MP."