Warmonger or peacemaker?

Warmonger or peacemaker?

  • Warmonger

    Votes: 14 66.7%
  • Peacemaker

    Votes: 7 33.3%

  • Total voters
    21
i voted warmonger, although i do try to play peacefully for the first two ages of the game. After I get Military Tradition and Nationalism, usually within a few turns of each other, I start kicking AI a$$. At this point I almost always have enough of a lead on Regent so that I am taking on Pikemen with my Cav, defending against Knights with Riflemen. I'll keep fighting until I have embroiled the entire world in a mess of alliances and MPPs, and until I have secured at least 2, usually 3 sources of coal. Then I try to make peace, switching to Democracy at the same point. This is usually the point in the game where my victories are won.
 
You have no true friends, and usually no faux ones, either. They will all lie to you to get what they want. It's you or them ... do you want to win or not? In the end, there can be only one ...

Even if you want to build stuff, and not care about "winning" the game, remember ... you build nothing if your are conquered. And the AI's will do just that, if they can.

You say, that is a sad view of the universe.


Works for me.

(I think it may actually be harder to survive the game not as #1, but as a respectable civ that has built stuff, then as a conquerer. It is however, perhaps more WORK to conquer the world. Still, to win on culture you have to defend your culture- and sometimes the best defense is to crush the enemy before they can crush you.)

I think you can figure out how I voted.
 
Eh? I picked warmonger for me. I love conquest. There's only so much you can do with peaceful expansion and such. For me, anyway. Unfortunately, conquering a rival takes so long. My last game, I started the real, final conquest of the Chinese with a lot of Samurai. It took started from around 1000 A.D., and by 1500 A.D. they weren't entirely defeated. But enough rambling for me for now.
 
Back
Top Bottom