which is the most impotent aspect of Civ

[Ahovking]

well which one did you pick and.....why did you pick it ?

 

[nikosison]

impotent?

 

[Iceciro]

The most important aspect of civ has been the AI.
The most impotent aspect of civ has been the AI at times, too!

 

[Carver]

The most important aspect, for the human, in game, is the military.

 

[AfterShafter]

This is kind of an apples and oranges thing, to some degree...

Peace and empire building is, bar none, the cornerstone of the game - but a peaceful building gets you eaten alive by a military nutjob who essentially is only as long-term effective as the people he/she can conquer.

Diplomacy can be a viable substitute for military against the AI - but against players, it's pretty much useless, unless you include cash bribes in diplomacy.

Civics? They're very, very potent - but bottom line, they're probably the least integral of the lot. Sure State property is all kinds of spiffy, and free market can boost your research X,Y, and Z... But mainly they just bolster what you've already got going for you. It's the icing, nothing more.

I'm choosing option 5 five with "not a very good question to ask, really" in mind. None of these are impotent, and if they were, only situationally, some are integral. Military and peaceful building are core gameplay, and there's nothing even close to impotent about diplomacy and civics. This is kind of like asking, "what's more impotent - the engine, the wheels, or the steering wheel in your car?"

 

[Le_Scientifique]

Seriously, is it "Impotent" or "Important" ?

It totally change the question...

 

[Shurdus]

Seriously, is it "Impotent" or "Important" ?

It totally change the question...

This. I voted military because I think that part of the game i quite flawed, ten I realised it may very well ave been ' important' n the question. SO which one is it?

 

[Ahriman]

Napoleon always looked impotent to me. Or maybe just constipated.

 

[Craxymaxy]

important: Military lol you can't win without it
impotent: civics, they don't really belong in that line-up

 

[MrHan]

It's a balance, a perfect mix. You can't really have one without the others.
They're all important imo.

Impotence, on the other hand...

 

[Ahovking]

i believe that Civics are an ever growing impotent aspect of civ

 

[plasmacannon]

Military, because, I don't play this game to talk to the game on my computer.
I prefer the strategy of finding the best location of positioning my Archers, using Spys to take out my opponent's valuable resourse (like iron), designing my Horse Archers with enough Flanking to be able to survive until the next confrontation.

In my opinion, we should be able to limit the Tech tree to stop at a certain point, thus creating a game, where we don't just have dull opponents that tech alot all game.
The same goes for faster unit training.

The Civics are interesting to organize them like that, but, not the overwelhming reason for the game.

 

[Craxymaxy]

everyone seems to be agreeing upon "not civics" lol

 

[Suho1004]

I don't think that civics is on the same level as "empire-building" or "military." Also, I don't think you can take any single element and say that it's the most important. At least, that's the way it is for me. Some games I want to focus on peaceful empire-building, other games I focus on military domination. The importance of the various elements shifts depending on my goals, but it would be hard to say that any element is significantly more important than another element.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

 

[BigBirdZ28]

I would have liked to choose Peacetiem building & diplomacy together.

 

[Chalks]

Never has "The question is poorly phrased" been more appropriate.

 

[Disgustipated]

I voted based on it being impotent. It's a valid word, it doesn't just mean... you know. So in essence, I voted for the weakest part of civ. So it's safe to say the poll is screwed up. At least my vote is.

 

[Tee Kay]

For both (important and impotent), city/empire building.

 

[BobDole]

For me, it's always been military, because well.....I like wiping out/bossing around other civs. But in reality, you can't have military without all the other facets. Don't build an adequate civilization in peacetime, and your civ won't hold it together while you're conquering people or won't be able to build a strong army fast enough to take out other peaceful but advanced civs. Ignore diplomacy and you might have way too enemies to handle.

 

[Hail]

voted as read important. the military. an army allows the player to grab more land. more land -> more cities -> bigger army -> more land -> ...

For both (important and impotent), city/empire building.

cannot not mention that the two sentences in red in your sig are actually one sentence.