What do you think of how Civ4 treats War?

[LordShiva]

I don't like the way it's done. I like to go to war, and I like to win Conquest or Domination victories. I think there's too much of an advantage given to defenders, at least above Noble, I'm not a big fan of the new combat system (nevermind "Longbowmen defeats Tank"). I find that waging war is too costly in terms of money and/or technology. My units become obsolete before I can really use them (especially on non-epic games).

I think war was sacrificed because Firaxis was so proud of its alternative victory strategies that the game is geared towards winning as a pansy.

[Nacht]

Where is the "Sure. I like conquest victories, and I think Civ4 does a good job of letting me pursue a warmongering strategy. although it's hard to achieve as it should be" option?

[Nacht]

I mean you're only playing this game for a week. May be you should be still fine tuning your world conquering stategies...

[Otrant]

I find playing on epic solves that problem. Now that I have played an epic game I don't see myself going back for that very reason ... you actually have enough time to use the units of each era, if you want to persue a domination victory.

[Jethro83]

I actually like that war is a costly venture in Civ IV. Historically, war has always been expensive in terms of manpower, technology, and finances. I like to have to consider carefully when I decide I might want to go to war.

Still, I might be a bit biased since I am one of these 'pansies' referred to in the OP. I like to play as a builder. I might occasionally go to war to knock an insolent neighbour down a peg or two, or to punish someone like Montezuma for past crimes, but overall, I prefer building to destroying.

[Skanky Burns]

The thing is, it is too easy as a builder. Almost all of my cities are defended by warriors whilst the enemy have infantry and fighters. Sure, I could produce SAM infantry and other more advanced units in a few turns or so, but while I have not the other civs should be somewhat willing to take advantage of me. They don't.

[Mike4879]

Well, the time scale is too small for large scale wars, especially on the bigger maps. Even on the Epic setting, you are not going to forge the Roman Empire on a huge map. Maybe I am weird here but I think the game should have been double the length.

[Artuero]

I very much like the combat system as it entails a lot of choices about which units to use. It's been more difficult to "figure out" so far than prior games (and other games too, even war-focused ones). So I like the system fine.

But the other posters have hit on what is a greater criticism-- that at least with a lot of civs to trade with the time scale is too compressed that you don't get to play around with units much before they are obsolete. Getting around this issue isn't so much a problem with combat, but rather with pacing.

[James009]

I will agree that the combat system is flawed but combat should be difficult. If I ever go to war I NEED to send 2 to 3 times the amound of forces my enemy has in order to win. Thats how it should be.

However, I do agree that some units do become obsolete pretty quick. Everytime I get a new unit I'm almost to the next level up of that unit. It makes me sad ...

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Mike4879
Well, the time scale is too small for large scale wars, especially on the bigger maps. Even on the Epic setting, you are not going to forge the Roman Empire on a huge map. Maybe I am weird here but I think the game should have been double the length.

That´s something where I absolutely agree.
Especially the ancient/classic Era of the history is over too fast.

But maybe I´m influenced by knowing the AoM-Mod of CtP 2 (which covers this eras in very great detail [and lets them take lots of turns without getting boring]).

As for War in Civ IV:
IO don´t have any problems with how Civ IV treats war (although IMHO the combat system could have treated some things [like Artillery] a better way [or even introduced Stacked Combat a CtP2 ]).
But I´m more a builder than a warmonger and don´t very often wage war

[Dis]

I never play anything but epic. Even those games can be quick. But at least I have some opportunity to use my units before they go obsolete.

As for some of these other gripes, it's easy enough to mod the unit values. I may eventually do that. But for now I prefer to play civ4 out of the box.

I just voted banana, because I'm undecided.

My only warmongering game was on the earth map, and I got my ass whooped by barbarians and the chinese. Ghenghis Khan bit the big one.

I think that map is has some strange settings. Perhaps it ups the difficulty level somehow. It definately seems to have raging barbs.

In any case, I still need to test my warmongering on a regular random map.

[Peets]

I would prefer a little more wars.
Especially around 4000BC - 1500AD

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Dis
My only warmongering game was on the earth map, and I got my ass whooped by barbarians and the chinese. Ghenghis Khan bit the big one.

That's another problem - unless I'm overly agressive, I find that the most fighting I do, by far, is against barbarians.

Seems like "Whack the Barbarian Mole" is the new "Whack the Pollution Mole"

[TheArsenal]

I have no problem with the combat system itself, but I do agree that domination/conquests games on a Huge Map are out of the question, even on the Epic setting. Not only is it not possible to build the forces needed and have the time to take large chunks of the map, but once a few cities are taken you have to sue for peace to gear up your economy to absorb them without running a massive deficit and low science rate. Neglect your economy and you’ll be left standing on earth while the AI blasts into space.

Which is fine actually. I like that war is costly and has consequences. But I would also like to see someone mod a Super Epic game which greatly expands turns and eras.

[JakeCourtney]

The combat system needs some balancing and some help. Artillary needs some major help.