Is it truly plausible to win without warmongering?

[Strategist83]

I would like to think Civ is one of the few games where one can win without conducting war. However, I seriously doubt it is the case, at least on some map types/sizes. War means more land, which in turn means more food, production and commerce. Which in turn means a bigger war machine, allowing you to annex even more land. I suppose this is how most domination victories are born.

Sure, being a a peaceful nation has certain advantages: You do not have to spend as much production on military units, and you can run pacifist civics that give you certain advantages over militant opponents. But, let us be honest: Can one truly hope to stand a chance against an opponent that has twice as much (or more!) land than you?

[MightyTiny]

But, let us be honest: Can one truly hope to stand a chance against an opponent that has twice as much (or more!) land than you?

I would say the answer is demonstrably yes. After all, people DO play and occasionally win one-city-challenge games. But it certainly isn't easy.

[Blake]

It is not possible to reliably win without warmongering.

I suppose there is always a certain chance of losing a game no matter what, at monarch level it might be about 2% for normal play.

And then there are settings and circumstances that make peaceful wins possible, like how people have won Diety OCC's by Spacerace.

There are some map settings that I can nearly guarantee I can win without warmonger on Monarch. Large highlands with raging barbs on Marathon. I'll probably grow twice as big as the AI's, then again the barbs are just doing the warmongering for me.

Terra maps are always winnable without warmongering, sometimes easier that way.

Islands maps with many small islands are winnable without warmonger nor relying on a cherry-picked quality island, just spam fishing villages.


In ideal situations it IS possible to over-power and out-research someone with twice as much land. It would require a well-spread religion and shrine. It would require specialized cities and probably philo for more settled great people. And it would help to have some wonders.
Can you beat someone with twice as much territory if they have all the same perks? No. But a smaller empire does make it easier to found religions and build wonders.

[kevin2zoo]

I've been able to win games w/ the Space Vicotry without warmongering. Admitedly, I'm still playing on Noble but the key for me seemed to having one exceptional city, usually my capital, and a few specialized support cities to provide units for defense, commerce, resources, etc. This was especially effective on the Terra map. Not sure how this kind of strategy would play out in higher difficulty levels.

[Robert]

I've just won my (first) Monarch game without starting any wars. (I have been attacked several times though)
I didn't conquer any city.

It was a Monarch game, Huge map, 11 civs.
I won a space race victory.

I lost my last game (Same settings, different map of course) by 5 turns. I feel that I'm becoming to be able to nail the Huge-map monarch game. I'm quiet sure that I'll win the next game again.

Time to move on to emperor for that reason

I think the difference between civ1/2 and civ3/4 is that in the latter it's really really difficult to win by conquering. In civ1/2 I always won by conquering the entire earth. It wasn't that much of a deal. In civ3 and certainly in civ4 that's really really really hard. For sure on the huge maps.

[Blake]

I think the difference between civ1/2 and civ3/4 is that in the latter it's really really difficult to win by conquering. In civ1/2 I always won by conquering the entire earth. It wasn't that much of a deal. In civ3 and certainly in civ4 that's really really really hard. For sure on the huge maps.

True, but doubling your empire size in the early-mid game makes it much easier to achieve space race victory.

[johnmcd]

Monarch cultural wins are dead easy without war.

[Robert]

Warmongering is a choise, but the result is that you can't continue to focus on research on the same scale, neither can you expand your cities. Conquering comes with a price. There's not just one way to victory, but I doubt if in civ4 the one way is a better way then the other way.

Most important in civ4 is, AFAICS, that you are able to do the method you've chosen pretty good. Surely on the higher levels.

[Mergle]

Cultural victory. This doesn't depend on what any other player does except you must defend adequately. It will fire before anyone can get spacerace and I have yet to see the AI get a cultural victory (I don't think it tries). No need for warmongering.

[Arrian]

Successful warmongering is powerful, sure. It carries substantial risks, though.

I haven't yet played on a high enough level to have the AI expand twice as fast as me. Thus I can't say from personal experience... but I'm pretty sure it can be done. Hell, my question would be how easy is it going to be to attack a civ 2x as big as you? I'd probably rather try to out-tech and out-build them.

I used to think that way in CivIII, too, before I turned to the darkside. I've little doubt that I will get more and more aggressive as I up the difficulty level. But the whole idea of higher diffs is to make the game hard... and if it's harder, you must go to greater lengths to win, whether that means more micromanagement, or more warmongering, or whatever.

-Arrian

[Strategist83]

Mergle, an opponent warmonger with twice your territory will be able to produce more culture and more wonders than you.

[GeoModder]

The initial culture "production" wins, as long as it is maintained.
In my current game (Prince, small map, continents) I even plonked down a new city in the middle ages and now slowly but sure it overtakes 2 cities from another civ. Of course, it is backed by my 2 oldest cities 5 tiles behind the border.

[Mergle]

Originally posted by Strategist83
Mergle, an opponent warmonger with twice your territory will be able to produce more culture and more wonders than you.

Not necessarily. Crucially, the only culture that matters is in your 3 most cultured cities. Sure, he may have 20 more cities with 10000-odd culture, but that's useless for a culture victory.

Make sure you've got lots of cathedrals/temples/monasteries and beeline for mass media via electricity and radio. Throw up the cultural wonders (you'll probably get enough of a headstart to do this as it's possible to miss out large chunks of the tech tree your larger rival is busy researching) and you're all set. If you need a boost, just go to 100% culture for the endgame once you've got enough techs for a strong defence. I've seen myself tumble down the score ladder and fall further and further behind only to triumph via culture in this way.

I've won on Prince with only 4 cities the entire game this way.

I haven't tried this above monarch yet tho'

[Bill3000]

The majority of score depends on how developed your cities are, I believe, rather than military power. That is by far more geared toward a builder.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

yes