My first game as a warloard

[Qwertqwert]

Playing on Epic/Noble 18 Civs Huge 4 Continents, I was able to take over 12 cities (for a total of 13, I havn't made a settler yet) and it's only 25BC right now. I used to be a builder and now I think this is a much better way. If I can get this entire continent I would definatly be the dominating force through out the game. I currently have about 40% of it as far as I can tell. Here's a picture.

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/1594/untitled1140lc.jpg

I think this shows that Warmonger really is the way to go.

[Smellycowsquid]

I believe the scoring system is biased towards the warmonger...that, and warmongering is fun.

[Nugog]

Warmongering is so much fun

I've tried the builder thing, and it just didn't really seem to work for me

[Urban Ranger]

Do you mean that you used to play on Chieftain?

[Qwertqwert]

???

I've always played Noble/Prince... Did you read the post? This isn't about being on Warloard level, this is about being a war monger... I said in the post that it was on Noble.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: My first game as a warloard

Well you did say that was your first game as a "warlord." As it turns out Warlord is a level in Civ 4.

[Qwertqwert]

Re: Re: My first game as a warloard

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Well you did say that was your first game as a "warlord." As it turns out Warlord is a level in Civ 4.

Well the confusion would have been diminished if you read the post.

[Palpster]

Well, the post makes it clear, but when reading the title I thought about the difficulty level as well...

Anyways, nice to see you're having succes. I'm more of a builder type and terrible at war actually. I think I'll run a couple of "Always War" games to get some practice in.

[johnmcd]

Warmongering is just dull, it's shuffling units around the map and you really don't need to worry about anything except common sense, strategic decions are minimal and the consequences of most mistakes are minor.

Frankly, I find it terribly uninteresting.

[Quillan]

Perhaps so, but my god does it pay dividends. I usually play as a builder as well, going to war when necessary but only for limited time and objectives. The game I'm currently in, I decided to try for a Domination victory (never done this before, and it's on a huge map so I figured it would be difficult). Right now, it's about 1760, I have tanks and infantry rolling over the enemy, I've got about 57% of the worlds land area within my borders (need 58% to win) and I'm looking at a final score in excess of 20,000. My GNP is 3-4 times that of my closest rival. In fact, in every category but approval I am anywhere from twice as high to four times as high as the closest other civilization. I could run at 50% science and still outresearch everyone. This is insane!

[johnmcd]

[SIZE=1] This is insane!

It's broken! Your hastily assembled empire should be fracturing along every fault line!

[PaganPaulwhisky]

Warmongering is just dull, it's shuffling units around the map and you really don't need to worry about anything except common sense, strategic decions are minimal and the consequences of most mistakes are minor.

To me its just the opposite. I think the war game involves a lot of strategy and keeps me much more focused on the game. Each turn involves careful manipulation of units to make efficient territory gain and to weaken your neighbors so that they cannot recover. I like challenging myself to beat the game as early as possible by using ultra quick and deep military beelines. On monarch, by the way, any minor military mishaps can be disasterous as the comp will likely have a lot more units than you.

For me each military game is different. Sometimes it takes me till the modern age to win and sometimes I win by 1100 A.D. My space race games tend to be much more similar and monotenous. Basically its a lot of waiting around for stuff to complete building, appeasing your aggresive neighbors, and maximizing science through GP and biology. The GP portion is usually fun, but the rest gets pretty boring IMO. For the most part you will be using the same civics the entire game in peaceful games. I always find myself itching to start a war in these games just for the hell of it.

[Qwertqwert]

Well the way I look at it, the goal of the game is to win. And I feel now that this is the best way of winning. Amass an unbeatable military and run in and take over.

[johnmcd]

Originally posted by PaganPaulwhisky


To me its just the opposite. I think the war game involves a lot of strategy and keeps me much more focused on the game. Each turn involves careful manipulation of units to make efficient territory gain and to weaken your neighbors so that they cannot recover. I like challenging myself to beat the game as early as possible by using ultra quick and deep military beelines. On monarch, by the way, any minor military mishaps can be disasterous as the comp will likely have a lot more units than you.

For me each military game is different. Sometimes it takes me till the modern age to win and sometimes I win by 1100 A.D. My space race games tend to be much more similar and monotenous. Basically its a lot of waiting around for stuff to complete building, appeasing your aggresive neighbors, and maximizing science through GP and biology. The GP portion is usually fun, but the rest gets pretty boring IMO. For the most part you will be using the same civics the entire game in peaceful games. I always find myself itching to start a war in these games just for the hell of it.

You're a micro-manager, get a job!