I've been playing the Sid Meier Civilization series ever since it first came out in the early 90's. In all versions of the game, you take a civilization beginning with one city in 4000 BC and go to victory or defeat.
It's a game where you say to yourself "just a few more turns" and, the next time you look at the clock, it's four in the morning.
You can win a variety of ways. Conquering the world, the choice of barbarians, is one possibility. Another way to win is diplomatically, defined as getting elected Secretary General of the United Nations, or scientifically and technologically, defined as leaving earth to colonize another planet, or culturally, defined by superior performance in art/engineering/great achievements.
It was a big jump from Civilization 3 to Civilization 4. For the first time in the series, the new version of the game was a significantly different game than its predecessor. Among many differences, Civilization 3 is more epic in scope, but Civ 4 goes quicker. The jury is still out as to which one I prefer.
It seems to me that a Christian should want to "rule the world" by setting an example of being a good neighbor, in which case one might pursue a diplomatic strategy. Or perhaps the Christian would want to "win" by making the world a better place--hence, a cultural strategy--or performing an heroic public service, in which case a science and technology strategy would be best.
Grandiose, you say? Uncharacteristically pious? Fuzzy-headed liberal protestantism run amok? Nay, nay, and nay. I view the contest very much as the Qumran community viewed the world in the first century. This is a battle between "the sons of light and the sons of darkness," baby. Hey, the AI cheats. Need I say more?
The other day, I happened across an internet article on how to win militarily. Basically, all you do is discover iron, build all the swordsmen you can, and send them out to conquer. Yes, you have to do it right, but, as sheer strategy, it takes no genius to do it. You could probably train a monkey to win that way.
In dozens of games of Civ 4, I have won, playing as a Christian, exactly twice--once by bringing peace to the world diplomatically, ushering in a permanent Golden Age, and once by leading a brave band of colonists to a Bright New Day on a new planet. This proves that, just like Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount, it can be done.
Have you ever felt lost for words and pondered what matters to discuss on your own website web page? Very well, in place of feeling perplexed, your time could be spent on improving your writing skills.
Posted by: Nike Air | February 21, 2011 at 11:41 PM
I try to play like a Christian and use Gahndi as my leader. But then, India gets the War Elephants. It's hard NOT to trample people with a bevy of War Elephants.
Posted by: Christopher | February 22, 2011 at 03:40 AM
That's why I like Julius Caesar in Civ 4--those praetorians are tough!--and the Iroquois in Civ 3; Mounted Warriors are the best unit in the early game, IMHO.
Thanks for your visit. I like your blog!
Posted by: John Petty | February 22, 2011 at 12:22 PM