[lmm]

For me Civilization was my introduction to realpolitik. Before playing it I had genuine difficulty understanding why or how wars ever happened. Maybe it is psychopathic - but it's long been observed that the behaviour of corporations would be psychopathic if seen in a human, and the same is true for nations. The best games hold a mirror up to (one aspect of) reality, and Civilization does exactly that. Indeed part of the reason the story in the linked article is so compelling is the fear of something like it happening in the real world.

PS: I have been wondering about playing Muv-Luv for a while. But that article is very badly written. It must have been heartfelt for the writer, but they haven't managed to convey what makes it so special to them.

[manachar]

I was playing Civ 5 a while ago and had good relations with my neighboring civs. I tend to aim for science or cultural victories, so playing nice works well.

Come to find out I had no iron resources. Without iron I could not progress and would be unable to defend myself agains barbarians let alone another civ (like that backstabbing Napoleon!). I could have tried to trade for the resources, but didn't really have much to offer in exchange and would make for a volatile supply.

Meanwhile, my good friend just to the south had loads of iron, but almost no troops... I've never felt more dishonest than when I crushed his civ to take his iron. The military buildup I needed to do so along with the new iron resources ended up essentially forcing me to choose the military domination victory path.

The game forced me to switch from peacenik to expansionist military force crushing all who opposed me.