It has been claimed that Illyriad is a war game.  Those who make the claim point to the ability of a player to build armies and attack other players as the core function of the game and thus, since it is at the core of the game, it must be that the game is a "war game."  I disagree for the following reasons.

First, a true war game, in my opinion, forces any player in the game to engage in warfare by either defining "winning" as "winning against other players through combat" or making it impossible to "win" without engaging in combat against other players.  Not "impossible" as in "it doesn't happen, ever" but in " if you don't engage the game will not let you reach the goal it calls 'winning'." 

Imagine a game in which the only way to win is to take something from your opponent against their will by using imaginary armies and you get the picture.  It's the necessity of the use of armies that makes it a war game.  Illyriad is not a war game by this definition for two reasons: first, as I have repeatedly argued, any war which is started is done by the choice of at least one side and is only necessary if at least one side has to chosen to go to war.  If no one chooses to do so then the game can be played entirely without warfare between players.  Second, since there is no stated win condition, the declaration that you have "won" because you have warred against another and prevailed, is merely a convention, and thus, somewhat subjective. 

Another line of reasoning which shows that Illyriad is not a war game, is that, overall, the players of Illyriad, almost never go to war.  If it were a war game there would be by necessity a lot more wars.  But since wars are relatively few in Illyriad and most of them end without a clear cut "winner," if it is, strictly speaking a, "war game" it is a pretty weak one at best.  That can be said because definitions do matter.  If you were to, for instance, claim that you were producing a "race game" but only a few of those actually playing it were actually racing,  you would have to expand the definition of a "race game" or come up with a better classification, one which included whatever other things the non-racing players were doing.  In Illyriad, except on relatively rare occasions players and alliances avoid wars and even when they do engage, after the war ends, they pretty much remain as they were before the war started, except perhaps with some restrictions on one side or the other.  Thus, not only are they not forced to go to war, war seldom has a long term effect on the direction of the game.  (There are exceptions, of course.)

Thus, the design of the game does not force it into the category of "war game" nor do most players actually play the game as a war game.  From these two lines of reasoning I would like to offer the following as a definition of what Illyriad is.

Illyriad is a "Empire Building" game in which avoiding war is usually the better long-term strategy.  You might even call it a "War Avoidance Empire Building Game" -- which is a mouthful, to say the least.  In any case, It makes perfect sense to call it that as most players do go out of their way to avoid war, and, given the high cost of making war, the very structure of the game makes war something to be avoided if you wish to grow and survive long term.

There are several things about Illyriad which make it a natural fit as a "war avoidance" game. 

First, it is slow paced, and thus wars can, and do cost a lot of player time.  Most players have the goal of building their empire and unless they are large enough to actually take on another alliance, which most are not, they want to focus their time and energy on building, not using resources to destroy and be destroyed.

Second, war is extremely expensive.  It may take months or even years to build a complete city and to have it destroyed in a matter of a couple days inhibits one's willingness to risk a war.  Most players exhibit the desire to avoid war by either staying out of whatever conflicts arise, no matter how serious the infringement, or by only going to war against those smaller than themselves or at least over which they have some distinct advantage, clustering, organizational strength, experience, etc..  In other words, most players do not engage in war unless they are fairly certain they have a good chance of winning.  There are exceptions, of course, but here we are generalizing.

Third, some players are just opposed to war as a strategy of empire building.  Taking from others what they have spent months and years building, without reasonable provocation, to those of us who are not warrior types, seems to be more akin to the law of the jungle than a civilized exercise in friendly competition.  There are, of course those who view the game from a Darwinian perspective, but overall most players want to have fun and fun to most does not mean engaging in personal vendettas and other uncivilized behaviors.   It's ironic that those who do such things are the very ones who try to say "it's just a game."  If so, one has to wonder why verbal and/or battlefield defeats so often end up causing players to waste time and energy on exacting revenge.  Avatars have no feelings, players do.  But I digress.  The point is, there are players who wish to force Illyriad into the "war game" mold, but the structure of the game itself makes it difficult at best, and the players make it nearly impossible.

So in the end there are good reasons for calling Illyriad an Empire Building game where war avoidance is the predominant and most successful strategy employed, a "Empire Building, War Avoidance" game.

AJ