Favorite civ (or what you use the most)

[Nilat]

What civilization do you use the most and why

I use my self Otto von bismark of the germans cause his a militaristic and scientific and also cause the name of the citys are easy to remember!!

[yellfromhell]

Hi,

I use Russia, whith the big fat bulldog leading it. I suppose its because I remember it (or the USSR) being one of the two bad boys of this world, and as nowadays theres only one bad boy, the game gives me the chance to 'balance' again the powers
In psychoanalisis you would say Im 'sublimating'
Bye

[Nilat]

Im sad that you cant use russia with a man

[yellfromhell]

I would prefare Nikita Kruschev rather than Stalin. Please avoid suggesting Gorvatchovs leaderheads.

[Artifex]

I think they gave russia weak traits. Russia in theory is my favorite civ. The way they are implemented in this game makes them my least favorite. I hate the expansionist trait with a passion.

They should make the leader Lenin. What is up with that fat woman?

Russia should be militaristic and Industrious like china. The cossack should be 7.3.3 or 6.3.4.

The 6.4.3 is an insult. You don't use cavalry for defense.

[Gwylim]

I like to play russia and i like the expansionist-trait very much. with it i get nearly all technologies for free in the antic age just entering the cute huts and i was very depressed while playing other civ because i was running behind the other civs or i had nearly no money. i am wondering how to play other civs such successfully in the antic era....

[trickey]

The civ i play most is either greece or persia. Greece, i like the traits they have, and the hoplite doesnt become obsoletefo so long.

Persia's UU, the immortal, is simply unstopable in the ancients era. I even use it to polish of some defenders when i have cavalry.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

I tend to play the Iroquois and made their UU the Mounted Warrior have Hidden Nationality to represent the fact that the early European colonist dressed as natives to attack one another without causing a war.

So I have an early 2 movement unit I can attack my neighbors with without starting war!

[PeteBDawg]

Making the Russians militaristic would be an historical mistake. The Russians have never, not even in the Soviet era, been especially focused on adopting a militaristic social structure. Certainly, the military has been an important tool in the hands of politicians and leaders in Russia for centuries, but generally the skill and training of the army has been secondary to the ability to deliver overwhelming numbers to squash resistance without having to worry about the advantages afforded by superior training or armaments. Yes, Russia has been a military powerhouse, but it has never been because of the importance of the Russian soldier in Russian society. Russian royalty, bureaucrats, and politicians, not generals, have spearheaded the various rises to power. In fact, prior to the World War II, I believe that the Russian soldier was never held in high regard at all by any foreign power. This is not, of course, the fault of the Russian soldier, but the fault of his superiors, who generally believed him to be complete expendable and not deserving proper training or armament. Thus, giving Russians cheap barracks and combat experience would run counter to the root of almost all of their military success.

The Russians should certainly be scientific; that's an appropriate trait for them. They've remained competitive scientifically even when at huge commerical disadvantages to their rivals. Expansionist is lame, I agree, but it is appropriate. If you wanted to pick another one, you can't pick commercial (for obvious reasons), you can't pick religious (Russian revolutions definitely come with periods of anarchy), and you can't pick militaristic.

Industrious seems a little more challenging, because Russian industry is infamous, but Russians aren't really known for infrastructure. In fact, they're sort of known for really poor infrastructure, especially in the pre-Soviet era. And all the industrious nations in the game are known for their infrastructure as often as than their industry- France, in particular (who invented the 30-hour work week), but also Persia and probably America (American highways and railroads probably outstrip the value of American factories). And Egypt and China, though industrious because of their monuments, also generally had comparatively developed infrastructures, at least during the heights of their local dominance.

[Pythagoras]

I heart Babe-e-loanya

[Kramerman]

The Glorious Empire of Rome!

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Pythagoras
I heart Babe-e-loanya

Uh, oh. I see a new leaderhead set in the future....

[Anodyne]

Uh, oh. I see a new leaderhead set in the future....

But hey, I like Babylonians, too...

[MIK_IZ_WAK]

My favourites are the Romans, as you can have some rip roaring military war-mongering fun right from the start of the game. In Civ 2 I always played my native England, but they seem to be worse designed in Civ 3. In Civ 2 they were the kings of science, which meant that huge modern armies could be created easily. Also, in Civ 3 the English seem to be very aggressive in Civ 3, and plus I don't want to be seen as a girl like Elizabeth and if I do play as them, I am at great risk of developing a feminine complexion as all my advisors call me "Ma'am" booo! hissssss!

[Andemagne]

Greeks. (nuthin else.)