whoreish playing...

[Inverse Icarus]

i consider ICS (building cities really close early on to max production and minimize growth) to be a VERY cheezy tactic, but it works.

i'd vote for not using it, but then you have to think, someone else might.

namely, gathering storm.

those strat-whores always ICS in their AU games.

should we petition the UN for some anti-ICS measure? or plan to do it ourselves?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

I have never used it but may be willing to try depending on our start position.

Someone once pointed out that you don't have to keep the cities you can dismantle them later and buld new ones.

I am assuming we have no intention of ever changing our government from Monarchy once we have achieved it?

[Panzer32]

I am assuming we have no intention of ever changing our government from Monarchy once we have achieved it?

Hmmm, Democracy is good for building units, especially with universal sufferage... We will need to discuss about this further.

i'd vote for not using it, but then you have to think, someone else might.

Of course, we could always take over all their wimpy size 3 cities and keep them for our own

[Inverse Icarus]

yes, but i just dislike that sytle of play in principle.

i mean, thats ALL people did in civ2 MP, and there was no chence to stop them unless you did it yourself, and i fear it may happen in this game.

as for governments, i said i usually go despotism -> communism (pop rush whore), but i usually have a slowdown during the late mideval era, and thats probably why.

what usually happens is i think about going to monarchy, and then i start building sun tzus, or sistenes, leos, whatever, and i end up in the late mideval age still in despotism, wiht communism not too far away.

i'm certainly willing to bend to people who know how to use revolutions effectively. i almost never play as a religious civ (aztecs / celts occasionally) and those 7 turns (or however many) seem like an eternity of wasted cities.

[Panzer32]

A way anarchy can be effective (or minimized impact):

-You are in a war as a democracy or a republic
-You are just a few turns away from the war ending, but you are paralysed with war wearyness
-You don't need any more units etc from your cities to definately win the war.
-Call a revolution, causing your civilization to fall into anarchy
-Finish the war
-When anarchy is over, simply re-select Democracy.

This way, you can be a Democracy in peace and early wartime, and not have 2 seperate periods of anarchy.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Why I think Monarchy would be good for us.

1) It allows to support more units for free.
Despotism allows 4 free per city
Monarchy allows 2 for town, 4 for city, or 8 for metropolis
2) Increase military police limit from 2 to 3.
3) War weariness is non existant.

I think Republic might work well if we go through a period of peace, but as we plan to be warlike, Monarchy looks to be better once are cities have been established.

[Donegeal]

I must agree with GF. With a standard size map and so many war-like teams, I do not see this game going much if at all into the industrial age. This was one of the main reasons I wanted a UU that replaced the Knight. The bulk of the fighting will be done in the Middle Age. Tech will be hard to come by and the age will last for a very long time (we must see to this by constant warring to keep the others tech sliders low ). Monarchy will be our best bet and I think we should go for it one we have either Iron Working and Horseback Ridding. Screw Literacy and map making. Let the builder get it then extort it from them. As for ICS, well I don't know what it stands for but I understand the concept. I have found that cramped cities don't work as well in Civ III as it did in Civ I and II. However, if it works, then we should do it. GS will undoutedly do it, and there would be NO CHANCE of getting a multi-site game to not do it. Sorry Uber, it might be sissy but if it works, we should do it (would you avoid kicking a guy in the groin in a bar fight just because its "unfair"?). Besides, if the game goes as I think it will, I do not see cities getting any bigger then about 10 and reach a max of 12 because the game will be over before anyone gets medicine.

[Inverse Icarus]

Monarchy only allows more units if you have metropolis... and as you stated, you could end up supporting LESS units.

town = 1-6, city = 7-12, metro = 13+.

how many hospitals do you have in the mideval era?

as my games usually turn out, i end up with a few cities (major cities @ the center of my empire) and a bunch of size 3-6 scattered everywhere else.

Sorry Uber, it might be sissy but if it works, we should do it (would you avoid kicking a guy in the groin in a bar fight just because its "unfair"?).

i'd hope people would be honorable enough to refrain from "cheap shots", but in the end, all anyone (or anything for that matter) cares about is their own survival.

[Donegeal]

Originally posted by UberKruX
Monarchy only allows more units if you have metropolis... and as you stated, you could end up supporting LESS units.

town = 1-6, city = 7-12, metro = 13+.

how many hospitals do you have in the mideval era?

This is very true, however, we cannot stay as a Despotism untill communisim in a MP game. We would get crushed. Our Choice will be between Republic and Monarchy. As a Warmonger team, republic is out of the question. This leaves Monarchy.

We won't have any hospitals in the Midevel era, however, with a "normal" wettness setting, we might be able to find a river and build our cities on it so we can avoid the Aquaduct. Hills and rivers will be the best citiy spots IMHO.

[Inverse Icarus]

We won't have any hospitals in the Midevel era

exactly, you dont get them until the early industial era

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

90% of my cites are size 12 before I enter the Medieval era.

The larger the city the more tiles it can work. The more tiles it can work the more shields it can produce.

Monarchy allows me to use 1 more unit per city as Mililtary Police and each city supports as many as they would under Despotism. Once we have sewer systems we can double our army and still pay NO UPKEEP. Under Monarchy I don't suffer as severe production penalties as I did under Despotism.

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Why I think Monarchy would be good for us.


I think Republic might work well if we go through a period of peace, but as we plan to be warlike, Monarchy looks to be better once are cities have been established.

Peace? When? I hope that after Feudalism, we make a beeline for Military Tradition.

Even if a civ gets factories they have to be 2/3 the size of us to produce what we can without them. With Hoover they still need to be 1/2 our size to be as productive. We won't need Universities & Banks, because, our military trumps technology.

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Why I think Monarchy would be good for us.


I think Republic might work well if we go through a period of peace, but as we plan to be warlike, Monarchy looks to be better once are cities have been established.

Peace? When? I hope that after Feudalism, we make a beeline for Military Tradition.

Even if a civ gets factories they have to be 2/3 the size of us to produce what we can without them. We won't need Universities & Banks, because, our military trumps technology.

As for Depotism-->Monarchy, it becomes worthwhile when corruption gets out of hand.