your gameplay style

[Provost Harrison]

Well I fall somewhere between hybrid builder: moderator and peaceful builder, so I think by definition I would be in the former, but my conquests are only ever in the hope of gaining new territory to build up...

[aaglo]

My choise was peaceful builder, because I hate being at war. I try to maintain peace as long as possible, and when some arrogant imbecil want's to fight with me, then so be it. I seldomly conquer enemy cities, I just keep the enemy away from my installations (by attacking only those who come too close). In other words: I like to keep my property clean

[Colonel Kraken]

I am definitely a Hybrid Builder: Moderator. I expand at an even paced rate. I stake out claims on territory that I believe should be mine (usually for strategic reasons --either militarily or economically); if an AI Civ plops his rear on 'my' turf, I give him the boot.

Normally, though, I actively seek to make peaceful first contact. If the other civ responds in kind, I go out of my way to forge a lasting, strong relationship. If the other civ makes himself out to be a total jackass, I smash a few cities, threaten a few more and watch him grovel at my feet for peace. Then I say, "Ok, until next time. Try it again and I'll wipe you out."

That's me: act civilized toward me, and I'll be your closest friend, ally, and supporter. Step on my toes or otherwise annoy me with subversive tricks and warfare, and I'll grind you into the ground.

Now that's fun!!

[Tarquinius]

I had a few difficulties in picking my play type, but I think Hybrid Builder: Moderator is best for me.
I usually start off quite agressively, i am expanding as rapidly as i can. When i encounter an enemy civ near my, i try to crush that civ immedeatly, so I take some cities easily, and I can expand freely

After a while (12 cities or so) I stop expanding, and am going to improve my cities. I really want to keep peace for a while, only after my cities are big, and I am ready for warfare, I am willing to wage war again. (usually around 1600 A.D.)
And then Ill try to crush all my enemies into the ground (I dont exceed always in that )

I really hate it when civs demand unreasonable things for war, like 1000 gold, or an civ advance every 4 turns etc. But then I can make a pretty strong force, and teach the warmmonger a lesson

[Cookie Monster]

Aggressive Imperialist builder definately.

I use sci/tech to first increase my science output then start discovering all the good weapons. I stay peacefull but it is hard because the slightest international incident sparks a war in my book.

Given the mechanics of CivIII I may switch to being a peacefull builder but maintain a strong defense force.

[Master Marcus]

Thanks to ALL posters so far, and for new viewers don't hesitate to jump in. Keep'em coming. All comments so far are very constructive, even the less positive ones

Btw, as some of you have so well mentioned, I really like also the need of a good war or two even when playing a more peaceful game - just for expanding my empire and to become eventually the unquestionable dominating civ. If it was only for the pleasure of eradicating, I guess I'd prefer playing Unreal Tournament.....

[Edward]

Originally posted by UberKruX
im usually a warmonger in civ2, but i suppose wiping out all the races but my own would be reather stupid in civ3, because of the whole new resource structure.

You could wipe 'em out, then use conquered cities or constructed colonies to access their resources. In fact, if the AI is reluctant to trade their resources, that'll be all the more reason to expand your empire via war. (Could be self-feeding: I have few culture points so the AI refuses to trade (fairly) with me. Lamenting the AI's isolationistic greed I'm forced to take what I need...)

I'm definitely a subset of "Peaceful Builder" in most of my Civ2 games. In the early game I rapidly (but peacefully) expand by settling many small cities across the globe. In the late game I go back and build up those cities. Civ3 will throw a wrench in my usual plans since my settlers will be more expensive (2 pop) and it'll be harder to keep pesky AI settlers out of "my" unsettled land (since ancient units will have smaller ZOCs).

I predict being a "Peaceful Builder" in Civ3 as well. Perhaps changing to a strategy of few cities and many cultural improvements will be more effective. The Civ2 AI is bad at determining stuff's value ("Tribute of 500 gold for no reason? Sure!", "I demand you give me the (post-Bach worthless) secret of Theology!"). Add the influence of a superior culture and I'll be wheeling-and-dealing my way to victory. (Is that more of a "Moderator" approach?) Maybe this culture thing will finally give the AI perfectionists (Babylonians, Aztecs) a "fighting" chance in Civ3.

[Sabre2th]

Re: hybrid in your way

Originally posted by Master Marcus


Great. In my book, you're clearly within the "hybrid builder:Moderator" group. Read again, and I'me sure 95% of players can be easily fitted within the poll choices.

If not, then I truly apologize for having perpetuated the " poll syndrome"......

Don't tell me where I fit in. My strategy is complex and doesn't fit your options.

[Bay Skipjack]

I voted peaceful builder, but like many others I often find myself in the hybrid-builder/moderator category. I never start a war, but will always defend to the death.

There are those moments late game where a civ just can't take a hint, and I wind up crushing his (or her) puny a**

Civ3 may bend my style to rely more on diplomacy, less on a perfectionist bent...Yeh, Right!

[Buck Birdseed]

I suspect that most people who like me are not very good at Civ play the Hybrid: Emperor- unless you're careful you will end up in a lot of wars in civ. My "strategy" if you may call it that is trying to maximise population growth by improvement and expansion.

[Master Marcus]

Interesting: at this point, 23 peaceful builders for only ONE peacemaker??????? ( if as a real peacemaker you are forced by an opponent into war, then-and only then-that doesn't mean to only defend and not retaliate. In my book you can even invade a few, taking some cities - thus having some kind of a military. But of course you avoid to eradicate completely the enemy civ.)

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Snapcase
people who like me are not very good at Civ

Could you specify that, Snapcase? Does this mean 'Sometimes when playing OCC, I don´t manage to reach AC before 1900' or 'Even on Prince level, two times out of three the AI eradicates my humble civ'?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Colonel Kraken
I am definitely a Hybrid Builder: Moderator. I expand at an even paced rate. I stake out claims on territory that I believe should be mine (usually for strategic reasons --either militarily or economically); if an AI Civ plops his rear on 'my' turf, I give him the boot.

Normally, though, I actively seek to make peaceful first contact. If the other civ responds in kind, I go out of my way to forge a lasting, strong relationship. If the other civ makes himself out to be a total jackass, I smash a few cities, threaten a few more and watch him grovel at my feet for peace. Then I say, "Ok, until next time. Try it again and I'll wipe you out."

That's me: act civilized toward me, and I'll be your closest friend, ally, and supporter. Step on my toes or otherwise annoy me with subversive tricks and warfare, and I'll grind you into the ground.

Now that's fun!!

AMEN!!!

[jdd2007]

hybrid builder:Emperor

[Sarxis]

Yes- hybrid Emperor.

I can't resist anything with the word 'Emperor' in it.