What strategy will you try out first?

[Grim Legacy]

I was just thinking about how I was going to handle my first (few) game(s).

Considering the importance of culture and diplomacy in Civ3, I thought it would be wise to try a balanced approach, mixing expansionism with development. Not breaking too many treaties, but still making sure I get cheap land mass and population (conquest and building).
I think I'll still focus on tech, not on culture. Looks like wonder building is going to be tough, so I'm planning on an eclectic approach there.

On the other hand, it would be fun to see how far my most aggressive strategies would carry me this time round... any thoughts?

How are *you* going to start off?

[campmajor!]

Well, similar to your approach I think. In civ2 I started expanding like hell, but with some military power to protect my cities.

In civ3 I will expand fast as well, because I want the resources! They are going to be very important in civ3 I estimate, so the more land you own the higher the chance that important resources are on your land. That also gives me power over the other players!

Culture I think will not be that important, especially in the beginning where nobody has much culture yet. But we'll see how that will work out.

And gradually the center of my civ will build wonders, culture buildings, science buildings, units, etc.

Something like that....

[Falconius]

I'll go for the balanced approach too, and make decisions based on the circumstances presented (ie if I see an opportunity for easy conquest, I'll go for it.)

Grim,
What's that Latin phrase in your sig mean?

[Grim Legacy]

Allright, but what about the increased costs for building cities? Settlers cost 2 pop. points now and workers are expensive too.

Also, with the increased barbarian presence (encampments etc), the possibilities of a smooth and effective expansionistic approach may be limited. I fully expect the AI to be able to play this way, because they will have less trouble with resources (cheating) and barbarian threats (cheating too), but not the human player.

I think it's crucial to invest in the military side of things in the beginning to be able to secure a stronghold. Once the land is 'safe', expansion may be more feasible.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Falconius
I'll go for the balanced approach too, and make decisions based on the circumstances presented (ie if I see an opportunity for easy conquest, I'll go for it.)

Grim,
What's that Latin phrase in your sig mean?

Crude translation is: "Each one/Everyone is closest/nearest (in a sense of 'caring about') to him or herself"

[campmajor!]

Well, if the opposition is indeed that strong, military must come first!

If it is not possible to expand by building than I will do it by conquest!

The pop2 thing can be a bottleneck. Maybe the goodie huts can deliver some free cities! Anyway I will play an expansionistic civ like the Russians, so the chance of good things out of goodie huts is higher.

However if my strategy fails I will have to adjust it! That makes a new edition of civ fun.

[Blake]

First game I'll just go with the flow

And once I've got an idea of the game play I'll (probably) start a new game and try some specific strategy.

I'll be using a largely peacefull strategy, anyway. Probably culture emphasis...

[Grim Legacy]

Well my experience with 'really' peaceful playing in Civ2 is that the Ai will always come along, surpassing you technologically by trading techs like crazy and invading your little island with bothersome units that hinder your settlers... and then attack you if you don't pay them and force you to upgrade those phalanxes.

[Rasputin]

i think i will go with the flow, start expanding but also defend with military... get a well established civ sort of perfectionist but not that perfect...

[Jason Beaudoin]

I usually played a "perfectionist/expansionist" in my earlier games, and I'll probably do the same. In CIV II, I used to try and conquer the continent, but that might be a little more difficult in CIV III, so I may take a much more cautious approach to launching any wars.

If I do engage in any war, I'll make sure that I can win quickly and also be able to hold conquered cities.

If I'm forced into war and not entirely prepared, any cities that I capture, I'll raze to the ground.

But, in general, I find that my play style will work beautifully in this game. I'm just torn by which civilization I should take. I'm leaning toward the French. It will go good with my last name:

Beaudoin, Emperor of France!

[Mannamagnus]

I guess I'll just try to survive and see where that gets me.

[Fidel]

hehehe, stole my words. i guess surviving it in the first game will be the order of the day....

[Henk_Glimlach]

I will create the roman empire andn when i'm creating that i will make wonders and improvements to. When the empire is big enough i will focus on the culture diplomacy and science part. And then live in peace with my neighbours i will make military units to defend myself. And of course lots of trade so cash will flow in .

[Be Quicker]

The first couple of games, I will play without CSA's, golden ages, and UU's, just to understand all the other new things about Civ III. The game I will play then I hope will be a serious as possible game, in which I'll try to expand as quickly as possible, build useful city improvements inbetween expanding (waiting for enough settler pop points), not bother with assimilating enemy cities, but just raze them unless they contain wonders. Basically just expansionist, albeit it slightly more careful than in Civ II, and all the rest (culture, techs, diplomacy, trade) in support of this. At least I need enough area so that I have saltpeter because I will need gunpowder, a lot. And only build a worker (in addition to the first free one) after 5 cities or so.

[yin26]

I will try to ICS like crazy. See how it goes. Of course, since I won't be playing the game until MP is out, I suppose I'll already know if ICS will work or not. *sigh* The price of principles.