Blend-in strategy? Anybody tried it?

[faded glory]

Anybody try to just sit there......stay small and compact and mind your own business? It worked for me pretty well.

[N. Machiavelli]

Re: Blend-in strategy? Anybody tried it?

Originally posted by faded glory
Anybody try to just sit there......stay small and compact and mind your own business? It worked for me pretty well.

Sounds like my "At Work" stratagem. Although sometimes there are division meetings and......oh you meant Civ3? No, I conquer and raze. It's simpler.

[DK36]

Isolationism really tends to blow on you in an unexpected time.

[simwiz2]

isolationism is a very bad civ3 strat IMO. if your isolationist, your not really trading alot, and then you have less luxuries/resoures. less luxuries = higher lux rate or more entertainers needed = lower tax and science or production and what if you dont have all the resources you need. i really dont see how someone could win isolationist, unless they played on chieftain

[Skanky Burns]

Re: Blend-in strategy? Anybody tried it?

Originally posted by faded glory
Anybody try to just sit there......stay small and compact and mind your own business? It worked for me pretty well.

This strat does tend to backfire on you. In my tournament game, i didnt attack anyone. No-one was at war for almost the entire game. We traded luxuries, held hand and sung for world pea... well, you get the idea

Anyways, since we all traded techs as well, our space-race was fairly close. India got a bit jealous of my "bigger spaceship", and decided to conduct a massive invasion. Fortunately they only landed obsolete units, with the more advanced ones landing near the end of the game.

I was able to hold on and get the spaceship victory, but by allowing others to build up, you are putting yourself at risk.

[sophist]

Re: Re: Blend-in strategy? Anybody tried it?

Originally posted by Skanky Burns

I was able to hold on and get the spaceship victory, but by allowing others to build up, you are putting yourself at risk.

And maybe that makes it interesting. I play on Monarch, which puts me in the driver's seat of the game by the Industrial Age. I think if I moved up, I'd not make it out of the Ancient Age (probably should give it another shot, though), which means that the game becomes an exercise in tedium. On the other hand, if the AI civs were more viable opponents into the late Industrial Age, the game might be more fun.

Plus I don't think he was advocating isolationism so much as a more pacifist builder strategy.

[GeorgeG]

Blend in does not seem to work too well.
I was playing on an Earth map (mine) as France (regent level).
All 16 civs were in their "correct" places.

I *tried* to expand as fast as I could, and managed to get Holland and Spain, but Romans settled North Africa, English covered their island quickly and Germany, Russia, and Greece quickly filled eastern Europe.

For many years, we all got along great, I developed my nation, building wonders and mines/roads etc etc. But when land began to run out in Europe, Germany began to get "restless".

It actually was Russia that decided I owed them every tech and coin I had, and perhaps it was my mistake that I didn't say "Yes mayam". Instead I told Catherine to take her empty threats and stick them "something somewhere". Well they weren't empty threats, and Germany declared war after Russia invaded. After I lost my first city, the Romans and English joined the fun and they had a "cut the French cake" party. My loyal subjects reverted the city in Holland back to me, but when the Russians retook the city, they rush built some troops using French citizens as building materials.

Laying too low seems to make you a "partition target"!

<---- captured French workers!