I want to be nice, but...

[Pyrodrew]

I don't know if killing everyone is the most efficient way to play. I find that, personally, corruption and the hassle of having to move armies around detracts heavily from the idea of military domination. After all, what's the point in causing all that aggravation just to own a bunch of cities weighed down by corruption?

Not necessarily killing everyone, but constantly being at war & gaining new territory. True, after a point corruption strangles any profit from the cities. However, you still gain points/power from the land, resources, gain technologies/gold from tribute of your victims, still gain leaders to complete wonders & your forbidden palace, and still take away land/points/culture/units/power from your enemies by doing so. Who cares if they are corrupt, leave them corrupt. Remember # of cities corruption is minimal compared to distance corruption. A large empire allows for a well placed capital & forbidden palace to yield heavy profits & benefits.

[David Murray]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew

you still gain points/power from the land, resources, gain technologies/gold from tribute of your victims, still gain leaders to complete wonders & your forbidden palace, and still take away land/points/culture/units/power from your enemies by doing so.

The thing that gets me the most about being constantly at war is the fact that cities building troops end up being unable to produce city improvements. If it is a good strategy to remain at war against defeatable opponents, what then is a good remedy for the fact that one's cities may end up without coliseums, libraries etc...?

[bigvic]

Originally posted by UberKruX
it was world peace. they had that stupid blue bar for it.

and for some reason i can't get a leader in my current game. i'm china, and i'm running around with a ton of elite riders, slaughtering 3 AIs at once, and NOTHING.

Yeah, similar prob w/ my German game. Usually I like to chill and build early w/ the Germans, trying to get science and development kicking in, then start blitzing late, but this game I got squeezed early, found myself next to civs whose UU's would not appear til after I had a chance to eliminate or critically hurt them, so decided to open up fighting. Amazingly, before the ancient era was up. I had three leaders, all of which I dumped into armies in order to build the pentagon to make up for lack of early or mid UU's. Built both pentagon & heroic epic, at the expense of developing, and building great wonders. I assumed that w/ the heroic epic, leaders would come out of the woodwork to be used exclusively to rush buy wonders. Yeah, sure! Almost to the industrial age now, no freakin leaders and precious few elite promotions. Guess I just used up all my luck early, but sometimes I wonder. Seems like game hates Germany.

[Panzer]

I agree that you have to have at least 1 early war in order to get the necessary resources and cities. That's why I like to play as the Germans. If I discover another Civ that's too close for comfort, than that civ is dead. After I absorbed that Civ into my empire I start building improvements nd Wonders. So I usually conquer one Civ in the Ancient Era (two if that is required, although that has seldom happened so far.)

[Cookie Monster]

Re: Exactly my gripe!!!!!

Originally posted by bobbyd1947
I was complaining about essentially the same thing in another thread. In this version of Civilization, it is virtually impossible, if one is playing above warlord level, to win without aggressively destroying or severely maiming other civilizations on one's continent. That is NOT the type of game I choose to play. In Civ2 I could almost always win a science victory at the emperor level by building a strong defense, and wars were invariably short and decisive. In this idiocy, wars go on for decades , even when the A1 has no chance of victory. Civ2 was like an ultra-sophisticated chess game; this is more like Super Mario Brothers.

Well stated

The experience you had with Civ2 is similiar to mine. It is idiotic that wars in Civ3 continue for decades without accomplishing anything.

[Beren]

OK, so war is important in Civ3. But it's like that in real life as well. Peaceful domination is much harder than military domination. I like Civ3 like this.

It is a disadvantage that games look a bit more alike, but you still can try to do it peaceful and it is actually possible. And about leaders, who cares about them. They never appear at all, an example:
I whiped out about 4 civs before I got a leader. Built an army, built heroic epic. I whiped out the other 11 civs and I didn't get a leader at all.
Now I don't know about different world sizes, but I don't like playing huge in the first place. (It is much more fun, fighting 15 civs on a tiny map.)

[bigvic]

Originally posted by Beren
OK, so war is important in Civ3. But it's like that in real life as well. Peaceful domination is much harder than military domination. I like Civ3 like this.

It is a disadvantage that games look a bit more alike, but you still can try to do it peaceful and it is actually possible. And about leaders, who cares about them. They never appear at all, an example:
I whiped out about 4 civs before I got a leader. Built an army, built heroic epic. I whiped out the other 11 civs and I didn't get a leader at all.
Now I don't know about different world sizes, but I don't like playing huge in the first place. (It is much more fun, fighting 15 civs on a tiny map.)

15 civs on a tiny map? How? I can't do that. Do you have some sort of patch or mod? Is this a European thing?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by bigvic


15 civs on a tiny map? How? I can't do that. Do you have some sort of patch or mod? Is this a European thing?

you can use civedit to allow for as many civs as you want. go to rules edit, then its under the world sizes tab.
pretty fun to have a tiny map w/ 16 civs. maybe 2-3 cities max, bloody. of course, the ai I think doesn't realize how one city can shift power in that case, so it can be an easy(er) win on a difficult level

[bigvic]

excellent! funny how these things slip by one.