Civ 3 WAR and PEACE: a few thoughts that all should read.....

[muxec]

I never declare war on AI and try to sign peace treaty as fast as possible.

[Thrawn05]

I play peacfuly, BUT, if an AI attacks me... then I commit acts of Genocide.


Hey he started it, he should finish it.

[Arrian]

For those who are interested in "Hippy Sam" here is the link:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57468&highlight=AU102

I managed to come within 4 turns of a UN victory before being sneak-attacked by Egypt. Others managed to win. I think everyone got attacked at least once, though. Ahh, what I could have done with units.

-Arrian

[Lord Merciless]

War is like the Dark Side of the Force, quicker and easier to achieve power. Peace takes longer, and generally requires more skill to achieve the same level of power. I have been so far playing on the Emperor level and have always resorted to warmongering strategies. It starts getting boring because it becomes like a winning formula. If Aeson can conquer the world at Deity level from an iceberg, that says something about the effectiveness of warmongering.

Winning peacefully, or rather pacificist, is a much bigger challenge. If someone can do it consistenly at Emperor+ levels, that person is the true master of Civ3.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
War is like the Dark Side of the Force, quicker and easier to achieve power.

That's funny, because every SW game I play I play that side.


It looks like Sid converted me.

[Panag]

hi ,

peace true power , ....

by the way , at deity until 2050 without a war , 256x256 , 24 civs , ...



so it can be done !

have a nice day

[Galvatron]

I'm not sure if this game is meant only as a peaceful "build cities and irrigate your squares all the time" game as you just need to look at the units more than 3/4 of them are meant purely for war and only a small scale are civilians. Furthermore war is an ideal way to expand your territory and that's the top-priority to win this game. I'm not declaring war to destroy other civs but only to protect my interests and expand. Of course it often happens that a war may escalate and my opponent gets too angry as I took away from him almost all of his possessions and than you just have only one option: to eradicate him completely as he doesn't want to make peace again and will always be a thread to you. But in the end this isn't my fault, all I want was just these two cities.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Galvatron
I'm not sure if this game is meant only as a peaceful "build cities and irrigate your squares all the time" game as you just need to look at the units more than 3/4 of them are meant purely for war and only a small scale are civilians. Furthermore war is an ideal way to expand your territory and that's the top-priority to win this game. I'm not declaring war to destroy other civs but only to protect my interests and expand. Of course it often happens that a war may escalate and my opponent gets too angry as I took away from him almost all of his possessions and than you just have only one option: to eradicate him completely as he doesn't want to make peace again and will always be a thread to you. But in the end this isn't my fault, all I want was just these two cities.

hi ,

putting a civ in the grave yard might be a way to get rid of the problem , but the real challange is to get that civ back on your side , of course only after you have put it on corner of the map , ....

you can allways try propaganda , or culture flip if you want those places , ..

or sign a mutual defense pact , and get them after the other civ declared war , ...then back out , this way the civ you took the places from tends to be less angry with you , ..

have a nice day