What game style do you like most and why?

[Harovan]

I tried several play styles in the past. Full games mostly Monarch level, test games up to Deity. Here are my experiences (numbers in parenthesises are warmongering/building):

- Ultra warmonger style (100/0): From beginning, attack with all units at hand, and be it warriors. Catch up in research making harsh peace treaties. I didn't very well in this style, because my enemies researched very fast and fighting with Horsies against Pikemen and Knights is certainly not fun.

- Warmonger style (75/25): Beeline for offensive techs (Horseback riding, Chivalry etc.), build barracks, temples and lots of units and rush! Works good, but is more work than fun for me. Getting even in research is possible with peace treaties, but hard to keep.

- Snake style (50/50): Do an early rush with Chariots/Swordsmen/Horsemen or derived UU's, wipe out 1-2 civ's completely. Or make them puny vassals, but wiping out works better for me. Switch to builder style, settle and build infrastructure in the new terrain, go kill the next civ (the puny ones first, go for more luxuries), build up again and so on. Reminds a snake, skinning and growing in the new skin. Avoid to sell techs, but sell luxuries. Works best for me (my vote), only with this style I was able to make a huge (12 techs) lead in the early modern era even with 1.17f.

- Builder style (25/75): REX in the ancient era, grab land, resources and luxuries, occasionally fight for resources, then settle down and build. Don't attack, but keep a strong (at least "average") military and crush an enemy only if he attacked first (as we all know, he will). Occasionally fight limited wars for new resources. Works good for me, but the growth of the empire is limited. You can keep up in tech, but since you have at most 3-4 luxuries (in average, you may be lucky) to sell and there are a lot of trade concurrents, you are enforced to trade techs and can't get a big lead.

- Pacifist style (0/100): Build city defenders, a small mobile militia and concentrate building the perfect infrastructure. Never attack, be the good boy, trade for resources and give in on bullies and extorts. Works not so good, you can so-so keep up in research, but have only a small country (won't call it an Empire), are fragile and very vulterable to AI sneak attacks and allied AI rushes.

And what style works best for you?

[Cookie Monster]

Well I voted for kill 'em all.

Unfortunately my experiences have taught me that even if you have a large army you have to go to war more often than not. The AI may leave you alone because you have a large army but you are likely to end up with land that has no resources. If you don't strike early and hard you will be denied these resources. It seems that no matter what one does, war is a big part of Civ3.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

The snake thing!

AJ

[Arrian]

I voted for builder, because that's my natural inclination, but I also like to play with snakes Warmongering without a break gets dull, as does peaceful building. I require a bit of both. I also require luxuries for my people, and I'm more than willing to break empires to get them.

-Arrian

[rpodos]

Using Sir Ralph's system, I am about 60/40.

Do we have to call it the "snake strategy"?

R

[civman2000]

i'm 35/65, a bit closer to builder than snake, but pretty much in the middle.

[fezick31]

Originally posted by civman2000
i'm 35/65, a bit closer to builder than snake, but pretty much in the middle.

ditto

[punkbass2000]

ditto

[Aeson]

How about peaceful core and barbaric perimeter? I am constantly at war in one part of the map or another, but at the same time building up productive cities. It takes a lot of juggling, but the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Say 75/75

[Thrawn05]

They don't call my civ Banana-Hala for nothing.


It depends who is against me, France, England, Russia and China are the four civ I mostly go to war with, since they are such pains in the neck!

Other then that, I hold my own. I play defensivly. I usually have ten units defending each city and in forts all around my territory. I wonder how many people are going hate me if I do that in multiplayer (assuming my 14K connections on my 56K modem can handle it).

[Cookie Monster]

I'm gonna have to repeat what I said earlier.

The more I play Civ3 the more I'm convinced. There are others who agree with my assessment as well.

To play peacefully in Civ3 (meaning be nice to everybody and build stuff) means losing the game every time. You'll never make it to the space race or diplo victory because the AI want's you dead, period. Unless you restart the game > 1000x to get a decent start don't waste time playing. You'll end up with a teeny empire that has no resources. You'll be ripe for the AI's picking!

In other words the game does not follow the Clauswitzian theory of war being an extension of the state when diplomacy has failed. It instead follows the theory of kick everybody's booty until you win.

Thank you drive through.....................

[hitchikingalaxy]

i follow the snake thing. expand, build, expand, build, subvert the weaker, take what is theres.

what was it conan said...

to drive all my enemies before me and hear the weaping of their women... yeah that's how i play

i usually keep two or three vassals so i can get rid of those crappy luxuries that nobody else wants. when i want them dead, i kill them in one turn so no war weariness occurs.

[civman2000]

I usuallyy take out/vassalize 1-2 civs at the beginning for resources and space, and then I go into domestic mode. I end up in a few wars because they attack me and I might start one or two myself. I go for domination/cultural victory, and often I go into a lot of wars late-middle ages...

[civman2000]

Originally posted by hitchikingalaxy
i kill them in one turn so no war weariness occurs.

I love doing this...did it in a recent game to the 1-city egyptians that attacked me early on...2 reg cavalry take out 1 elite hoplite, and, voila!

[bogatir]

Even though I usually play the Aztecs, my play style is still pretty much a snake-like 50/50 mix. Azteckia does more butt-kicking before the industrial age than after (usually), but there are always one or two whopper wars to fight after the factories are built (especially if the Germans are in the game).

I guess my basic theory is to grow a productive, defended core group of cities early on, taking out any rival civs that will constrict my growth. An early war or two is also good for the Aztecs, in order to generate a GL to rush the Forbidden Palace and grab a bunch of slave workers. (Of course, in my current game, I didn’t get a GL until something like 1560 AD or that neighborhood. Grrr.)

After that, I knock heads when needed to expand my civ to a reasonably productive limit – if a city loses more than 60 percent of its production to corruption, it’s probably too far away. Luxury/resource producing cities are an exception, of course. Pump up city sizes, increase commerce and research and then only crush another civ when they start hugely extorting me for luxuries or they attack first.

In my current game – depending on how you read your calendar – I almost made it out of the 20th century without a whopper war. But, despite my best peace-mongering, the Germans attacked Azteckia in the year 2000. And I was trying to be Mr. Nice Guy, too.