 |
|  |
 |
|
Master Marcus
|
 |
Quebec, Canada
Jan 2000 time: 00:15
|
|
I've already started a similar poll in the MoO3 forum; for Civ3 it will be more defined since more than 50% of players seem to be at least partially hybrid builders. The subject? How aggressively do you intend to play most of your incoming Civ3 games?
-Warmonger: self-explanatory.Describes a player who intends to exterminate the most opponents he can, conquering the most cities he can, as soon as first contacts are made AND owning a sufficient military. He is at war with at least one opponent for almost all the turns until the end. ( But a warmonger can choose any kind of victory: the extermination may be the mean, not the end ). N.B.: he...or she of course
-Aggressive Imperialist builder: a more diplomatic warmonger in the first half of the game ( unless a weak civ near you at the beginning can be an easy grab, you wait until you have a strong empire and a more than sufficient military before beginning massive invasions ); in the second half you lead successive wars ( alone or with an ally ). You intend to exterminate many opponents, but not them all in order to achieve any kind of victory, but preferably not the militaristic one - although you clearly manage a militaristic civ .
-Hybrid builder as "Emperor" the ideal combination in this case is militaristic and religious. You clearly want to manage either strong cities with numerous cultural improvements , AND also an even stronger military AFTER that in order to lead a couple of massive wars , but never to achieve extensive genocides ( well, maybe 2-4 opponents can be wiped out but no more). Pax Imperium. You can be a spy master also.
-Hybrid builder as " Moderator" Such as myself ( then again, in most of the games but not necessarily them all ), describes a player who wants to play as a megalomaniac diplomat: for the first half, building a very strong inner empire with an emphasis on city management and diplomacy. Thereafter building strong defenses is in the agenda, as well as a sufficient military for a casual war or two. You eradicate no more than 1-2 civ(s), and you are also a trade expert and/or a spy master.
-Peaceful builder you manage a peaceful civ through every mean but war. Massive city management, and you deal diplomatically with all the opponents you can in order to forge the most treaties possible. You are a cultural expert, and you avoid any indesirable war - well, maybe a good war near the end if it can enrich the path for victory.
-Peacemaker The warmonger's nemesis. He avoids war at any cost through the end, even if that means bribing and giving all he can give to the strong AI civs. That player is a cultural deity; its population is so happy to be in a "gaian" harmony...
-The Hermit: it can be a "one-city-challenge" at deity level for the hardcore experts in need of an overwhelming challenge...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sabre2th
|
|
Uhhh..... I start as a peaceful builder, become a real @$$hole if and when I'm attacked, and go back to peaceful builder after my attacker is dead.
Yet another case of "bad poll choice syndrome."
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pagan
|
|
Various
Nov 1999 time: 05:15
|
|
I generally start of peaceful and expansionist. But sooner or later someone tries to build a city in or near my territory, and no one get to build a sandcastle on my beach. Also, sooner or later someone disses me by stealing a tech or demanding something, and then it is time to teach them the ultimate lesson.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001 time: 13:15
|
|
Master Marcus: your poll definitely does not fit into the "Bad Poll Choice Symdrone." The descriptions you provided are well thought out. What the poll does show is that some people prefer to shoot off their mouths and throw out insults rather than taking the time to read, think, and then pick the option that is the most appropriate choice. (No offence to Techwin who was polite with his comments).
As for me, it is hard to say until I play the game, but I'm more inclined to Hybrid builder as "Emperor." It is not a perfect description, since I may end up destroying the other Civs at the end of the game, but it is the description that most applies to me.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Colonel Kraken
|
 |
Grand Rapids, MI
Nov 2000 time: 00:15
|
|
I am definitely a Hybrid Builder: Moderator. I expand at an even paced rate. I stake out claims on territory that I believe should be mine (usually for strategic reasons --either militarily or economically); if an AI Civ plops his rear on 'my' turf, I give him the boot.
Normally, though, I actively seek to make peaceful first contact. If the other civ responds in kind, I go out of my way to forge a lasting, strong relationship. If the other civ makes himself out to be a total jackass, I smash a few cities, threaten a few more and watch him grovel at my feet for peace. Then I say, "Ok, until next time. Try it again and I'll wipe you out."
That's me: act civilized toward me, and I'll be your closest friend, ally, and supporter. Step on my toes or otherwise annoy me with subversive tricks and warfare, and I'll grind you into the ground.
Now that's fun!! 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tarquinius
|
|
I had a few difficulties in picking my play type, but I think Hybrid Builder: Moderator is best for me.
I usually start off quite agressively, i am expanding as rapidly as i can. When i encounter an enemy civ near my, i try to crush that civ immedeatly, so I take some cities easily, and I can expand freely
After a while (12 cities or so) I stop expanding, and am going to improve my cities. I really want to keep peace for a while, only after my cities are big, and I am ready for warfare, I am willing to wage war again. (usually around 1600 A.D.)
And then Ill try to crush all my enemies into the ground (I dont exceed always in that )
I really hate it when civs demand unreasonable things for war, like 1000 gold, or an civ advance every 4 turns etc. But then I can make a pretty strong force, and teach the warmmonger a lesson 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Edward
|
|
quote: Originally posted by UberKruX
im usually a warmonger in civ2, but i suppose wiping out all the races but my own would be reather stupid in civ3, because of the whole new resource structure. |
You could wipe 'em out, then use conquered cities or constructed colonies to access their resources. In fact, if the AI is reluctant to trade their resources, that'll be all the more reason to expand your empire via war. (Could be self-feeding: I have few culture points so the AI refuses to trade (fairly) with me. Lamenting the AI's isolationistic greed I'm forced to take what I need...)
I'm definitely a subset of "Peaceful Builder" in most of my Civ2 games. In the early game I rapidly (but peacefully) expand by settling many small cities across the globe. In the late game I go back and build up those cities. Civ3 will throw a wrench in my usual plans since my settlers will be more expensive (2 pop) and it'll be harder to keep pesky AI settlers out of "my" unsettled land (since ancient units will have smaller ZOCs).
I predict being a "Peaceful Builder" in Civ3 as well. Perhaps changing to a strategy of few cities and many cultural improvements will be more effective. The Civ2 AI is bad at determining stuff's value ("Tribute of 500 gold for no reason? Sure!", "I demand you give me the (post-Bach worthless) secret of Theology!"). Add the influence of a superior culture and I'll be wheeling-and-dealing my way to victory. (Is that more of a "Moderator" approach?) Maybe this culture thing will finally give the AI perfectionists (Babylonians, Aztecs) a "fighting" chance in Civ3.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Odin
|
 |
Biology Nerd at Minnesota State University Moorhead
Sep 2000 time: 23:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Colonel Kraken
I am definitely a Hybrid Builder: Moderator. I expand at an even paced rate. I stake out claims on territory that I believe should be mine (usually for strategic reasons --either militarily or economically); if an AI Civ plops his rear on 'my' turf, I give him the boot.
Normally, though, I actively seek to make peaceful first contact. If the other civ responds in kind, I go out of my way to forge a lasting, strong relationship. If the other civ makes himself out to be a total jackass, I smash a few cities, threaten a few more and watch him grovel at my feet for peace. Then I say, "Ok, until next time. Try it again and I'll wipe you out."
That's me: act civilized toward me, and I'll be your closest friend, ally, and supporter. Step on my toes or otherwise annoy me with subversive tricks and warfare, and I'll grind you into the ground.
Now that's fun!! |
AMEN!!!

|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15. Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|