 |
|  |
 |
|
Grim Legacy
|
|
War Machine, Barbaric King, Relentless, Remorseless, Guiltless and Unclean!
Aug 2001 time: 06:15
|
|
I was just thinking about how I was going to handle my first (few) game(s).
Considering the importance of culture and diplomacy in Civ3, I thought it would be wise to try a balanced approach, mixing expansionism with development. Not breaking too many treaties, but still making sure I get cheap land mass and population (conquest and building).
I think I'll still focus on tech, not on culture. Looks like wonder building is going to be tough, so I'm planning on an eclectic approach there.
On the other hand, it would be fun to see how far my most aggressive strategies would carry me this time round... any thoughts?
How are *you* going to start off?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
campmajor!
|
 |
Zoetermeer, The Netherlands
Oct 2000 time: 06:15
|
|
Well, similar to your approach I think. In civ2 I started expanding like hell, but with some military power to protect my cities.
In civ3 I will expand fast as well, because I want the resources! They are going to be very important in civ3 I estimate, so the more land you own the higher the chance that important resources are on your land. That also gives me power over the other players!
Culture I think will not be that important, especially in the beginning where nobody has much culture yet. But we'll see how that will work out.
And gradually the center of my civ will build wonders, culture buildings, science buildings, units, etc.
Something like that....
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Grim Legacy
|
|
War Machine, Barbaric King, Relentless, Remorseless, Guiltless and Unclean!
Aug 2001 time: 06:15
|
|
Allright, but what about the increased costs for building cities? Settlers cost 2 pop. points now and workers are expensive too.
Also, with the increased barbarian presence (encampments etc), the possibilities of a smooth and effective expansionistic approach may be limited. I fully expect the AI to be able to play this way, because they will have less trouble with resources (cheating) and barbarian threats (cheating too), but not the human player.
I think it's crucial to invest in the military side of things in the beginning to be able to secure a stronghold. Once the land is 'safe', expansion may be more feasible. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jason Beaudoin
|
|
Canada
Jan 1970 time: 00:15
|
|
I usually played a "perfectionist/expansionist" in my earlier games, and I'll probably do the same. In CIV II, I used to try and conquer the continent, but that might be a little more difficult in CIV III, so I may take a much more cautious approach to launching any wars.
If I do engage in any war, I'll make sure that I can win quickly and also be able to hold conquered cities.
If I'm forced into war and not entirely prepared, any cities that I capture, I'll raze to the ground.
But, in general, I find that my play style will work beautifully in this game. I'm just torn by which civilization I should take. I'm leaning toward the French. It will go good with my last name:
Beaudoin, Emperor of France! 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Henk_Glimlach
|
|
I will create the roman empire andn when i'm creating that i will make wonders and improvements to. When the empire is big enough i will focus on the culture diplomacy and science part. And then live in peace with my neighbours i will make military units to defend myself. And of course lots of trade so cash will flow in .
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Be Quicker
|
 |
Zeeheldenkwartier
Oct 2001 time: 06:15
|
|
The first couple of games, I will play without CSA's, golden ages, and UU's, just to understand all the other new things about Civ III. The game I will play then I hope will be a serious as possible game, in which I'll try to expand as quickly as possible, build useful city improvements inbetween expanding (waiting for enough settler pop points), not bother with assimilating enemy cities, but just raze them unless they contain wonders. Basically just expansionist, albeit it slightly more careful than in Civ II, and all the rest (culture, techs, diplomacy, trade) in support of this. At least I need enough area so that I have saltpeter because I will need gunpowder, a lot. And only build a worker (in addition to the first free one) after 5 cities or so.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Nikolai
|
 |
Bergen, Norway
Oct 2000 time: 06:15
|
|
I will start to build a phalanx(or what it is called now) and a temple. In the waiting time, I will use my worker to build up the nearest land. When the temple is build, I will, if the city is big enough(I think it will be that ), I will build a settler, expanding as fast as possible.
In Civ1 and 2, I always have played half-perfectionist and half-ICS, and I think the right thing to do is to try that out first! I have never managed to build up and, most important, use my military right(...) and therefore I don't think the military way is my way!
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Crouchback
|
|
I'll probably go for expansion at first. Since it's going to be slow I'll settle for fewer cities than in Civ 2/CTP. Then it will be science and commerce all the way heading for a cultural victory and learning the wrinkles. So I'll pick the Greeks for my first game.
But wait for the second game and the rise of the Fifth German Reich...
quote: Originally posted by yin26
I will try to ICS like crazy. See how it goes. Of course, since I won't be playing the game until MP is out, I suppose I'll already know if ICS will work or not. *sigh* The price of principles. |
Go on Yin, admit you've pre-ordered the Limited Edition already. And you're the pessimist.
David
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Green Giant
|
|
Overall I will start out with Russia, build up culture and tech, and once i get the Cossacks I will expand militarily, and then play it by ear from there.
Note: No plan ever survives the 1st minute of battle.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|