What motivates your playing style?

What motivates your playing style?

  • I like to fight for fighting's sake, I am a warmonger

    Votes: 7 7.8%

  • I like to win as quickly as possible, however I can (usually warmongering)

    Votes: 5 5.6%

  • I am a natural builder, I want to see my empire grow

    Votes: 61 67.8%

  • I don't have any particlar reason or style...

    Votes: 5 5.6%

  • Other - please state

    Votes: 12 13.3%
  • Total voters
    90
anarres

anarres

anarchist revolutionary
Joined
Apr 22, 2002
Messages
6,069
Location
www.civ3duelzone.com
This thread I started about tactics has inspired me to create this poll.

I want to know in what style you play civ.

Do you do it for the warmongering (for it's own sake)?
Do you do it to see how quickly you can win?
Do you do it because you're a natural builder?
Or another, maybe more valid reason?

Please, tell all.
 
I am a natural builder but if I have to go to war I will. I have an early war strategy (swordsman/horseman -rush) for ancient wars.
Reason for early war
- for leader generating
- when an AI is to close
- to conquer more/better lands
 
Somewhat of a mix betw warmongering and builder. Early on, a quick war to grab enough land for a viable heartland production and economic base. Then, massive development. The endgame; will play it by the ear, depending on how hardworking I feel like. :)
 
I like to build up my empire as peacfully as possible (which seems to be a bit of mistake reading some of the posts here) and then when i get better military (arts, navy) i like to try out all the fancy tactics posted. So build and then warmonger with fancy tactics .
 
I voted other because I like to try different things with different cultures.

Some unique units would be wasted if one would not go to war with them (like good old immortals, but also gallic swordmen, sipahi and some others). Other civs have more strenghts in culture. So sometimes I build, sometimes I fight and sometimes I do one thing in the beginning and the other one later.
 
I like to play different games -

so if I was a warmonger the last game on a huge pangea map this time I might play a peaceful builder on a tiny archopelego map

Some times I try and play as my current civ or leader would: Russians go from monarchy to communism.
Gandi is a pacifist.
Aztecs try to kill everying from the start.


If I had to pick the styles that characterises many of my games its would be:
Explorer and Science Leader.
Peaceful builder with one quick war per age.
Aggressive culture flipping.
Major aid donor to weak nations.
 
As long as I have the most land and that I have at least a continent to myself or alot of land. Then I am happy :)
 
Much like Phantom Lord and Scyphax I enjoy playing different styles according to my culture characteristics and situation. I hate to waste a good UU, but will if absolutely necessary. If religious or scientific I like to have lots of culture. If militaristic - lots of leaders. Sometimes I set up a challenge at the beginning. Like trying to win by culture victory as the Zulu or something.
 
I usually go for the most rapid win, but it's rarely by warmonging. It usually ends up being Diplomatic, or if I don't think I can get that win, I go for Space Race.

I used to be an 'empire-growth' kind of person, until I realized how useless those far-off cities were.

My criteria for starting wars are: 1. I need a resource; 2. I need a GL; 3. I need that wonder they just built, in a city near my border :mwaha:
 
the use for far off city is so that you are more likely to gain resources when they are discovered because you have more territory.
 
Originally posted by immortal_empire
the use for far off city is so that you are more likely to gain resources when they are discovered because you have more territory.
Click to expand...

...or win by domination!
 
For some silly reason that I still haven't worked out , I always play random everything. Don't know who I am or who's around, what form or age of the land, or even what the barbs are going to do until the game unfolds.

In theory, this should mean that I would play a different style depending on which civ with which neighbours etc., but, as the name implies, I aways end up a warmonger. I have even turned Ghandi into the most aggressive civ in that particular world. (Ghandi taking out the aztecs, zulu and germans felt good.) 10 turns without a good skirmish is eons. Maybe I'm just addicted to those combat animations.
 
warmonger: I also set everything to random as it adds to the difficulty and unpredictability of the game.

I have to say that I'm quite suprised to see 18 votes for the builder option, and only 2 each for warmongerer and quickest finish options. :eek:

Did everyone here love SimCity? Personally I hated it as there was no-one to go to war with :lol:
 
Contrary to public opinion, I dont really have a preferred style - not even that of sneaky backstabbing barsteward. I do play to win though. That usually involves a fairly early "lebensraum" war or two followed by a building phase. Some games I ICS. Some games I culture win; some games I aim at spacecraft victory. I tailor my style according to the strengths of the civ I'm playing - and I like to pick a random civ.

I played SimCity for about 2 days. Built my city then got bored. Caesar was better because there were more variables and problems to be solved but I havent played it in ages and didnt want to buy other games in that series. Building is Ok but then I want to DO something. I play most sports on the premise that a good offence beats a good defence most of the time.

I loved (and still do) Total Annihilation multiplay. IMHO it balances attack and defence and land/sea/air and resource gathering just about perfectly.
 
Like most here, I tend to land grab like crazy at the start, and then go passive for the rest of the game, unless:

-I need a strategic resource -- I will usually try to barter for one first, however.

-Someone plopped a city down in the middle of "my" territory -- This always happens around the Middle ages, when my general borders are up but haven't completely solidified in some places.

-I'm dragged into war -- I'll usually make ROP+MPP with my cultural neighbors (Babylonians & Persians; English & French; etc.), who then take it upon themselves to anger some other nation(s), usually ending up in a world war.

-I reject someone's demands -- I generally fight at least two of these wars per game. Some jag-off leader decides to be a bully and he ends up reduced to lying in a fetal position inside his one remaining city I left for him in order to extract tribute and save myself a rep hit. :goodjob:
 
I'm a peaceful builder all the way. I never start wars, unless I really really need a resource someone has, I'll do a quick strike on it if I cant trade for it. I will destroy someone if they are close and they piss me off too much, but thats rare. ;)
 
I only play conquest victory games.

other types of victories are real cheezy and sissy... how did CIV3 team find those concepts??? in real life do you really think there is a diplomatic victory? come on so what you are the president of the united nations.

but I would have to say space race victory is a good concept, however in order to get that you have to be dominant, and thus conquest victory is not far away.
 
Anyone can build a bajillion units and roll over everybody else.... It takes a keen mind to work with the other civs and micromanage your empire and workers. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

chrisgatt7
  • Poll Poll
Civ 7 Icon change (Unit, Tech)
Replies
16
Views
1K
chrisgatt7
chrisgatt7
Taefin
  • Poll Poll
Poll: Play-style vs Experience
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
TheGeoffey
TheGeoffey
bengalryan9
Civ Discussion - Aksum
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
planetfall
Is civ6 too boring for you?
Replies
1
Views
571
Ordnael
Ordnael
B
Demigod help
Replies
19
Views
1K
Spoonwood
S
Back
Top Bottom