1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Is my tactic dumb?

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Strategy & Tips' started by Hal.E, Apr 13, 2011.

  1. Hal.E

    Hal.E Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2011
    Messages:
    13
    Location:
    Hanover
    Hey all,

    I am a novice Civ3 player, mostly playing C3C.

    When I am conquering someone usually their cities have few population left in them due to my bombing, so instead of keeping them, I nuke them and then abandon them, and as my foes usually do ICS this leaves a polluted buffer between me and my foes.

    Obviously I keep the good cities, but the pop1's with low level buildings go kerblewie.

    My reasoning behind this is that they will have to clear it up if they want to rebuild cities there, as I usually only go to war to keep my foes down, rather than for victory, thus I wont be expanding into the area.

    Thanks!
     
  2. Delphi456

    Delphi456 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
    Messages:
    476
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    There isn't any point in reducing their population below 6 - there defensive bonus kicks in at pop 7.

    Assuming you are playing on a level below Emperor, I'd try to keep the towns and starve them down to 1. Otherwise, raize the town for slaves.
     
  3. bigFRANK

    bigFRANK Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Messages:
    215
    Location:
    In Bed
    If that’s how you like to play then carry on, I don’t think it’s a good strategy though.

    If you do make nukes (and intend to use them) then use them to kill your opponents massed troops/navy/airforce/nukes rather than as city destroyers alternatively use them to cut of vital supplies that are out of range of your bombers e.g. your enemy only supply of aluminum, or if there importing goods that they cant build units without hit the capitol as melting the roads will effetely break the trade deal.
     
  4. vmxa

    vmxa Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    13,701
    Location:
    Oviedo, Fl
    Nukes are going to trigger global warming and who needs that? Best to win the game before modern age. Also I view all land as mine, so I do not want to nuke it.
     
  5. Ceoladir

    Ceoladir Come Fly With Me

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    Messages:
    8,460
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    It is better to leave them at a higher population and raze for slaves.
     
  6. Fiddlin Nero

    Fiddlin Nero Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Messages:
    416
    Location:
    D
    Just curious, why wait until they are at 1 pop? The nuking reduces population to. The only downside if you arn't going to move into the area is global warming.
     
  7. Raliuven

    Raliuven Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,428
    Location:
    Minnesota
    What is your planned Victory Condition (VC)? Histogrpah? Spaceship? Culture?

    Why make all the land unusable? Settle the land yourself and make them into farms if nothing else. If you can't because you are pushing the domination limit, set up some units as sentries. When the AI shows up with a settler on a boat, thank them for the slaves.

    Also, if you are planning to do a lot of fighting - with EVERYONE - then let fly. If you planning to hold a UN vote, forget it. The AI's don't like it much when the nukes start flying.
     
  8. Ataxerxes

    Ataxerxes Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    3,073
    I also view all land as mine, so I usually keep cities and nuke seldom. After you wipe out their Civ they're OK. You can still farm Scientists and it pays a little more troop support. More cities is almost always good.

    Admittedly my military games usually don't go that far and I don't usually invest my shields in the Manhattan Project. I don't like dealing with diplomatic fallout and some stray nuke hitting me.
     
  9. Slayer88

    Slayer88 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2
    Location:
    Chicago
    If I ever get to the modern age I am usually trying to win by diplo/space race. If I want any kind of military style victory, it is completed before nukes are available. I do not like getting into nuke wars with the AI.
     
  10. darski

    darski Regent in Training

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,075
    Location:
    Ontario, Can.
    I think the "Nuke Fever" goes away rather quickly once a newbie gets a couple of games in tow. And we are all grateful for that eh? :popcorn: :lol:
     
  11. Theov

    Theov Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    Messages:
    2,123
    Location:
    Taiwan
    No it's not dumb.
    I wouldn't repeat it though and I think 99% of the people here would agree.
     
  12. King of Anshan

    King of Anshan aprrentice Worlddominator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    159
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    The fun thing of nukes is that you can play god, in a way. you could turn plains next to rivers into desert so that you have floodplains! :bump:
    The game is for fun and if you like to nuke things than its good.
     
  13. timerover51

    timerover51 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    3,475
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Chicago area in Illinois
    If your strategy works for you, you enjoy doing it, and are having fun playing the game, the no strategy is ever dumb. I have my own style of playing the game which is not like many of the other on the forum, but it works for me.
     
  14. Ataxerxes

    Ataxerxes Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    3,073
    I agree. Most ways of playing the game are not dumb. We can just call certain styles "suboptimal".:) Most of us do something in the game that is suboptimal - witness the thread about our CivIII eccentricities. I'm very big on revenge, myself.
     

Share This Page