Moonsinger said:
@boogaboo,
Since you conquered mostly with swordmans on your Sid game, do you think it can be done faster with the Persians or the Celts? What would be your take on this?
I can't even remember those games, but I found their thread -
On posts 63-67 of
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=86579&page=2&pp=40 lies my #1 Sid game main analisis.
The notes indicate that "Since I used mostly JAGs and archers, I won't seek Iron based civs anymore." (post 63)
On the Persians : "Persians are no good as well.
Building a barracks and starting a stupid war gets me at 2300BC at best with Iron connected if I'm lucky.
One thing it doesn't do... I still have two enormous giants at my sides.
So what if I can produce Immortals?
I'll be lucky to have the money to upgrade 2 warriors, and now I got to avoid the 2 stacks + about 16 cities with my few immortals closing to 2000BC???
No way.
The only nation that can do ANY harm before 3000BC is certainly the Aztec." (post 67)
On the celts : nothing.. except when I started I thought they may be good for domination, but I don't think they can..
The celts need iron, and aren't militaristic, so you don't get a very early war and GA..
My take on it? I'd stick with Aztec and micromanaging every move and hope for a better luck, but it was a great high..
That will be the tough because I haven't yet finished a Chieftain game. For some reason, I usually abandon my chieftain games and have no desire of fininishing them. I guess I'm expecting an optimal play at that level and when things don't turn out very well, I lose the desire to continue. As for higher level, I don't even expect to win; therefore, the feeling of betting the odds some how motivate me to keep on going. I won't be making QM any time soon. My guess is that I will retire Civ3 without ever reaching for QM. 
).
I didn't know that you can skip a level or two.
Your QM place was well earned!
If someone knows how to be at two places at once, please tell me. 
), I have decided to take you on on this challenge 
