What kind of player are you?

What kind of player are you?


  • Total voters
    226

Pro2A

Chieftain
Joined
Nov 24, 2011
Messages
27
Location
Pennsylvania
I find people play different ways, I generally keep to myself and attempt to trade and grow a large military. 80% of the time I wont strike unless there is a reason. How about you?
 
I'm very similar, but maybe my reasons don't make much sense. for example, if I offer a fair trade and the AI stubbornly refuses...then i have to demand it from them and then take it from them. I don't like long drawn out wars, the quicker the better.
 
Other: I tend to mix the games up and try to play differently each time. Sometimes I'll warmonger, other times I'll try to get through the game without a single fight.
 
I try to play from an economic POV which means expansion, befriending city states, which generally means war will come my way eventually.
 
Other. While I prefer to turtle up, sometimes the AI just won't let me. Plus, heaven help the Civ that tries to settle lands I consider mine (even if I haven't put a city there yet)! Heck, the other day I destroyed a game because of that (my so-called friend Bismark tried to settle where I was going to put my next city, and the backstab and war that followed proved fatal, for me). But most of the time, I go non-violent.
 
Other: I tend to mix the games up and try to play differently each time. Sometimes I'll warmonger, other times I'll try to get through the game without a single fight.

This, in multiplayer you have to stay superior in military and land to survive, making choices toward warfare. In HoF and GOTM games i will focus on what is proposed.
 
I play a builders style. . . so probably closest to Turtle. However, I have a philosophy in life. If someone attempts to harm you or yours you them up so bad that they'll never think of ing with you again. Or simply put if you start a war with me I WILL wipe you off the map if at all possible. Have had to start changing that though. CiV really penalizes such defensive tactics. Leaving them with one city is much better. Heck half the time they become buddy buddy with me after words and become a very good RA ally for me(since they are the one person who likely won't declare war on me). The Iroquois was like that in a recent game. Not much room for either of us, so he tried to eat me. Didn't work. Late game we were a strong allied block. He would always declare on those who declared on me and gave me excellent trades(late game no one but him would pay 8gpt/240gold for a lux, but he would and even once he didn't he still was willing to pay more than the other Friendly's. Even more than Washington who I generally find to be a good trading partner)
 
I will initially play peaceful. But I will descend like the Wrath of God against an AI that dares DOW me.

Minor note: I assume that my closest neighbor is doing the pretend friendship thing and don't sign RA with them, I'll sign RA with anybody else that's showing friendly (after higher priority items for cash are done).
 
Typical game: Expand quickly to three or four cities. Buy or build archers to fend off the DoW that this inevitably provokes from a neighbor. After his troops are eliminated, go forth and take over that neighbor's capitol. Then use your experienced troops to DoW and reduce a second neighbor to one city. Spend the rest of the game as the dominant but peaceful builder. Wait and see if it is useful to provoke or declare another war later.
 
Im warmonger, not going to stop until entire continent is mine, love the modern units, but I play sometimes cultural/peaceful science/diplomatic games but rarely.
 
Im warmonger, not going to stop until entire continent is mine, love the modern units, but I play sometimes cultural/peaceful science/diplomatic games but rarely.

Is that on pangaea or on continents? If the latter, do you keep going to take over the other continent as well?
 
Should have included an 'all the above' choice, since that is how I play. Depends on the day, my mood, and whether any other civs really tick me off at some point, or not.
 
I was explaining the finer points of gunboat diplomacy to my eight year old today. Elizabeth came to him first and asked for open borders and he refused. Next, Caesar came to him and demanded a luxury resource. He gave it to Caesar and when I asked why, he said that Caesar asked nicely for it and that he had an extra one anyway. I told him that he shouldn't give away his resources like that unless the other player had a bigger army. You see son, demanding a resources is like saying I don't want to pay you for it and you can't make me. I told him that when an arrogant computer player like Caesar demands his resources, he should say no and then march his troops over to show him who is the bigger man.

So I guess that is how I play :)
 
Other: I tend to mix the games up and try to play differently each time. Sometimes I'll warmonger, other times I'll try to get through the game without a single fight.

This. As Arabia I would try to expand quickly to grab some luxuries & may conquer a city or two for extra luxuries, otherwise I'll try to remain peaceful unless a warmonger comes in my way. Playing as Mongolia however is ALWAYS domination & bloodshed as there is really no point of playing them as a peacful empire builder trying to avoid conflict..
 
I try to mix it up, and play differently each time. Thus far i've found changing it up each game is a LOT of fun :D

I do enjoy war, but i find it takes so much longer to finish games if i'm in battle the whole game, so there are some games i race through playing defensively only.

My only real consistency is trying to attain certain wonders in pretty much every game (since they are just so good).
 
Top Bottom