darious001
Chieftain
Peace, then taking key resourses "
". Then for the laughter, as I go crazy. ":soldier:"
". Then for the laughter, as I go crazy. ":soldier:"
What motivates your playing style?
- Thread starter anarres
- Start date
anarres
anarchist revolutionary
@looper:
This isn't an arugment for warmoner vs. builder. I used to be a builder, and have converted to warmongering.
It is childish to tell someone how to enjoy themselves, even if you don't understand why they do it
This isn't an arugment for warmoner vs. builder. I used to be a builder, and have converted to warmongering.
It is childish to tell someone how to enjoy themselves, even if you don't understand why they do it
Phantom Lord
live by the sword
It's difficult to distinguish between "builder" and "warmonger" imho. Depending on the situation you may go to war first and then build an empire on the big continent you have conquered or you build a medium empire first, grab the tech lead and roll over the other civs using your stronger units.
You can't always avoid aggressive wars, altough you may wait for someone else to declare war on you before you take him down. Completely peaceful play is only possible in certain settings, few civs, big map / continents or archipelago maybe. I personally can't imagine to share a medium size continent with another civ peacefully in the long run. Tried it sometimes but it usually ends up with them attacking me and me annihilating them.
You can't always avoid aggressive wars, altough you may wait for someone else to declare war on you before you take him down. Completely peaceful play is only possible in certain settings, few civs, big map / continents or archipelago maybe. I personally can't imagine to share a medium size continent with another civ peacefully in the long run. Tried it sometimes but it usually ends up with them attacking me and me annihilating them.
Call me an "un-natural builder" (haha).
I like to see the Empire grow and have mighty acomplishments and the finest knowledge etc.
BUT to get there you usually have to kick some as_. After all it IS an EMPIRE.
And if you don't they WILL kill you.
SO, ... aggressive builder. Expand. Dominate. And if they annoy you ... crush/kill/destroy.
One thing I've noticed is I personally, tend to take things ... personal. A civ attacks me, breaks a trade agreement, settles on the resourse I'm developing (absorbs my colony !!!!!) then ... it's war to the death. And I mean to see to it that its theirs! Sometimes this has been to my own disadvantage in the long term and I have to very carefully remember to control the emotions.
Hehe kinda foolish to let it get out of control, but what the heck thats the point of it if its a game.
Usually the only good ai civ is a dead ai civ!
I like to see the Empire grow and have mighty acomplishments and the finest knowledge etc.
BUT to get there you usually have to kick some as_. After all it IS an EMPIRE.
And if you don't they WILL kill you.
SO, ... aggressive builder. Expand. Dominate. And if they annoy you ... crush/kill/destroy.
One thing I've noticed is I personally, tend to take things ... personal. A civ attacks me, breaks a trade agreement, settles on the resourse I'm developing (absorbs my colony !!!!!) then ... it's war to the death. And I mean to see to it that its theirs! Sometimes this has been to my own disadvantage in the long term and I have to very carefully remember to control the emotions.
Hehe kinda foolish to let it get out of control, but what the heck thats the point of it if its a game.
Usually the only good ai civ is a dead ai civ!
Matt P
Fly my pretties fly
I went for the building option as I like to play more peacefully and try to build my empire up so that I can choose when to go to war.
I'll usually only go for an early war (ancient) if I'm too close to a neighbour. Otherwise, I like to build in readiness for an onslaught when I'm ready to attack a weaker neighbour (late middle/early industrial age). War certainly keeps you on your toes, and several times I've been a bit caught out by an aggressive neighbour while I'm slowly building up infrastructure in my cities.
I would like to attempt a few all-out-war right from the start games. But as I'm still a novice to Regent & Monarch, I might wait a while before trying.
I'll usually only go for an early war (ancient) if I'm too close to a neighbour. Otherwise, I like to build in readiness for an onslaught when I'm ready to attack a weaker neighbour (late middle/early industrial age). War certainly keeps you on your toes, and several times I've been a bit caught out by an aggressive neighbour while I'm slowly building up infrastructure in my cities.
I would like to attempt a few all-out-war right from the start games. But as I'm still a novice to Regent & Monarch, I might wait a while before trying.
Other: Probably to get an RPG experience. Or just to have fun.
I don't have a particular style. It depends on how I visualize "me" and my civ in the game world.
Winning doesn't mean that much. If I am not enjoying the game I simply quit. If I haven't lost and am enjoying the game I continue past the 2050.
"Enjoying the game" does not necessarily mean I am winning or even in a winning position.
I also like to try different things, e.g. how well can I do with a small nation (cities < N), or how about no wars until diplomatic solutions are exhausted, or perhaps I play the part of the Kha-Khan and go direct to horsemen and then lead the Golden Horde in a glorious rampage through the world.
I don't have a particular style. It depends on how I visualize "me" and my civ in the game world.
Winning doesn't mean that much. If I am not enjoying the game I simply quit. If I haven't lost and am enjoying the game I continue past the 2050.
"Enjoying the game" does not necessarily mean I am winning or even in a winning position.
I also like to try different things, e.g. how well can I do with a small nation (cities < N), or how about no wars until diplomatic solutions are exhausted, or perhaps I play the part of the Kha-Khan and go direct to horsemen and then lead the Golden Horde in a glorious rampage through the world.
Hell yes, royfurr I agree with you totally. I tend to get emotionally involved also. If I have traded with someone fairly all game and then they come at me with a bullsh** threat/demand then I take that personally and it's time to seek and destroy, and then I build, placing my FP in what use to be there capital city. awwwww peace at last.
that's why the Babs and Persian never last long in my game, now those are some AI warmongers.
Park Ranger
Wonder hog
I voted builder but warfare is an integral part of my style. Partly because I have to defend myself but also partly because a little conquest never hurts...
Lately I've been motivated by viewing the whole civ3 world as an exercise is effiecient resource use. This leads me to pursue paths which lead to a civ that approaches OCN with Palace and FP positioned in a way to minimize corruption and maximize commerce, most of which is converted to tech (though sometimes in 2-stage process of collecting gold and buying tech from a civ that produces tech more effieciently than mine).
Shields, seen as a means by which the efficiency of your use of food, commerce and shields themselves can be improved, must be applied judiciously. Military is a big concern here: I try to build military only insofar as I can justify the diversion of shields from other efficiency-building projects (libraries, harbours, and whatnot) by using the military to either secure more resources(offense) or increase the security/efficiency of existing resources (ie. defense). In other words, dumping shields into units is at best a necessary evil and at worst a waste.
Trade is extremely important here. Trade is the means by which all civs that pursue an optimal efficiency strategy can capitalise on those benefits with each other. In an ideal civ3 world, all civs would expand to OCN (or a bit beyond if needed to fill the world), have perfectly placed Palace and FP, pursue different techs and trade openly and fairly. This would lead to the greatest use of uncorrupted shields and, more importantly, commerce, which as I said is the "goal" if you will of the builder civ.
I realize this is a builder's utopia here and its quite possible to reverse the ends-means thing to give a warmongers' perspective, where commerce becomes a means to research tech and improve the efficiency by which shields are converted to military power, which is used to secure more resources, etc. But knowing Sid Meier's history of games, and a bit about capitalist economics, I'm quite convinced that the conception I detail above is in line with the game-makers' thinking, and works quite well on regent and below.
Lately I've been motivated by viewing the whole civ3 world as an exercise is effiecient resource use. This leads me to pursue paths which lead to a civ that approaches OCN with Palace and FP positioned in a way to minimize corruption and maximize commerce, most of which is converted to tech (though sometimes in 2-stage process of collecting gold and buying tech from a civ that produces tech more effieciently than mine).
Shields, seen as a means by which the efficiency of your use of food, commerce and shields themselves can be improved, must be applied judiciously. Military is a big concern here: I try to build military only insofar as I can justify the diversion of shields from other efficiency-building projects (libraries, harbours, and whatnot) by using the military to either secure more resources(offense) or increase the security/efficiency of existing resources (ie. defense). In other words, dumping shields into units is at best a necessary evil and at worst a waste.
Trade is extremely important here. Trade is the means by which all civs that pursue an optimal efficiency strategy can capitalise on those benefits with each other. In an ideal civ3 world, all civs would expand to OCN (or a bit beyond if needed to fill the world), have perfectly placed Palace and FP, pursue different techs and trade openly and fairly. This would lead to the greatest use of uncorrupted shields and, more importantly, commerce, which as I said is the "goal" if you will of the builder civ.
I realize this is a builder's utopia here and its quite possible to reverse the ends-means thing to give a warmongers' perspective, where commerce becomes a means to research tech and improve the efficiency by which shields are converted to military power, which is used to secure more resources, etc. But knowing Sid Meier's history of games, and a bit about capitalist economics, I'm quite convinced that the conception I detail above is in line with the game-makers' thinking, and works quite well on regent and below.
Aggie
Deity
I expand, build in the early years. Once I get Knights or Cavalry (depends on my lead and the distance to the enemy) I start wars to expand my empire. I usually have 3 or 4 wars:
- sometimes with Knights
- with Cavalry
- with Artillery and Cavalry after railroad
- with Tanks
In the meantime I keep on building, researching and trading with my allies (all the civs not at war with me are me allies...).
- sometimes with Knights
- with Cavalry
- with Artillery and Cavalry after railroad
- with Tanks
In the meantime I keep on building, researching and trading with my allies (all the civs not at war with me are me allies...).
peace_frog
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2002
- Messages
- 40
I have to agree with some of the posts that it isn't easy to differentiate between warmonger and builder. After a reading a bunch of posts here (like the one saying 10 turns without war is an eternity) I most definitely classified myself as a peaceful builder. More accurately, I think maximized production is my goal and that requires war. This is why I play as the French, Industrial and commercial.
I get my cities in shape, not each one perfect, but so that they produce the most in aggregate. I then plan an attack on the neighbor who's land/cities I want the most. I usually plan this for a change in technology that will give me the advantage, usually following the discovery of one of the following: Knights, musketeers, Calvary, Tanks, or MA. I'll do this maybe 2 to 3 times in the game. So out of how ever any turns there are I rarely spend more than 50 at war. But those wars are essential to my strategy. They should double my territory and eventually add to my precious production.
As for eventual victory, I used to go for Space race, and considered UN the easy fall back. Now I take whatever I can get first (usually UN). By the time I have my empire expanded significantly, I know I have won so I'd rather start a new game. Maybe it is time to move up another level. I currently play monarch. Emperor sounds intimidating but I should stop being a wimp. I've still never lost a game, so I know I'm being timid. Can't get better if you don't get your ass kicked a few times.
Anarres, I agree SIM city is boring. You need to add war and intimidation to the mix.
I get my cities in shape, not each one perfect, but so that they produce the most in aggregate. I then plan an attack on the neighbor who's land/cities I want the most. I usually plan this for a change in technology that will give me the advantage, usually following the discovery of one of the following: Knights, musketeers, Calvary, Tanks, or MA. I'll do this maybe 2 to 3 times in the game. So out of how ever any turns there are I rarely spend more than 50 at war. But those wars are essential to my strategy. They should double my territory and eventually add to my precious production.
As for eventual victory, I used to go for Space race, and considered UN the easy fall back. Now I take whatever I can get first (usually UN). By the time I have my empire expanded significantly, I know I have won so I'd rather start a new game. Maybe it is time to move up another level. I currently play monarch. Emperor sounds intimidating but I should stop being a wimp. I've still never lost a game, so I know I'm being timid. Can't get better if you don't get your ass kicked a few times.
Anarres, I agree SIM city is boring. You need to add war and intimidation to the mix.
Clown2TheLeft
Prince
I said "other," and by that I mean this:
I tend to be more of an industrialist, and by that I mean that I like to have high shield production per turn. I find that this is beneficial regardless of whether it's time to build science, happiness, or units. With high production, I do not have to maintain as large of a standing army because I can pump out units quickly if need be.
I am not opposed to initiating a war and dominating another civ, though--I prefer my continent to be uniform in color. When this happens, though, is demendant on whoI'm playing and what the civ's traits are, as well as rescource, luxury, and bonus locations and--by my priorities--terrain. I see an area that could generate mass shields, I want it.
Later!
--The Clown to the Left
I tend to be more of an industrialist, and by that I mean that I like to have high shield production per turn. I find that this is beneficial regardless of whether it's time to build science, happiness, or units. With high production, I do not have to maintain as large of a standing army because I can pump out units quickly if need be.
I am not opposed to initiating a war and dominating another civ, though--I prefer my continent to be uniform in color. When this happens, though, is demendant on whoI'm playing and what the civ's traits are, as well as rescource, luxury, and bonus locations and--by my priorities--terrain. I see an area that could generate mass shields, I want it.
Later!
--The Clown to the Left
jeannie
Warlord
I voted 'other'. I've been playing versions of CIV since 1996, but I've always tended to be a builder and a defensive player, partly because I haven't had much confidence in my 'warmongering' abilities. With Civ3, I've tended to play 'build, build, build and get enough of a lead to have huge numbers of military units, then clobber the hell out of the enemy'.
Lately, I've started playing on small maps to force myself to engage in combat earlier and earlier. It's working. In my current game, I wound up in a situation where only one of the civs had a trade route with me and the others were on other continents and wouldn't build harbors. The only resource in my own territory was saltpeter, so I couldn't build railroads or horsemen/knight/cavalary - the best I could do was riflemen.
In the past I would have quit the game and started over - instead I initiated a war with my neighbor, grabbed the coal, horses and iron, and smugly patted myself on the back.
Now my arm hurts!
But I've set a goal for myself to move up a level from Warlord this month.
Lately, I've started playing on small maps to force myself to engage in combat earlier and earlier. It's working. In my current game, I wound up in a situation where only one of the civs had a trade route with me and the others were on other continents and wouldn't build harbors. The only resource in my own territory was saltpeter, so I couldn't build railroads or horsemen/knight/cavalary - the best I could do was riflemen.
In the past I would have quit the game and started over - instead I initiated a war with my neighbor, grabbed the coal, horses and iron, and smugly patted myself on the back.
Now my arm hurts!
But I've set a goal for myself to move up a level from Warlord this month.
Zachriel
Kaiser
Though every game is different, war is a mere tool, albeit an essential one.
We maintain, on the contrary, that war is simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means. We deliberately use the phrase with the addition of other means because we also want to make it clear that war in itself does not does suspend political intercourse or change it into something entirely different.
On War - Clausewitz
We maintain, on the contrary, that war is simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means. We deliberately use the phrase with the addition of other means because we also want to make it clear that war in itself does not does suspend political intercourse or change it into something entirely different.
On War - Clausewitz
Zachriel
Kaiser
Originally posted by anarres
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.
I'm quite surprised also. I figured there were more players who just enjoyed the thrill of combat for its own sake.
Rabid Pop Tart
Aspiring Graphic Designer
I prefer to buile up my empire...you actually have to think twice before you go to war.
Mojotronica
Expect Irony.
I try to get more cities than any of my rivals through colonization and conquest, then I go defensive for the rest of the game. I'm obsessed w/ building every Building, and have just the right ratio of troops and workers.
When I am conquering I try to limit my expansion to one civ at a time, and as few different civs as possible. I try to control an entire continent -- no borders to deal w/.
When I am conquering I try to limit my expansion to one civ at a time, and as few different civs as possible. I try to control an entire continent -- no borders to deal w/.
