What's your Civ3 eccentricity?

[Hellfiredoom]

I sometimes catch myself doing something silly in game and have a small laugh at myself. Lately I've been keeping a mental counter on each Civ I come across, and add one point to their "tab" when they do something to piss me off. "Oh, plant that town where I was going to build eh? We'll see about that". After REX and once I have an ample military, it's time to settle accounts. "Ok, who's first on the hit list?"
Seeking revenge on programming logic is kinda silly....

Anyone else have any in game quirks you want to share?

 

[Ataxerxes]

I think seeking revenge is a common eccentricity. I admit to it. You DOW'd me 500 years ago, now it's payback time! It is silly. I build too many buildings. Sometimes my environmental feelings get to me and I don't chop and replant trees like I should.

 

[mythmonster2]

I never chop forests or even jungles or marshes. It doesn't feel right. The very rare exception is when I'm making an irrigation chain and the forest/jungle/marsh is in the way. If there is another way, even if it requires 20 more useless irrigations around a mountain range, I will take it, so long as it's in my boundaries.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

I used to be a big patriot and almost never attack America.

I also am too fond of allies and am sad when they betray me.

 

[RJMooreII]

I never chop forests or even jungles or marshes. It doesn't feel right. The very rare exception is when I'm making an irrigation chain and the forest/jungle/marsh is in the way. If there is another way, even if it requires 20 more useless irrigations around a mountain range, I will take it, so long as it's in my boundaries.

Funny, I totally clear all my land. I don't even like trees IRL.
I build roads everywhere. Eventually I will have a railroad on almost every square in my empire.

 

[GamezRule]

I have spent an hour just starting at the map because I get so immersed that I am actually developing a plan.

 

[agonistes]

I never chop forests or even jungles or marshes. It doesn't feel right. The very rare exception is when I'm making an irrigation chain and the forest/jungle/marsh is in the way. If there is another way, even if it requires 20 more useless irrigations around a mountain range, I will take it, so long as it's in my boundaries.

I think I will adopt this policy next game. I sometimes leave forests or jungle up because 'it feels right,' but have not done so as a strict policy. I do, however, plant national parks.

I name individual units, make them officers in my military, and have a ranking and promotion system - the officer gets a * for each city he/she takes, and a new rank on every 6th *.

 

[Jyhawk]

I have spent an hour just starting at the map because I get so immersed that I am actually developing a plan.

Hi all. I'm new to these boards, but love all the strategy tips.

I agree with this comment. I will find myself very deep in thought just staring at the screen. There are 2 problems with this though. First, it gives you tunnel vision where you become so intent on what you are looking at, you fail to see obvious things around you. It's important to stop and take a look around the screen after doing this. Second, it can really be hard on the eyes. I will sometimes find myself with a bad headache from the Civ screen. I have to walk away from the game for a while just to let my eyes rest.

 

[Calis]

I never use nukes.

(And yes, I am aware of my signature. But there, we had no choice!!!)

 

[Spoonwood]

I forest cows.

I never use nukes.

(And yes, I am aware of my signature. But there, we had no choice!!!)

Yeah, but there doesn't exist any game where it really works out best to use nukes. Especially for an HoFer. Does it really qualify as an eccentricity if it works out as superior strategic play? See the first sentence in this post.

 

[Sparthage]

Yeah. I avoid using nukes (or building the Manhattan Project either) unless the other civ has nukes as well. In that case, I nuke their nuclear-armed cities and then destroy their arsenal. Then I go back to building Armies rather than nukes.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Yeah. I avoid using nukes (or building the Manhattan Project either) unless the other civ has nukes as well. In that case, I nuke their nuclear-armed cities and then destroy their arsenal. Then I go back to building Armies rather than nukes.

Same here. The diplo penalty is huge. I fired off a nuke once for fun and the whole world declared on me. But I admit, I just don't like nukes either. And building Manhattan seems like a waste to me. But after I can, one city just produces armies.

 

[GamezRule]

I stare at the screen taking in everything and observing. I have watched a worker mine for like 10 minutes once.

 

[Fiddlin Nero]

In Vanilla/PTW there is no clear rubble command so instead I like to plant trees to do the job, something more satisfying about the look of a map after doing this.

 

[Raliuven]

I rename all of my elite units that provide a leader. I have specific naming conventions too. Nothing exceptionally odd, though. 1st Cavalry, 2nd Cavalry, 1st Armored Brigade, etc. Even if they upgrade later, I do not change the name.

Eccentricity might also be a matter of personal playing ethics.

I hate pop rushing because it's not right to kill your own citizens.
I will not use ROP rape. (Oh, you are moving in 20 modern armors next to my capital? Sure, why not, we're all friends!)
I will not use resource denial. (Ah, you've got dibs on the iron? My mistake. Wait, if you're French, what are you doing in England?)
etc.

 

[GamezRule]

I name all non transport ships.

 

[Jyhawk]

I've found naming units can become a problem when I right click a city to see what I have available there. If I name units, I like to name them something that indicates what they are so that I don't overlook extra cavalry or other good attack units.

 

[Raliuven]

I've found naming units can become a problem when I right click a city to see what I have available there. If I name units, I like to name them something that indicates what they are so that I don't overlook extra cavalry or other good attack units.

I agree with you here - I name transports (transport #1, transport #2, etc.). That way it is clear what they are. And I never rename cities. It might make sense to do so sometimes, but I NEVER rename cities (except in test games, but that doesn't count ).

 

[Jyhawk]

I rename cities I capture sometimes. When the sprawl starts to become large, it can become difficult to know where the city is just from the name. To counter this, I'll often rename cities in a particular area to correspond in some vague way to an actual geography. I might name cities on an island after different islands so that every time I see the name, I'll know that it's located on that captured island.

 

[RJMooreII]

I have spent an hour just starting at the map because I get so immersed that I am actually developing a plan.

I do this in Hearts of Iron 3. So much reading involved in that game...