slatemen
Chieftain
I need some advice and I am sure there are plenty of people here who are willing to give it. I have been playing Civ 3 for about 6 weeks now and I was a big fan Cvi2 and played quite a bit although I rarely played above warlord level. For all of you who have been complaining about Civ 3 one thing is for sure, the AI is much better then in previous versions. But I digress
It seems to me the best way to have any hope of winning in CIV3, either via the space race or through culture, or even military domination, is to have a fairly large nation, thoroughly connected by around 500 AD at the latest. Generally I begin games by trying to expand as quickly as possible until I have around 12 or 15 cities on single continent with a few strategic resources and luxuries under my control, at which point I begin focusing on military and culture growth. When this strategy works, it work well and I am able to be fairly successful. Sometimes however I will get to the point, say at around 200 BC, where I have may be eight cities, all with at least one military units, maybe a few with two, and the other nations start invading my territory by building cities in areas I fully intend to expand into. Fine that is what AI does I am then left with a choice . Do I attack their city and subsequently switch production to military in order to push them off my would-be territory (which produces a slowdown in my expansion plans and gives other civs the chance to settle as well) OR do I let them be, keep expanding and when I am strong enough start a war (after I am fully settled) to push them off 100 years after they have settled there..(the trouble with this is that they are more entrenched, might have expanded to two or three cites and will have more units guarding their towns) Either way I seem guaranteed to lose, one plan interrupts my expansion and the other forces me to fight a long more drawn out an expensive war at a time when I need to build harbours and aqueducts What should I do?
Basically, I know in the pre AD period there is a balance between military units and settlers that must be handled carefully, but in the end which is deserves more of my resources, fighters or settlers?
It seems to me the best way to have any hope of winning in CIV3, either via the space race or through culture, or even military domination, is to have a fairly large nation, thoroughly connected by around 500 AD at the latest. Generally I begin games by trying to expand as quickly as possible until I have around 12 or 15 cities on single continent with a few strategic resources and luxuries under my control, at which point I begin focusing on military and culture growth. When this strategy works, it work well and I am able to be fairly successful. Sometimes however I will get to the point, say at around 200 BC, where I have may be eight cities, all with at least one military units, maybe a few with two, and the other nations start invading my territory by building cities in areas I fully intend to expand into. Fine that is what AI does I am then left with a choice . Do I attack their city and subsequently switch production to military in order to push them off my would-be territory (which produces a slowdown in my expansion plans and gives other civs the chance to settle as well) OR do I let them be, keep expanding and when I am strong enough start a war (after I am fully settled) to push them off 100 years after they have settled there..(the trouble with this is that they are more entrenched, might have expanded to two or three cites and will have more units guarding their towns) Either way I seem guaranteed to lose, one plan interrupts my expansion and the other forces me to fight a long more drawn out an expensive war at a time when I need to build harbours and aqueducts What should I do?
Basically, I know in the pre AD period there is a balance between military units and settlers that must be handled carefully, but in the end which is deserves more of my resources, fighters or settlers?