Warmonger,hybrid builder,or peacemaker?

[Master Marcus]

How aggressively do you intend to play MoO3??? Do you intend to play it along the same gameplay you use with other empire-building games ? Please only 1 choice:

-Warmonger: self-explanatory. You want to exterminate as soon as you make firsts contacts AND owning a sufficient military. Aside the pre-contact beginning, you are almost permanently at war with at least 1 opponent until the end.

-hybrid builder: like myself, describes a player who likes to play peacefully mostly in the first half ( when you build a richier core empire ) and investing in diplomacy; thereafter a couple of good wars until the end - you can exterminate a few opponents, but not them all.

-peacemaker: you invest all your energies to colony management and diplomacy, thus maintaining only a few ( but strong!) defenses - you want to avoid any war until the end, unless you're forced to.

[tniem]

Always been a warmonger. Always found that the most fun.

But I will try other strategies and see what else is fun.

[Cybergod]

Once a hybrid - always a hybrid! (Unless the situation changes it)

[loinburger]

In MOO2, SMAC, and Civ I put off attacking until I had a significant tech advantage. Same held true in Warcraft and Starcraft.

[Stormhound]

Waiting until you have a tech advantage will be a somewhat more difficult option in MOO3. (Not less viable, just more difficult.)

[Qualicide]

I was always a peace maker in MOO+MOO2, I would just sit around with missile bases and out tech everyone, then crush them.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Stormhound
Waiting until you have a tech advantage will be a somewhat more difficult option in MOO3. (Not less viable, just more difficult.)

In lieu of a significant tech advantage I'll resort to the "Sherman's March" tactic that I used in Warlods II/III and Lords of the Realm I/II: create a super-stack and cut a path of sacked and/or razed cities/counties (colonies, in ths case) through the enemy's territory. I wouldn't really call this "warmongering," though, since the intention is not to eliminate the enemy but to instead convince the enemy that they would be better off making peace with me in order to stop the devasation.

[Stormhound]

Did we happen to mention that you're going to have to worry about logistics and having your supply lines cut?

[Stormhound]

Did we happen to mention that you'll have to worry about logistics and having your supply lines cut?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Stormhound
Did we happen to mention that you're going to have to worry about logistics and having your supply lines cut?

Aww, I can't have my fleet forage for supplies?

"It's the damndest thing, Admiral, but there were fifty Zeon missiles just lying around on that asteroid. I guess we can restock the ships..."

[Lou Wigman]

Well, the three categories don't really describe my style of play. The closest description would be 'opportunist'. I will play a 'wait and see' game watching developments closely. If someone declares war on me or a race that I have my beady eyes on leaves itself exposed by, say , declaring war on a third party I will then pounce.

[Master Marcus]

Good. Your "opportunist" approach can easily be one of the multiple sub-gameplays a hybrid builder can develop. You're a hybrid.

[- Groucho -]

I'm a hybrid/wannabe builder. I try to build up my empire but then some idiot attacks me, so I go on a war footing and take him out. Now, I want to go back to tinkering with my empire, but some other jerk takes advantage of my spread out fleet to poach one of my planets. So I go and crush him. By this point in MoO2 I'm getting beat on almost constantly by the barbarians from another dimension so I have to let my tinkering slide while I push through the endgame.

All I wanted to do was max my planets! Was that so much to ask?!?

[Internationalist]

Always a warmonger(from the start to the end of game).Unfortunately, according to Stormhound, this will be difficult to do in MoO 3
Oh, well a compitent leader always finds ways to adapt...

[Master Marcus]

Originally posted by Internationalist
Always a warmonger(from the start to the end of game).Unfortunately, according to Stormhound, this will be difficult to do in MoO 3
Oh, well a compitent leader always finds ways to adapt...

If I quote him in my own words, he said that it will be "an "accomplishment" just to eradicate ONE race"...I think MoO3 is gonna be more designed for the builders, but you still can have the choice to be constantly at war , wars of attrition with hundreds of ships. It's just that you won't be able to conduct easy genocides. That genocidal thing will be much more controlled then ( also a stronger Orion Senate imposing an ethical approach ); however I think the warlord players ( even if they're crying out loud in the site's forums ) will have their chance to succeed at MoO3. You'll have something like 6 different galaxy sizes that's gonna make a huge difference on a campaign's management, so choosing a tiny one with 16 races and I'me sure a warmonger like you is gonna have a hard time.....

[Sikander]

I played a lot of MOOII and beat it at impossible pretty early on. I always chose 'Repulsive' in my race design, which seemed to do very little damage to my diplomatic efforts (they all hate you on Impossible anyway!), but gave me plenty of points to spend. My Navy consisted entirely of destroyers loaded to the gills with Mirved Nuclear Missles, and few bombs (and eventually Fast Missle Racks). These guys practiced 'Shoot and Scoot' tactics, but 5 of them are quite capable of taking down a planet with a missle base. I called them my Katyushas, and they took down many a space monster and enemy planet in the early game. I really enjoyed MOOII.

Another great game was Master of Magic. So many ways to play, a zillion races (all with a large number of unique units to build) and a seemingly infinite number of ways to design your Wizard. The capability to build magical weapons to outfit your commanders was fantastic! I really hope they produce MoM2!

[Mihai]

My strategy in every TBS : in the begining I do anything necesary to control a vital space (10-20) cities/colonies and then go on strong defence, a rapid task force to retaliate an eventual invasion and bulding an strong industrial/technological/peacefully empire. After I have an important advantage in ind/tech I start looking for victims

[Blake]

As much as it sickens me I'll no doubt be a peacemaker , making friends left right and centre, trying to forge galatic alliances and being charitable to less fortunate empires . I'll use small highly trained well equiped forces to defend my empire. (I just dont like having lots of military, for one it stagments the economy, secondly it's not very nice sending poorly trained, poorly equiped recruits off to there deaths). I'll use my diplomatic prowess to keep my enemies busy fighting my allies, providing assitance to my allies to insure my enemies lose.

Finally when "Big qsuai-nuclear planet destroying weapon of evil" arrives, I'll build lots of them and destroy everyone which ever annoyed me. . With all the warmongers gone the galaxy will finally be at peace.

[Roman]

Originally posted by Stormhound
Did we happen to mention that you'll have to worry about logistics and having your supply lines cut?

Brilliant, I wish Civ 3 implemented this too.

[Stormhound]

It would probably be a lot harder for Civ3 to implement; with the jump lanes we have a definite topography to the game, and tracing lines of supply is a much less complex process.

[Roman]

Originally posted by Stormhound
It would probably be a lot harder for Civ3 to implement; with the jump lanes we have a definite topography to the game, and tracing lines of supply is a much less complex process.

You are probably right.

It would have been nice anyway...

[Roman]

To the topic now:

Hybrids rule - some war, some econ.

[Ubik]

I just looooooove your approach! Reminds of certain superpowers throughout history though...

[Chuckles]

I will be a hybrid. I have yet to play a game that you can not build the first half and anahalate in the second half. Unless there is an equivalent of getting rushed in the feudal age.

[Blake]

It hardly takes half the game for 'annhiliate' stage
Conquest is not a nessecary part of staying competetive in many TBS games (Civ2, SMAC, etc...). You can build and use a combination of ally buffers and your own "active defense" to keep your empire safe. Active defense as in you dont let the enemy set up camp on your border.
With supply lines and whatsnot being defensive could be even easier in MOO3. Which ironically may remove some of the challenge of playing a peacefull game

(Peacemaker is by no means the most effective strategy, but I find it the most rewarding, and the most challenging)

[Ubik]

I am the peacemaker type in any TBS game I have ever played (especially in Civ - biggest maps, with 3 or 4 civs ) but I found it quite hard to maintain a peacefull/builder status in MOO2: Them pesky aliens just got gun crazed without any previous notice (and while our relationship was at it's peak!) and they attacked without a warning...

...to get crushed by my powerfull fleet

Well, hardly a challenge, even at impossible...

I hope MOO3 goes in the right way (as it seems)

[moomin]

I'm a peacemaker at heart; I love to build up my planets and research like there was no tomorrow.

In Moo2, playing at impossible, I'd go out and get myself exactly nine planets. Build them up to max and research all you can. Go to Orion, whack it. Bulid 10th colony on Orion itself (never any more, I couldn't be bothered to scroll in the colonial management window). Once my tech is sufficient; build a huge fleet and exterminate all the rest.

Too easy. I didn't lose a single impossible game in over a hundered games, mostly playing with 300% races (only race penalties).

I think being a peacemaker should be more difficult - it's the only even halfway challenging strategy anyway. Conquest is easier still, but too boring. It's fun to give presents, frame and generally lick ass when you're still weak - and so much more satisifying to crunch all the critters that were threatning you when you get the tech and the production.

If Moo3 has made it more difficult to "dig in" and brown-nose, that'd be fun. I already agree with the increased difficulty in executing genocidal campaigns - that was _far_ too easy in Moo2.

I'm _really_ disappointed they cut out the space monsters, though. They were silly, true, but they were still fun to have around; "pay me 500 BC or I will pillage you puny subjects", indeed. Meet my stellar converter, Mr. Dragon!

[Sir Hawkeye]

Hybrid Builder with an attitude.

Whatever game I play, some puny little AI will interrupt my peaceful building and demand some silly tech. I, being the irritable galactic power I am, refuse. Then they proclaim my doom. Following that, the AI receives justice in the form of Plasma-Toting Heavy Doomstars/Veteran Howitzers/24-12-18*4 Blink Clean Gravships.

Hmm... What will the level of utterly lunatic AI belligerence be in MOO3?

[Deathwalker]

I always love to start a new game as a warmonger and work my way round to the other stagegies after I wipe out the UNiverse a couple of times

[Don K Hotay]

Originally posted by Stormhound
...with the jump lanes we have a definite topography to the game, and tracing lines of supply is a much less complex process.

so bypassing the jumplanes and a taking alternate, less direct routes to other systems is out of the question? If a my fleet was a in fact cutoff at key choke points, would a there be no way for it to hold the enemy fleets at bay until supply ships or even more fleets came in from alternate routes, maybe from the choke point flanks? Is what I say a making sense?

Also, will the galaxy and all the systems in it be on a 2D plane or 3D plane?


Quixote

"You know perfectly well we don't have 394 million dollars in cash!"
Randolph Duke, Trading Places