your gameplay style

[Master Marcus]

I've already started a similar poll in the MoO3 forum; for Civ3 it will be more defined since more than 50% of players seem to be at least partially hybrid builders. The subject? How aggressively do you intend to play most of your incoming Civ3 games?

-Warmonger: self-explanatory.Describes a player who intends to exterminate the most opponents he can, conquering the most cities he can, as soon as first contacts are made AND owning a sufficient military. He is at war with at least one opponent for almost all the turns until the end. ( But a warmonger can choose any kind of victory: the extermination may be the mean, not the end ). N.B.: he...or she of course

-Aggressive Imperialist builder: a more diplomatic warmonger in the first half of the game ( unless a weak civ near you at the beginning can be an easy grab, you wait until you have a strong empire and a more than sufficient military before beginning massive invasions ); in the second half you lead successive wars ( alone or with an ally ). You intend to exterminate many opponents, but not them all in order to achieve any kind of victory, but preferably not the militaristic one - although you clearly manage a militaristic civ .

-Hybrid builder as "Emperor" the ideal combination in this case is militaristic and religious. You clearly want to manage either strong cities with numerous cultural improvements , AND also an even stronger military AFTER that in order to lead a couple of massive wars , but never to achieve extensive genocides ( well, maybe 2-4 opponents can be wiped out but no more). Pax Imperium. You can be a spy master also.

-Hybrid builder as " Moderator" Such as myself ( then again, in most of the games but not necessarily them all ), describes a player who wants to play as a megalomaniac diplomat: for the first half, building a very strong inner empire with an emphasis on city management and diplomacy. Thereafter building strong defenses is in the agenda, as well as a sufficient military for a casual war or two. You eradicate no more than 1-2 civ(s), and you are also a trade expert and/or a spy master.

-Peaceful builder you manage a peaceful civ through every mean but war. Massive city management, and you deal diplomatically with all the opponents you can in order to forge the most treaties possible. You are a cultural expert, and you avoid any indesirable war - well, maybe a good war near the end if it can enrich the path for victory.

-Peacemaker The warmonger's nemesis. He avoids war at any cost through the end, even if that means bribing and giving all he can give to the strong AI civs. That player is a cultural deity; its population is so happy to be in a "gaian" harmony...

-The Hermit: it can be a "one-city-challenge" at deity level for the hardcore experts in need of an overwhelming challenge...

[Ralf]

I voted "Peaceful builder", but I really swing between that and "Hybrid moderator" in practice. And God forbid; some few times also "Hybrid emperor".

[Sabre2th]

Uhhh..... I start as a peaceful builder, become a real @$$hole if and when I'm attacked, and go back to peaceful builder after my attacker is dead.

Yet another case of "bad poll choice syndrome."

[Inverse Icarus]

im usually a warmonger in civ2, but i suppose wiping out all the races but my own would be reather stupid in civ3, because of the whole new resource structure.

i think fighting a war without tanks against a competant AI with oil should be interesting.

so i voted Aggressive Imperialist builder

[Master Marcus]

Originally posted by Sabre2th
Uhhh..... I start as a peaceful builder, become a real @$$hole if and when I'm attacked, and go back to peaceful builder after my attacker is dead.

Yet another case of "bad poll choice syndrome."

Great. In my book, you're clearly within the "hybrid builder:Moderator" group. Read again, and I'me sure 95% of players can be easily fitted within the poll choices.

If not, then I truly apologize for having perpetuated the " poll syndrome"......

[Gramphos]

I hope to play as a "Peaceful builder", but if I get totally mad at someone I think I may change that policy. This will apply for the first month of the game. After that I don't no, I will hopefully adapt my own personal Civ3 strategy.

[Pagan]

I generally start of peaceful and expansionist. But sooner or later someone tries to build a city in or near my territory, and no one get to build a sandcastle on my beach. Also, sooner or later someone disses me by stealing a tech or demanding something, and then it is time to teach them the ultimate lesson.

[Steve Clark]

You forgot one: a Scenario Objectiveness

[Inverse Icarus]

someone vote peacemaker so i can challange you and get your money

[Bereta_Eder]

I do whatever it takes to have at least 10 cities with minimum overlapping in the early start.

If I manage that, I never lose a game (in Deity).

When the tank comes I may exterminate one or two civs if they are pestering me and are on my continent. But I do it very fast.

Then zooooom to AC

The most exciting games is when something goes wrong in all of this

[General Ludd]

I voted for 'hermit' taking it as being Isolationist. I also have 'moderator', peaceful builder, and peacemaker tendencies.

It all depends on the game I'm playing and how I'm playing it, though.

[marcuspeddle]

I voted peaceful builder but I tend to be an isolationist if I can get away with it. With Civ3's new diplomacy system I might change my style to peacemaker but I'm not sure yet. I was a kind of peacemaker in SMAC but there was always one faction (usually Hive or that religious missus) that just wouldn't make peace. The great thing about SMAC was that if someone was out to get me they were probably out to get most everyone so it was easy for me to get an ally and gang up on him. Or her. It seems like Civ3 might be like this so I'm really looking forward to it.

[TechWins]

Well, I"m a mixture of warmonger, aggressive imperialist builder, aggressive imperialist builder, and peaceful builder. Even as weird as that may sounds all apply to me at for a long period of time in the game. As time goes on and I discover the "good" techs, my cities become more developed, and I build up military more I start to increase my status towards the agressive side on the latter. If I had to choose one that I most am I would say aggressive imperialist builder.

Read again, and I'me sure 95% of players can be easily fitted within the poll choices.

To include those 5% you could have given a choice of "other". Which could include multiple statuses which Sabre2th and I possess. It could also include any other status not mentioned. Therefore, having an other option no matter what would include everybody in the poll. An "other" is a must in my opinion for any poll. Other than that (no pun intended if there is even a pun) your poll is very good.

[Tingkai]

Master Marcus: your poll definitely does not fit into the "Bad Poll Choice Symdrone." The descriptions you provided are well thought out. What the poll does show is that some people prefer to shoot off their mouths and throw out insults rather than taking the time to read, think, and then pick the option that is the most appropriate choice. (No offence to Techwin who was polite with his comments).

As for me, it is hard to say until I play the game, but I'm more inclined to Hybrid builder as "Emperor." It is not a perfect description, since I may end up destroying the other Civs at the end of the game, but it is the description that most applies to me.

[lockstep]

I like to be a 'peaceful builder', but when a small neighbouring civ launches the third sneak attack ... So I voted hybrid builder - moderator.

BTW, Master Marcus, good idea to add corresponding smilies to your options.

[Provost Harrison]

Well I fall somewhere between hybrid builder: moderator and peaceful builder, so I think by definition I would be in the former, but my conquests are only ever in the hope of gaining new territory to build up...

[aaglo]

My choise was peaceful builder, because I hate being at war. I try to maintain peace as long as possible, and when some arrogant imbecil want's to fight with me, then so be it. I seldomly conquer enemy cities, I just keep the enemy away from my installations (by attacking only those who come too close). In other words: I like to keep my property clean

[Colonel Kraken]

I am definitely a Hybrid Builder: Moderator. I expand at an even paced rate. I stake out claims on territory that I believe should be mine (usually for strategic reasons --either militarily or economically); if an AI Civ plops his rear on 'my' turf, I give him the boot.

Normally, though, I actively seek to make peaceful first contact. If the other civ responds in kind, I go out of my way to forge a lasting, strong relationship. If the other civ makes himself out to be a total jackass, I smash a few cities, threaten a few more and watch him grovel at my feet for peace. Then I say, "Ok, until next time. Try it again and I'll wipe you out."

That's me: act civilized toward me, and I'll be your closest friend, ally, and supporter. Step on my toes or otherwise annoy me with subversive tricks and warfare, and I'll grind you into the ground.

Now that's fun!!

[Tarquinius]

I had a few difficulties in picking my play type, but I think Hybrid Builder: Moderator is best for me.
I usually start off quite agressively, i am expanding as rapidly as i can. When i encounter an enemy civ near my, i try to crush that civ immedeatly, so I take some cities easily, and I can expand freely

After a while (12 cities or so) I stop expanding, and am going to improve my cities. I really want to keep peace for a while, only after my cities are big, and I am ready for warfare, I am willing to wage war again. (usually around 1600 A.D.)
And then Ill try to crush all my enemies into the ground (I dont exceed always in that )

I really hate it when civs demand unreasonable things for war, like 1000 gold, or an civ advance every 4 turns etc. But then I can make a pretty strong force, and teach the warmmonger a lesson

[Cookie Monster]

Aggressive Imperialist builder definately.

I use sci/tech to first increase my science output then start discovering all the good weapons. I stay peacefull but it is hard because the slightest international incident sparks a war in my book.

Given the mechanics of CivIII I may switch to being a peacefull builder but maintain a strong defense force.

[Master Marcus]

Thanks to ALL posters so far, and for new viewers don't hesitate to jump in. Keep'em coming. All comments so far are very constructive, even the less positive ones

Btw, as some of you have so well mentioned, I really like also the need of a good war or two even when playing a more peaceful game - just for expanding my empire and to become eventually the unquestionable dominating civ. If it was only for the pleasure of eradicating, I guess I'd prefer playing Unreal Tournament.....

[Edward]

Originally posted by UberKruX
im usually a warmonger in civ2, but i suppose wiping out all the races but my own would be reather stupid in civ3, because of the whole new resource structure.

You could wipe 'em out, then use conquered cities or constructed colonies to access their resources. In fact, if the AI is reluctant to trade their resources, that'll be all the more reason to expand your empire via war. (Could be self-feeding: I have few culture points so the AI refuses to trade (fairly) with me. Lamenting the AI's isolationistic greed I'm forced to take what I need...)

I'm definitely a subset of "Peaceful Builder" in most of my Civ2 games. In the early game I rapidly (but peacefully) expand by settling many small cities across the globe. In the late game I go back and build up those cities. Civ3 will throw a wrench in my usual plans since my settlers will be more expensive (2 pop) and it'll be harder to keep pesky AI settlers out of "my" unsettled land (since ancient units will have smaller ZOCs).

I predict being a "Peaceful Builder" in Civ3 as well. Perhaps changing to a strategy of few cities and many cultural improvements will be more effective. The Civ2 AI is bad at determining stuff's value ("Tribute of 500 gold for no reason? Sure!", "I demand you give me the (post-Bach worthless) secret of Theology!"). Add the influence of a superior culture and I'll be wheeling-and-dealing my way to victory. (Is that more of a "Moderator" approach?) Maybe this culture thing will finally give the AI perfectionists (Babylonians, Aztecs) a "fighting" chance in Civ3.

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Master Marcus


Great. In my book, you're clearly within the "hybrid builder:Moderator" group. Read again, and I'me sure 95% of players can be easily fitted within the poll choices.

If not, then I truly apologize for having perpetuated the " poll syndrome"......

Don't tell me where I fit in. My strategy is complex and doesn't fit your options.

[Bay Skipjack]

I voted peaceful builder, but like many others I often find myself in the hybrid-builder/moderator category. I never start a war, but will always defend to the death.

There are those moments late game where a civ just can't take a hint, and I wind up crushing his (or her) puny a**

Civ3 may bend my style to rely more on diplomacy, less on a perfectionist bent...Yeh, Right!

[Buck Birdseed]

I suspect that most people who like me are not very good at Civ play the Hybrid: Emperor- unless you're careful you will end up in a lot of wars in civ. My "strategy" if you may call it that is trying to maximise population growth by improvement and expansion.

[Master Marcus]

Interesting: at this point, 23 peaceful builders for only ONE peacemaker??????? ( if as a real peacemaker you are forced by an opponent into war, then-and only then-that doesn't mean to only defend and not retaliate. In my book you can even invade a few, taking some cities - thus having some kind of a military. But of course you avoid to eradicate completely the enemy civ.)

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Snapcase
people who like me are not very good at Civ

Could you specify that, Snapcase? Does this mean 'Sometimes when playing OCC, I don´t manage to reach AC before 1900' or 'Even on Prince level, two times out of three the AI eradicates my humble civ'?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Colonel Kraken
I am definitely a Hybrid Builder: Moderator. I expand at an even paced rate. I stake out claims on territory that I believe should be mine (usually for strategic reasons --either militarily or economically); if an AI Civ plops his rear on 'my' turf, I give him the boot.

Normally, though, I actively seek to make peaceful first contact. If the other civ responds in kind, I go out of my way to forge a lasting, strong relationship. If the other civ makes himself out to be a total jackass, I smash a few cities, threaten a few more and watch him grovel at my feet for peace. Then I say, "Ok, until next time. Try it again and I'll wipe you out."

That's me: act civilized toward me, and I'll be your closest friend, ally, and supporter. Step on my toes or otherwise annoy me with subversive tricks and warfare, and I'll grind you into the ground.

Now that's fun!!

AMEN!!!

[jdd2007]

hybrid builder:Emperor

[Sarxis]

Yes- hybrid Emperor.

I can't resist anything with the word 'Emperor' in it.