your gameplay style

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
Yes- hybrid Emperor.

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

there are a lot of emperors on this board

LOL

[Skanky Burns]

I tend to play fairly peacefully, as long as i get to control the whole of my island. Like on the world map, i would only insist on gaining control of Eurpoe, Asia and Africa... just one island to myself Any other civs on my island are shown the light, brought into my enlightened reign, and generally beaten to a submissive pulp Then, after this phase, i become a nation of engineers, and generally have 4 engineers per city transforming mountain ranges and forests to nice flat farmlands (with a few mined hills for decoration).

I guess im a hybrid Emperor

[Tjoepie]

I usually try to make about 8-10 wellmanaged huge cities with a lot of space to grow.
And to get enough space I might destroy some of my neighbouring cities if they are in strategic places to replace them by my own. After that I build a moderate defence in each city and 2 large fastmoving "rapid reaction forces" for active defence and retalliation.
I keep these forces up to date ( so I replace them as soon as they are obselete).
But if someone pisses me of I'll mobilise and destroy there cities to create a national park (only nature, no more cities, no more tile improvements).

[Boris Godunov]

My strategy tends to cary from game to game, but usually in Civ II I tend to be a builder-Emperor. But my strategy changes over the course of a game itself.

I generally begin as an aggressive warmonger, eating up as much land as I can and spreading out rapidly. Then, as time marches on and tech progresses, I settle into a more peaceful role and try to maintain a worldwide balance. My goal has always been to have a very full and active world. Therefore I will try to stop other civs from being too aggressive and protect the weaker ones. Usually there are 7 fairly strong civs in my game until it ends. Of course, I'm always the strongest! :-)

My other policy is that when nations suprise attack me or steal tech, I hit them hard and fast and do lots of damage. I am quite keen on revenge!

[Sava]

I expand very much, not much of a war monger, although I do take it personally when someone declares war on me. I will have to play around with the AI to see what its like, but I'll probably expand--be defensive--attack when threatened--strive for cultural, or diplomatic victory unless the all the AI's decide to ally against me when I am at war with someone like in Civ2. Then its extermination time. I don't just take people over, I use diplomats to destroy city walls, pillage and siege around cities until they are at 1, then I destroy the city. TAKE NO PRISONERS!!! AHAHAHHAHH

I'm a bit of a Civ-Nazi

[Boris Godunov]

When I look to conquer, I see if a city is in a good locale or not. The AI tends to poorly select city sites, so mostly I have no use for them. In that case, I do the same thing! Get em down to one, march in and they are gone. I guess it's rather awful, isn't it? Oh well, it's just a game...

[ixnay]

I'm pretty much a peaceful builder - building up my empire, playing other civs against each other, and keeping a defense if necessary. I rarely play an agressive style game.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kyller
I'm pretty much a peaceful builder - building up my empire, playing other civs against each other, and keeping a defense if necessary. I rarely play an agressive style game.

Just what I would have guessed by your user ID!

[Earthling7]

Peaceful builder. I remember winning a military victory once, and that was in CivI. Never once did that happen in CivII, and by the looks of it, it's even less likely in CivIII.

I usually expand as fast as I can in the beginning, building one defender, and then a settler. I want to have my empire pretty much set up by the birth of Christ (which never happens in Civ...)

I do build up an army, but usually not until musketeers become available. I make sure, though, that I can defend and retaliate if someone rears an ugly face in one of my cities, and I do not tolerate tresspassing.

[Boris Godunov]

I remember reading recently that they specifically designed Civ II to make world conquest much more difficult. I remember waaay back during Civ I (which I had for DOS) that you could cheat by pressing Shift12345678. This would show you the whole map, allow you to go into foreign city screens and max out your treasury every time you bought something. So I would do that right away and send out my legions to conquer the world before 1 A.D. Since the number of points you got for conquering all increased based on the earlier you did it, I would get a massive Civ score. Hehehe.

But in Civ II, especially on large maps, conquering all is pretty tough. In the later game you can forget about it. I like it, though. It seems much more realistic.

Cheers.

[Master Marcus]

the gap thickens between peaceful builder and peacemaker: 43 to...1. Have I really stated the peacemaker option for only one truly unique civer?

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by lockstep
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'?

More like "I can beat the game at emperor and occasionally deiety level, but usually quite late, and not without wars of eradication or conquest. I have never sustained a prolonged period of WLTKD. I don't terraform or use specialists nearly enough. I am almost always nearly out of cash, and can't rush-buy what I need. I can't really play a successful game on Democracy. My most successful strategy involves ICSsing early and then just mucking around for the rest of the game."

I probably could be better if I worked on it for a while. I never really bothered- what I most enjoyed was the set of editing tools...