Overall Style/Preference of Play

[Velociryx]

Hey guys!

Actually, my favorite trait is Industrious (see my thread on the virtues of being industrious), with Religious coming in a close second for me.

The way I look at the Religious trait is two-fold:

First, you're quite right, cheap temples are great....that's inexpensive happiness for your citizens, plus a kick to culture (faster border expansion being its chief virtue).

Second and far more important in my mind though, is the one turn of anarchy when you switch governments. Now, I'll grant you, you don't wind up making all that many governmental switches during the course of the game, but for non-religious civs, it could well be the case that when you switch governments is largely dictated to you by in-game events (ie - when you're neck deep in a war, that's a pretty bad time to paralyze your economy for x turns while you struggle to shift gears)....so even if you WANT to make some or other switch, you can't till you get some breathing room.

Not so with Religious Civs....if you need a three to five turn commie boost to do some more pop rushing or whathave you....crank it up, and then slam your government type back to something kinder and gentler.....if war weariness is getting the better of you, you have no difficulty switching gears in mid war to something more resistant.

IMO, the MOST wicked, durable combination in the game is Industrious/Religous....making the Egyptians my favorite civ to play....you get cheaply bought happy citizens, exquisite control, and hyper-built road networks....and in truth, of all of those, the rapid construction of a good military road network is heads and shoulders more important than anything else.

With that in place more rapidly than any of your near neighbors, you can ransack them at will, regardless of their traits, or their size, relative to yours. Even if you're squaring off against a Civ markedly larger than your own, all you gotta do is goad them into your territory and use your superior mobility thanks to that road network to pick them apart, then counterinvade when the dust settles and the stench from all the dead enemy troops has cleared a bit.

The control over the game environment that the industrious trait gives you is....mighty hard to top. Coupled with the control over your own governmental destiny and the happiness of your citizens brought to you by religious....that's a durable combination indeed.

-=Vel=-

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Not so with Religious Civs....if you need a three to five turn commie boost to do some more pop rushing or whathave you....crank it up, and then slam your government type back to something kinder and gentler.

-=Vel=-

With 1.21 I believe that communist doesn't pop rush, it takes gold.


-OR-

I modified it and forgot that I did, in which case, disregard this post.

[bigvic]

Originally posted by Giovanni Wine
Velociryx!

I see you like Religious civ most of all: Aztecs, Iroquois, Egypt or Babs.
Do you think that the Religious trait is the most important?
What do you find so good about being a Religious, yes free temples are huge advantage for a warmongerer, but I personally find myself better with Militaristic Industrious (Chinese), or Rome (I like the UU).



There is nothing more true than that

Saluti

Don't want to speak for velocyrix, but I think the best thing about religious civs is the gov. flexibility. How many times have you been neck and neck close in a wonder race, but stayed w/ crappy despotism afraid to lose 5 turns to anarchy? W/ relig. civ, never! Or how often have you been playing the peaceful development game under republic or democracy, then been sucked into a big war (dogpiled even) and wished you could just switch over to a warlike gov, poof? Again w/ rel. cive, no prob.!

[Theseus]

I'm still grappling with one of Vel's challenges... a significantly different strategy than those discussed thus far.

For the moment, though, I gotta go Egypt.

If one is to design a game-specific strategy, with many variables and unknowns, the combination of Rel / Ind with an early and cheap fastmover (capitalizing on Ind), rocks.

Sung to Cleo:

You're the top! You're the Colosseum,
You're the top! You're the Louvre Museum,
You're a melody from a symphony by Strauss,
You're a Bendel bonnet, a Shakespeare sonnet,
You're Mickey Mouse.
You're the Nile, You're the Tow'r of Pisa,
You're the smile on the Mona Lisa.
I'm a worthless check, a total wreck, a flop,
But if, Baby, I'm the bottom,
You're the top!!

(Cole Porter would have been a big fan of Civ)

[Cookie Monster]

All too easy my friends....................



When Civ3 was advertised by Sid himself over a year ago he promised that Civ3 would not focus so much on war.

The way most people play this game, and perhaps the only way to have a chance to win, is to start an early war. Continue warring with your neighbors and brothers until you gain number one position in land area and milk your score to the end. If you can try to build a spaceship or cultural victory, but the point is most win through war.

This is totally not what I remember Sid saying when he was plugging Civ3 in PCGAMER, TECH TV, etc. etc..................


Have a nice day...........

[Xarathas]

I usually Just play on Huge map w/ 16 civs and let the computer choose my civ. Though I like to turn the cives down to 10~12 sometime for a different style of game.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
All too easy my friends....................



When Civ3 was advertised by Sid himself over a year ago he promised that Civ3 would not focus so much on war.

The way most people play this game, and perhaps the only way to have a chance to win, is to start an early war. Continue warring with your neighbors and brothers until you gain number one position in land area and milk your score to the end. If you can try to build a spaceship or cultural victory, but the point is most win through war.

This is totally not what I remember Sid saying when he was plugging Civ3 in PCGAMER, TECH TV, etc. etc..................


Have a nice day...........

I used to be concerned about the need to make war to win, and consequently, just for fun and experimentation, played several games on both Regent and Monarch where I restricted myself to never declaring war, never using any of the many tricks to goad the AI into war, and never signing an MPP. I haven't yet played an entirely peaceful game because someone insists on attacking (but have played a couple with only one short war the enitre game), BUT, I have won at least once through each of diplomatic, cultural, and spaceship victory methods.

If you love to warmonger, a builder's game may seem boring, but for those who don't want to rely solely on war, you can win! (at least through Monarch - haven't played Emperor or Diety yet).

Catt

[dawidge]

Originally posted by Catt
If you love to warmonger, a builder's game may seem boring, but for those who don't want to rely solely on war, you can win! (at least through Monarch - haven't played Emperor or Diety yet).

Catt

On Regent, this is how I generally play. Expand peacefully, build defensive troops, improve my cities, gain the early tech lead and trade it away to get a money lead (which becomes a vicious cycle in my favor). Wait for someone to declare war against me and crank out offense like mad. By the time I get cavalry, I'm usually chomping at the bit for a major conflict and become a pure warmonger, racing from cav to infantry to tanks to mech to modern armor, cutting through my enemies like a hot knife through butter.

[Sinapus]

d00d! I r00l w1th @n 1r0n-*BLAM* thud

Ahem. Excuse me.

I tend to avoid wars as much as possible, and try to expand peacefully. Of course, I *will* pummel any civ that gets annoying and does rude things like declare war. If they're relatively close, I might even take them over.