Favorite civ (or what you use the most)

Nilat · July 19, 2002, 12:40

What civilization do you use the most and why

I use my self Otto von bismark of the germans cause his a militaristic and scientific and also cause the name of the citys are easy to remember!!

yellfromhell · July 19, 2002, 13:05

Hi,

I use Russia, whith the big fat bulldog leading it. I suppose its because I remember it (or the USSR) being one of the two bad boys of this world, and as nowadays theres only one bad boy, the game gives me the chance to 'balance' again the powers

In psychoanalisis you would say Im 'sublimating'

Bye

Nilat · July 19, 2002, 14:15

Im sad that you cant use russia with a man

yellfromhell · July 20, 2002, 09:25

I would prefare Nikita Kruschev rather than Stalin. Please avoid suggesting Gorvatchovs leaderheads.

Artifex · July 24, 2002, 10:19

I think they gave russia weak traits. Russia in theory is my favorite civ. The way they are implemented in this game makes them my least favorite. I hate the expansionist trait with a passion.

They should make the leader Lenin. What is up with that fat woman?

Russia should be militaristic and Industrious like china. The cossack should be 7.3.3 or 6.3.4.

The 6.4.3 is an insult. You don't use cavalry for defense.

Gwylim · July 25, 2002, 07:00

I like to play russia and i like the expansionist-trait very much. with it i get nearly all technologies for free in the antic age just entering the cute huts and i was very depressed while playing other civ because i was running behind the other civs or i had nearly no money. i am wondering how to play other civs such successfully in the antic era....

trickey · July 25, 2002, 10:52

The civ i play most is either greece or persia. Greece, i like the traits they have, and the hoplite doesnt become obsoletefo so long.

Persia's UU, the immortal, is simply unstopable in the ancients era. I even use it to polish of some defenders when i have cavalry.

GhengisFarb™ · July 26, 2002, 12:23

I tend to play the Iroquois and made their UU the Mounted Warrior have Hidden Nationality to represent the fact that the early European colonist dressed as natives to attack one another without causing a war.

So I have an early 2 movement unit I can attack my neighbors with without starting war!

PeteBDawg · July 28, 2002, 00:44

Making the Russians militaristic would be an historical mistake. The Russians have never, not even in the Soviet era, been especially focused on adopting a militaristic social structure. Certainly, the military has been an important tool in the hands of politicians and leaders in Russia for centuries, but generally the skill and training of the army has been secondary to the ability to deliver overwhelming numbers to squash resistance without having to worry about the advantages afforded by superior training or armaments. Yes, Russia has been a military powerhouse, but it has never been because of the importance of the Russian soldier in Russian society. Russian royalty, bureaucrats, and politicians, not generals, have spearheaded the various rises to power. In fact, prior to the World War II, I believe that the Russian soldier was never held in high regard at all by any foreign power. This is not, of course, the fault of the Russian soldier, but the fault of his superiors, who generally believed him to be complete expendable and not deserving proper training or armament. Thus, giving Russians cheap barracks and combat experience would run counter to the root of almost all of their military success.

The Russians should certainly be scientific; that's an appropriate trait for them. They've remained competitive scientifically even when at huge commerical disadvantages to their rivals. Expansionist is lame, I agree, but it is appropriate. If you wanted to pick another one, you can't pick commercial (for obvious reasons), you can't pick religious (Russian revolutions definitely come with periods of anarchy), and you can't pick militaristic.

Industrious seems a little more challenging, because Russian industry is infamous, but Russians aren't really known for infrastructure. In fact, they're sort of known for really poor infrastructure, especially in the pre-Soviet era. And all the industrious nations in the game are known for their infrastructure as often as than their industry- France, in particular (who invented the 30-hour work week), but also Persia and probably America (American highways and railroads probably outstrip the value of American factories). And Egypt and China, though industrious because of their monuments, also generally had comparatively developed infrastructures, at least during the heights of their local dominance.

Pythagoras · July 28, 2002, 11:25

I heart Babe-e-loanya

Kramerman · July 30, 2002, 22:45

The Glorious Empire of Rome!

GhengisFarb™ · July 31, 2002, 09:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Pythagoras
I heart Babe-e-loanya

Uh, oh. I see a new leaderhead set in the future....

Anodyne · August 1, 2002, 00:10

Quote:

Uh, oh. I see a new leaderhead set in the future....

But hey, I like Babylonians, too...

MIK_IZ_WAK · August 1, 2002, 15:27

My favourites are the Romans, as you can have some rip roaring military war-mongering fun right from the start of the game. In Civ 2 I always played my native England, but they seem to be worse designed in Civ 3. In Civ 2 they were the kings of science, which meant that huge modern armies could be created easily. Also, in Civ 3 the English seem to be very aggressive in Civ 3, and plus I don't want to be seen as a girl like Elizabeth and if I do play as them, I am at great risk of developing a feminine complexion as all my advisors call me "Ma'am" booo! hissssss!

Andemagne · August 3, 2002, 18:00

Greeks. (nuthin else.)

Anodyne · August 3, 2002, 18:58

Hmmh, two almost identical threads here.

Adagio · August 4, 2002, 06:01

My favorite Civ is called Random, this Civ is good at making suprises whenever a new game starts

Nilat · August 6, 2002, 09:06

adg, i should do that too :P

dunk · August 6, 2002, 10:11

Quote:

Originally posted by yellfromhell
I would prefare Nikita Kruschev rather than Stalin. Please avoid suggesting Gorvatchovs leaderheads.

How about Breshnev? There was an ugly leader.

Anyhoo, currently, I am on a Chinese kick. I think my next experiment will be the Romans. The added oomph given to commercial civs will make them pretty powerful.

dunk · August 6, 2002, 10:13

Quote:

Originally posted by MIK_IZ_WAK
In Civ 2 they were the kings of science,

There wasn't a difference (besides color and city styles) between civs in Civ II, was there?

Kramerman · August 6, 2002, 15:39

i didnt think so.

Nilat · August 10, 2002, 00:51

What about lenin instead of czarina catherine?

Panag · August 10, 2002, 07:11

hi ,

Abe , .....

or France , ....

have a nice day

Palaiologos · August 11, 2002, 05:12

I only play as the Greeks,being a native of this country.

HAND · August 12, 2002, 20:59

I play as England ...Even though Elizabeth looks like horse!

buzzbat · August 13, 2002, 02:00

I gotta go with persia, with immortals early on i kick ass, and industrious and scientific i still kick ass...

Datajack Franit · August 19, 2002, 17:12

Deutschekrautz!!!

Panag · August 31, 2002, 19:12

hi ,

the US of A , only for the F - 15 , ....

have a nice day

Az · September 1, 2002, 07:01

I almost always play an Asiatic civ , with my favorites being China and Japan, since I do my push at the mid-ages, and only complete it towards the industrial age, with India being a more balanced approach , for an expansion throughout the entire game. a Sun Tzu's war academy is very helpful to balance the relative military weakness of the Indians, having no militaristic perk , and being UU-Handicapped.

if not asian , I go either Roman , or persian. strong UUs

XOR · September 3, 2002, 05:17

Rome or India, I never ever play as anything other than that. And elephants being mere normal knights isnt nice.