Have recent world events changed your playing style?

ALPHA WOLF 64 · March 26, 2003, 18:36

I was curious as to whether the military action in Iraq had changed anyone's playing style. I do miss the ability to attack supply lines.

badams52 · March 26, 2003, 20:07

Nope, civ and the real world are separate entities.

But I think Bush should reduce Iraq's population with bombardment to prevent culture flipping and then take the cities with MA.

Jethro83 · March 26, 2003, 21:53

Nope. My style remains the same. This is afterall, only a game. Its not like I'm actually going to lead the Vikings or Carthaginians towards world conquest.

ALPHA WOLF 64 · March 27, 2003, 01:12

It hasnt changed my style either, but I seem to remember some people saying that they play a real life style. Personally, I try not to fight wars until I can bring overwhelming force on an opponent.

I'm kinda surprised that Basrah and Mosul havent already culturally flipped. Maybe the Shiites and Kurds need to consult with Firaxis in order to do it.

Deathwalker · March 27, 2003, 07:36

Not in the slightest, you can kill millions in Civ 3. But at the end of the day it's only a game no one gets hurt

Alex · March 27, 2003, 08:13

I have always been a builder, and the recent world events have only strenghtened that position.

aaglo · March 27, 2003, 08:40

Short answer: No

Long answer: Not at all.

Nym · March 27, 2003, 09:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexnm
I have always been a builder, and the recent world events have only strenghtened that position.

Quite the same.

Sava · March 27, 2003, 11:51

Civ 3 is far from real life. The combat isn't realistic at all.

TheArsenal · March 27, 2003, 12:07

Nope.

Only factors inside the game affect my play style.

Ubergeek · March 27, 2003, 12:15

I can't say that it's changed my play style, but I am more aware of the simulated lives I'm affecting with my actions, if that makes sense. As an example, I actually feel something now when I bombard a city from size 24 to size 3; I think about the little simulated lives that have been lost. It doesn't stop me from doing it, you understand, but I feel bad when I do.

Reinhard-Baer · March 27, 2003, 12:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
Civ 3 is far from real life. The combat isn't realistic at all.

Right and as far as I know the vikings and iroquois are far away from world domination today

I'm, was and always be a warmonger
I love the armies march, the fleets sail and the Airforce in the sky

pedrojedi · March 27, 2003, 22:54

Well, I can say that sometimes I feel like Blix when I my games are not that well, and I am just a small country trying to make a better world.

NÎght_shade · March 28, 2003, 19:18

Sometimes I like to "play the role".

For example, if I play the Vikings, I'll be a Despotic or Monarch government during the medieval period and make my neighbours completely miserable as I pillage them.

In the modern age, however, I'll be a tame peaceful democracy and would only get into wars if I have to.

King_Henry · March 30, 2003, 19:11

Hammurabi of the Iraqis !

Other than that, absolutely nothing. I'm still a warmonger. Send in the MA !

Lord Merciless · April 1, 2003, 01:57

If we were attacking Iraq in Civ 3 terms, we would have bombed An Nasaryiah and Basra at least down to 6 population (no defense bonus), and we would have razed Karbala and Najaf due to their long history (big cultures).

nationalist · April 1, 2003, 01:58

No way.

marcuspeddle · April 1, 2003, 02:12

I was playing a game the other day and the Arabs joined the Chinese in declaring war on me. I said, "why do they hate us?" I'm being facetious but up until that time our relations were good. I attacked the Arabs even though they were a very small weak nation. I felt guilty about that because it mirrors the situation between the U.S. and Iraq and I hate seeing pictures of Bagdad burning every day. The Arabs didn't even have oil in my game. Although they begged for mercy when they were down to one city I wiped them out anyway. What a bully. Perhaps I'm too sensitive.

georges bonbon · April 1, 2003, 04:38

I haven't changed my style.

Only yesterday I advanced too deep into enemy territory with modern armour. The AI-Bombers destroyed all roads and railroads to my new cities.

So there I was, in the middle of nowhere, with 16 crippled modern armour in 2 cities (without barracks) and no easy way to get in mechanised infantry or some other support.

Lost the 2 cities and the armour, so it made me think about the real thing.

At the beginning of the attack I was convinced nothing could go wrong........................

Fatalis2 · April 1, 2003, 07:03

Not at all, because I've always been convinced by the "Powell doctrine" : only go to war when you are absolutely sure to smash your opponent...

But sometimes this was my weakness too : a very rude civ that didn't leave me time enough to built my enormous army

Reinhard-Baer · April 1, 2003, 07:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Anatolia
Perhaps I'm too sensitive.

Well yes, perhaps a little bit

but always remember this are just pixel. You can't really hurt anyone and this little soldiers you create are just there to be smashed against the next possible civ and-the best of all-when you start a new game tada all civs are back and unharmed. So you see there is no way you should show mercy to the AI because in the end they will stab you or will annoy you so much with all their little crappy demands that you immediately start to wipe them out.

Thirgaral · April 1, 2003, 15:15

Of course you have to be sensitive...

I was once near destroying a poor english civilization, but I just couldn´t do it so I deported them to a nice little tundra-island and let them live there in peace and harmony until the end of world.

But that´s how nice I was before the war in Iraq...

ALPHA WOLF 64 · April 1, 2003, 17:16

Quote:

Originally posted by georges bonbon
Only yesterday I advanced too deep into enemy territory with modern armour. The AI-Bombers destroyed all roads and railroads to my new cities.

So there I was, in the middle of nowhere, with 16 crippled modern armour in 2 cities (without barracks) and no easy way to get in mechanised infantry or some other support.

Lost the 2 cities and the armour, so it made me think about the real thing.

At the beginning of the attack I was convinced nothing could go wrong........................

out of curiosity. what did the AI hit you with? Didn't you have any airbourne to drop in for support? I tend to hold most captured cities with only a few damaged units, and rarely lose one to a counter attack. I'm wondering if I need to modify my strategy slightly to account for better AI strategies.

ALPHA WOLF 64 · April 1, 2003, 17:18

altho I made the change long before the war started, I'm really glad that I had made guerillas invisible and offensive. They harass my rear areas quite effectively at times. I had thought about removing the invisible flag, but after watching the war coverage, I definitely plan to keep it now.

Ubergeek · April 2, 2003, 13:51

Alpha Wolf, that's a great suggestion on the guerillas. I've dramatically altered the values on all units after cavalry, but I hadn't come up with a way to make guerillas useful. Your idea looks to be just the thing. I'm starting another game tonight and I will steal it!

David Murray · April 2, 2003, 15:34

Actually, yes; my style of civ-playing has changed as a consequence of recent events. I've added a new unit to my game: a happy, beret-wearing soldier. He goes about distributing water and rations to the enemy population in order to try to win over their 'hearts and minds'. And whenever I invade a neighbour because he's annoying me, or because I want his saltpetre, I let his people know that I'm actually just liberating them from a dictatorial regime and that I won't take all the saltpetre for myself.

ALPHA WOLF 64 · April 2, 2003, 16:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Ubergeek
Alpha Wolf, that's a great suggestion on the guerillas. I've dramatically altered the values on all units after cavalry, but I hadn't come up with a way to make guerillas useful. Your idea looks to be just the thing. I'm starting another game tonight and I will steal it!

be careful of their stats tho. i made them too cheap and thats the only offensive unit the AI would build. I made them half the stats of regular infantry which means they'd take alot of losses, but they were so darn annoying that i had units strung all the way back to my bases defending RR and roads, and airfields. Would be great for a primarily defensive civ.

Ubergeek · April 2, 2003, 16:40

Quote:

Originally posted by ALPHA WOLF 64

be careful of their stats tho. i made them too cheap and thats the only offensive unit the AI would build. I made them half the stats of regular infantry which means they'd take alot of losses, but they were so darn annoying that i had units strung all the way back to my bases defending RR and roads, and airfields. Would be great for a primarily defensive civ.

Guerillas are the only unit where I haven't changed their stats, mainly because I didn't know what the heck to do with them. I considered either giving them a movement of 2 and the ability to ignore all terrain, or have them treat all terrain as roads, but neither of those ideas is as good as yours. I will certainly make them wimpy in a straight-up fight, as they should be, but the whole invisible thing will make them wonderfully aggravating.

ALPHA WOLF 64 · April 3, 2003, 14:50

if you really want to make them aggravating, make them maint-free so that the AI can have tons of them without killing their economy. its so aggravating to leave a heavily damaged unit in the "rear" and lose it to an unseen enemy. I made it so guerilla can see invisible so now i have to keep them with my forces. It really gave smaller civs a chance to do some limited offensive damage instead of just sitting there being rolled over.

pedrojedi · April 3, 2003, 23:53

Invisible Guerrilhas are nice; perhaps even giving a capacity to treat every tile as roads, to make them a little useful in offensive too. That would be cool.