Rival Empires

[Vespasian]

Just a little poll on the civilizations.....

Who do you usually play as?

What civ do you find a formidable opponent?

What civ do you constantly find yourself feeling sorry for?

As a player, what philosophy do you usually subscribe to (Aggressive/Rational, Militaristic/Civilized, Expansionist/Perfectionist or Neutral)?

No one seems to have noticed me yet. Hopefully this will help.


Vespasian

[poppawoppa]

I most often play as Romans. Second woould be American.
I find the French to be pretty agressive.
Vikings and Zulu would be next.
I dont ever feel sorry for any other civ. All of them antagonize me in my quest to be a good neighbor. When they get on my nerves, I finally have to teach them a lesson.
I want to expand and have a peaceful civ, so I guess I'm Expansionist/Perfectionist, until
somebody trys to run over me or makes unreasonable demands, like 1000 gold and we'll allow your civ to continue to exist. Ha Ha. That is just a call to arms, buster.

By the way, what is the meaning of your user name, Vespasian?

Who do you usually play as? Chinese (sometimes I custom them to the Apache)

What civ do you find a formidable opponent? British, or Germans

What civ do you constantly find yourself feeling sorry for?
Any yellow colored civ (they have never posed even a remote threat to me)

As a player, what philosophy do you usually subscribe to (Aggressive/Rational, Militaristic/Civilized, Expansionist/Perfectionist or Neutral)?

Agressive, Civilized, Perfectionist
Actually I'm expansionist up to about 20 cities. And then I'm perfectionist.


[This message has been edited by Black Bart (edited February 15, 2000).]

[War4ever]

I most often play as the Mongols....... i am an agressive militaristic expansionist... i have no problem clobbering any and all civs who violate the lands in which i wish to settle on even if they are there first

I pity no civ but often feel for the perfectionist civs as they are often squashed my warlike nations

------------------
I am the kind of guy who likes to eat cereal in the morning while watching tv in my undershorts.
- Roger Clemens

[Scouse Gits]

• Carthaginian (most often, but I have a customised Scouse Git civilisation on my own slightly modified variant).
• The French seem to get in my hair most often.
• The Chinese - they are such good neighbours it is a shame when it comes time to ...
• Expansionist (ICS + SSC [when it comes])

How could we ignore such a famous Emperor and general - I think perhaps you have mistaken our natural awe for lack of notice
Assuming you play Roman - what are your other attributes, Vespasian?

------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor
[This message has been edited by Scouse Gits (edited February 15, 2000).]

[DaveV]

I always play as the Romans, because they have the longest list of city names. I would classify myself as Aggressive Militaristic Expansionist. I don't feel sorry for any of the AIs, they're all a bunch of dirty sneak attackers. The Indians and Americans are probably the easiest to push around, but they'll backstab you, too, given the chance. The toughest civ to face is one run by a human .

[Steve Clark]

Who do you usually play as? Americans (wish they were a different color though).

What civ do you find a formidable opponent? Mongols or Russians.

What civ do you constantly find yourself feeling sorry for? The one I just got done clobbering

As a player, what philosophy do you usually subscribe to?
Rational-Militaristic-Perfectionist (12 high quality cities all geared toward making total war).

[BlackJack]

It breaks my heart to see the Americans go down. ... I like I ought to do something you know? But when they get half a chance to get rolling early on, they can be tough. Likewise the Sioux and Persians.

[Graag]

• I almost always play as Romans (as The Divine Caligula) in MP and SP
• I find the Vikings most formidable, as they are the only civ to ever beat me to Sun Tzu's.
• I feel sorry for the French and Zulus most of all. The French because they love to sneak attack just when I'm looking ofr an excuse to wipe them off the face of the planet, the Zulus because they try so hard to be a massive all conquering nation and fail so miserably (in the mid/late game anyway)
• In SP my style is primarily Expansionist, with extreame Militaristic and Aggresive tendancies. That said, I usually have a dozen or so huge cities which I play Perfectionist with, and wage war and expand with the others (which I then play Perfectionist with and use my new cities to expand wand wage war with, and so on).
  Oh, and I never ever go for AC .
• In MP my style is Perfectionist/Expansionist, the classic mix of both styles. I am much less agrresive in MP, unless I see a soft target, or I feel I am lagging behind. (Similar style to SP I suppose, except all civs are a soft target, so I'm always Militaristic ).

Graag

------------------
You should never smoke in pyjamas, you could start a fire and burn your face

[This message has been edited by Graag (edited February 15, 2000).]

[klesh]

I play as the Russians (sometimes customize to Ukrainians) and Egyptians. The French are usually up in my buisness as well as the Chinese. The AI rarely gives me Mongols or Zulus to deal with. I consider myself an Agressive/Civilized/Expantionist. I will colonize (no sleaze), untill I meet the AI. Then I perfect my cities for awhile. No treaties, no pacts. If they wanna dance, I'll dance. If they wanna chill, I'll chill. If they make one wrong move or get too pushy, I'll instill the fear of god in them.
I usually feel sorry for the English. They seem to always be next to other European countries that are way better than they are. Sometimes I'll humor them with a little alliance (just gives me an excuse to conquer the Civs at war w/ Brits).

[Sten Sture]

I play as Tut of the Egyptians; Thomas Jefferson of the Americans; Erik Bloodaxe of the Vikings, or Sepp Blatter of the Hooligans.

Vespasian, Roman Emporer c75 AD - Father of Titus... excellent name. Check out the Handles, handles, handles, thread in the general civ2 forum!

[tobyr]

I think it's really a good idea to get used to playing all the tribes, because they are so different. I started with Buteo, then Stygian, Merfolk, Elf, Infidel (couldn't figure them out), human, and soon I will try Goblins...

- toby


------------------
toby robison
criticalpaths@mindspring.com

[Vespasian]

quote: Originally posted by Scouse Gits on 02-15-2000 05:18 AM Carthaginian (most often, but I have a customised Scouse Git civilisation on my own slightly modified variant). The French seem to get in my hair most often. The Chinese - they are such good neighbours it is a shame when it comes time to ... Expansionist (ICS + SSC [when it comes]) How could we ignore such a famous Emperor and general - I think perhaps you have mistaken our natural awe for lack of notice Assuming you play Roman - what are your other attributes, Vespasian?

Yes, I play as the Romans most of the time, with an occasional play as the Americans, Japanese, or Greeks. Sometimes the English too, because they have my favorite starting location on the world map.

The Spanish can often be worthy all-around opponents, as can the Romans. No one beats the Vikings or Japanese for a knockdown, dragged-out brawl, and the Zulus, too, get frisky once they go Fundy (and they ALWAYS go Fundy). In the race to AC, the Aztecs and Chinese always rise to the challenge. Also, let the Americans live until A.D., and they will always become a world power, if not THE world power.

As for the weaklings, I've heard tales of Persian might, but they always shrink like violets in my games. The Egyptians are rarely a threat. Also, I do't know how many times I've seen the Celts muster a gigantic empire, only to fight and lose a disastrous war against a much smaller (though usually smarter) nation.

I would classify myself as a Civilized Expansionist (like my Romans). I start as many cities as possibly, claim all the islands I can, and try to get a technological edge. My nations never have a set goal:just roll with the punches, destroying and allying when the time for each is right.

[Dino the Dinosore]

Dave said:

I always play as the Romans, because they have the longest list of city names.

You should check out this thread (or search for "city names" in the CIV2 General/Community forum) where there are posts with extra long lists of city names for many civs, including Romans. You can copy the lists into the city.txt file to use them.
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum1/HTML/000498.html

I usually play as Greeks because I'm a big fan of Alexander the Great, but I also like to play as Americans, Sioux, Celts, English, Egyptians, Romans, Babylonians, Persians and French. Its good to play different civs, but I don't like the ones with weird (weird to me that is) city names. The Vikings and Zulus are the worst enemies. Nobody ever feels sorry for the barbs. I'm mostly Expansionist/Perfectionist, with a bad tendency to do too much micro-managing.

[Andromeda]

I always play as the Irish, customised from the Romans. I've customised other aspects of gameplay too, such as extra units, and I speeded up the Tech. Paradigm because I got fed up with so many games ending in the Middle Ages, without Flight and modern navies, etc.

Like Vespasian, I play Civilised/Expansionist and generally try to avoid conflict as long as possible. But that seems to be quite impossible if I have the Vikings or Zulus near me. There seems to be general agreement on this thread that those two are among the most aggressive of all civs.

Who do I feel sorry for ? The last remaining civ left on the map after I have conquered all others, and who has never caused me any trouble, who has loyally coughed up tribute, turn after turn, with a most Worshipful attitude ! I just cannot bring myself to squash him just to formally end the game !

Just ended (and won) a very interesting SP game at Deity level. Built no Wonders at all. No Temples even ! In fact, except for barracks & city walls in 1 or 2 cities, absolutely no city improvements anywhere.
I didn't really plan it like this, it's just that I found myself at war very soon, then I just went into total-war mode, with my very many small cities churning out military units to beat the band. Obviously had to use a lot of elvises to control riots, but then when I got Fundy all those elvises immediately went into gainful employment, resulting in a major production boost, further augmented by the sudden loss of corruption. So, in the face of this greatly increased military might, the enemy civs were doomed.

Like I said above, I usually play a Civilised game, and this kind of ruthless brute-force strategy would not be my normal style. But yet, it seemed to work brilliantly against AI opponents. Has anybody any comments on this ?

[Ming]

When playing against the AI, I will always play the Romans (I might customize them) for only one reason. I want first crack at exposed barbarian kings

In MP, I like to play whatever civ lets me go second. I hate going first in MP, because it doesn't give you time to force build needed units in case barbarians appear at your gate.

Against the AI, I feel sorry for no civ...
The same is true in MP

Against the AI, no civ is really a good opponent...
In MP, there are many fine opponents

My style of play is dictated by the openning postion, and changes that occur during the game... anybody that uses the same strategy in MP will lose when the situation doesn't support their strategy

[CrispyCritter]

quote: Originally posted by Andromeda on 02-21-2000 12:00 PM Just ended (and won) a very interesting SP game at Deity level. Built no Wonders at all. No Temples even ! In fact, except for barracks & city walls in 1 or 2 cities, absolutely no city improvements anywhere.

I'm not surprised you won once you were able to get Fundamentalism; Fundamentalism is ridiculously powerful. I am surprised you were able to develop Fund without building Temples. In my no-wonder games I can't seem to have all three of shields (for the war), trade (for techs), and food (to support the Elvises). Trade normally suffers... How much of a change did you make in the Tech progression?

[Andromeda]

CrispyCritter, I reduced the Tech. Paradigm to 2, from the default 10. I felt that too many games were not making it into the modern era. I have been playing for several years at this TP level, and feel the balance is just right for my style of play.
Even at this level it's not unusual for games to end before Flight has been discovered, for example. For me, a game is effectively over once all powerful rivals have been eliminated - there's no fun in squashing the remaining weaklings.

[Steve Clark]

Andro: Could you explain exactly what effect this has on game play? Reducing the TP to 2 speeds up researching advances 5x. Why do you do this?

[Empress]

I usually play as the Vikings or the Indians.
I have noticed that the Vikings seem to be a lucky civ for me

As far as an A/I formidable opponent, I find the Zulus to be more aggressive.

The A/I civ I always fell sorry for is as Black Bart said, they yellow civs (and i hate the color yellow

I prescribe to the survivalist philosophy

[Andromeda]

Steve Clark: I speeded up the tech. advances for my SP games because, as I have said earlier in this thread, I was finding that too many games were ending before the modern era, and I was not getting enough experience and enjoyment from the use of modern navies and air forces. Everyone's style of play is different, and this mod. might not suit others, but I prefer modern-era warfare anyway, and I am very satisfied with my present level of customisation.