I'm on to Civ 4 myself...
I generally like to start in the Americas, eradicate all of my neighbors while being friendly to everyone else, and build a nice strong navy...

By the time I develop aircraft, I've turned all of the midwest and the amazon basin into farmland, and my population is approaching 1 billion quite rapidly. It's at this point I usually attack whomever is not particularly popular at the moment, winning the approval of most everyone else. I continue this process until my (well fortified) homeland can pump out enough resources for an economic victory.

this sounds highly addictive.

i like fps too. i don't play anymore though. when i start, i don't want to share with my kids and it makes them cry. so i just let them play.

MikeTX wrote:this sounds highly addictive.

It can be. But contrary to impressions it's not really a war game. It's more about managing a nation from the dawn of civilization until modern times better than the other nations in the game. There is a variety of possible victory scenarios.

As a matter of fact, I try to avoid wars as much as possible (there are considerable costs to entangling one's self in wars in Civ III), but si vis pacem, parati para bellum. You've got to be ready for anything your rival nations might try.

For a long time we Aztecs carried on a massive arms build-up and were sort of hoping our only neighbors, the relatively small and weak Iroquois, would do something stupid so we could go to war and take a shitload of their territory. Unless yours is a fascist government (or your Vice President is Dick Cheney), you don't usually want to attack countries out of the blue. Your people get upset at you and so do all the other nations.

But while we were waiting for our chance at the Iroquois, placing spies in their capital and setting up alliances we hoped might get us into position to righteously invade them, the idiot Ottomans attacked, for no conceivable reason. Usually the AI is pretty good (it has kicked my ass numerous times), but occasionally it does something completely irrational, something no human player would do. The Ottomans are a small nation and had nothing to gain from attacking us. The Hittites joined the fray because that's a not unusual response when one nation is distracted by a war, though they would have been better off trying to participate in the dismemberment of the Ottomans. But we Aztecs bloodied the aquiline Hittite noses in a minor war centuries ago and I guess they haven't forgotten.

As I predicted, the irrational Ottoman aggression triggered the first World War we have ever seen. I forgot to mention in my first post that in addition to the Mayans, the Incas also joined the war against the Hittites and the Ottomans (the Incas are so far away from us on the other side of the single large continent that makes up our world I never see what they are doing).

My Sumerian gambit worked out as I planned, and the Sumerians soon joined us against the Ottomans and the Hittites. Frankly, I would have preferred to keep the Sumerians out of the theater of war, which was mostly in Ottoman territory, but at least I wouldn't have to worry about having the second most powerful nation in the world as an enemy. The downside was that I was now entangled in a long term alliance with the Sumerians that I could not honorably break. Protracted wars are bad news for democracies like ours, but I was fortunate that much of the Ottoman territory I was conquering gave me and my people access to a variety of luxury items that helped keep the home front happy enough to continue fighting.

So for the first (only?) World War the lines are drawn thusly:

The Allies: Aztecs (strong), Sumerians (strong), Mayans (relatively weak) and Inca (WTF?)

vs

The Axis: Ottomans (weak) and Hittites (moderately strong, apparently).

The Iroquois alone remained neutral.

At first my primary logistical route to the Ottoman theater was overland through Iroquois and Mayan lands, but I soon established an excellent sea route across the Ottoman Gulf. The sea route was indispensable once the fucking Iroquois engaged in a sneak attack on two of our home cities, thus joining the Axis Powers. With virtually my entire military force far away in the Ottoman theater, this might have seemed like a good time to strike; but given my standing mutual protection pact with the Sumerians, who share a long border with the Iroquois to their north, the attack was simply madness. The Iroquois instantly found themselves in a two-front war with two much stronger military powers.

In fact, despite my earlier strategic intentions regarding the Iroquois, I am less interested in fighting them than I was. I have conquered nearly all the Ottoman lands, as well as a few Hittite cities, and now have free access to strategic resources and luxury goods for which I formerly coveted Iroquois territory. I'd really like to just polish off the Ottomans, extract a peace deal from the Hittites when my alliance with the Sumerians expires, and consolidate my gains. But I have no choice but to continue the war against the Iroquois.

redneck wrote:

MikeTX wrote:this sounds highly addictive.

It can be. But contrary to impressions it's not really a war game. It's more about managing a nation from the dawn of civilization until modern times better than the other nations in the game. There is a variety of possible victory scenarios.

As a matter of fact, I try to avoid wars as much as possible (there are considerable costs to entangling one's self in wars in Civ III), but si vis pacem, parati para bellum. You've got to be ready for anything your rival nations might try.

For a long time we Aztecs carried on a massive arms build-up and were sort of hoping our only neighbors, the relatively small and weak Iroquois, would do something stupid so we could go to war and take a shitload of their territory. Unless yours is a fascist government (or your Vice President is Dick Cheney), you don't usually want to attack countries out of the blue. Your people get upset at you and so do all the other nations.

But while we were waiting for our chance at the Iroquois, placing spies in their capital and setting up alliances we hoped might get us into position to righteously invade them, the idiot Ottomans attacked, for no conceivable reason. Usually the AI is pretty good (it has kicked my ass numerous times), but occasionally it does something completely irrational, something no human player would do. The Ottomans are a small nation and had nothing to gain from attacking us. The Hittites joined the fray because that's a not unusual response when one nation is distracted by a war, though they would have been better off trying to participate in the dismemberment of the Ottomans. But we Aztecs bloodied the aquiline Hittite noses in a minor war centuries ago and I guess they haven't forgotten.

As I predicted, the irrational Ottoman aggression triggered the first World War we have ever seen. I forgot to mention in my first post that in addition to the Mayans, the Incas also joined the war against the Hittites and the Ottomans (the Incas are so far away from us on the other side of the single large continent that makes up our world I never see what they are doing).

My Sumerian gambit worked out as I planned, and the Sumerians soon joined us against the Ottomans and the Hittites. Frankly, I would have preferred to keep the Sumerians out of the theater of war, which was mostly in Ottoman territory, but at least I wouldn't have to worry about having the second most powerful nation in the world as an enemy. The downside was that I was now entangled in a long term alliance with the Sumerians that I could not honorably break. Protracted wars are bad news for democracies like ours, but I was fortunate that much of the Ottoman territory I was conquering gave me and my people access to a variety of luxury items that helped keep the home front happy enough to continue fighting.

So for the first (only?) World War the lines are drawn thusly:

The Allies: Aztecs (strong), Sumerians (strong), Mayans (relatively weak) and Inca (WTF?)

vs

The Axis: Ottomans (weak) and Hittites (moderately strong, apparently).

The Iroquois alone remained neutral.

At first my primary logistical route to the Ottoman theater was overland through Iroquois and Mayan lands, but I soon established an excellent sea route across the Ottoman Gulf. The sea route was indispensable once the fucking Iroquois engaged in a sneak attack on two of our home cities, thus joining the Axis Powers. With virtually my entire military force far away in the Ottoman theater, this might have seemed like a good time to strike; but given my standing mutual protection pact with the Sumerians, who share a long border with the Iroquois to their north, the attack was simply madness. The Iroquois instantly found themselves in a two-front war with two much stronger military powers.

In fact, despite my earlier strategic intentions regarding the Iroquois, I am less interested in fighting them than I was. I have conquered nearly all the Ottoman lands, as well as a few Hittite cities, and now have free access to strategic resources and luxury goods for which I formerly coveted Iroquois territory. I'd really like to just polish off the Ottomans, extract a peace deal from the Hittites when my alliance with the Sumerians expires, and consolidate my gains. But I have no choice but to continue the war against the Iroquois.

i'm so buying that game.

Where's the time we were all playing "red alert"?

Last game like that I played was a Roman thing. Used to like it too.

Sounds like a very cool game. Your post made me dig up some info on it. Love strategy games like Risk but haven't played any for a while.