Our factional choices

[Kataphraktoi]

Hello fellow ACers :D Some of you may know me from ACDG3 as being a tiny bit forceful in my opinions, and a little commanding, with a touch of spam mixed in and loving to write long useless posts :hmmm:

Supposedly as the most experianced player here im told, which is NOT GOOD for our team, i would like too put my 2cents in on civ choice. So if i am, i should contribute to the glory of team AC.


Im referring to the Russians with Catherine as civ leader. My strategy has been to beeline for Workers and either chop another worker(as ive seen advocated on civfanatics) or a settler. This is risky ****, but works great. This second city makes a worker-first itself to start chopping. A more safety inclined version for wussies would be a scout-scout-worker-settler build,all depending on map of course

to get a leg up in MP i think we have to use this strategy. all the other guys way better n me advocate chopping all forests. i advocate chopping all forests.

The tech beeline is Bronze Working ASAP then the Cottage tech(no i dont know what it is) then any needed worker techs, then head straight for Great Library. A betteer explained versian is here, catherine cottage spam (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=147012). note he advocates a quick library, which may be worth looking into,considering i am quite poor in using specialists in cIV. i always go bronze first myself. sofar i have gotten communism(the tech that gives kremlin) in 1500 AD,which could be improved upon

Discuss.

[GeoModder]

I thought there was more or less a concensus on choosing the Greek? :confused: At least the thread in the AC forum indicated that.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by GeoModder
I thought there was more or less a concensus on choosing the Greek? :confused: At least the thread in the AC forum indicated that.

QFT! How else can we be the Gods of the Olympos?? :eek:

[Senethro]

Ummm. I have to say that I really don't feel comfortable with the Greek. Weak Unique unit and aggressive trait isn't great.

Has a top tier of factions been worked out in this game yet? I know that China/England/Russia/Germany/India are looked on favourably.

Also, what map size are we playing on? The smaller the mapsize, the happier I'll be with Catherine. Creative occupies contested land well with its early fat crosses.
And what difficulty level? I'm something of a fan of expansive and organised traits at high difficulty levels.


I wouldn't worry about choosing one civ to fit a theme. We know we're going to name all our cities after SMAC bases, right? ;)

[Kataphraktoi]

I wouldn't worry about choosing one civ to fit a theme. We know we're going to name all our cities after SMAC bases, right?

Right on.:b:

I thought there was more or less a concensus on choosing the Greek? At least the thread in the AC forum indicated that.

Obsolete data :cute: besides, we need two to three faction preferences i believe for the civassignment system we are using

[binTravkin]

The initial preferences were Greeks and Romans.

I also wonder why Greeks are deemed weak.
They have some very good starting bonuses.

I'd say greeks for our first priority..:p

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by binTravkin
I'd say greeks for our first priority..:p

:b: :D :b:

And for all those who consider the Greek weak, there's always the mercenary team ready to be hired. IMO the unique unit is quite good and enables us to survive a horse rush. It even allows us to skip on pikeman (and associated tech) for a while.

[Senethro]

Originally posted by GeoModder


:b: :D :b:

And for all those who consider the Greek weak, there's always the mercenary team ready to be hired. IMO the unique unit is quite good and enables us to survive a horse rush. It even allows us to skip on pikeman (and associated tech) for a while.

There is barely any difference in how effective spearmen vs. horses are and phalanx vs horses. Its a hard counter and an easy win in both fights.

In most CIv4 MP, I'm given to understand there is a preference for axemen in the field, the hard counter to the Greek unique unit.

Seriously, what are the map settings we're playing on?

[binTravkin]

There is barely any difference in how effective spearmen vs. horses are and phalanx vs horses.
Wait.
Spearman 4 strength 1 move 35 hammers Hunting; Copper or Iron +100% vs. mounted units; Upgrades to Pikeman
Phalanx 5 strength 1 move 35 hammers Hunting; Copper or Iron Doesn't receive defensive bonuses; +25% Hills Defense; +100% vs. mounted units; Upgrades to Pikeman; Replaces Spearman

By this table phalanx is +25% as powerful as spearman by default, plus another +25% if the base is on hill.
This can hardly be described as 'barely'.

If we then manage to give the phalanx one upgrade by killing a barb, we can use our other upgrade to make it into Garrison I, which is +20%.

Am I mistaken?:confused:

[binTravkin]

Darn you guys, Im gonna start cIVing today!:doitnow!: :D

[Senethro]

Originally posted by binTravkin
Doesn't receive defensive bonuses

This tells you plenty.

[Kataphraktoi]

Originally posted by GeoModder


:b: :D :b:

And for all those who consider the Greek weak, there's always the mercenary team ready to be hired. IMO the unique unit is quite good and enables us to survive a horse rush. It even allows us to skip on pikeman (and associated tech) for a while.

:hmmm: im with senethro here. i doubt anyone will be horse rushing in a MP game, or if they do thats just part of the risk. choosing a subpar civ to be gurranteed a subpar game isnt apealing to me.

bintravkin, saying a phalanx is better than spear for killing horsies is like saying a string-gas chopper is better at killing scouts than a needlejet chopper. they are both going to win

and the russian unique unit is an improved versian of an already strong unit. this could maybe put us in a position to go out and kick ass ourselves. i am unsure not actualy having deployed it yet, preferring waves of grenadiers sofar.

[Kataphraktoi]

Originally posted by binTravkin
Darn you guys, Im gonna start cIVing today!:doitnow!: :D

You mean you are talking cIV without actually playing it.

:cute: :zzz:

[GeoModder]

Civpedia doesn't mention "no defensive bonusses", Senethro and binTravkin. Where do you guys bring this from? And since the Greek have the agressive trait the first 10% strength is free. It <i>is</i> a melee unit after all.

[binTravkin]

Where do you guys bring this from?
I admit it could be wrong/obsolete.
CivFanatics you know..:cute: :D :scared:

You mean you are talking cIV without actually playing it.
Exactly, I've been reading almost every post in the strategy forum and the reviews until the end of last year.
I got the cIV itself in november but was not able to run due to some technical ****, I tried to solve it but got so fed up and angry I threw the CD in my CD storage and haven't taken it out since then..:(
I will try again this eve.

[Kataphraktoi]

lol geomodder the civpedia is broken and sucks. civfanatics for cIV info :b: :b: i go there when i want civ3\civ4. i go poly\cgn when i want smac...simple

[binTravkin]

Could you test it out Kata?
Simply by putting a city with some def bonuses on the map, a phalanx in it and an enemy city with some attacker nearby.
You should be able to see the difference if defensive bonus is big.

[Senethro]

It really doesn't matter. The in-unit these days is axemen, who can attack most things and defend against everything.

[binTravkin]

I think you guys are too win-centered and conservative in the strategies you are trying to fit greeks into.
I think the civs are a bit better balanced than that and I also think greeks certainly have some strenght if played properly.

Want an example?
Sparta@ACDG3

[GeoModder]

I sure gonna check this "no defensive bonusses" thing out. ;)
Guess what civ I'm playing tonight.

And for the axeman being overpowered: Crossbow!

[Senethro]

I suspect Sparta was being played by some very good players, something in short supply for Civ4. That and I hear pod results were good ;)

Whats wrong with being win-centric :(


Originally posted by GeoModder
And for the axeman being overpowered: Crossbow!

Unfortunately, thats like sending a tank to beat up a rifleman. Its a wrong era unit and not a counter that can remotely be relied on.

[Kataphraktoi]

I think you guys are too win-centered and conservative in the strategies you are trying to fit greeks into.
I think the civs are a bit better balanced than that and I also think greeks certainly have some strenght if played properly.

Want an example?
Sparta@ACDG3

When the game is finished and its OK to discuss info, i can PROVE(only to you ;) ) why the S won...not because of a good faction, and not entirely luck.

:conspire:

[Kataphraktoi]

Whats wrong with being win-centric :(

[Kataphraktoi]

When the game is finished and its OK to discuss info, i can PROVE(only to you ) why the S won...not because of a good faction, and not entirely luck.



assuming the S\et all release their faction pass of course but i think i could put up a good argument for it now even without inside data on their faction,although that would help alot

[binTravkin]

I never said win-centrism is bad, I sad 'you are being too win-centric', which basically means 'win uber alles' which I don't like.

[Kataphraktoi]

I dont think its excessive to pick a good civ and make a plan.

[binTravkin]

Okay, Greeks are crap by your thoughts.
Romans?

Alternatively each of you could post 3 factions he would take in oder of priority and we could get to some consensus.

[Illuminatus]

I like Romans because of Caesar's expansive/organised trait which encourages creation of a large empire, in both horizontal and vertical sense. Cheaper granaries and reduced upkeep. :b:

I find Praetorians quite more usefull than usual swordsmen.

[GeoModder]

I can't believe SMACers swaying so far from their (Olympic) roots. :shame:

[Maniac]

I guess it isn't possible to rename your civ in Civ4? That way which civ we pick wouldn't matter at all for roleplay purposes.

[Lacero]

I don't think the mercenary team is going to be much use. Depending on map size / settings they may not be able to hire any units out to us until they have galleon.

The Greeks aren't that bad, I agree the UU kinda sucks but their traits are quite good. The problem I have is the philosophical trait makes micromanagement more necessary and painful. For this reason I'd rather not play Greek. If one of you really enjoys it though go ahead :)

We'll have to fight hard from the beginning though, and continue to micro manage the cities for GL while we fight. Stock piling Great Artists and using them to culture bomb conquered cities is a nice tactic, especially near the end of a war as it stops the enemy taking them back.

Romans are better for winning with though, I also like Huang(Chinese) (for wonders and large empires and the UU is GREAT midgame) and catherine(Russians).

[Illuminatus]

Originally posted by Maniac
I guess it isn't possible to rename your civ in Civ4? That way which civ we pick wouldn't matter at all for roleplay purposes.

Oh, it is quite possible. Sister Miriam of Believers :evilgrin:

[GeoModder]

:lol:
Actually yes, hadn't thought of that. Playing with a civ the "experts" call viable, and renaming appropriately then. Only thing is it appears those same experts prefer a financial civ. ;)

[Senethro]

So, what traits do we like? I like Financial, philosophical and organised.

Also suggesting we play as the United Chironian Re-Civilizing Expeditionary Force, a combine effort with delegates from each faction returned from Alpha Centauri to re-teach these barbarians the true meaning of Civilization! ;)

[GeoModder]

UNCRCEF? Nah, isn't a nice acronym.

I definitely like Philosophical, altho spiritual and organised are quite nice as well. :D

[ForesterSOF]

I also like the multi faction representation with a military.

[binTravkin]

Wait, to properly decide which civ/leader to go for, we should take into account following factors:

- UU (or unique unit)
and
- the combination of traits with the initial techs*

* - it is very important that the first techs allow full exploitation of given traits and vice versa.
For example certain civs have a lot easier time doing the chop-rushing in early game just because they have perfect trait-tech combination (you can use acronym TTC further ;) ).

Taking that into account I say Romans are very good for expansion and getting big and high because:
- their expansionist trait (halves granaries)
- early access to those same granaries
- early access to additional food sources (fishing was one of the start techs IIRC)
- their organisation trait

Makes for perfect ICSer..:cute:

[Senethro]

I see the Romans as being more a great momentum faction. Early slavery then whip together some granaries for early pop-boom, then praetorian rush. The organised trait makes it easier to manage a large empire by cheap courthouses, and also to sustain momentum for longer by having cheap, militaristic, high-maintainence civics.

I'm happy to go with Romans, but is this the style we want to play?

Edit: I hadn't thought of the acronym :P Anyone got one that makes better sense?

[binTravkin]

Well, Romans were from the very beginning our secondary choice, we could now make them primary instead with someone else being secondary and greeks tertiary (am I saying 'third' here? ).

But we should define rather the style we want to play, not which 'traits' we like - trait itself is nothing, only in combination with the second trait and the starting techs it creates a factor.

The styles I know:
- cottage/financial style
- heavy specialist/great people approach (requires philospphical for best effects)
- heavy religion approach
- momentum/popboom approach as described b Senethro

more? (Im not so good at naming them, sorry)

[GeoModder]

Personally, I like the Philosophical road for the wild cards it would give us. Can't take the Oracle for a free tech? No prob, use our first Great Prophet to grab Theology or Civil whatever (that tech that opens Confuciusm) to have that happymaking religion. We want a certain wonder now? Use the Great Engineer that was born some turns ago.

Hmm, wasn't one of the Russian leaders Philosophical as well? :idea:

[ForesterSOF]

Style:

Explore and grow with a strong military so we dont get squashed.

As time goes on and our inferstructure is on its way we can go more philosophical and research into other areas.

Hence start Roman and modify as time goes on.

[Maniac]

Originally posted by GeoModder
Hmm, wasn't one of the Russian leaders Philosophical as well? :idea:

Peter the Great?
Hmm, I could live with that... :cute:

[Maniac]

Btw, what does "doesn't receive defensive bonuses" mean again? Only that the unit can't fortify, or also that terrain doesn't give a defenes bonus?

[PJayTycy]

for chopping forests you need:
1 worker
2 techs : mining, bronze working

so it might be usefull to choose a civilization with mining as starting tech:

malinese (mining, the weel, UU= new archer [none, power: 2->3, first strike : 0->1])
Mansa Musa => spiritual, financial

chinese (mining, farming, UU = new crossbow [iron, power: 4->5, first strike: 1->2, collateral damage: 0->50])
Mao Zedong => philosophical, organised
Qin Shi Huang => industrious, financial

romans (mining, fishing, UU= new swordsman [iron, power: 3->4, city attack: 10->0, cost: 40->45])
Julius Caesar => expansive, creative

english (mining, fishing, UU= new rifleman [none, power: 10->12])
Elizabeth => philosophical, financial
Victoria => expansive, financial

german (mining, hunting, UU= new tank [oil, power: 25->30, +vs armor: 0->50])
Bismarck => expansive, industrious
Frederick => philosophical, creative

indian (mining, mysticism, UU= fast worker [none, moves: 2->3])
Asoka => spiritual, organized
Gandhi => spiritual, industrious

russians (mining, hunting, UU= new cavalry [horse, power: 12->15, +vs mounted: 0->50])
Katarina => creative, financial
Peter => philosophical, expansive

So, 12 out of 26 leaders have mining as starting tech. I would choose one of these. Building cottages is the other thing I often do with my workers, then we need the weel and fishing or farming (fishing is cheaper). So, my preferences based on techs alone would be : malinese, chinese, romans, english. Ofcourse, this way we'll almost certainly lose out on the early religions.

For the UU's : some of these require special resources in order to build them, so if we miss out on one of these resources, we might not even build one of our UU's. I've listed the pre-requisites next to them, together with the changes for the UU. I don't have any real preference for these UU's. If we have iron, they are all good, but the roman UU has 2 penalties :confused:. I don't know if it's better to have an early UU (bigger relative bonus, but less likely to be involved in war). I guess in this category the chinese win.

As for the traits: creative, organised, philosophical seem the best ones. Mao Zedong has both of them. Expansive becomes more attractive on higher difficulty levels.


So, I'd say : go for Mao Zedong (and rename him Yang) :lol:

[Chaunk]

Personnally, I'm a big fan of financial as a trait. I'd say Katarina or Qin Shi Huang myself, although to be completely honest, I'll go for who ever! The Chinese are strong (IMO) because of their ability to easily gain pop with farms early on. Industrious is awesome (Cheap forges FTW!) so hence I'd pick Qin. Philosophical is nice though, but it does require large pop to make full use of it.

[Impaler[WrG]]

I'm not particularly picky, I usualy play a Builder game but dont mind going agressive. I'm also fond of Financial paired with Cottages.

In all honestnest the Civ/leader choices in Civ4 are much closer to each other (in terms of strategy and strengths) then were the Factions of SMAC.

[Kataphraktoi]

Can you change leader names as well?

Stalin of the Russians :evilgrin:

Mao Zedong of the chinese sounds good too

[GeoModder]

The english have a very strong Renaissance unit, just at the time that a well developped civ has the muscle to maintain a prolonged war.

It seems Financial is the most demanded trait here. How about picking Elisabeth with her Fin/Phil combo? :)

[Kataphraktoi]

tertiary (am I saying 'third' here? ).

Yes

How about this for civ preferences in any order: english, russians(catrina if low difficulty,peter if very high diff), romans

But we should define rather the style we want to play, not which 'traits' we like - trait itself is nothing, only in combination with the second trait and the starting techs it creates a factor.

The styles I know:
- cottage/financial style
- heavy specialist/great people approach (requires philospphical for best effects)
- heavy religion approach
- momentum/popboom approach as described b Senethro

yes we need to determine what route we are taking to pick civ. thats why i like russia, the techs and traits...

[Lacero]

If we're trying to win by building the space ship the cottage/financial style would be our best bet.

[PJayTycy]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi
How about this for civ preferences in any order: english, russians, romans

The romans are special. They have:
A very early (but weak) UU
expansive, creative traits (+2 health, +2 culture each city)
The Romans are ideal if we play on a high difficulty and/or a small map, because then the +2 health makes a big difference and we have an eary UU.

However, on default settings (noble, standard size map), I would replace the romans with the chinese in your preferences.

[Chaunk]

Originally posted by Kataphraktoi
How about this for civ preferences in any order: english, russians, romans

English (I take it you mean Betty, not Vicky) are lovely, would be my first choice too. Russian (Cathy) is a good second :b:

I'm not sure about the romans though. I think I agree with PJ and say go for the Chinese (Either, although the current preference is for Mao, which is fine). The chinese UU is practically a seige engine by itself with the collateral damage it has. It does need iron though.

Edit: Spelling.

[GeoModder]

Erm... don't crossbows need iron?

[Chaunk]

Thats what I said yes. :cute:

[PJayTycy]

lol @ chaunk's edit :-)

[GeoModder]

Lucky me for the edit timestamp. :evil:

[Chaunk]

Hmm? I've only edited that post once, for spelling about 45 min ago... Seems odd you'd think otherwise.

[GeoModder]

:lol:
No boardroom tricks here, please. :evilgrin:

[binTravkin]

So, the most favourite ones seem to be:

english
russians
chinese
romans

right?

I will lookup the strategy threads once again and see what could be achieved with those.

Please do bear in mind that we're the Alpha Centaurians and we have a certain victory condition in mind (but not necessarily others out of mind)..;)

[GeoModder]

English all the way (with 'beth ;) )

[ForesterSOF]

As ACers I see us as explorers out to tame a new world.

[binTravkin]

This is our last issue to decide!:doitnow!:

I promised to look up the civs you proposed and make some sort of strategy summary, but with my motherboard burning out at Friday 1/20/2006, 19:57, I was unable to.

It's amazing how important is a PC in IT student's life.
Im now struggling to finish Cisco course which would be done a few hours ago if not that stupid mboard!:madban:

I am posting a poll shortly.

[Lacero]

For the space ship we need research, this points to a cottage spam start. Possibly including some kind of oracle slingshot, though I personally think the full Civil Service slingshot would be suicidal in a MP game.

As far as faction choices go, anything with financial will help us. We can build the rest of our game (production / war) around the other trait our leader has and our starting position.

The oracle would be easier if we found a leader with industrious (for the wonders) and financial (for the spaceship). I can't remember the combinations off the top of my head, do any of the leaders have that?

[binTravkin]

Info about cIV (http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/info/)

The Poll (http://www.apolyton.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=147643)

[GeoModder]

Originally posted by binTravkin
Info about cIV (http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/info/)


You were in a hurry. :lol:

[binTravkin]

So waht?:p

[Kataphraktoi]

I actually prefer civfanatics at all times for civ info geo...also for civ3, when i played it.

however their moderators are :q: