Mao Vs Qin- Which is the greater of the two Chinas?

[Yosho]

Ind isn't as bad as many people make it out to be. It's only good in certain situations, but if you're playing on your own island or continent, you can get quite a lot of wonders early-on if you ind, even on emperor. Although if I want to go that route (island to myself, going for the cultural victory) I usually go for Ghandi.

[Blaupanzer]

Philosophical is the most powerful trait, excepting possibly spiritual, in the game. Mao wins this contest hands down.

As to the Chinese history part, don't forget that Mao also helped defeat the Japanese, prior to taking oujt the KMT.

[Urban Ranger]

Spirtual is nice, though saving a turn here or there doesn't seem all that strong.

[sprudl]

When playing marathon on huge maps the anarchy is more than 1 turn once your empire starts growing. 3 turns to switch a single civic is no exception.

[Urban Ranger]

It seems that Spirtual is weaker on marathon, just because you have so many more turns.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Spirtual is nice, though saving a turn here or there doesn't seem all that strong.

It’s a common mistake to value a trait according to the benefits that it would offer in a “normal” game. Creativity and Expansive traits are similar ones that enable behaviour that would be dangerous without the trait.

So Spiritual’s value is not that it saves x number of turns when you change civics but that it allows you to change civics freely without any penalty. Spiritual therefore gives you a lot of flexibility throughout the game.

Having said all that, Philo for me is a top tier trait along with Org and Fin. Spiritual sits beneath all of those in my ranking

[couerdelion]

I finally have an initial comparison of two China games and it seems that Mao has taken a reasonable lead over Qin. Taking 1000 AD as a standard comparison, here was the position

Cities: Mao(10) v Qin (6)
Techs: Mao (Astronomy, Feudalism) vs Qin (Engineering)
Other: Mao had already completed the circumnavigated.

Mao was ahead in Gold and Production

In starting both games, I tried to give both a reasonably strong start but it might have been the case that Qin was disadvantaged by factors that appear a little later in the game.

For neighbours, Mao had one neighbour (Freddie) and was on a continent with 3 other civs (Jules, Alex and Mansa). In addition, he had relatively early contact with Saladin and Isabelle. But Jules did strike an early war but he did not have iron at this stage so was unable to do any serious damage. By contrast, Qin shared a continent with 4 nations and his neighbours were the ever-friendly Monty, Boney and the late Cyrus. Furthermore, Monty made a very solid start so Qin always had to worry about his military and the expense of long-term investment. This could have had quite a significant effect on the relative positions of Mao and Qin.

Qin’s other major disadvantage was the large expanse of jungle to the south of the Beijing. Secondary city sites were far harder to develop than those of Mao.

Just for comparison, Mao’s starting city had Fish, Ivory (2), Sheep, Flood Plains (2) and a reasonable chopping area. Iron was discovered later within the fat cross. Qin had Fish, Clams, Sugar (2) and Stone and perhaps a little fewer trees to chop. Both managed to grab the Pyramids although Qin used the stone while Mao generated his via the Oracle sling to Metal Casting, Forge and Great Engineer. Mao’s philosophical trait combined with Representation is much more effective that Qin’s so the sheer rate at which Mao could produce GPs could easily account for the difference in development.

Mao used his GPs in a variety of ways but a significant number of these were used for their unique abilities. GE’s came out in large numbers so several wonders were rushed. The first GS was not used for the Academy but was instead used to rush Philosophy (grabbing Taoism and allowing Pacifism to speed the next GS). By 1000 AD, Mao had two well developed Shrine cities. Qin has generated only Scientists and Engineers and they have all settled in the capital (except the Academy builder). Qin’s bureaucratic capital is a powerhouse compared to Mao’s but the finances available to Mao makes the science rate for him much higher.

One of the biggest limiting factors for Qin was the need for war with Monty and after a large building program (and having watched a large stack of his disappear to the east against Cyrus), we struck. The problem with this war was the large number of troops needed (of sufficient diversity) and this cost me a lot of money/science while also running Pacifism.

The other major handicap I found for Qin was health and the effective limits that this placed on my cities. Qin’s own food resources were Fish, Clam, Pigs, Cows and Bananas so Compass had to be very high on the list of priorities. It was not until the capture of the Aztec holy city that I finally acquired my first grain resource. This is probably the toughest game I can remember with regard to health limiting factors and perhaps the two factors (resources and neighbours) have together made the game a little too biased in favour of Mao.

On the other hand, I have also noticed that the AI civs have not coped well with the Qin map. By this stage in the Mao game I was starting to build up a reasonable lead and this would only grow with time as the financial and scientific economic moved up yet another gear. In the Qin game my lead is still significant and it seems to be a remarkable number of cities with walls compared to other games (it was the first game in which I can remember building one). So while Mao was ahead of Qin in the two games, I’m not sure his relative position against the rival civs was that much better.

Hows that for inconclusive evidence.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by couerdelion
I finally have an initial comparison of two China games and it seems that Mao has taken a reasonable lead over Qin...(Description follows)...Hows that for inconclusive evidence.

I think the consensus here is leaning somewhat towards Mao, but I have to agree your games are rather inconclusive evidence. I am very opposed to running Pacifism unless you're alone on a continent or have a very wimpy crew surrounding you, with no "Raging Barbs" either. This is just me, but I think that may have really hurt Qin in the games described, as did the long war and the jungle (screenshot might have helped show extent on this.) These factors would of course have nothing to do with the viability of his characteristics.

We also heard a lot on this or some recent thread about those Chinese crossbows. Are they doing anything for either of your guys?

[couerdelion]

Pacifism can be a very powerful civic to run in the early game since the GPs are cheap. With my set up at the time I could get around 30 extra GPP/turn which almost certainly works out as a lot more than a mere +20 gold on costs and –15 hammers/turn from production.

I’ve had mixed results from Cho-Ko-Nu but they are still strong UU. But they can be hurt by either Horse Archers or War Elephants so it’s best to have something that can match these units (either Maces or Pikes). Although they don’t get the city raider bonus, they are normally just one promotion from Cover. Assuming Longbow garrisons, you Cho-Ko-Nu will make effective garrison busters and will soften up large garrisons for Macemen to finish the job.

[Generaldoktor]

Re: Pacifism; yeah, I guess I never really looked at it statistically, though I may have run larger armies than yours in the past, with costs accordingly higher.

Cho's: I'm trying to run a game with Qin now, but am still adapting to v.161 and am on a slow start. I'll make sure to make beaucoup war so I can play with the cho's, since they're evidently so much fun.

[Urban Ranger]

IMO, Cho-Ko-Nu should be cheaper than Longbows. The former is just regular soldiers with a super weapon (for their own time), which is astonishingly cheap to build. All you need are three precisely moulded metallic bits.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
IMO, Cho-Ko-Nu should be cheaper than Longbows. The former is just regular soldiers with a super weapon (for their own time), which is astonishingly cheap to build. All you need are three precisely moulded metallic bits.

Well it's really just a game mechanism to price the more effective unit.

The disadvantage with running a comparison game is that I now find Qin is playing with a little more knowledge so is doing his best to catch up the lost ground to the Mao game.

The relative advantage against the rival civs is still very high but Qin seems to be ahead in production while Mao had a big lead in gold. However, for the longer term, I believe Qin is playing with a much stronger capital and there might be compelling reasons to stick with bureacracy and representation through the later period (4 settled GE and 3 settled GS being seven reasons )

[Urban Ranger]

One difficulty with a comparison game is you have to make sure that their starting location is identical, or very close to identical. Having seven or eight specials for your first city and four or five for your second will go a long way in giving you a head start.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
One difficulty with a comparison game is you have to make sure that their starting location is identical, or very close to identical. Having seven or eight specials for your first city and four or five for your second will go a long way in giving you a head start.

I think it’s far to say that they have to be of similar strength but identical is a little too strong. I had always intended to make it as fair as I could so developed a basic scoring system which I had lost by the time I started the second. I will set up a new thread for this.