Lucky Civs

[atomant]

This question is not particulary related to strategy, but it does determine one's attitude to play...

The question is, pauses for dramatic effect, do you play with one civ/leader that you consider lucky? For me, I almost always play Persians/Xeres. With anyone else I tend not to be as lucky. Irrational I know, but it works for me.

For the record I a too lazy to customise a Civ

[Scouse Gits]

Nope - I avoid the dark blue civs - find them hard to see, but otherwise anything goes

Most frequently play Carthaginian

SG[1]

[Ming]

Nahhhh... never even considered it. There is no "lucky" civ in the game.

It does make sense to take a civ that you don't want to play against. If you hate playing against expansionist civs or against science oriented civs, it does indeed make sense to play one of them to increase the likelyhood of less of them in the game against you.

But to your point... Part of your success in any game is your mental attitude. If you think you are going to fail, you probably will So you probably do gain an advantage by picking a civ you think you will do better with. Just simple human nature

[Scouse Gits]

Luck can be related to starting techs. Avoid the militaristic civs that tend to start with warlike techs which are off the Monarchy path.

---------------------

SG(2)

[rah]

Or play MP, where if the host gets a tech or two..........
RESTART.

[Ming]

That's what I like about MP. With humans playing the civs, it really makes no difference. Well, with the exception of the turn order... so i guess it does make a difference

[War4ever]

first to wonders, last to react to the barbs....whites dilemma

the rest reat to barbs, but fall further down the list when it comes to wonders/kings on the same turn...

and then of course there is the host customization thingy that throws some hosts into a frenzy

[rjmatsleepers]

I play with the English 90% of the time. I don't consider they are lucky. It's simply that I have customised the names of the cities and the order they are built in. I like to build the Roman cities before the Saxon ones and so on.

I rarely play with the Aztecs - all their cities sound the same to me.

I never thought of choosing the civ I don't want to play against - mind you, in my games there never seems to be a shortage of AI civs queueing up to sneak attack me.

RJM at Sleepers

[Scouse Gits]

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers I like to build the Roman cities before the Saxon ones and so on. RJM at Sleepers

...so by the time Milton Keynes comes in you know you've got a sleaze ....

-----------------

SG(2)

[Ming]

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers
I rarely play with the Aztecs - all their cities sound the same to me.

SO TRUE...
I hate playing the Aztecs. I end up renaming ANY city I start because I would like to have SOME CLUE to which city is which.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits


...so by the time Milton Keynes comes in you know you've got a sleaze ....

-----------------

SG(2)

Spoken like a true ICSer.

[Bloody Monk]

Originally posted by Ming


SO TRUE...
I hate playing the Aztecs. I end up renaming ANY city I start because I would like to have SOME CLUE to which city is which.

Having a clue about where different cities are relative to the core and to the compass led me to make a 'map'. It is based on cities in the area where I now live, in some cases, neighborhoods in bigger cities. Anything to make the game map recognizable.

As for which civ to play, it doesn't seem to matter. Luck is the residue of a great design...or so the saying goes.

Monk

[War4ever]

yes, i always tend to start with the same 10 cities (baseball stadiums) and then take it from there...these i know will need the all important caravan sleeze

[rjmatsleepers]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits


...so by the time Milton Keynes comes in you know you've got a sleaze ....

-----------------

SG(2)

Actually the Milton Keynes is last but one, followed by Basildon. But I've never played a sufficiently sleazey game to reach them

RJM at Sleepers

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

The higher 'up' in the play order that a Civ is (white-highest, purple-lowest) plays a role in determining how good the starting land will be. The white Civ is placed first, giving it the best land... and so on down to purple. On large and medium maps this isn't usually an issue, but on small maps, the purple Civ sometimes gets to start at one of the poles, or an otherwise poor location.

If you look in the GL under 'starting techs', there is a good analysis by the SG's regarding which colour Civs are most likely to get starting techs, and which techs are most likely if you do get starting techs.

And of course, if want to speed up your science acquisition rate, the colour of the Civ you're playing as will affect which Civs you should be giving away techs to (assuming you are 'Supreme'). Again, the GL should have the relevant info on the 'key civ' concept.

So... depending on what strategy you like... there may be one or two Civs that have characteristics that fit well into that strategy, and are thus 'lucky' for you

edit: Both threads still work - 'techs, starting', and 'beakers - the key to tech gifting'.

I don't have a favorite Civ. I used to play as the Americans or Chinese to get starting techs, but I seldom worry about that anymore.