Civ Choice

[notyoueither]

Why Expantionist? Since I am one of the biggest proponents of it I guess i should explain my POV.

First, you may not all be aware that I was/am play testing for Firaxis. I have been involved in many MP games against other testers. A few more post release against other opponents. Almost all of these games have been on Tiny Pangaea.

In every game that there has been an expantionist civ, they quickly become one the more powerful, if not most powerful civ in the game. This happens because extra settlers and or cities happen in at least two-thirds of starts. Even if freebies like that do not happen, they are almost always way out front in tech.

Not only do the Exp civs get no bad results, but the speed of the scout ensures they usually get as much as twice as many huts as anyone else (sometimes more).

Now, all that being said... I admit it is a gamblers start on this map. A bit. If the consensus here is for Egypt for the Rel/Ind combo, I have no problem with that.

Persia would not be so good IMO. The scientific trait does not usually play a large role in the inevitable path of conquest that the early game is when there are humans and AI in the same game. The UU is great, but there are better industrious choices with decent UUs for an ancient GA.

China? Totally out of the question going by earlier conversations (not here). We will definitely be at war in the ancient age. 60-40 against a human civ. The consensus then was that we definitely wanted an ancient UU. Even the humble WC has the retreat benefit. It would do for me given the Ind/Rel combo.

OTOH, now that reinforcements are here I am happy to revisit many of those old assumptions. I admit I am torn in many directions on the civ choice. In the end we will have to come to one and know that each possible choice would be best for some map possibility, but not all.

[FrustratedPoet]

Given the "Is Expansionist worth it?" debate, maybe we should consider the Aztecs more strongly.

1) The Jag warrior is the Scout/Warrior combo that can move quickly to discover the map and defend itself against Barbs.
(We won't get the Expansionist bonus to goody-hut results, but we'll still get some of the good points of having a scout)

2) We don't have to use the Jags to attack if we don't want to, thereby keeping our GA for later. We could attack an enemy if we see a perfect opportunity to do so, but it isn't a neccessity.

3) The Militarisitc and Religious traits are both very good. Half price temples and barracks are ideal, plus short anarchy and more elites/GL's.

bad points:
not Industrious
don't get Exp goody-hut bonus.

[notyoueither]

If we do not go Exp, I really think we should go Ind.

Speed of build up is the key. Exp does this with map, settlers, etc. Ind does this by getting cities productive sooner and building communications faster.

I say one or the other is very desirable. Both would be great, except for that F-15 that goes with it.

[Harovan]

I personally believe, that in MP industrious is a very important trait, because it grants a good start even in a bad environment. Also important is it, to have an early (preferably from the start) fastmover to explore the map and pick huts. Expansionist civs have scouts, Aztecs have Jaguar Warriors, Japanese (with some luck to have horses) can build chariots, that's it. An ancient, offensive UU is an extra plus, because it can give us an early boost. The later UUs may be equally fearsome, but in my opinion a civ, that succeeded to grow big at the cost of its neighbors (human or AI) in the ancient age, will have no problems to face an attack later, when attacks are hindered by culture and happiness issues.

Here's a list of civs, that shine with at least one of these features. None of them have all 3, although Egypt is close, because WCs are only 1 tech apart, but OTOH other civs can build chariots too. I give 1 point for each feature (industrious / early fastmover / ancient offensive UU):

Americans (ind/exp) industrious / scout / - = 2 points
Iroquois (ind/exp) - / scout / MW = 2 points
Egypt (ind/rel) industrious / - / WC = 2 points
Aztecs (mil/rel) - / JW / JW = 2 points
Persia (ind/sci) industrious / - / Immortal = 2 points

Zulu (exp/mil) - / scout / - = 1 point
Vikings (exp/mil) - / scout / - = 1 point
Mongols (exp/mil) - / scout / - = 1 point
Arabs (ind/rel) - / scout / - = 1 point
China (ind/mil) industrious / - / - = 1 point
Japan (rel/mil) - / chariot / - = 1 point
Celts (rel/mil) - / - / gallic swordsman = 1 point
French (ind/com) [i]industrious / - / -[i] = 1 point
Ottomans (ind/sci) [i]industrious / - / -[i] = 1 point

So in my opinion, we should choose our civ out of the first five (those with 2 features). I personally would prefer the Iroquois, although I'd be content with the Americans, Egyptians, Aztecs and Persians as well.

One word about the Germans: They have none of these features, but have all techs for an archer rush from the start. If we build 4 warriors, settler, 2 barracks (optional) and from now on churn out archers and spearmen in both cities, I guess no neighbor can stand. But we must have a near neighbor and strike from the very start, as after at most 40 turns the advantage will be leveled out. The Germans remain an option, although an hazardous one I admit.

EDIT: Added Persia... how could I forget them?

[notyoueither]

Very good break down Sir ralph. I was playing around as Egypt. I could go for them as well as Iroquois and hope to be close to an AI.

50-50 for me now, given the risk of island start or Archi.

[zeit]

I favored the Iroqouis, but now that i see that having good-goody-huts isn't such a big advantage, i'd rather stick with Persia-for the UU and scientific, or Egypt.

All in all, there's no big difference between each civ, and most of it comes down to how we play it, as alexman and NYE said.

[alva]

So it seems , that the first hostile activity has begun
start here

Gengisfarb has a point though, time to do some pre-game diplomacy with lego (spiffor)???
If they all gang up on us, it could get very tough( fun, but tough )

[Harovan]

Originally posted by alva848
time to do some pre-game diplomacy with lego (spiffor)???

working on it

[Arrian]

NYE,

Thank you for setting forth your reasoning for choosing Expansionist. I have never played an MP game, and therefore I value the experience of those who do.

Given that, I will amend my rankings:

1) Egypt. Still.
2) Iroquois. Good points by NYE
3) Persia
4) China

I won't be upset whatever we choose... I just want to make sure we debate this properly.

-Arrian

[Theseus]

Any of the above are fine for me too.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
It would appear that I am on a team with increadibly risk averse people! not that that's a bad thing

Well... scouts have the most uses in the early game, and early on I'm not for taking big risks, no. Everything is way too costly. I have to admit that of course I'd use the 2 moves of scouts as well, I was trying to make a point

As to being convinced: I can't be until I played it myself. Of course I respect the opinions here, so I'll gladly play with the Iroquois if they are the choice, but from the other hand I'll play every race, in every position if that's the groups wish. I horserush a lot in my games, so their UU will be useful, even if it means giving up some other advantage (like Ind.)

NYE, thanks for the explanation indeed. The problem I'm having is that I don't have a good feeling as to what will make MP tick, I can theorize on it, but I don't feel it. I'll take your word that exp has been a very good trait in previous games, but boy, would I like to test this before deciding it first!

As to Sir Ralph's focus on industrious: I like it, but don't consider it that important... but as said before we really should have one of the culture traits (sci or rel). If we get one of those two I won't object any choice you make. Even if I'd prefer something else, it won't ever place us in a bad position, it will only changes the view and possible plans for our game. So it becomes a matter of personal choice

DeepO

[alexman]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Arabs (ind/rel) industrious / - / - = 1 point

Aren't these guys expansionist/religious? They still get only one point, but they are basically the Iroquois with fast Knights instead of MW. But they could be a better option, if we want a Middle Ages GA and just take out the easy AIs in the Ancient age with normal units... just a thought.

Three-move knights!

[Harovan]

Sorry, my bad, fixed. Also, the French and Ottomans (both industrious) were missing in the 1 point group.

DeepO: I'm not fixed on industrious at all, that shows my top civ choice (Iroquois). In my opinion in MP the civ will win, that succeeds to grow as fast as possible as big as possible. And industrious (among other traits) helps to achieve this by making the tile usage faster efficient.

[Arrian]

Ok, I think we've pretty much hashed out the arguments for and against the main contenders. I think we can all pretty much agree that this is mostly a debate over risk vs. reward.

I'm taking a cautious, more flexible line. Those who prefer the Iroquois are willing to gamble, feeling that the gamble has good odds of paying off. It is worth noting that those advocating the Iroquois are the ones with MP experience.

Granted, we have some time before the game starts, but I think we're best served to choose our civ soon so we move on to discussing other things. Are we going to end up tallying 1st, 2nd and 3rd choices like the other teams appear to have done, or use a run-off poll, or what?

-Arrian

[Harovan]

Arrian: Choosing expansionist is only partially gambling. Yes, huts can have neat stuff (if managing the build queue, that is), but the main reason to choose them is quick knowledge of the map, luxuries and resources and to have a fastmoving spy to sneak a peek in enemy territory and getting back out without being seen inside. Map trading among human players, btw, is considered to be a big nono, so the worth of the scouts increases still more.