No, we don't want the Iroquois!

[alva]

Same logic

Put all your thoughts in here, why we don't want them. IE, the negative aspects of the Iroquois

Again, all will be edited in this post (eventually)



to make things easier;
Yes, we want the Iroquois

[Meshelic]

Negative aspects in my humble opinion:

Their UU (Mounted Warrior 3.1.2). Generally I have viewed the MW as a weaker unit who benefits from being able to retreat from battle and recover from damage, but also doesn't last long enough to make a hugely significant impact. We would have to use them en masse or in strong numbers for them to be lethal in battle. There isn't too much to complain about them, except that if they are attacked it doesn't matter what defense bonuses they get, they will generally be pummeled by units with a smaller attack ability.

Expansionist Trait .... Only really beneficial on pangea type maps where there is lots of territory to cover and lots of goodie huts to discover. If we get stuck on even a relatively large island away from a main continent then this trait would be to waste, and our scouts would be worthless. It's a case of whether the odds are in our favor or not.

Religious Trait Anyone got a problem with the religious trait? I don't really either. But I think it is not as helpful as industrial, scientific, commercial or militaristic. The ability to switch government types on a dime is helpful in certain cases, but I fear that again we're going to be playing against the odds this time.

Final decision: Well you know it wasn't my first choice; I'll go along with them if it's a majority, but I give this civ a 7 out of 10. I expect that not all share my sentiments for them.

[notyoueither]

You are correct about the risk of an island start, but then we will be safe for a long while.

On Continents or Pangaea, these guys will rule.

I say it now. These guys will come to be the most sought after civ after long experience (much longer than mine) with MP and humans. They will outdo all the new civs.

They rule their small corner of the world early on in a warfare game. That's what really matters, because in Civ3 the winner on the field early will most often win the game.

[alva]

Mr. Prez; read topic!!!

serious: the idea is to have two different threads, and then to make a balance if it were.

If we do it in one thread, we probably get 4 or5 pages of posting ,that keep repeating it self.

So, in here only negative things, while in the other....

[notyoueither]

Iroquois suck. They bad. They come last season and steal my grain. Now I have no food. Baaad Iroquois.

Better?

[alva]

That's the spirit

Now, try to make it just a little bit more constructive

[Arrian]

THE CASE AGAINST THE IROQUOIS

Or, alternatively, the case FOR a couple of other civs...

First, the worries I have about the Iroquois:

#1: Expansionist trait on a normal size map is fairly weak. Yes, scouts can be quite useful, and we could get lucky with huts, but overall you have to admit this is more of a large/huge map trait.

#2: Lacking both industriousness and militarism, these guys take a while to "get going." Slow workers + 40-shield barracks and no bronze working to start translates into military vulnerability at the beginning.

Ok, enough of the negatives, because overall, I like the Iroquois, and I won't mind too much if they're our civ. Here are the two I would suggest instead:

First Egypt. Why?

1) Best trait combo in the game. I won't go into a discussion of the greatness of religious, because the Iroquois are too, so most people are cool with that trait. So, that leaves industrious. There are several reasons why this trait warrants a good, long look before choosing against it: a) 2x speed workers, b) a starting tech the AI loves, so good trade possibilities with the AI civs, c) extra shields as our cities grow.

2) Cheap ancient UU, the War Chariot. This is advantageous for three reasons: a) it's cheap, b) it's 1 tech away, c) Egypt is a powerful civ WITHOUT IT. So if we don't have horses right away, we're not screwed.

Egypt is perhaps the fastest early civ. By that I mean you can set up a productive empire with amazing speed. The only downsides are a lack of an overpowering UU (though in numbers lies strength) and full-price barracks, which hurt a bit in the beginning.

Second Persia. Why?

1) Strong trait combo. Industrious for the reasons set forth above regarding Egypt. Scientific provides BW to start (spears, 1 tech to iron), cheap research buildings and free tech per age.

2) Extremely powerful, if slow, UU. Personally, I like the MW better, but the Immortal is probably the #2 ancient UU.

The downside, of course, is the lack of religious... anarchy sucks, as do 60-shield temples.

Overall, my main opposition to the Iroquois comes from the lack of industriousness. That trait is sooooo powerful. The chances of expansionistic making up for its loss are low, IMO.

-Arrian

[FrustratedPoet]

Going Expansionist is a gamble, I agree, and I suppose Egypt is a safer option ( I LOVE Egypt in SP).

I'm a supporter of Iroquois really, although I think any of the 3 Civs Arrian mentions (also my top 3) would be good.

It is worth mentioning that Expansionist is, even when at it's best, only a good trait in the Ancient Age (and only the first half of it really). Industrious, on the other hand, is a powerful trait for the whole game.

When we desperately want to put up a RailRoad network to fight a huge war in the Industrial Age while still maintaing high city population to crank out units we might begin to wish we had an Industrious civ.

We still have two weeks to choose (for the new boys: the game starts on 1 December) so we have plenty of time to thrash this out.

[Meshelic]

The more and more we discuss it, the more I'm thinking that we could pick a better civ. Especially due to the normal size map. Expansionist is not going to help us greatly on a map that small.

[Velociryx]

I gotta just say no to the Iroquois. Their UU makes them attractive, but we really need either Religoius or Industrious (or both!) to be a long term threat.

Expansionist isn't as strong as either Rel or Ind, excepting for on Huge Pangea maps, and the MW, while HUGELY potent in the ancient age, is only valuable vs. our continental rivals...by the time we could build enough MW's and galleys to use them elsewhere, their time would be drawing to a close.

Thus, I regard the Iroquois as a gambler's choice. Really, hatefully strong under the right circumstances, but under others, we're hosed before we get up and running good.

Safest choice: Egypt, but I suspect that everybody ELSE will suspect we'd go for egypt...no surprise value in that.

Other strong contenders: China, Japan, Germany (assuming that the sky's the limit where civ choices go).

-=Vel=-

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I gotta just say no to the Iroquois. Their UU makes them attractive, but we really need either Religoius or Industrious (or both!)

erm .... the Iroquois are Religious, mate.

[Arrian]

To be fair, the Iroquois are Religious, so they do have one of the top two traits, plus a killer UU. But I think that in an MP game such as this, Industrious outweighs the UU, and I'm not impressed by the potential benifits of Expansionist.

I considered China and Japan, and could easily be talked into them, but militaristic is also a gamble. More of a calculated one, but still a gamble. Germany I just gotta disagree with. They have neither Rel nor Ind, and a late UU.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

D'oh! This is true...

Well...I *DID* say I liked 'em pretty well....nonetheless, the points re: expansionist stand (despite my work-induced hallucinations about the Iroquois and their imagined traits! )

We can do better....

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

The main reason I put Germany on the list tho, is because of their starting techs....true that they don't have either of the powerhouse techs, but....their starting position on the tech tree is *superb*

Don't get me wrong tho....if we opt for the Iroquois, I'll be cool with it, but I think we could do better. Does anybody know what map settings we'll be using? The answer to that question would cinch it in my head. If we're using a huge, pangea map, let's rock Iroquois style....if we don't know...it's dicey.

I would say that militaristic isn't really much of a gamble tho...of all the games I've ever played, I only got ONE island start where I was totally alone and not in range of neighbors via galleys, and on a continental start, I always had at least three neighbors.

Given those general trends, I'd say we can expect company, and prolly more than we want. Militaristic civ would prolly be WAY strong in this game.

-=Vel=-

[asleepathewheel]

Good Discussion

I don't like Egypt's UU at all. Too short a life and too early a GA for my tastes.

I'm not so worried about the risks of expansionists, after all, what is life without a few risks. Even if it doesn't help us significantly, I am confident that we will have a strong game regardless. But the rewards are immense. a few free techs, a good idea of the map, early contacts, maybe a city or settler. Those are very appealing to me and outweigh the possible risks.

I agree that risks should be minimized but we should not be paralized by conservatism (not that I'm saying that's occuring now, more of a general comment)