The best Civs: Traits and Unique Units...

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Catt
Disclaimer: I've grown to enjoy playing random civs on random map settings.

If one always plays specific (or closely related) map settings, one's favorite civs will reflect the effects of the map settings. As Alexman points out, expansionist is (for me) the most volatile of all traits -- great on large landmasses with goody huts but near worthless on archipelago's and /or maps with no barbarians (and therefore no goody huts).

My own favorites, if forced to choose, are Egypt or Japan - for reasons already shared by many others.

And, Dr. Jambo and others who don't like early GA's, I have long argued (though not the first nor the only do to so) that the Egyptian's are the best possible civ for GA timing -- a particularly underutilized tool IMHO. Why are Egyptians so adept at GA timing? The realtive lack of utility of the Egyptian UU. As I posted in a recent thread elsewhere:

When I play the Egyptians [. . . .] I will build 3 or 4 WCs and then just tuck them away in a safe, interior city. Come the late ancient ages or early middle ages, towards the end of a war I can end on my terms, I will haul the WCs out of storage to take down a wounded horseman, archer or longbowman, or even a wounded knight or swordsman.

It's one of the few UUs that are ideal for GA timing -- most of the other ancient and early middle ages UUs are powerful enough compared to their contemporaries that you simply can't forgo using them if the opportunity arises (can you imagine not using hoplites, immortals, legionaries, mounted warriors, samurai, riders when at war?)

The WC's value lies in its relative lack of miltary prowess -- its purpose readily becomes GA timing rather than military advantage.

I of course should have included the Jag Warrior in the list of powerful UUs in my original post.

Catt

We should have a few WCs and a Mechanized Infantry unit duke it out.

[Arrian]

Catt's absolutely right about the WC. The same thing goes for the Bab bowman. They aren't very powerful, which is actually kinda a good thing. In a tight spot each can be valueable, however. The WC because of its cheapness, the bowman because of its versatility.

Another thing about the WC (which I also have posted elsewhere):

A WC is 20 shields to build. You can build them until you have chivalry. It costs 100 gold to upgrade a WC to a Knight.

Now imagine that you trigger an early medieval golden age. Imagine that you have Leonardo's Workshop. Imagine just how many WC's you can pump out and then upgrade to Knights when you deem the time is right. Imagine... continental domination.

-Arrian

[Apolex]

Excellent list Dr. Jambo... good post. I would agree with most of your assesments and your ordering, except I'm with Incan_Warrior: you've grossly underestimated the Aztecs (again, it depends on your play-style though). Sure the UU makes the GA come really early, but when properly managed it can be extremely potent.

I like playing the Aztecs and building about 4 cities. All the while, mass producing Jaguars and scouting out resources, enemies, land value, choke-points, communications, and trading techs. You can then attack 1-2 of your neighbors based on who your scouts say has the best land/biggest threat potential and spark a GA. Now you have 6-7 cities in a GA, mass-producing units and you can rush 2-3 more neighbors and get a relatively HUGE empire early on that positions you superbly for later stages of the game. Land is the single most important factor to strength, and starting with the Jaguar Warrior allows you to carve out an early empire. It gets progressively harder to take land from the enemy after the Ancient Era and throughout the Middle Ages, so you have to get it early or be left behind by the big boys.

The only Diety game I have won came by playing the Aztecs. The computer controlled Aztecs may not be as strong because the AI is not smart enough to take advantage of their potential. But a skilled human player can build the Aztecs into a very powerful civ.

-Apolex

[Venger]

Originally posted by =DrJambo=
HOWEVER, the English are doomed to depravity no matter what they do to commercial since their UU is so awful it's unbelievable. An improved UU is all that can help them, one hopefully that'll last for a decent amount of time without being surpassed (like the Ironclad does to them now).

The English UU should be the Redcoat, a unit with +1 A/D from the Musketeer.

Venger

[Barchan]

I'd agree with those who think the English should have a superior long bowman. In their day, English long bowmen were the heat, and their rain of wood and iron turned many a battle in England's favor. I'd give an English Long Bowman UU +1 attack, or perhaps even +2 attack or +1 attack and defense to compensate for the fact that it'd be at the end of the upgrade chain. I think a medieval land UU, as well as an earlier shot at a GA, would really help the English compete against their usual neighbors.

I dunno about the redcoat idea, though. True, English musketmen were better disciplined than most others, so a +1 attack could be justified. But it just seems that musketmen come and go so quickly in the game that it'd be almost as useless as the Man-o-War is now. Besides, if anyone were to get another musket-based UU, I’d have to argue that the Americans should get Minutemen (+1 movement). The F-15 comes so late in the game it is generally either icing on your victory cake or your first prototype winds up in your conqueror’s imperial war museum as a trophy.

Lastly, I’d propose boosting the commercial trait by making marketplaces, banks, harbors and airports cheaper to build. Just as religious and scientific traits get their buildings for less, so should the commercial civs. I doubt much more tweaking would be required, especially since corruption’s been largely neutered under v1.21.

Anyway, that’s my $.02.

[notyoueither]

From what I hear, the Romans are terrors as an AI civ to many players.

[=DrJambo=]

hehe good stuff, lots of very valid arguments here.

i think i'll update my original list as a consequence of some very well argued points.

in the current version of my mod, i have the English UU as the Longbowman (+1 att on the now common crossbowman). Seems to help them quite a bit!

The F-15 comes so late in the game it is generally either icing on your victory cake or your first prototype winds up in your conqueror’s imperial war museum as a trophy.

too true.

I wholeheartedly agree with the point you make about Commercial civs getting cheap marketplaces and banks being the boost needed to bring the Commercial trait up to the standard of the others.

However, the Expansionist trait also needs a boost, preferably something in the mid- to late-game to make it more worthwhile.

Updated the list.

[OPD]

Re: The best Civs: Traits and Unique Units...

Originally posted by =DrJambo=

16. English.
Awful UU and awful traits in Commercial and Expansionist make the English the poorest civ around by a long margin.

Its a shame really that one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen is so poor while other civs such as the japs are so superior, but its only a game I suppose.

I'd like to see the brits have a galley which can travel ocean squares as their UU.

[sabrewolf]

great list!
and very similar to my experiences!

to summarize:
industrious R-U-L-E-Z
expansionist S-U-C-K-S

this must definetly be improved!
specially on tiny to standard maps, the expansionist trait gives maybe 1 tech, a unit, some maps and if you are very very very lucky (one in 20 games) a settler.
on large maps otoh you can get 2-3 settlers (but only if you are NOT building one meanwhile. to me, that means i use an expoit: before entering goody huts, switch all settler-productions to some building, get the goodie and switch back... and then: use that settler immediatly!
but basicly i don't enjoy those maps, so expansionists suck

as for the engish UU: longbowman
either 4|1|1
or maybe even bombard unit with defense 1: 3(3)|1|1...

[Barchan]

Perhaps these have been suggested before, but I'm just thinkin' here....

Two ideas (similar to those for improving the commercial trait) are to introduce reduced-cost granaries, aqueducts and hospitals and/or reduced-cost settlers and workers. This would allow the expansionist civs to expand faster, which is what you'd think they were *supposed* to do in the first place given the name.

Another possibility would be to allow the construction of a trait-specific city improvement (called, perhaps, Provincial Capitol?) that would reduce corruption and waste in the city it's built in *provided that* the city is on a separate land mass from either (a) the civ's capitol or (b) the forbidden palace. This would make a "far-flung" empire possible. No more than a set number could be built per civ, based on the size of the map. This would allow for more historical colonial empires whereby a few "crown jewels" could be grown into local strongholds (think Hong Kong, Singapore, Bombay, etc.).

The final thought would be to increase the distance variable for city corruption so that cities could be further from the capitol without suffering as much corruption as non-expansionist civs.

Now, if you combine these suggestions (even if just the reduced-cost granaries, aqueducts and hospitals) with those for the commercial trait (reduced-cost markets, banks, harbors and airports) the English could jump from basket case to solid competitor. Throw in a useful land-based medieval UU and you just might have a contender.

But again, I'm just thinkin' here....

[monkspider]

good suggestions barchan

[Nuctemeronn]

IMHO Russians belong to the top 5. Here's my reason.

You start with Bronze Working (scientific trait) which means that you can start the game researching Iron working. With fast scouts and some warrior aquired from huts (expansionist trait) you early spot those vital iron resources and secure them building your cities next to them (and if you are very lucky maybe you already have 1-2 free settlers). These way you deny the AI the iron resources and start pump Swordsmen like mad. I find this the only way to defeat quickly some computer controlled AI's and works very well at least on Emperor. I think also that this would be a OK strategy on multiplayer... we see if works soon.
Of course i'm talking about playing on Pangea or Continent based worlds.

Cya.

[Austin]

Given that expansionist civs are supposed to expand, why not give them either reduced or even NO distance corruption?

Then give the commercial civ a resistance to number of cities corruption.

THEN you could actually build an empire upon which the sun never sets without it being as corrupt as a barrel full of Kennedys.

Austin

[dunk]

Originally posted by Austin

as corrupt as a barrel full of Kennedys.

Austin

That is utterly hilarious.

[zorbop]

commersial is not as bad as you all think. although the new patch does lower corruption, there still is SOME corruption. commersial lowers this to very small amount.
with a lsmall money bonus provided by commersial, this means you don't nead demmocrocy for money or anti-corruption.
this means it so you can comcentrate on your war machine full time in communism or even monarchy.

secondly, the zulu UU is not as bad as it seems. they prevent opponents from retreating.

i think ironclads should not be able to cross ocean squares. that would make the english better, and make the game more realistic.

i think the expantion trate should be changed completely. all it gives is an early game advantage, not actual expanding. they should have faster settlers or something.