Announcement

**nationalist** · March 28, 2003, 17:43

I disagree with your review of Germany. It is not unflexable. As has been noted here many times the Germans are the best civ for the early Archer rush, as they start with both Spearmen and Archers and expand as well as the expansionist civs can. This early rush can easily produce Great Leaders. Those great leaders can build the Leo's Workshop, giving a Golden Age at a perfect time. The scientific trait allows you to build cheap culture producing science buildings, as well as keep war-mongers in the scientific race. As you mentioned, the Germans dominate the late Industrial Age. Panzers roll over anything up until Computers and Mechanized Infantry. For my playing style there is no better choice than the Germans.

**pedrojedi** · March 29, 2003, 00:12

I think the "cultural flip risk" is dependant of a subjective point of view. For example, I think that France has a strong chance of being very good early cultural leaders of the world, since they can build relatively fast temples, and the cities' tiles are rapidly upgraded.

I remember a game that I played as the carthagians (PTW old version for France, at least for the specials), and I won basically with a big great culture and a big great commercial potencial. Diplomacy came soon.

**Boris Godunov** · March 29, 2003, 00:37

I second what nationalist said, for probably the only time ever. The Germans are a much stronger civ than this assessment suggests. Military plus science is a terrific combo, and when playing them my tech advantage is usually more than enough to offset any potential disadvantages. And that doesn't just help militarily, as it helps me get to cultural improvements faster.

**Josquius** · March 29, 2003, 13:25

Been so long since I played to comment on your verdicts however it is England in the game not Britain.

**nationalist** · March 29, 2003, 20:42

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I second what nationalist said, for probably the only time ever.

That surprises me too. Does that mean that I'm wrong on this?

**TheStinger** · March 31, 2003, 08:20

May be its the way I play but I love the Babs. I'm a fan of the Persionas too. I think they both good all rounders.

**pedrojedi** · March 31, 2003, 21:42

The Babs are excellent, and in the long run they can have a real punch, with their science and religion traits.

I never played with the Persians, but they seem pretty good to me also; I love industrious.

**Lord Merciless** · March 31, 2003, 23:57

The thread starter has probably never faced Romans in his games. Horde of Legionaries followed GA will make short work of any empires. In ancient age, Romans rule absolutely.

**georges bonbon** · April 1, 2003, 05:05

Long live the Babs and Persians.

**Fatalis2** · April 1, 2003, 05:29

Well... lots of tomatoes in my face !!

About the Germans, I must specify one thing : in the "starting potential", I didn't include the war ! The "starting potential" figures for me the "natural expansion", the ability to quickly expand your borders (settlers & units production ; civ influence growth) and to be the first to build cities on the better emplacements. The ability to destroy your opponents, erlier or later, is figured by the "military potential". For me, the archer rush is more a playing style than a potential.
Everybody knows that Germany is probably the best civ to make war, even very very early (archer rush + speramen). I mentionned that. I like the Germans, even if I prefer to play them on lower level. BUT, I tried to classified the MOST FLEXIBLE civs, not the strongest or funiest. And, I'm still thinking that Germany is principally a civ for warmongers. You have to fight a lot with them.

About the Romans... same comments ! How can you have a really good expansion / growth with them if you don't fight and fight again ? Please, give me some explanations... I repeat that I talked about "flexibility". With the Romans, I'm still thinking that your playing style choice is more limited.
AND, I specified that I'm playing WHITHOUT PTW : the Romans without PTW have to manage a big problem of upgrade... tons of legions to disband ! Yes, you can produce units by disbanding... But I think it's really easier to upgrade them.

About "England"... sorry for my mistake !! But in the french version, they called them "les britanniques", and not "les anglais". That's the explanation...

**Mad Bomber** · April 1, 2003, 07:20

Fatalis:

1) Persia is a warmongering civ pure and simple. Those Imortals are just too tempting.

2) What civ is more warlike than the Aztecs? Religious and Miltaristic means you can outlast your opponet in any war and the jag warriors are absolutely great at the 2000BC -Rush. I would never play the Aztecs as a builder.

3) There is no civ more well balanced than the Egyptians. They can out build or out fight any civ in the game. True the GA will be an early one (unless you plan for a later one) but its better than none at all.

4) You place too much emphasis on the GA. I personally do not mind a despotic GA (the fact is you 'lose' less shields than most believe) An early GA (even a despotic one) allows you to build setlers quickly which helps with the REX phase (the most important phase of the game IMO) or to build up an early edge in military strength.

5) As metioned earlier the babs are truly one of the most flexible civ's in the game. They are the only civ that is better than the germans at the archer rush and also have two cultural strength traits. This civ ranks right behind the Egyptians as far as balance is concerned.

**TheStinger** · April 1, 2003, 07:20

English or British there still rubbish. I mod em to make it worthwile playing them

**Fatalis2** · April 1, 2003, 08:51

To Mad Bomber :

- I totally agree about Aztecs... Their result made me think that my scale is probably not really perfect ! In deed, playing the Aztecs without fighting a lot seems to be quite hard (and I mentionned that in me thread) !

- I agree too about the egyptians... Regardless of my scale of ranking, my experience would tell me THEY ARE the most flexible. They are one of me favourites, btw...

- Sorry, but I really hate a GA under despotism. Your arguments seem to be good... but I simply can't !
But you're perhaps right : 3 points for a well timed GA could be too much... It's true a GA is only 20 turns... and you can always get them through the wonders (except on the highest levels, IMO).

- I disagree about Persia... I already played them as builders. But I must specify that I don't like Immortals very much (not upgradable for me and, besides, no ability to retreat. I never invade a country without an huge army that can retreat...). Yes, of course, they're very effective as warmongers too. But they can build, too.

- The babs... I really don't know what to think about them. During about 5000/5500 years, I find them too slow to quickly produce a huge force, and I still consider that they're really not a good choice on large or huge map. On a standard map, they're in deed very flexible.
But it's true I don't like to make war with them : their offensive bonus comes too early for me (as their GA, then) and after that, they never have any more strenght for warfare (no IND, no MIL, no UU... just an hypothetic tech lead)

Considering only my experience, the ranking would be a little different :

Most flexible : Egypt, Persia, France

Still well balanced : China, America, Russia

Building dominant : Greece, Babylone

Warmonging dominant : Japan, Iroquois

Absolute builders : India

Absolute warmongers : Zulus, Aztecs, Germans, Romans

?????? : English !

But I found it funny to establish a scale...

**Arrian** · April 1, 2003, 16:49

Egypt is the most flexible civ, IMO*. France is 2nd. Carthage is close, but the Num. Merc hurts them (some people like them, I know, but I think they're a hinderance). Persia is fairly flexible too, and therefore so are the Ottomans (same traits, also a strong UU, just later in the game).

I don't see China as "flexible" They are definitely strong - I love playing them - but I don't think they're flexible. The militaristic trait is almost a complete waste if you don't fight. Sure, the cheap barracks/harbors/airports are ok, but the real boost requires fighting: the promotion bonus, and the subsequent indirect effect on Great Leader generation. China can still be decent as a "builder" civ only because their other trait, Industrious, is so strong. Using China properly, however, requires fighting. Lots and lots of fighting.

-Arrian

* - there is one exception to this, but even then it can be overcome. Egypt's UU does have 1 weakness: the terrain limitations. On certain maps :coughAU207cough: Egypt may have trouble using its UU, because WCs cannot operate in jungle or mountains unless there are roads leading into the tile(s). Having said that, I've played in that situation and Egypt's industrial workers have dealt with the issue handily.

Announcement

The most "well balanced" civs

The most "well balanced" civs

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment