The most "well balanced" civs

[Lord Merciless]

To be honest with you, warmongering is the most effective strategy in Civ3, even the civ you are playing is one of those so-called 'builder' civ.

[pedrojedi]

- 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.

Well, I disagree with that, and I have several arguments for that.

1 - Archer rush: Well, yes, that's a tactic or play style, but for it is a canonic law, as it facilitates a lot your early building fase, specially if you have around aggressive civs like the germans, russians or even the always growing british guys. The babs have the good advantage of not having to initially build a spearmen force to go with the archers... just keep deploying the UU and go for it! I really don't care for the early GA, as long as it gives me an edge early on, and it will pay off really well latter.

2 - Religious: Readily available to build and cheap temples are a bless for the construction of a force. They give a good punch for production and growth, and those early shields make all the difference (Catt told that truth a while ago. That was illuminating). Also, the Ceremonial Burial is the first tech for the research of Monarchy. And you know how the AI loves Monarchy. And, lastly but no less important... The 1 turn Anarchy. There are no comments that could explain and show all the difference that it makes on your power and war.

3 - Scientific: First, it is a short road for Iron Working. Good for trading, even better for getting those precious (my precious...) ore resources from the enemy, and making them suffer early on with iron deficiency! It also gives the cheap libraries, which are great for early tech lead and culture lead (I like culture lead ). And there is the GL. Also the free tech at each era is a real pain in the @$$ when you're not scientific and running with other civ for tech lead. That alone could define a fase in the game.

Since most of these arguments do not depend on war, it is reasonable to assume that on huge maps, these advantages are even more pronounced.

Well, I have to go, but that's it!

[Fatalis2]

Your arguments sound good... except for the huge map, IMHO... Years and years to build roads, and what a corruption !

The thing is probably that I won several games with teh Babs but... I've been boring with them !! As I dislike very early wars and, even more, very early GA, I only practice the archer rush when I'm really forced to do it... And the archer rush is the second (and short !) miltary advantage of the Babs (the other one is the scientific trait). To conclude : I don't like to be a warmonger without a militaristic or industrious trait, or without a very good UU... So, IMHO, the Babs don't seem to be a very effective civ for warmongering !

In fact, I think the industrious trait is the most flexible one, because it gives you an "offensive builder" potential !

[pedrojedi]

Corruption seems to be adjusted by map size. About roads... only one thing: Worker Crews. The issue is that you will need only roughly the double number of industrious civs. "only" hehehe... But still, that's a manageable problem.

I still think that Religious is a very nice trait for warmongering. I really can't decide to say which one of the two is best with militaristic, religious or scientific. Both are very very good.

[Fatalis2]

Yes, Religious is very effective for warmongering (Japan and Aztec proove it !). But, it MUST, IMHO, be combined with Militaristic or Industrious to build a strong army... The only exception is the Iroquois, who don't get industrious nor militaristic... but can build the MW, THE perfect UU !

[pedrojedi]

Well, a strong army comes independently of civ traits... how you use will determine your "preferred" traits. I had a strong military capacity in one of my most peaceful games, even though I had a small army. It's all about how you use it.

[Theseus]

I think you will find that all of the most "balanced" civs include Ind. From there, either Rel or Sci, maybe Com. Exp can be guuuhhh-reat, depending on the situation, but is not a "balancing" trait.

Anybody can warmonger.

GAs? Not a contributor to "balance" at all.

[Panag]

hi ,


the most balanced , ... , ..... has to be the US of A

have a nice day

[pedrojedi]

hi,

panag...

I think so... NOT.

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by pedrojedi
hi,

panag...

I think so... NOT.

have a nice day

hi ,

each has an other personal view , ....

have a nice day

[Mad Bomber]

Actually I have to agree with Panag here

The US is a very balanced civ, their traits industrial and expansionist are strong in either playstyle. Also since the US must depend upon its GA on building at least two wonders(unless you want a GA after the game is over) means that you will need to build up a strong infrastructure. The lack of cheap buildings reinforces the desire for wonders. This in turn leads to thoughts of warmongering unless you can build all of the wonders.

The US is stuck with a lousy UU, but it is blessed with one of the best traits combos for play on a large or huge map. And is a great civ to play either as a builder or a warmonger.

For those of you that hate expansionists...try getting out of the ancient age at 1900BC without this trait. (I accomplished this with 6 scouts on a huge world with the Ami's.

However I would have to rate the US third behnd Egypt and Babylon which are the most flexible civs.

[pedrojedi]

I have problems when dealing with expansionist trait, since after the expansion time, you have only 1 trait to go all the game. IF you had a nice start, that's gonna be all that's necessary, if you start is even not-good...

[Flanker]

What do you guys think about the PtW-civs then? Are there any contesters in the "most balanced"-ranking among them? I haven´t tried them all yet, so I´m not sure myself.

[pedrojedi]

Carthagians are good. Ottomans, gooood. Celts and their garlic warriors? Goood. Vikings? They're nice. The others? Haven't tested them and their traits.

[Flanker]

I´ve only played with Spanish myself, and they were rather nice. I guess the UU is a really great one if you are playing on huge maps.

However, I think the new civs might be a little bit too many with exp-traits. I myself am not convicted about the pros with exp, so I'm really not that eager to try them.