Announcement

**Theseus** · April 19, 2003, 16:56

I'm with Arrian on the best civs for huge maps. Expansionist is a gamble, but commercial and industrious are exponential.

I'm just finishing off AU 207 (huge map) as Carthage... let me tell you, my empire is insane. Wait for the AAR.

**Master Zen** · April 19, 2003, 17:26

My last huge game was with France and my empire was insane too. France was an excellent choice as I got my GA during the medieval era and it really helped.

France and Carthage rule.

**Panag** · April 19, 2003, 19:19

Originally posted by Theseus
I'm with Arrian on the best civs for huge maps. Expansionist is a gamble, but commercial and industrious are exponential.

I'm just finishing off AU 207 (huge map) as Carthage... let me tell you, my empire is insane. Wait for the AAR.

hi ,

"huge" being 256X256

have a nice day

**twoflower** · April 20, 2003, 10:24

my definition of huge= 362X362

**asleepathewheel** · April 20, 2003, 12:14

Originally posted by twoflower
my definition of huge= 362X362

oh, that is too hard to pass up, but I will.

I have been playing more and more with egypt, their traits allow so much flexibility. Start with egypt on some flood plains and the game is over.

my second civ are the iroquios. I love them, not as much as I used to, but still a warm place in my heart. But I've found that I used their UU as a crutch early in my games and have tried to move away from that.

**Panag** · April 21, 2003, 09:08

Originally posted by twoflower
my definition of huge= 362X362

hi ,

who-ah

have a nice day

**Master Zen** · April 21, 2003, 13:55

One turn on that map would take like 30 minutes on mi lowly P3 500...

**Panag** · April 24, 2003, 10:11

Originally posted by Master Zen
One turn on that map would take like 30 minutes on mi lowly P3 500...

hi ,

, maybe not , it depends , .... ram , programs you use , etc , ....

firewall's can slow it also down , especially if they are running in the background , ....

have a nice day

**nbarclay** · April 24, 2003, 21:11

Re: The most "well balanced" civs

Originally posted by Fatalis2

EGYPT:
Starting potential : 3 (Special bonus : IND for a very fast starting, REL to increase quicly your borders during the early times, it’s simply perfect !)
Cultural potential : 1 (REL)
Cities/empire growth potential : 3 (Special bonus : IND & REL can’t be beaten, by far !)
Military potential : 1 (IND)
Science potential : 1 (IND)
" Well balanced bonus " : 1
UU : 1
GA : 1
Maps : 2,5 (a little harder on big maps…)

TOTAL : 14,5/20

Comments : Egypt is perfect for beginners ! You can do everything with them : build a strong and fine empire, or produce tons of units to overflow your neighbors. Perhaps the most flexible civ. Only 2 disadvantages : the lack of offensive boost (the UU is poor) and the risk of very early GA (but if you activate it through the Pyramids, it can be pretty cool !).

The reason Egypt did not come out on top in this evaluation is that the value of its War Chariots was seriously underestimated. Granted, unit for unit, WCs are not spactacular. But on most terrain, WCs provide the same attack and defense as horsemen at two thirds the cost. That means that for the same cost in shields, you can build one and a half times as many of them as you could horsemen. Shield for shield, that makes the WC one of the most potent UUs in the game - equal to the Iroquois Mounted Warrior in terms of attack value per shield.

A value of "3" was defined as "excellent defensive UU’s or good attacking UU’s that can retreat and upgrade." Cost for cost, the WC has to be considered a good attacking UU, and it can in fact both retreat and upgrade. Therefore, I contend that its proper value is 3, not 1.

With that adjustment, Egypt's total moves up from 14,5/20 to 16,5/20, giving it the title of "most well-balanced civ" by a full point.

**Arrian** · April 25, 2003, 11:09

Good point, Nathan.

Lots of people undervalue the WC. I did at first, too. Now I understand its power. Numbers. Sheer numbers. Think the inverse of the Gallic Swordsman.

-Arrian

**Master Zen** · April 25, 2003, 16:59

I've never undervalued the WC, however, I still don't think it's strengh is comparable to other units like the Mounted Warrior. I would rather spend 50% more on a unit which has a better chance to defeat any ancient era unit.

Wars with WCs against fortified Mercs or Hoplites... not fun. MWs can even the odds.

Still, WCs are VERY good, don't get me wrong... one of the best UUs...

**nbarclay** · April 26, 2003, 05:12

Master Zen, I agree 100% that I'd rather have my attack value per shield in a more concentrated form. And taking WCs up against Hoplites or Numidians is not my idea of fun either. Those reasons, plus the terrain difficulties, are why I give WCs a 3 rather than a 4. But MWs, Riders, Ansars, and maybe Sipahi are the only UUs I can think of offhand that I'd clearly rather have than WCs in a SP game. (I'd definitely prefer Sipahi if it weren't for the late GA.) So I think any rating less than a 3 on a scale from 1 to 4 seriously underestimates their value.

**Panag** · April 26, 2003, 10:18

Re: Re: The most "well balanced" civs

Originally posted by nbarclay

The reason Egypt did not come out on top in this evaluation is that the value of its War Chariots was seriously underestimated. Granted, unit for unit, WCs are not spactacular. But on most terrain, WCs provide the same attack and defense as horsemen at two thirds the cost. That means that for the same cost in shields, you can build one and a half times as many of them as you could horsemen. Shield for shield, that makes the WC one of the most potent UUs in the game - equal to the Iroquois Mounted Warrior in terms of attack value per shield.

A value of "3" was defined as "excellent defensive UU’s or good attacking UU’s that can retreat and upgrade." Cost for cost, the WC has to be considered a good attacking UU, and it can in fact both retreat and upgrade. Therefore, I contend that its proper value is 3, not 1.

With that adjustment, Egypt's total moves up from 14,5/20 to 16,5/20, giving it the title of "most well-balanced civ" by a full point.

hi ,

agreed but they trigger the GA early , to early for most of the people , and if you use them , nine out of ten the cities you bring them up against are empty with almost nothing in them , ......

then again on deity they can usefull at the early stages , they are good for going after a wonder the AI has build while in fact you could have used it , ....

have a nice day

**nbarclay** · April 26, 2003, 21:54

The GA timing issue was broken out into a separate category, so it would be unfair to penalize Egypt a second time for the role its UU plays in untimely GAs. (GA already just got a one out of three in GA timing.)

But if you beeline for Monarchy (aided by Egypt's religious nature) and start a WC attack the moment you get it, Egypt's GA timing can be pretty good. You can either build massive numbers of WCs to romp all over your neighbors in whatever time is left before Feudalism or start building city improvements to leverage for a more productive civ after the GA is over - or some of each, perhaps massing WCs in the early part of the GA and switching to infrastructure later.

**Master Zen** · April 27, 2003, 02:09

An added advantage of a later Egypt GA like nbarclay says is that the mass of surviving WCs can later be upgraded into Knights. Use the GA for science and building, then switch to $$ just before Chivalry and suddenly you have the most powerful mounted force in the planet and with the infrastructure to back it up.

/me is a big fan of horseman/WC hoarding