Discuss the new civs

[Humongos]

Sorry, if there´s a thread already, I made a brief check.

So, let´s discuss the new civs, you have any favourites yet?

I´ve only played the scandinavians so far and I must say the berserkers are pretty cool. With 6 in attack when the best the others got are 4 they pretty much rule early middle ages.

The carthaginians have been a great pain in the butt every time I went against them, but that might be a coincidence.

[vmxa1]

I have seen a few evaluations of the new civs, but I do not have enough play time to do it. I am now trying the old chinese to see if ptw impacts them. With old or new civs I have managed to have Carth as the main foe so far.

[Kingof the Apes]

I would think that the Carthiginians would be weak early game, with their expensive defensive unit. They would be like slow developing Greeks. Personally, I think that the Carthaginian UU is more worthless than the musketman. Who would want to use these expensive early game units to attack?

[Kingof the Apes]

Doh, I just realized Numidians are 30 shields. I was under the impression they were 40.

Everything I said still stands, however to a lesser extent.

[vmxa1]

Well I have not encountered them early as they are always on anothr land mass, but I would think that you will not have a lot of luck slamming a few swordsmen at them as you may well against spears. Horsemen will not be as sucessful. You do not have a lot of early units that will fare well against 231 defenders.

[Kingof the Apes]

That is true, but being more expensive they would not have as many as, say the Greeks might.

[asleepathewheel]

I've played a full game as carthage. the unit performed ok.

I actually used them on the offensive, since they are rated at 2. make a stack of a couple of these and a couple of archers or horsemen and it is ok, good on defense preventing counters, and ok on the attack. unlike spears which are risky at best attacking.

[Ijuin]

Originally posted by Kingof the Apes
I would think that the Carthiginians would be weak early game, with their expensive defensive unit. They would be like slow developing Greeks. Personally, I think that the Carthaginian UU is more worthless than the musketman. Who would want to use these expensive early game units to attack?

Let's look at it this way:

Cost of Archer: 20

Cost of Greek Hoplite: 20

Cost of Carthaginian Numidan: 30

Cost of Greek Hoplite + Archer: 40

Not only have you saved a net ten shields over what the Greeks would have to pay, but you also can build them much SOONER than any Civ can build any unit that has attack 3. You also need NO resources whatsoever to build them. The time when the Numidan unit shines brightest is the time up until opposing Civs possess Swordsmen or Horsemen in large numbers.

To put the Numidan's strength into perspective, note that out of all the Ancient units, only the Iroquois Mounted Warrior and the Swordsman (and its UU variants the Roman Legion, the Gaelic Swordsman, and the Persian Immortal) have higher attack, and only the Roman Legion and the Greek Hoplite can equal it on defense--and it is STRONGER than the Hoplite and available SOONER than the Legion, without Iron!

Now, the place where the Numidan is strongest is where counter-attacks are involved. If the AI counter-attacks against you, then you have the 3 defense that can endure the attack, while if you are doing the counter-attack, then your 2 attack will make short work of the damaged (and they WILL be damaged by their earlier attack if they won or retreated at all) enemy units.

In summary, the Numidan has all of the strengths of the Roman Legion unit, but it sacrifices one attack point in exchange for being available MUCH earlier in the game and without the need for any resources. For the Carthaginians, a Numidan rush can happen just as soon in the game as an Archer rush, and is MUCH more deadly!

[Tharsonius]

and dont forget, being industrous helps building your Numidians

not to mention your are in your GA when you start fighting with them