A look at ALL the Civs, from a MP point of view

[vondrack]

Being heavily involved in the Civ3PtW demogame, I do no longer have time enough to read everything that is posted on Poly, but I always find some time to read through your threads, Fried-Psitalon (even sometimes get back to your posts for reference). Very good work! Even though I do not 100% agree on everything you say, it really is stuff well worth reading.

[BoNeHeD]

LEGIONS RULE!

Fried 2 words: LEGIONS RULE!

[ktaek]

1 more vote for bumping the Germans up a notch.

You give some valid reasons how Archer rush can be thwarted, but those same tactics can be used against most of the UUs in the higher ranked civs, there's nothing specific about an Archer that makes it weaker than other units.

Basically, Germany should be ranked higher purely on its military trait, if nothing else.

[player1]

Actualy if Garmas know to act quickly they could be better then Persians and Romans, and even Irquois (they realy need a lot some time to get MW) and Celts (they'll need time to make their army), since they'll push quickly and get first Sowrdsmen.

P.S.
Of course passive play by Germans woudl be their downfall.


P.P.S.
Somehow I think that if Babylon could have Militaristic trait instead of Religious that take could be cool MP civ.

But this way...

[Dinner]

I might put Celts into the first level just because I really like their CSAs and their UU kicks a$s. Sure it's expensive and you need iron but you will likely find iron if the player has put any effort into exploring at all.

Also I normally see 4-6 players in an MP game so more often then not how well a player does depends on how good he is at diplomacy. A smart player will psyop the other players and build up a winning alliance.

[Beta]

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
Matth/Cronos- Thank you thank you thank you. I was beginning to think these threads were a waste of time after writing FOUR (Check for other threads by me down a few pages) and getting no responses. It's nice to know that someone is reading, and appreciating...I just wish more people would reply with some feedback. Maybe I'll find something else to write about after all.

Keep up the comments!

Hey, fabulous thread!!!

And I'm guilty . I read it soon after it was posted, and actually referred to it in our Misfits of Society PTW match thread (where another player picks your civs - you can imagine the 6 dogs which are playing ). But I did not congratulate or comment. For now I will do the former, I am working on the latter.

Please keep it up. The early Civ3 strategies threads are still quite useful, but the many upgrades, and now PTW with the new civs, requires new analyses, new threads, and new discussions of some of the earlier topics.

Muchos gracias!!

[Fried-Psitalon]

Geez guys.. heh, I might start writing more threads now that I know it's actually being heard. I'm just nervous about giving out too many of my secrets to the general public, I have to have *something* left to win games with.

You folks ought to come join our ladder. THe competition is pretty good, and you'll get a chance to take on the author of these threads, too.

I'll probably confront the dread issue of "Build order" sometime soon, but I'm having to give it a lot of thought. Please always feel free to talk about these threads- analysis which cannot withstand criticism is unworthy of the name.

[Sallandair]

Excellent value technique Fried-Psitalon and I would have to agree with 95%+ of your observations.

Would like to commit on Germany and Iron-needed UU's

I believe that Germany is appropriately Tiered. As for those who believe that Germany should be boosted for their starting techs - their arguement could be sound only with a 6+ player small map or a 2hr max time limit. Any other enviroment provides those civs on the upper Tiers enough time to gain the upperhand.

As for Iron-needed UU's, one must take in account in a six player game one should expect at least two civs without the source of iron near their core infrastructure. Does one honestly want to invest soley in a civ that has a 1/3 chance of being unable to use their special units early enough to be a factor (esp a non-Industrial civ). And remember, those civs with two movement units or scouts will already know if you are near that precious source or not. A good player will exploit that knowledge while you grumble for not being near iron.

See you on the high ground - Scouts Out

[Dominae]

Re: A look at ALL the Civs, from a MP point of view

Ok, there are far too many positive comments here; figured I'll be the one to start some healthy debate.

First, Fried-Psitalon, nice effort with this thread. Although people have been discussing the civs in MP here and there, no one has "put it all together" in one place.

1) I am writing this with consideration to the current MP environment: Pangea-games, rarely bigger than "Small/Standard" maps, ranging from 2 to 6 players. If you disagree with that, you'll find lots to disagree with herein.

There is a big difference between Small and Standard, and Tiny and Small. Each civ should really be evaluated with respect to map size above all (assuming no knowledge of the opponents' civ choices). Last I heard many MP games are played on Tiny maps, which makes Archer-rush tactics all the better.

3) If you can't follow some of the heavier discussions in the Strategy thread, you will probably be a bit out of your depth here- go check those out first.

I resent this! Not to knock your thread, but the depth of strategy is a lot "deeper" in the Strat thread, you just have to work to find it...So far, this thread is commendable for its breadth, not depth.

Aztecs: The Green Machine can be a very serious threat for the first 50-100 turns.

Like I said above, this is highly map-dependent. If you Jag rush your neighbor on a Standard map, expect to be quite weak relative to those distant civs who you did not manage to molest. You have to be sure that the benefit of an early rush warrants the early expense.

Carthage: Since people generally aren't too keen on attacking Carthage first, you can usually trigger a Golden Age when it's right for you.

Since Carthage is usually focusing on building early on, it is usually possible to intentionally lose a Warrior to a Merc to trigger their GA, without much fear of a backlash. Sure, you've made an enemy, but you want to take them out eventually, right? Might as well hit them where it hurts early.

Commercial isn't the biggest bonus in the world, but it does mean that Carthaginian roads can drop settlers farther out than some folks can.

I assume you mean that Carthage can support a geographically larger empire, which has nothing to do with roads.

Iroquois: Hiawatha probably gets revenge on the Americans at least 10 times a week in the world of Civ, and for good reason.

I disagree.

Sans horses, the Iroquios are still a threat - they've probably gathered 2 or 3 techs and a settler

Never expect a Settler. If every Expansionist civ "probably" gathers a Settler every game, everyone would be playing Expansionist (Americans, probably).

Zulus: Defensive players with cool heads can sometimes weather the storm by building an extra unit or two to "sorte out" and deal with the marauding Impis. (They are just spearmen in stats, after all, and they don't run away all the time.)

Retreating Spearmen (Impi) survive more often than 3-defense units. In addition, if the Zulu player is forcing player X to keep Swordsmen and Horsemen inside his cities, the Impi are doing their job and then some.

Celts: The ability to retreat if the Gallic Swordsman is losing makes these folks *much* more valuable than most players realize. Unfortunately, there's a price for that - shield cost for Gallics is the highest in the ancient era.

Actually I think people rate the Gallic a lot higher than they should. Like you said the Shield cost is a factor. Surivability is very important. But strength in numbers is also very important. The fact that the Celts can produce fewer "warm bodies" than the Iroquois (or any other civ, really) is a major disadvantage. This and their traits places them at Tier 3.

Greece: Alexander's spot in the number two tier is due solely to the strength of his Hoplite, a unit that can leave others green with envy.

Greece is only powerful if you can diplomatically safeguard a position entering the Medieval age. The Hoplite supports this strategy by acting is a deterrent to potential attackers. Greece's traits prevent it from being a truly effective early military power. This makes the Greeks very one-dimensional.

More than one person has had to say "Hail Ceasar" at the point of a sword in Civ3PTW. Rome's Legionnaire is a mighty unit, and if the iron is plentiful, you can bet the Legionnaires will be too.

I think you're not taking into account the importance of a civ's traits, despite the power of its UU. Commercial does nothing for Rome as it prefers warmongering to building. Militaristic is nice, but hardly a trait to build a civ on in MP. Thus while the Legionary is a potent unit, Rome will typically not be as great. Tier 3.

Persia: Many newer players look at Persia and immediately assume that THIS is the best Civ to play in MP, bar none. True, Persia has a great deal going for it: As a scientific Civ, they can immediately start work on Iron Working when the game begins.

Persia is Tier 1. Industrious is the best trait, especially in MP. It allows the rapid construction of a Immortal force, if the game calls for early war. Like you said, Scientific puts Persia closer to Iron, which is nice and synergistic. But Scientific also brings some later-game power, so if Persia does fight in any early wars it is still in the game later on. Given that Industrious is good through all ages and that the Immortal is still useful in the Medieval age, and you've got a civ that is powerful early but does not need to rely on this to win (unlike the Iroquois, for instance).

Persia's Immortals go by another name amongst the veterans of Civ: Persian Expendables. With 4 attack, they're dangerous on the offensive, but with 2 defense, they're just as vulnerable as anyone else on the defensive.

I suggest defending Immortals stacks with Spearmen.

America: America boasts what is probably (in MP) the most useful Civ trait combo- Expansionist to see what's out there, and Industrious to build your Civ over what you found. With a little luck and a lot of skill, the vanilla units of America can suddenly be a serious pain in yer opponent's rear end.

So why is it Tier 3? I posted a big essay on the Strat forum why I thought America is Tier 1, so I will not repeat myself here.

China: ...you won't see anything spectacular or remarkable because, like Arabia, the UU arrives with Chivalry. China's UU is QUITE nice- a knight in attack and defense, but moving at 3 squares. Just like every other Chivalry-UU, though, the game is probably close to being decided when these folks come out. There's a chance you could turn things around, though, and China's civ traits are probably decent for 'holding off' foes until you can get Riders rolling.

I think you've defeated your own argument. Industrious/Militaristic sets up a nice early-game both in terms of defense and offense (especially the latter if on a Tiny map). Thus China enter the Medieval era in at least an average position. Enter Riders, who utterly dominate the battefield. If you think that the AI has trouble handling Riders, just think of the headaches a human players has facing them!

I'm going to say this a lot - the UU probably arrives too late for major usage.

Depends on the game, and the map size. A Chinese players has the tools to make sure the game lasts until Riders.

France:
Many folks feel that France is a major contender because they're Comm/Ind - arguably two of the best traits for MP.

Not sure why you think this, given that you expect most games to end before the Medieval era.

Germany:
The Germans, for all their might in the real world, really aren't a factor to concern yourself with in MP games.

As already mentioned by other posters, Germany execel at Archer-rushes, and therefore are best on smaller maps.

Turks:
Some players actually think the Ottomans are worthwhile- but I can't really figure out why.

The Ottomans are like the Persians without the Immortals. Yes, this makes them weaker, but not Tier 4 weak. I put them Tier 3.

Russia
Maybe putting Russia in the bottom tier isn't fair, but I think it could be. Expansionist/scientist has one shot, and one shot only- get a lot of tech early with goody huts, then use your science skills to try and stay ahead.

Russian can do some interesting things with diplomacy and tech-trading. Agreed, not fabulous, but still they may belong Tier 4 in the hands of a crafty player.


Whew, that's all for now.


Dominae

[Fried-Psitalon]

once more, with gusto!

LOL! Taking me apart piece by piece! Worthy critiques, all.... lemme start cooking dinner and then I'll rebutt your rebutts... in some cases. That was one of the earlier posts I wrote, and I've moved a few Civs up and down mentally since then. Thank you for the energetic critique- that's what I was originally hoping for.


RE: Map size
Map sizes do seem to have shrunk; I play almost exclusively Small-map games, and tiny seems to be most of the rest that the ladder sees. (With the exception of Expansion-Race games, obviously.) I think if there were two maps sizes you can smear together for advice purposes, it would be small/tiny, so I'll hold to that, but yes, Standard is completely different than Small.

RE: Depth/breadth
Yeah, when I originally started writing this thread, it was a lot 'thicker'... but it started to look really daunting to finish writing, so the finished product was less of a deep polish, and more of a broad topcoat. (How's that for an ugly metaphor?)

RE: Aztecs
I think the Aztecs are worthwhile and dangerous on a Standard map because they can get to Monarchy so quickly, but they would definitely drop a Tier outside of small, you're quite correct.

RE: Carthage
The "roads and settlers" comment was more intended to mean "you can use the Commercial trait together with industrial workers to really slap out a large empire quickly, because cities further from the capital can contribute significantly." No, road-building does not assist in supporting a large land area, corruption is unaffected by roads, etc. I hope no one took that the wrong way, but obviously some did. ::cough:: You'd think more people would bumrush Carthage to get that GA triggered, but that rarely happens to me. On the flip side, when it does, I utilize most of the GA in making Veteran Num Mercs, and then just mill them around inside opposing territory, ala "Zulu Choke."

RE: Iroquois
Can you link me to your thread on America as a civ? I must have missed that. I have a hard time accepting that Lincoln's boys could stand up to a determined rush of Mounted Warriors on a small/tiny map. You are quite right about "expecting a settler" - when I first started playing online I was having shocking good luck with that. (Prior to PTW, I tended to play Germany and Persia mostly, so I didn't see much expansionist there.) Recent history has corrected me. All told, Hiawatha's folks are probably the first Civ that I'd move- down to Tier 2.

RE: Zulu
Retreating 2s survive more than 3s? Hmmm... I tend to make Num Mercs a nuisance on favorable terrain or across rivers, so I would think it would be more even? You might be right, though, and there's nothing more annoying than watching an injured Zulu scoot out of reach, rest up, and come again. These guys are the only Tier 1 civ I don't frequently use... I dunno, they just kinda don't agree with me. Must be the builder in me.

RE: Celts
I'm never sure what to make of these guys; I need to spend more time on them. I think the right player with the right use of roads and terrain could overcome the low warm-body count and make them a real terror. Normally these two civ traits wouldn't impress me, but together they mean Monarchy isn't too far off. I consider that very significant, especially since freeing yourself of Despotism makes churning out the Gallics that much easier. I think I'm gonna stick with Tier 2 on these, but admittedly, sans Iron, like I said last time- you've got the Aztecs without the Jags. Bleh.

RE: Greeks
Recent experiences have soured me to the Greeks. They're awful easy to harass, and spreading a Hoplite to every square you want to keep your improvements on is a pain... Tier 3 for you, Alexander.

RE: Rome
I was on the cusp of putting these guys in Tier 3 when I originally wrote this article. They escaped it because, well.... I dunno. Rome would be very unhappy if the Zulus or the Aztecs came to town and applied the choke on their iron supply. Tier 3, agreed.


RE: Persia
Persia is probably the only Civ that I might keep out of Tier 1 on "Nitwit power." As in: The majority of people who play Persia online seem to be nitwits! I've experimented with fast-draw tactics using Perisa, and I'm inclined to agree they are worthy of Tier 1. Now why can't we get more players who don't simply give up when they can't find iron? Side question: I know in Alpha Centauri there is a way to force a unit to be the defender for the group; is there a way to do this in Civ? Defending Immortals with Spears is all well and good, but if the Immortals step up to defend instead of the Spears....

RE: America
Again, can you hit the high points of your America thread? I kept America out of Tier 2 solely for their UU problem; I think the combo of traits they have is ideal (fast tech grabs/resource location combined with infrastructure speed.) I'm still not convinced the average player will be able to play an excellent game with them, though. America requires a lot of careful play to be powerful. On the flip side, at least all American units will be cheap, since there's no UU costs to deal with! I agree with you that America could be Tier 1.5 normally, but for the average player, I'm gonna say America is 2.5... there's absolutely no crutch for someone to lean on using Lincoln, and when Persians or Carthaginians come calling, that hurts.

RE: China
Yep, I goofed on this one. China is probably 2.5 or even straight 2. While I'll still prefer other Civs over them, you can utilize Chinese roads to move veteran (and quickly elite) archers and spears around rather nicely. Riders are impressive, to be sure, and if you don't mind how long a game usually has to go with 3-4 players to GET to the medieval, you might be able to drag it out to that point. Honestly, though, I think I prefer Japan's Samurai to China's rider.... they look cooler, which breaks what to me is a pretty close race. Hehe.

RE: France
I'm a big fan of the Commercial trait's "build one city farther out" factor, and that pays off in any era, if only because your units don't have to retreat and regroup as far away as they might otherwise. Industrious, as both you and I have noted, requires no explanation.

RE: Germany
Bleh bleh bleh! (What an articulate rebuttal!) I'm beginning to see some value in archer-rushing, but as I mentioned (I think in another thread, dunno which) I feel archer rushing is too unreliable to plan on as a tactic anymore. Too many Civs have very easy counters for it- any expansionist should see you coming, and Carthage/Zulu/Aztec/Greek?/Babylon? has no fear of it. I will grant you that on a tiny map, a blitzkreig of archers might be enough to win the day very quickly.

RE: Ottomans
I think part of the reason I'm reluctant to move up the Ottomans is that if someone is playing them, smarter players often assume the Ottoman player is new/unwise. That usually results in a beeline to the Ottoman capital in large numbers. Tier 3.5, maybe, but I'm not impressed by scientific, and Industrious alone can't carry THAT much weight.

RE: Russia
Interesting things with diplomacy and tech-trading? Come now, let's not grasp at straws.

NOW this thread is going somewhere.

[Dominae]

Re: once more, with gusto!

Fried-Psitalon, nice to see someone who doesn't mind a little criticism. I'm sure your MP experience is greater than mine, so we're actually helping each other out here.

Defending Immortals with Spears is all well and good, but if the Immortals step up to defend instead of the Spears...

As long as the Spearmen have equal or greater chance of winning a battle than the Immortals the former will always be selected first. So yes, escorting Immortals with Spearmen sounds like a dumb idea, but really is not.

RE: America
Again, can you hit the high points of your America thread?

I've put a link here

RE: Russia
Interesting things with diplomacy and tech-trading? Come now, let's not grasp at straws.

Well, if you can ensure that you're not a target early on, you can use Expansionist to get yourself ahead in the tech race, and Scientific to keep you there. Many smart players would rather be friends with the tech leader, so the Russians should be well-protected once in the Medieval age. Something to try out, at least (best on a Standard or larger map).


Dominae

[Theseus]

Where you find one Strat Forum guy...

I gotta chime in on this iron-deficiency thing. There's this vitamin called One-a-Day...

Seriously, dinging Rome and Persia down a half tier or more because of the potential for iron deprivation is a bit much. Let's give the Swords-level UU player a bit of credit here, and assume that ESPECIALLY in MP finding, connecting, and protecting iron will probably be the highest priority imaginable.

[Arrian]

It should still have a negative impact on the ranking of such civs, though, Theseus. Particularly, IMO, for Rome. Persia is at least industrious, and can leverage that trait into solid infrastructure and then go with horsemen (assuming they don't get completely screwed for resources). Rome without Iron really is garbage.

My experience is limited, but I do think China offers some real MP strengths. I'm in a PBEM game and am a few turns away from war with a friend playing Egypt (I started a thread about it in the Strat forum).

Egypt is clearly a top civ, and has spent its GA building WCs, so I know I'm in for it. But, by utilizing my traits, I have built up what I believe to be a solid defense & counterattacking force. We'll see how it pans out.

Dominae,

Russia does seem pretty weak to me. They will have weak infrastructure (non-industrious), and they have to wait a long time before getting their UU (which, though decent, isn't particularly powerful). If I wanted to be scientific with a Cavalry-based UU, you better believe I'd go with the Ottomans.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Where you find one Strat Forum guy...

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Egypt is clearly a top civ, and has spent its GA building WCs, so I know I'm in for it. But, by utilizing my traits, I have built up what I believe to be a solid defense & counterattacking force. We'll see how it pans out.

I can vouch for China as a solid MP civ. I crushed the Egyptian attack. My traits (mil/ind) were a major factor in that.

-Arrian