Carthage.....

[Arnelos]

Well, we need to be SURE of the civ choice... that's precisely the problem.

[notyoueither]

I feel it safe to say that we want neither Carthage nor Spain. If RolePlay take Spain and Builders take Carthage then the issue is resloved.

[WarriorPoet]

Don't forget that the French should also be a viable builder choice.

[UnOrthOdOx]

To those concerned, I have recieved PM's from both Togas and Jack_WWW, and have PM's each of them the results as requested. If needed, I can announce that here as well.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by WarriorPoet
Don't forget that the French should also be a viable builder choice.

The French are an excellent civ for the power builder, after the commercial trait has been improved. I played an awesome builder (well, not always ) game with them, in Civ3 on a huge map. Things haven't changed in PtW, afaik.

But for some reason, Spiffor seems not to like them . I guess, for being pink, and stuff.

[redstar1]

I think its mostly the unsuitability of the French to the situation. We are not assuming everyone wants to play a nice game of diplomacy and we want to survive.

[WarriorPoet]

I'm saying that, if for some reason, two civs in the same game wanted to be Industrious, Commercial, but one of them could not choose the Carthaginians, then they should feel alright choosing the French. I know I would play both civs well. Afterall, isn't the Numidian Merc, just an ancient version of the Musketeer????

[redstar1]

That word Ancient says it all......

I would have thought there would be more scope for role play with the French though.... or anyone else but Carthage....

[WarriorPoet]

True, Redstar, however, I included the comment that France would be a great settlement if one did not have the ability to play Carthage.

You're also right that getting such a great unit in the ancient era is a great advantage, and more of an advantage for its time than the Musketeer.

[Randolph]

It doesn't take much for a UU to be "better for it's time" than the Musketeer. 2/3/1 vs. 1/2/1 is world of difference from 2/4/1 vs. 3/4/1.

[WarriorPoet]

True, Randolph, but would you rather play the #2 juggernaut civ, if you could not play the #1 or settle for a lesser civ with a better UU? Personally, I'd choose the #2 civ, because I'd be able to produce more units than you, and I'd outlast you...even if you were the Ottomans or the Persians or the Scandinavians...

It's simple: Production=Power and Industrialism is the most influencial, while commercialism runs a close second.

[Randolph]

oh, I completely agree. On average traits are more important than UUs IMHO. UUs are sometimes very valuable, but traits are always valuable (except in some cases expansionistic, which is more of a risk).

[Randolph]

BTW I do think that the traits are more balanced than many people seem to think. Each trait work well with certain play styles and games situations, and not so well with others. I really don't think there's good and bad traits (at least not to the extent that there are good and bad UUs, although this is often over estimated also IMHO).

[WarriorPoet]

Randolph, yes, it is true that your play style should determine the traits you enjoy. In the right hands, these traits should be more balanced. Non-industrial needs more cities and workers...so change your play-style, and you'll do fine UUs for me are not relative to what makes a great civ, and as others have aluded to, if you don't know how to play, then it doesn't matter who you pick