Picking the right Civ!

[Matthew]

Xin where do you get these numbers?

We are forgetting a very important aspect of the game: golden ages. For example, there may be a few disadvantages to religious expansionist (ie Iroquois), but if you like the Collossus anyway for example, it's pretty much an automatic GA for the Iroquois. What's more, it's one of the less expensive wonders, and the AI's don't seem to have much interrest in it, so it's fairly easy to get. Also the religious attribute seems to show up in quite a few important wonders.

[Xin Yu]

Matthew: I opened the editor and found 'cost' for each advance.

[Travathian]

I think civ choice should be based on the type of map, and the type of victory you prefer.

On pangea or continents with large lands masses, expansionistic is a definite plus. With all the goodie huts I'll be able to get to first, I'll be in the middle ages by the time you learn to write. Plus I'll have plenty of cash to spend to rush build city improvements, since I'll be in a Republic.

I'm playing the Zulus right now, 20 cities, with forbidden temple and I have almost no curruption under Democracy. So commercial would have been useless. And with the heroes I generate, I rush build key wonders. Really pisses of the industrious type who spent all that time and shields into a wonder I complete in one turn.

Lastly, lumberjacking, IFE, whatever the hip new name for it is this week, is a joke. I'm not going to spend an extra 20 minutes a turn micromanaging a hundred workers just for some extra production. I want to play civilization not Joe Lumberjack. Now for far out cities, who need a quick temple, one turn of this is fine, but a long term strategy? Nah.

[nato]

I have also been thinking France is the best ... all of my games have been with them (except my culture game, for which I think Babylonian is best). Seeing others make the same conclusion makes me think we may all be correct.

However I am considering expansionistic. When I first saw expansionistic I laughed and thought it was worthless since neither of its bonuses last. "its nice to explore quickly, but it doesn't effect how fast my next city is built" was my exact same thought.

But a key thing is that first target civ you conquer, the guy unlucky enough to share your continent. In my successful games I have found him very early and built forward cities right next to him. This has strangled him and made that first crucial conquest so much easier (in my culture game I did this but didn't conquer him ... he stayed near dead the whole game.)

Expansionist would make doing this much easier ... also a lucky free settler early is hugely valuable. Even though these two things don't last the whole game, they give you such a big early edge it has an effect the whole game.

I am torn ... I want to stay France, but I want expasionistic too. Is it worth switching? If so, is commercial the better trait to drop?

I am thinking maybe I will stay France, but simply march my first Settler in a likely direction and found a city only when I find someone.

Thanks for reading, sorry it's so long.

[Dev]

Japan!

Religious and militaristic traits simply rocks my wordl

Cheap temples/walls/baracks means you get full radius/defendable cities faster than anyone else and the samurai special unit is the best of it's age and it comes at the perfect time for waging war after the initial expansion rush is over.

I know walls become obsolete rather fast but telll that to the 2 spearmen defending my newly founded LOW growth size 2 town guarding the only only iron resource within 3 screens of my capital which also happens to be halfway inside the zulu empire....

I say thankee for cheap walls and barracks.

/dev

[Libertarian]

Good analysis, SoulAssassin! Thanks!

I agree with you. And the Libertarian government type that I made is based on the French model with tweaks to reward noncoercion and suppress fraud. How much more industrious and commercial could you get than a bunch of raving free-marketers!?

[nato]

I have started a game as Americans to give expansionistic a try. I am on Monarch level. I built two Scouts immediately then went to Settlers.

I have explored lots of land and met 4 other civs, 3 who are far off. I'm hoping to get an advantage in the trading game by knowing others first.

I have a city founded to cut off the near civ, and a Settler en route to cut off the second closest. I hope to fill in the middle like usual. So far so good.

It is 1950 BC. This is what I have gotten from huts:
2 Maps of Region
3 Warriors
25 Gold
10 Techs (!)

I think knowing right where to send Settlers and TEN techs is worth considering over commercial or industrious. I would have gotten some of this without expansionistic ... I wonder how much?

One thing I don't like: I think going expansionistic is relying a lot on luck. Will you get a lot of huts, will you get good stuff, are there nearby civs that make quick exploration more valuable??

All this is luck. If you are on an island by yourself with 5 or so huts, expansionistic is worthless and puts you at a disadvantage vs civs who get two useful traits. However, if you are lucky, it gets you a big advantage like free Settlers or, in my case, 10 free techs.

So if you don't like luck and want strategy only, I don't think it is good. If you like luck, you can get a huge lead ... maybe.

[SanPellegrino]

I think on smaller maps the aztecs got an overwhelming advantage, they are military and religious, but they can build their fast special unit immediately, which gives you nearly the expansionist advantage, too. I try to build a lot of jaguar warriors early, explore the map and finish the poor civ that's next to me.

Of course Jaguars got only A/D 1/1 but their retreatment capability is very cool. So i can trigger a golden age early (which i consider best) and i even got an early chance for a leader with these guys.

With these points together you can get an enormous boost at the beginning of the game, at least you should - because later commercial civs got really an advantage.

[Arrian]

The true beauty of CIV is that I can read the posts in this thread, understand their point of view, completely disagree, and yet realized that there is no "right" or "wrong."

The best combo, for my style of play I have found so far is Religious/Scientific = Babylonians. Now, if you hit me hard early on, I'm toast, but let me get into the Middle Ages and I'm flyin'

First off, I play on Reagent, so we're clear on the difficulty setting.

Religious: temples/cathedrals cheap to build, only 1 turn of Anarchy between gov'ts

Scientific: libraries/universities cheap to build, free tech at beginning of every age.

Why I think these are great to have together:

1) Cheap temples/libraries/cathedrals/universities (built in that order) allows a very, very quick "culture bomb." Even if you play a more militaristic style game (culture? we don't need no stinking CULTURE!), quickly expanding borders are nice, and the AI negotiates differently w/high culture types. Also, in my last game, the Zulus rushed me relatively early w/Swordsmen, Arches and Impis. They took two cities (including the one with 6! gem deposits). I fought them to a standstill, and then the two cities they took reverted to me b/c of culture. Also, I got a great leader out of the fighting and used him to rushbuild the F. Palace.

2) One extra tech at the beginning of every Age isn't a big deal you say? Well, that all depends, I say. First off, how often are you getting tech advances? At the Ancient/Middle Ages switchover I betcha it's taking you 10 turns or so (I'm guesstimating, 'cause I can't remember). At the Middle/Industrial and Industrial/Modern switchovers, it's lower, but still, you're looking at say roughly 20 turns of research for free. If you have a large, sprawling empire, commercial may offset some, if not all of this, but ONLY in that situation. If your empire is fairly compact and has the forbidden palace, commercial just isn't that big a deal.

3) Along the lines of #2, you will probably switch gov'ts twice in the game, at least I do (Despotism -> Republic -> Democracy). Under a non-religious civ, I think that works out to 10 turns in Anarchy. Under a religious civ, it's 2. 8 more turns saved.

Anyway, I've had quite a bit of success with the Babylonians thus far. I'm still trying out different civs, so the jury is still out.

-Arrian

[nato]

I just tried another game with Americans and only got 1 Warrior and 3 Techs. I guess thats not awful, but its nothing compared to 3 Warriors and 10 Techs.

I think expansionistic really is hit or miss. Extraordinary advantage or mild disadvantage.

I have read that there are two types of wargamers, classical and romantic. Classical are pretty conservative, try to do everything right but not daring, minimize the maximum loss. Romantics hope for the one daring great stroke that wins the game, and take risks to get it. I think expansionistic is for them.

[Ray K]

Re: Picking the right Civ!

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
I'm sure many players are starting to find what kind of Civs are best for their own type of play. Here are my thoughts. I listed the Civ bonuses in their order of importance.

The only problem with your list is that you don't consider unique units, which are not created equal.

The hoplite rocks, and that makes Greece (commercial, scientific) probably one of the best civs to play.'

Otherwise, I like the babylonians (religious, scientific). I don't go for for militaristic or expansionist civs because that's my natural style of playing anyway. I get plenty of leaders for rush-building wonders, but I never build armies any more -- what a joke!

[scientific civ]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Xin Yu
Some math:

Scientific civ: starts with Bronze working, value = 3, can build Colossus. Greek can build Hoplite at start.

Please don't use my name without asking me first.
And guess what my favourite civs are. I can tell you it's NOT scientific civs.

[Sava]

Re: Re: Picking the right Civ!

Originally posted by Ray K


The only problem with your list is that you don't consider unique units, which are not created equal.

The hoplite rocks, and that makes Greece (commercial, scientific) probably one of the best civs to play.'

Otherwise, I like the babylonians (religious, scientific). I don't go for for militaristic or expansionist civs because that's my natural style of playing anyway. I get plenty of leaders for rush-building wonders, but I never build armies any more -- what a joke!

The unique units of the ancient era are retarded. The hoplite is useless after Feudalism, and pretty useless before then. The computer almost never attacks my cities because I wipe them out before they get the chance. So the hoplite is only useful in defense. Thus, it sucks. When attacking the Greeks, I just have to overwhelm the hoplites with horsemen, and I win. Every single time. I win. If there are 3 hoplites defending a city, I'll pillage all your resources, then attack your city with as many horsemen as it takes. Even if you win most of the combats, my horsemen will retreat. It might take me 9 horsemen to wipe out 3 hoplites. But I won't lose any horsemen, and then I'll move on to your next city.

The only decent UU's are the Rider and the Cossack. Mobile units are so much more valuable than other units. And in my conquest campaigns, they get used the most.

Here are the most retarded UU's:

Hoplite
Impi
Jaguar Warrior
Legion
Musketeer
Samuri
Immortal
F-15 (I always beat the game before flight anyways)
Man 'O War

I'm sure if you cater your gameplay towards a specific Civ, they could be somewhat uselful. But the most effective way to conquer the world is to use combined arms. I only attack with mobile units because they have the greatest chance for survival. If I get reamed, the guy retreats and I can pull back and then counter-attack with more force. It is impossible to have an invincible defensive force. If there is a city that is fortified with a good defensive unit, I bring in 9-12 artillery units and get all the garissoned forces down to 1, then attack with 2x as many mobile units. If the Greeks have 3 hoplites in city, I bring in 9 catapults, at least 6 horsemen, and 2 spearmen (cover the catapults), and I win. In this game, its definetly quantity over quality. The extra defensive or attack rating does little when I overwhelm you.

The other problem with UU's is that you can't upgrade older units to become UU's. If I have 30 horsemen, and I want to build Riders, I have to disband all my horsemen to do so.

UU's are irrelevant when speaking in terms of the overall game. Do you think I use France because of the musketeer? NO. The Musketeer sucks ass. I use France because the industrious and commercial bonuses allow me to support a monstrous empire and mass produce more units than you. Sure, a religious Civ might be able to build temples faster, and you might get 10 cities from your expansionistic bonus, but it in the end, you'll die when I conquer you.

AHHHHH I WANT MP NOW!!!!!!

[rah]

Re: Re: Re: Picking the right Civ!

Originally posted by SoulAssassin

AHHHHH I WANT MP NOW!!!!!!

AMEN...

Totally agree on industrious.

I offer religious as the other one for one reason only.
Early in the game in despotism, you can rush build that temple for only one pop point. This is real useful for expanding those cities to reach those squares 2 away, and for those cities that fall to your armies early. It eliminates a bad citizen that you can replace with one of your own workers, and makes it easier to control the city.

Of course the UU for the Egyptians suck but like you said, it doesn't make much difference.

Other than that, I'd have to agree and go with comercial.

RAH

[Ray K]

Re: Re: Re: Picking the right Civ!

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
Sure, a religious Civ might be able to build temples faster, and you might get 10 cities from your expansionistic bonus, but it in the end, you'll die when I conquer you.

Well, duh. The human can beat any AI civ with any randomly selected civ.

As far as the hoplite being "useless" by Feudalism, I would remind you that the game should already be decided by the time you get to feudalism.

At that point, it's just a matter of finishing off the other Civs. You achieve your dominance in the early game, which is where Hoplites rule. The AI is not smart enough to mass-attack any city with 8 units, so the Hoplites are great. They are the game's defensive unit for the most important part of the game (pre-gunpowder), they are cheap, and they start in 4000 BC. So they are definitely one of the best UU in the game.

The F-16, on the other hand, is completely useless.