Picking the right Civ!

[Thunderfire]

Militaristic AI Civs. are more aggresive at war.

I was in a 3vs3 fight with the US and Japan as my allies vs England, Rome and France on a normal/regent/island map. Only Japan, Rome an I managed to capture a city from another nation.

[sophist]

Militaristic works quite well for my style of play. Remember, it's not just about the leaders. If I have 3 elite swordsmen, that's 5 HP * 3 Attack * 4 units = 45. You'd have to have 3 HP * 3 Attack * 5 units to be the offensive equivalent. Higher morale units are basically more unit for the same money. It comes in handy.

Regarding the fewer leaders... I'm playing the Chinese (favorite) and it took until 1500 to get my first leader (3 major wars). It just happens sometimes. There's no consistency to it.

[Thunderfire]

Originally posted by sophist
Militaristic works quite well for my style of play. Remember, it's not just about the leaders. If I have 3 elite swordsmen, that's 5 HP * 3 Attack * 4 units = 45. You'd have to have 3 HP * 3 Attack * 5 units to be the offensive equivalent.

Elite Units aren't limited to militaristic civs. I always have hordes of them
anyway. I get most of them with the iroquis and these guys are not
militaristic. Their UU has nice stats and is very usefull during early wars
and can be upgraded to knights/cavalry.

[HalfLotus]

I think sophist was saying that unit promotions (vet, elite) are more common with a militaristic civ. This is the same principle that makes leaders more common.

[FalloutBoy]

I think the Iriquois Mounted Warriors are awesome. 3/1/2 for a cheap price and can be upgraded all the way to cavalry. They show up just about the right time when I have a few cities established and want to start kicking somebody's ass. The Expansionist is really useful on large maps, and combined with Religious, makes me think this is the perfect civ for REXing, as you can outculture the annoying AI cities that pop up inside your sprawling empire.

I think Aztec is probably the best for an early explore and conquer strategy. The jaguars give them some of the benefits an expansionist civ would have.

[Rust]

I like to play the English still havn;t come up with a use for there unique unit though. But I like the expansionist makes the early game more exciting, heh.

[Thunderfire]

Originally posted by HalfLotus
I think sophist was saying that unit promotions (vet, elite) are more common with a militaristic civ. This is the same principle that makes leaders more common.

The problem is the difference between militaristic and non militaristic civs
is to small.

[vmxa1]

I have not see any concrete proof that it matters as to getting elites. I have gotten then in droves without being military type. I just had a very good location and nearly endless fighting. Calv and tanks and mech inf went elite often and I got 6 leaders and had not build the EPIC. Other games they were less frequent, I really could not say why. At this point I am just trying all of the Civs. Later I may stick to a few I prefer.

[vicever]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin


They're probably good against the AI. But they aren't going to be much good against a player like me who masses mobile units.

1. I'm going to almost always be on the offensive.

It's the way I play, when I post a saved game, you'll see what I'm talking about. You might say that it will be different against humans, but I disagree. I would just need to plan on consolidating my forces and I would attack the Immortals in the open. 2 or 3 horsemen would easily take out an Immortal. And since their mobile, even if the Immortal gets lucky and wins a few rounds, the horsemen will retreat. Then with the extra movement, I can put a 2-3 turn distance between the Immortal and my unit and heal him for another round of attack.

If someone attack me with huge mobile force. Lets say 9 horseman. I would have 4 spear man fortified with barrack and wall. Also place 5 horseman to counter attack. The first round you attack the best you can do is kill 2 spearman with most you horseman injured and possibly 2 killed since when both horseman and spearman have last point, horseman does not retreat. Then I would use 5 horseman to kill your 5 horseman with only minor injury. After one round, you have 2 horseman left with one point left, continue attack means nothing but suicide. In fact defense is much easier then offense, the only problem is the programers did not have AI designed smart enough. If AI has computing power as Deepblue, we would all play on first level.

[vmxa1]

Vice, I think you may want to consider that if they made the AI so smart it made the correct play all of the time, we would never win. I do not know how much of the "incorrect strat" is due to lack of time or a need to not be too strong. I doubt it was due to a lack of intellect by the designers.

[MadWombat]

Ok, I would have to say that the Egyptians rock. Industrious/Religious makes them powerhouses of the early ages, since they can get their infrastructure up MUCH faster, and cheap temples make claiming land a breeze. As a bonus, they have a great special unit. If you get horses at the start, you can pump out war chariots like there is no tomorrow and beat down anyone else on your continent, and maybe even score a leader or two. =]

[Windwalker]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin


The first game I played was on deity... thanks for the advice though. I conquered the world in 1280 AD on a small map. Most of the game was getting used to the new interfaces and stuff. I play Regent because combat is the same on all levels. On Deity the computer just takes longer to kill because he spits out more units. It isn't any more difficult than Regent.

L...O...L...

Just let me have whatever you're on
- Windwalker

[zlandar]

I'm wondering if everyone is playing at the same difficulty level. I personally play at Monarch most of the time, the other two difficulty levels are just too insane. I find Religion to be the most helpful attribute, since half cost temples/cathedrals are a cheap way to keep the yapping workers from complaining and allows your city to gain the two radius. The reduction of anarchy time is significant also, since I often switch at least 3-4 times in a game (despot-monarchy-republic/democracy- back to monarchy during an extended war). Assuming anarchy averaging 5 turns per switch, that's a significant time savings. There's nothing that drives me crazier than having my whole civ at a standstill during a government switch.

UU can be pretty important, especially the highly specialized ancient units. The mounted warrior is my favorite (war chariots are decent too since their cheaper), despite the crappy expansionist trait the Iroquis have. The added point of offense in addition to the movement of two and ability to withdrawal in combat makes them the perfect blitzing unit. I personally will start pumping these puppies out once the inital land grab is over and target my nearest neighbor. It's not too hard to get a CPU civ to tag team another civ with you and crush it. The MW is good until musketmen comes out, which is significantly farther up the tech tree.

How do you guys take advantage of the added production industry and commercial provide during the early game? I personally found my limiting factor in cranking out settlers was food rather shields. I like the industry trait second after religion, but the commercial one seems to kick in too late to matter since it doesn't help in the land grab phase. I'll give the French/Romans a spin though, since I've stuck with religious civs too much and a new perspective might give the game a new polish.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

commercial helps in early gaming

IMO commercial doesn't kick in too late to make a difference.
In the Ancient and Medieval Era your more distant cities are more likely to produce something more than one shield in comparison to non commercial civs. 2 shields instead of one shield for new cities can make a huge difference during early playing. Of course, cities too far away will never give anything more.

Commercial is one of the top traits, alas when playing deity/emperor religious is almost always a must-have.
Of course you could try sticking to monarchy or, preferrably republic. Democratic would only be possible if you rarely fight, meaning you must have lots of tradeable luxuries.

AJ

[player1]

Originally posted by MadWombat
Ok, I would have to say that the Egyptians rock. Industrious/Religious makes them powerhouses of the early ages, since they can get their infrastructure up MUCH faster, and cheap temples make claiming land a breeze. As a bonus, they have a great special unit. If you get horses at the start, you can pump out war chariots like there is no tomorrow and beat down anyone else on your continent, and maybe even score a leader or two. =]

Yes, Egyprioans are awsome.

I always play with religious attribte.
Since I playe Emperor games, it's a must.
I am very frustrated when trying to play non-religious civ and need a to much time to finish temples.

Industrious is also an excellent attribute.

Never found good use of Commercial, played them a lot but don't see the difference.

Militiarstic is not my style.

Scientific is OK, but nothing more.

Expansionistic: only on bigger maps.