At these map settings, Emperor level. Rank the Civs, best to worst, Include PTW Civs.

[Artifex]

This is for emperor level single player only. I play large land mass, continents (sometimes pangea), standard map, maximum random civs (I think 8?).

I want to see the civs ranked at this level and map setting. Single player. I have seen other rankings done..but there is a big difference in civs from low level diff vs high level. I play emperor.

I just started getting back into Civ 3, I used to play all the time..then got busy..just started playing PTW. Curious how all these new civs would be ranked. At first glance I would say the only useful new PTW civs for this map/level setting I play are celts and maybe ottomans.

I see alot like Carthege...why? Rome is better hands down, better UU. I don't think the traits are that good (industrius is good but commercial I don't like and I don't like the UU) and the numidian merc might look cool..but it stinks at offense..2? This is a good unit? For emperor level I think you need good offense..2 doesn't cut it. I'd rather have it need a resource and have 3 attack..I mean I would hunt for some iron for that extra attack like the legion. trust me on that.

Celts are hands down the best at first glance..

The rest of the civs have horrible traits (expansion grrrr..why did they make them all expansionist?)..ottomons might be doable but thier UU comes way too late for my tastes.

So what do you think? How do you rate the civs on this map/level. Include them all, old civs and new PTW civs.

[notyoueither]

You play large Pangaeas and do not like Expansionist? Do I have that right?

[Jamski]

Large pangea is the only reason for having expansionsist And BTW, commercial has been souped-up in PTW, so it actually has an effect on corruption (25% more cities poss)

-Jam

[Artifex]

Large pangea is the only reason for having expansionsist And BTW, commercial has been souped-up in PTW, so it actually has an effect on corruption (25% more cities poss)

The Civ 3 1.29 patch (released last summer) upgraded commercial. You mean they upgraded it yet again for PTW? Or are you getting confused with the 1.29 patch..didn't the 1.29 patch make it 25% more? I played 1.29 and I still didn't like comercial. I am pretty sure commercial didn't get any upgrade with PTW..it was upgraded with 1.29.

You play large Pangaeas and do not like Expansionist? Do I have that right?

What do you mean by large pangea? If you mean large map size, then no you do not have that right. I know expansionist is much ballyhood as great on large and huge maps.

I play large land mass, Standard Map.

Large land mass meaning of the three pictures of land I pick the far right picture at start up..the choice with a lot of land, little ocean.

Once again here is what I play.

Standard map. Not large , Not huge, Not giga.

Continents. (I like pangea too.)

Large land mass. Under pangea, continents, and archepalego there are 3 pictures dealing with land mass and water. The left picture is little land mass, alot of water, the middle picture is 50/50, the right picture is alot of land, with little water.

I pick the picture on the right. The one with alot of land, what I call large land masses, not much water.

Then I pick either continents or pangea.

[notyoueither]

Hmmm, OK. You might still benefit from investigating Expantionist. I get good results with that trait on maps standard and larger, continents or pangaea.

[Artifex]

I'll try it out again I guess. I never had any luck with it, because AI civs cheat. They know where all the barbarian encampments and huts are and send thier warriors and scouts out after them.

Also on emperor the AI gets a ton of free units at the start to send out hut popping.

[Jamski]

Originally posted by Artifex
Also on emperor the AI gets a ton of free units at the start to send out hut popping.

Isn't that on Deity ? Hmm, never mind.

Re. Commercial. You're right, it got upgraded before in one of the patches, I just get confused as to which fix came when. I find it makes a difference, especially on Emperor, where corruption is higher anyway. So, to business. I notice noone has actually answered the question yet

It's pretty hard to make a list of the civs from best to worst, as it depends what you want to do.

Early "rush attacks" followed by consolidation and building.
1.) Egypt
2.) Persia

Continual war
1.) Japan
2.) China
3.) Rome

Build and never fight
1.) Babs
=2.) French
=2.) Carthage
3.) Greece
4.) India

Build and fight when ready
1.) Ottomans
2.) Germany
3.) Mongols

Expanding really quickly
1.) England

Being a pillaging pain in MP/ very early rush
1.) Aztecs
2.) Zulus

That's my 2 Euro-cents worth anyway, hope its helpful.

-Jam

[Nor Me]

Since no-one else will offer a list, I'll start:

America
China
Iroqouis
Egypt
Carthage
Persia
Aztecs
Celts
Arabia
Ottomans
Scandinavia
Zulus
Mongols
Japanese
France
English
Rome
Greece
Germany
Russia
Spain
India
Babylon
Korea

As that was just off the top of my head, it's probably not even my own opinion. But I'd be prepared to defend/alter it.

Why is Carthage better than France, Rome or Greece?

IMHO the priciple use of the use of the Merc is as a deterrent and defense against an early rush. The traits say REX but on emperor I find there is a greater chance of being attcaked if you don't build many units. 1 or 2 2/3 mercs seem to considered as a threat to the AI who seem to be less likely to rush you. If you are rushed then relatively few mercs can hold off a large number of archers and warriors and an early GA ensures your survival and could lead to you turning the situation to your advantage.
The other advantage of Carthage over France about being rushed early is that, with the culture link on, you have less chance of starting next to Germany.

If you have a very bad starting position, you benefit from being able to merc/archer rush with an early GA.
If everything goes according to plan, a despotic GA can be avoided. Either play pure builder or use the advantage of industrious and expensive starting techs to get Iron Working and Horseback Riding to attack with only swordsmen and possibly horsemen.

Since a despotic GA is good if you have to fight early, this flexibility makes them better than France, whose UU exists only to give them a well-timed GA.

I think a comparison with Rome is unnecessary. Their UUs have different purposes. You'd never attack with mercs if you could with swordsmen. You might even prefer to defend with swotrdsmen if it meant avoiding a badly timed GA. Industrious is a better and different trait than Militaristic. I'd rather avoid an early rush as the Carthaginians whereas the Romans should archer rush often.

Yes, the merc really is worse than the hoplite. but then Industrious is the better trait especially early on. It means that the Carthaginians are better at expanding. The Greeks probably benefit from attacking with their UU.

I'll leaves defense of expansionist to the other thread.

[Artifex]

Interesting. We could use an updated ranking of civs.

The older rankings, while good are dated and don't include PTW civs. Egypt and Japan I assume still lead the pack by far. I assume Korea is the least favored of the new civs.

[Arrian]

This listing is pretty good:

It's pretty hard to make a list of the civs from best to worst, as it depends what you want to do.

Early "rush attacks" followed by consolidation and building.
1.) Egypt
2.) Persia

Continual war
1.) Japan
2.) China
3.) Rome

Build and never fight
1.) Babs
=2.) French
=2.) Carthage
3.) Greece
4.) India

Build and fight when ready
1.) Ottomans
2.) Germany
3.) Mongols

Expanding really quickly
1.) England

Being a pillaging pain in MP/ very early rush
1.) Aztecs
2.) Zulus

I would add the Iroquois to "rush attacks" and probably put them at #2 behind Egypt, with Persia at #3.

I would replace England with America for "expand really fast."

I would move France & Carthage to the top of "build and never fight" due to the power of their traits on a large land mass map (industrious for expansion/development, commercial for corruption-fighting in a larger empire).

I'd add the Celts to "continual war" as either #3, ahead of Rome, because they have a fastmover UU and we're talking about a large landmass. The GS is expensive as all hell, but it's a continent breaker. Militaristic + Dominant units = leaders, baby. Early archer rush, then build & hoard cash. Upgrade 10-15 GS's and open up that can of whoopass.

I'd move the Mongols from "build and fight when ready" to "continual war." They're the Mongols!

-Arrian

[Artifex]

Is the GS really that bad of a unit? I have seen alot of threads saying it is the worst unit in the game bar none because of it's utterly devastating cost. Does it's cost totally destroy any value it might hold like other threads suggest?

[Arrian]

"Totally destroy" no. "Seriously cut down on" yes.

It's 50 shields. For me, that means 80 gold (warrior upgrade). That's a LOT of gold. However, I figure that I'm paying not only for the GS's stats themselves, but also for the combination of a dominant unit and the militaristic trait. Imagine the Iroquois if they were militaristic instead of Expansionistic! Oh, the power! The Celts are the closest thing to that.

I'd much rather have the MW (30 shields) and drop the extra defense point, though. Especially considering upgrade paths.

-Arrian