Picking the right Civ!

[Theseus]

From a tech research persspective,

Strong position: Irrelevant.

Weak position: Not enough.

Near parity: Potential cycle breaker.

There are environments where I find Sci valuable... usually combined with the top three traits, and with a good UU.

[vmxa1]

The one good thing is that most of the traits are useful for some situations and all can be used to win.

[MPatton]

the manual says the barbarians are more lucrative what in game terms does that mean. I like being france having both commercial and industrious

[nbarclay]

When you destroy a barbarian camp, you get 25 gold. (I've seen 50 at times later in the game.) I don't know whether that's what you're referring to or not.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by MPatton
the manual says the barbarians are more lucrative what in game terms does that mean. I like being france having both commercial and industrious

It actually means that goody huts have a greater chance of giving you something beneficial like gold, techs and settlers.

[Sava]

Wow, an OLD thread of mine got resurrected.

I haven't played the game in a while, and the most recent game I'm playing now, I edited the Germans so that I have all the traits

[Wycoff]

I think that Germany is a very good civ to use. The fact hat you sart with both archer and spearmen allow for early expansion, scientific allows for cheaper culture producing buildings and help to keep pace in research, millitaristic is very useful to help win wars, with the cheap barracks and quick promotions, coupled with the fact that you get more elites than others, increasing the chances for a great leader. The Panzer is a dominant UU, and is very useful in that last push for dominance. The Golden Age can be triggered by Leo's Workshop, giving you a nice boost for building up the infrastructure of your civ. Overall, I find Germany to be a great civ that seems to be a bit underrated.

[Verto]

I've found Germany and Persia to be (for me) the best civs, although after reading this thread I may have to experiment with the other civs again.

[Louis XXIV]

Re: Re: Re: Picking the right Civ!

Originally posted by Sava


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.

I basically did this in my first game of Civ3 ever.

I declared war on Greece because I was board with how slowly I was progressing. I swarmed him with Horsemen. I didn't really acheive any victories, so I pillaged his roads, instead. I no time at all, his capitol whent into dissorder. The target city was still tough to breech, but I managed to seige it, until it had little population left, then I raised the city to the ground.

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.

You don't like Mounted Warriors?

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

Sammurai and Impi are mobile, so I'm guessing you don't like mobile defenders.

I happen to like Legionaries becuase I can walk up to a city and seige it, until I attack. 3 defense does influence the game in the Ancient era.

I love Immortals

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.

That's what I did for that game or Just about

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.

That is annoying

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.

Now my favorites

Industrious: the kind of trait that fits everybody's playing style. This is just a great trait, especially in MP.

Religeous: I just happen to like cheap Temples, but the other trait can be considered unbalanced (but it is highly undervalued)

Now too bad the only R,I civ is Egypt

Commercial: Can be highly useful. I saw an analysis of this once. It said its possible to bring in 200 something gold per turn late in the game.

Expansionist: Useless late in the game. I would put this last if it wasn't for MP. In a PBEM game, while everyone else has nothing to do, you get to explore what's around you. It would be nice if scouts had a Defense of 1, and "treated all squares as roads" (maybe only had a 1 movement)

Scientific: I would rather have cheap temples than libraries. It would be nice if they got a free tech in Each era, but they don't get an Ancient one.

Militaristic: Although a warmonger in Civ2, and still one at heart. I think Militaristic is weak. It's the warmonger's Industrious, reducing the chance of promotions (although I think they should have halved it, from 1 in 16 to 1 in 8, instead of 1 in 12).

Just my oppinion.

[Verto]

I agree with your opinions on the traits. I've also found Militaristic to be a little weak - any ideas on what could be done to strengthen it? Maybe having your production level increase when at war?

[Arrian]

I don't find Militaristic weak at all. Why do you find it so?

The 1/2 cost barracks allow a quicker military buildup at the outset of the game.

Quicker promotions give you more elite units, and thus more Great Leaders.

The 1/2 cost of harbors helps a bit in the mid-game

The 1/2 cost of airports helps a little bit at the end, if you need them.

Louis,

The upgrade problem (horsemen to Riders for instance) is no longer a problem. It was patched loooooong ago.

Sava's original comments are very much outdated.

-Arrian

[Verto]

Perhaps I should rephrase my comment to be, I don't think Militaristic is as strong as it should be.

The reduced cost of barracks is very advantageous, and the promotion bonus can give you the upper hand in war, but is this really enough ?

I'm not sure why they chose to make the 1/2 cost of harbor part of it - surely that would be better suited for Commercial?

The airport is understandable, although by the time I can build them, they aren't all that essential, or useful. This is probably due to the fact that I tend to play on a map w/ Continents; if my empire was spread across many islands, or if I had overseas possessions, this would be handy.

I imagine a Militaristic civilization to not have the population unrest during a war that effects other civs. Perhaps random bonus/extra units appearing, to show voluntary enlistment, or the production increase during wartime that I mentioned above?

Perhaps I am biased toward Militaristic and what I want for it would give it an unfair advantage, I don't know.

[Arrian]

I suggested a long time ago (when I thought militaristic was underpowered) that Mil civs should have reduced war weariness.

Having turned into a raging warmonger, I no longer think it needs a boost.

Re: harbors, well, harbors are required for vet ships and ship upgrades, so in that sense they are like barracks for naval units.

-Arrian

[minke19104]

Militaristic -> Cheaper Barracks -> More Vets -> Faster promotions -> More Elites -> More GL -> More Wonders

What else do you want??

[Wycoff]

I like the idea of a slightly reduced war weariness for Militaristic civs. It makes sense.