Civ-Specific Strategy: Babylonians

[Zero]

OK all you Bab players, how do you play your Babs? What is good/bad about this civ! Discuss!

When I play the Babs, I usually have culture in mind. They have two traits that can really help them crank out culture (temple and library). Also Bowmen are great for early aggression. While I am building up bowmen forces I can also research ironworking because I already have bronze. The trick is to get warrior code eraly though. If your lucky you might be able to trade for em or find it. But sometimes you just have to research it yourself. That's just about the only weakness Babs have compared to Germans, who I lpay them the same way when it comes to early aggression.

[Dominae]

Uum, what happened to the Aztecs?


Dominae

[Zero]

I thought u were making one

[Zero]

I guess no one likes the babs... If i go for archer rush game, I choose Germans anyway... but Babs are awesome culture civ.

[Konquest02]

Well, I like the Babs, as a pure builder civ. I usuallly play with the AU mod and it gives the Bowmen a 0-range bombard, which makes it a powerful defender. When I have to go to war with them, I usually use swordmen or horsemen and keep those bowmen for a long time (in fact, i usually don't upgrade them to longbowmen to keep their defense point.)

They are just great for grabbing land early,with cheap temples and libraries. The early temple pays off a lot culturally and allow to expand borders really quickly, leaving less room to the other player to expand. Being a culture freak is pretty easy for the Babs with all culture buildings half priced. I think there lays their principal advantage.

--Kon--

[Arrian]

I recently fired up a Monarch level PTW game as the Babs. The idea I had in mind was to use them as warmongers: fight like I normally would with a militaristic civ, knowing that the attack would take longer to get going (40-shield barracks PLUS slow workers) but once I gained momentum, the cheap improvements would kick ass.

The problem was that I failed to generate a leader. No matter how hard I tried. I lost 2 straight elite horsemen to 2 regular spearmen (which happens all the time, I'm not *****ing) and that was HALF my elite force. That's the problem with non-militarists... you cannot count on leaders, even with lots of war.

I had built a FP close to Babylon (one city over, in fact) because it would be perfectly placed once I could rush my Palace elsewhere, but w/o a leader it pretty much screwed me. Big mistake. Having essentially destroyed 2 civs, I conceded defeat (I was winning, and probably could have won in the end, but there was no joy in it for me).

The Babs are the ultimate builder civ, what with all half-price buildings. That allows them to make up for the full-price barracks and their slow workers. Left alone long enough, and they can be very powerful, particularly if they get off to a good start and/or have a decent amount of land to work with.

The Bowman is, in and of itself, garbage, IMHO. But it does have the advantage of being the replacement for an unecessary unit: the archer. As a non-militaristic civ, you probably won't archer rush anyway. You can hold this guy until the time is right. They do upgrade to longbowmen, but I think we all know those guys are of limited use, so building lots of bowmen is usually not the optimal strategy (unless you do choose the early bowman rush, in which case pump out as many as you can and hope for the best. I've never done it, so much do I hate early GAs).

-Arrian

[Dominae]

Arrian, I believe your dislike of early GAs severely taints your opinion of both the Bowmen and Jaguar Warriors (from the Aztec thread). True, I haven't played the Babylonians quite enough to form a informed opinion. However, when I compare Bowmen to Archers, I just can't help but think that basically you're getting your attackers and your defenders all in one nice little package (see the Archer rush thread). Therefore the higher cost of Barracks "disappears". So, I would imagine that the Babs are the best Archer-rush civ.

The "ability" to ensure the defeat of your closest neighbor is a good one, arguably worth a GA. Compare with the Greek Hoplite, which is basically costing you a GA to ensure you get out of the Ancient age. The Bowmen does the same, but aggressively rather than defensively.

Anyway, my point is that early GAs are an annoyance, but are hardly a reason not to use a UU to your advantage. Think of a it as a "little UP moment", right at the beginning of the game!




Dominae

[DaveMcW]

However, when I compare Bowmen to Archers, I just can't help but think that basically you're getting your attackers and your defenders all in one nice little package (see the Archer rush thread). Therefore the higher cost of Barracks "disappears". So, I would imagine that the Babs are the best Archer-rush civ.

A "slow archer rush" is an oxymoron. You can't waste time trying to buy warrior code and build expensive barracks. Even if you pump out regular bowmen, they will be obsolete before your GA finishes.

The "ability" to ensure the defeat of your closest neighbor is a good one, arguably worth a GA.

I disagree with your basic premise; I always try to take out 2 or more neighbors during my GA. The exception would be if they are the only one on my continent, then I feel the despot GA is justified.

Swordmen are definitely the way to go for early wars, but I think most Babylonian players are builders.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by DaveMcW
A "slow archer rush" is an oxymoron.

Thankfully, I never used the term. My observation is that the cost of the Barracks is more than compensated by Bowmen acting as attackers and defenders simultaneously.

Originally posted by DaveMcW
You can't waste time trying to buy warrior code and build expensive barracks. Even if you pump out regular bowmen, they will be obsolete before your GA finishes.

Researching Warrior Code is a nuisance, but within the time that you do so, you're focusing on Warrios and Settlers (maybe Temples) anyways. Regarding the obsolescence of Bowmen, I just don't see it before the end of the Ancient age. They're not fast-movers, that's true, but compared to Swordsmen they're still not a bad deal. Given that I've found Archers useful well beyond their "standard" shelf life (cheap cost, 2-point attacker) means that the added bonus of being a Spearmen is pretty good too, no?

Again, I've played about 2 games total with the Babs, so my opinion on this (like most others) is subject to change. But, just thinking about MP again, I can't help but think that a few Bowmen showing up at my door spells disaster.

Originally posted by DaveMcW
I disagree with your basic premise; I always try to take out 2 or more neighbors during my GA. The exception would be if they are the only one on my continent, then I feel the despot GA is justified.

Sorry, I should have said "the ability to ensure the
early defeat of your closest neighbor". The question is whether or not defeating opponents early is worth a "wasted" GA. As far as I can see, this is highly debatable. Sure, you may beat them more "convincingly" later with a larger force, but you've lost all those years of production.


Dominae

[GusSmed]

Originally posted by Dominae
Researching Warrior Code is a nuisance, but within the time that you do so, you're focusing on Warriors and Settlers (maybe Temples) anyways.

I agree. Unless I start badly hemmed in on a small island (see the Aztec thread), I've researched several techs before I can think about warfare. You really need 4 cities just for the 16 free unit upkeep in most situations.

Regarding the obsolescence of Bowmen, I just don't see it before the end of the Ancient age. They're not fast-movers, that's true, but compared to Swordsmen they're still not a bad deal.

Again, I agree. They're just as cost-effective as Swordsmen on the attack, and just as cost effective as spearmen on the defense. That makes them more versatile, but not better or worse than either unit.

They're still slow movers, though, which means that you automatically give up the initiative when entering enemy territory. I'll take them as an alternative to Swordsmen when horses are not available.

All of this really overlooks the traditional strength of the Babylonians, which is culture. That's a real advantage at lower difficulties, but you're going to be so out-classed in the Culture department at Emperor and especially Deity that it won't matter.

- Gus

[DaveMcW]

double post

[DaveMcW]

Actually, the Babylonians are the only civ that has a chance to keep up in culture on Deity level. Pop rush temples everywhere to get a head start, then use the cheap libraries and cathedrals to stay even until the late middle ages.

[Dominae]

I'm going to try the Babs next, with a focus on early-warfare (Bowmen "rush"). Maybe I'm completely wrong about the Bowmen, in which case I'll lose horribly! Hopefully I'll get a Leader at some point, unlike Arrian's game. Ouch. If I get Bowmen to "work", then Babs become an amazing civ in my eyes, because you've got the traits to build build build in addition to an edge in early conquest.


Dominae

[Arrian]

I'm curious to hear how it works out for you, Dominae, since I admit I've never been able to bring myself to try a Bowman rush.

After my Babylonian debacle, I soothed the pain by playing China. I did bad things to many people. I feel better now.

-Arrian

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Dominae
Given that I've found Archers useful well beyond their "standard" shelf life (cheap cost, 2-point attacker) means that the added bonus of being a Spearmen is pretty good too, no?

Definitely not a Spearmen replacement though since you lose the upgrade path. Rely exclusively on Bowmen for offense and defense, and you'll find yourself building an entire new defense force from the ground up when you get to the Middle Ages.