Okay, many people say that the egyptians are a bad civ. Not too long ago, i started a game as them on emporer. I started out with the collosus and built a library fairly quickly and was able to research the first five technologies, and found the sphnx and went to democracy. In 2600 BC I was producing over 34 science and reseached horseback riding and iron working in one turn or so. Later in the game I was in the modern era in 750AD. Crazy fun and I won a tech victory in 1940. Egyptians rock:D

Okay, many people say that the egyptians are a bad civ. Not too long ago, i started a game as them on emporer. I started out with the collosus and built a library fairly quickly and was able to research the first five technologies, and found the sphnx and went to democracy. In 2600 BC I was producing over 34 science and reseached horseback riding and iron working in one turn or so. Later in the game I was in the modern era in 750AD. Crazy fun and I won a tech victory in 1940. Egyptians rock:D

Well, modern era in 750 AD is pretty normal if you know how to play and space victory in 1940 is pretty too late. Then, I don't see where they should rock, while they need A LOT OF LUCK to get colossus perhaps. If you start with stonehenge or oracle you can do nothing. Colossus is the only wonder that can save you, having the first archer in 5 turn.

never mind..

It's lucky because what, you have a 25% chance of getting either Stonehenge, Hanging Gardens, Oracle or Colossus? I don't see how it's luck, it's more chance. Hanging Gardens is decent as well, and the Oracle helps you rush. It's more the ability to adapt to different situations, an ability that you seem to lack, Morte.

Just played as Egypt on Deity. Got to Modern Era in year 0, won a Domination victory in 650 AD by Horse Rushing the Romans and Germans while teching until I got tanks, which took out Greece and England. I started with Stonehenge, but later built the Colossus. Stonehenge helped because they never made it obsolete, so once I found the Ark and got free Cathedrals (Rushed Temples right before, 208 gold per turn) I was getting a hell of a lot of Great People.

It's lucky because what, you have a 25% chance of getting either Stonehenge, Hanging Gardens, Oracle or Colossus? I don't see how it's luck, it's more chance. Hanging Gardens is decent as well, and the Oracle helps you rush. It's more the ability to adapt to different situations, an ability that you seem to lack, Morte.

Well, really I know how to adapt to different situations, you never saw me winning games where I started in a island perhaps or losing everything then winning the game. Yesterday in a FFA I started in a island with arabs, and I won the game against 2 zulu (one top player) and a good spanish player. If I didn't know how to adapt I would quit the game maybe. However, I mean in MP GAMES, egyptians can do nothing without luck because you have to stop rush like zulu (in 5-6 turns they can be in your capital), arabs (in 10-15 turns they can have a veteran horsemen army, depending on the gold they get), aztecs (horsemen army in about 10 turns), etc.. Colossus and Hanging gardens CAN save you but stonehenge and oracle don't help you at the start; maybe in single player to kill the AI.

Well, really I know how to adapt to different situations, you never saw me winning games where I started in a island perhaps or losing everything then winning the game. Yesterday in a FFA I started in a island with arabs, and I won the game against 2 zulu (one top player) and a good spanish player. If I didn't know how to adapt I would quit the game maybe. However, I mean in MP GAMES, egyptians can do nothing without luck because you have to stop rush like zulu (in 5-6 turns they can be in your capital), arabs (in 10-15 turns they can have a veteran horsemen army, depending on the gold they get), aztecs (horsemen army in about 10 turns), etc.. Colossus and Hanging gardens CAN save you but stonehenge and oracle don't help you at the start; maybe in single player to kill the AI.

It also requires a great deal of luck for a Zulu army to find your capital in 5-6 turns, so your point of "not true because it requires too much luck" is kind of lost. A good Egyptian player will have a free wall and have backfilled bronzeworking before you find their capital with Zulu. And pikemen soon after.

It also requires a great deal of luck for a Zulu army to find your capital in 5-6 turns, so your point of "not true because it requires too much luck" is kind of lost. A good Egyptian player will have a free wall and have backfilled bronzeworking before you find their capital with Zulu. And pikemen soon after.

A lucky egyptian player could have maybe archers fast. A normal egyptian player, with no luck, would lose every time against zulu.

And, I tried egyptians the first time, I would really say again they aren't a good civ. Really, only with two wonders you can win, and only with colossus you are sure about that.

Egypt is great if you start with 2+ (even 1 isn't bad, but not great) desert titles in their capital. That in itself is pretty rare. But if you get it, they can really power through early teching and grab a solid tech lead early.

Egypt is great if you start with 2+ (even 1 isn't bad, but not great) desert titles in their capital. That in itself is pretty rare. But if you get it, they can really power through early teching and grab a solid tech lead early.

I had 3 deserts in my first two cities. I was losing in technology and I think they are really really slow in technology. As I said, only colossus can save them.

I had 3 deserts in my first two cities. I was losing in technology and I think they are really really slow in technology. As I said, only colossus can save them.

Really?

Because I've played a couple games with egypt on deity, where I just kept restarting the map till I got 2 desert tiles and I just dominated tech wise. I didn't have the colossus as the wonder either time. I just had so much early tech pouring in it felt like I was cheating. (In a way I guess you could argue I did since I restarted the maps until I got 2 desert tiles starting out.)

However, when egypt doesn't get desert titles starting out and can't found an early city (generally their 2nd city) near some, I find them to be pretty weak. Very map dependent.

I think they are really really slow in technology.

Okay, you just proved yourself totally ignorant on the subject. I would have maybe listened to you if you had said that they are strong in tech but susceptible to rushers. Saying they are weak in tech is just rediculous and proves that you don't know what you're talking about. Just because you don't know how to play as a civ doesn't mean that they are a bad civ. If you were flat out loosing in tech then you were obviously doing something seriously wrong.

Let's see...

I had 3 deserts in my first two cities

Well since they get a good food bonus from desert from the start but don't really have other strengths in food, try one with just one or two cities total so those strong cities can really flourish.

Also, once you get to about 2000 BC they are going to get a free great person from the culture of their wonder. You can work the tech tree to make this a great builder and rush colossus if you didn't start with it (gardens or university if you did).

Egypt is the only civ I have seen hit modern before year 0. Have you even seen this with another civ? Keep in mind this can be done WITH STONEHENGE AS THE STARTING WONDER (not colossus). Even with tons of luck I haven't seen any other civ do this. So stating that you think they are bad in tech is just like waving a giant flag that says, "I am an idiot and have no idea what I am talking about on this subject" while trying to make a point.

Really?

Because I've played a couple games with egypt on deity, where I just kept restarting the map till I got 2 desert tiles and I just dominated tech wise. I didn't have the colossus as the wonder either time. I just had so much early tech pouring in it felt like I was cheating. (In a way I guess you could argue I did since I restarted the maps until I got 2 desert tiles starting out.)

However, when egypt doesn't get desert titles starting out and can't found an early city (generally their 2nd city) near some, I find them to be pretty weak. Very map dependent.

I've gotta agree with morte, w/o the collusus the Egyptians are only an above average civ. Deserts are not always plentlful, you only get one food from them, so it's not really that great for the long run. Japan basically has the same bonus, but 1 less sceince from the sea than a desert provides for egyptians, the problem is again, desert squares aren't plentyful like sea tiles.
they also don't have great bonuses after the first era bonus (irrigation is ok, but only saves you two turns, not a lasting bonus).

Egypt w/o Collusus is worse in tech than: Japan, Greeks, and China

Egypt with Collusus (and some desert tiles)= maybe be the best BC/early AD tech civ in the game.

I've gotta agree with morte, w/o the collusus the Egyptians are only an above average civ. Deserts are not always plentlful, you only get one food from them, so it's not really that great for the long run. Japan basically has the same bonus, but 1 less sceince from the sea than a desert provides for egyptians, the problem is again, desert squares aren't plentyful like sea tiles.
they also don't have great bonuses after the first era bonus (irrigation is ok, but only saves you two turns, not a lasting bonus).

Egypt w/o Collusus is worse in tech than: Japan, Greeks, and China

Egypt with Collusus (and some desert tiles)= maybe be the best BC/early AD tech civ in the game.

I don't know. I've always been able to leverage the +1 food & +1 trade from deserts with egypt into a great start and a solid tech lead early on. I'm not saying Japans bonus isn't powerful (it certainly is), but that doesn't mean that Egypt's isn't.

Egypt is just much more map dependent. Your guaranteed to always have plenty of coast when playing as Japan. Your never guaranteed desert tiles when playing as Egypt.

I'm not saying that the Egyptians are bad at tech, and if your playing single player, you shoud be light years ahead of the AI in tech regardless of recieving the Collosus or not. MP is another story though.

I personally don't prefer my games to depend on two luck based factors:
the wonder
amount of deserts to settle by

That doesn't mean they are a bad civ (better than most in my book), and they can present a nice challenge and keep things intresting from game to game if you play with them a lot.

All it takes is a little walking with settlers to find some desert. There is plenty of it on almost every map. All the while walking with settlers you are charting and planning out where you will send your first warriors so you spend less time searching with a unit that moves 1 tile at a time.

And Egypt are strong even with just the desert bonus and the fact that they are guaranteed a free great person. It doesn't matter what wonder you get. Hanging Gardens or Colossus are just icing on the cake. And that's a 50% chance that you will be really overpowered and not just strong.

Any chance that any of the doubters are on PS3? I'd like to try and prove my point in a game instead of on a forum.

not doubting you're an excellent player w/ the egyptians, and I do think that there just as good as any civ if you learn them well. But you have to have a lot of skill to use them when luck isn't on your side, and by what others have said about you and where you are on the ffa leaderboards, I don't doubt that you've got a strat with them that is flexible.

I would like to play you sometime, not to prove a point, mainly because of Garth gushing about you on other boards. it's always nice to find someone with skill on MP.

Yeah. We should play sometime. My PSN is Calebasaurus. I haven't been on in a while but I need to start playing some more. Add me so we can play.

Uh, sorry if I don't play on deity (chieftain) but play on multiplayer, where really there could be a difficulty like deity. Then, don't tell me I'm a idiot, I got oracle and really, egyptians aren't a good civ, also if you start with deserts, you only have too meet an average player and he can beat you. I was so slow in technology that I would like to never choose them. Then, I rushed oxford and got fighters and it disconnected me.

Everything I said about them is applicable to both Multi and Single player. I have beaten the best players with the Egyptians. I can out tech the best Chinese/Japanese players with the Egyptians.

If you want me to stop calling you an idiot then stop saying such stupid things. And stop telling people what civs are/aren't good based on your personal opinion. You're terrible with the Egyptians, we get it. But that doesn't mean that they are a bad civ. You just don't know how to play them. Someone who really knows how to play them can out tech someone who really knows how to play as the Chinese. Even the programmers/testers for this game made comments to how the Egyptians are over powered in tech. And if you know how to work the tech you can't be beaten.

Seriously. Play a game as whatever civ YOU think is the best at tech, feel free to reset the start point until you get something good and let us know when you reach modern. I have hit modern in 0 AD in multiplayer against the best players while they are attacking me the whole time and a top tier Chinese player was turtleing and teching and not being attacked. Without Colossus.

Everything I said about them is applicable to both Multi and Single player. I have beaten the best players with the Egyptians. I can out tech the best Chinese/Japanese players with the Egyptians.

If you want me to stop calling you an idiot then stop saying such stupid things. And stop telling people what civs are/aren't good based on your personal opinion. You're terrible with the Egyptians, we get it. But that doesn't mean that they are a bad civ. You just don't know how to play them. Someone who really knows how to play them can out tech someone who really knows how to play as the Chinese. Even the programmers/testers for this game made comments to how the Egyptians are over powered in tech. And if you know how to work the tech you can't be beaten.

Seriously. Play a game as whatever civ YOU think is the best at tech, feel free to reset the start point until you get something good and let us know when you reach modern. I have hit modern in 0 AD in multiplayer against the best players while they are attacking me the whole time and a top tier Chinese player was turtleing and teching and not being attacked. Without Colossus.

Then, don't tell me I'm an idiot when you say good players that don't know how to play these civs. With chinese, you can do much more than egyptians, I played both, and perhaps in those games you rushed colossus with luck getting a free great builder. That's luck, again. And, I know how to use them, I won 1 city challenge with them on deity, then I tried on multiplayer and really slow because I couldn't do much more than my enemies. I had 3 technologies less than my enemy, I was going to win (I had 25 technologies) then it disconnected me. However, modern era by 0 AD means nothing if you need luck every time. And now don't tell me you can starting with stonehenge reach modern era with no deserts, because that's all about luck. What's your gamertag if you play on x360? What players have you played against?

I play on PS3, like I already said in this thread.

Great people are decided by what techs you research, so you can force a great builder. Not luck.

I say good players because they are at the top of the leaderboards not because I deemed them good players, but because they have proven to be good players.

And I never said that you can reach modern early with Stonehenge and no deserts. Yes, if you are completely cut off of deserts and get Stonehenge you will have some problems, but this is really really rare (you would have to be on a terrible island which is going to hurt no matter what civ you play). But you can still be flexible and win in that situation. It wont be a blowout, but you can still do it.

A few weeks ago Ed_Numby and I were having this argument on another board(http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.php?board=941683&topic=46544157). And then we played a few games. I think my record against Ed is 3-0 now. None of these games did I get Colossus. I don't even think that I received Hanging Gardens on any.

I call you an idiot because you make rediculous claims without having any facts and try to prove points based on circular reasoning. Like saying that the players can't be good because I beat them in tech and I am bad at tech because I can't beat any good players.

You also choose to ignore other facts I bring to the table, like that Egyptians can get to modern very quickly even without Colossus and that even testers/programmers have said they have unfair advantages in tech. Although you claim that they are really really slow in technology.

I play on PS3, like I already said in this thread.

Great people are decided by what techs you research, so you can force a great builder. Not luck.

I say good players because they are at the top of the leaderboards not because I deemed them good players, but because they have proven to be good players.

And I never said that you can reach modern early with Stonehenge and no deserts. Yes, if you are completely cut off of deserts and get Stonehenge you will have some problems, but this is really really rare (you would have to be on a terrible island which is going to hurt no matter what civ you play). But you can still be flexible and win in that situation. It wont be a blowout, but you can still do it.

A few weeks ago Ed_Numby and I were having this argument on another board(http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/genmessage.php?board=941683&topic=46544157). And then we played a few games. I think my record against Ed is 3-0 now. None of these games did I get Colossus. I don't even think that I received Hanging Gardens on any.

I call you an idiot because you make rediculous claims without having any facts and try to prove points based on circular reasoning. Like saying that the players can't be good because I beat them in tech and I am bad at tech because I can't beat any good players.

You also choose to ignore other facts I bring to the table, like that Egyptians can get to modern very quickly even without Colossus and that even testers/programmers have said they have unfair advantages in tech. Although you claim that they

I never seen programmers saying egyptians are fast. Only about japanese, and compared to egyptians, they are really slow in my opinion. To do what you say, modern era perhaps in 40 turns you should need a lot of cities with deserts also. I hope you are not saying with one city you can have 2000 science. Maybe with one city ony you can have 100 science but not so much to reach so fast modern era every time. I'm not an idiot, if I was, I wouldn't know so much about the game. I know when I avoid a civ or see that's not really strong I don't use it many times. It happened for spanish, then I understood how to use them. I don't know if I had bad luck in the game I tried online, but I got oracle and 3 deserts per city (2 cities at the start, then I got another city with 3 deserts). I got code of laws, rushed a library in thebes, but I was still slow on technology. I got a humanitarian and great builder, that I used to get oxford and got flight. I couldn't rush colossus because it was too late. However, I don't know how you can stop a rush, because it means you are playing bad players. Same thing for chinese, are they noobs? Last time against arabs I had 500 science by 0 AD, in MP game against a top player. He has been a bit noob moving units at the beginning of the turn, then I killed his horsemen. However, with egyptians you have to be really lucky to stop a rush, because zulu, arabs, aztecs, americans, chinese can't be stopped by warriors. And you can't have archers in less turns then how many turns they need for this, I know by experience.

A few things on this subject.

I wan't go into what to do against rushers and what about defence and that. I will only put my opinion on the subject ..

Are Egyptians fast techer and can out-tech other civs?

Answer is: Yes and no!

I would say Spanish, Chinese, Zulu and Japanese are much better!

Egypts is a civ that you can tech fast with the first 35 turns. After that they fall behind compare to these civs. And they can only be fast in the beginning if they have some luck. Like alot of desserts and in best cases colossus.

Egyptains hit the wall around year 0. they can get up to 50-60 beakers/turn very fast and then around 60-100 around year 0. But after that they are very slow up to 500 beakers/turn. Maybe not until 1000-1500 AD

The other civs I mentioned you can almost always go up to 400-600 beakers/turn around 500-800 AD

And now why is this so?

1: They don't get any techs for free.

- Other civs start with free techs like Navigation Spain. and for example China start with one and get another one in medival.

2: After 35 turns the Egyptains stagnate. This because if lets say your capital and your secon city have 2 desserts too work on. what happens when your cities outgrow that?. working only 2 tiles to get sciense isn't very good in a city. Its enough when you have a pop of 2-5 but after that?

- The other civ use water for sciense. settles islands and can grow and work 7 watertiles in a city (thats before building courthouses). Especially Japanese and Spanish are strong here.

3: Its costly to build up good sciense for the Egypts early. You need both a library and defently a trading post in order to have a realy usefull city.

4: you have found a nice place for your capital and secon city with alot of desserts. But how many desserts will there be for your third, fourth. fifth city??

- watertiles is all ower the map. Japanese, Spanish and Chinese can use this easier.

5: You tend to not expand so fast with Egyptians. This because you build libraries and it hurt you more if loosing pop in your two first cities.

- Other civs that you expand faster with will have atleast 8-12 cities around year 0 while the Egyptains will be stucked in 3-4.

6: After the Egyptains starting bonus they realy don't get any more nice bonuses.

- Other civs get realy strong bonuses in Industrial area and/or in modern.
Many thinks that Zulu are a good warciv. Rush others and so forth. But look at their bonuses. Rapid city growth already in medival (thats like getting an aqveduct for free in every city already in medival) and then they get +50% goldproduction in industrial which is one of the strongest bonuses in the game. Chines 1/2 library. Spain 50% gold and so on.

I could think of more things but Egyptains are owerrated and are just slightly above Japan in tech (wich are also quite weak)

Chinese, Spain and Zulu will all be much stronger around 500 AD if can use them right.

(side note. I have reached modern area in 500 BC with the Spanish in deity once, so they can be fast early too)

*cheers*

I know where you're wrong here. First of all, your Egyptian science beakers/turn is waaay off. If you can only get 60-120 beakers a turn at year 0, you're doing something really wrong. I can easily get 300 beakers before 0 AD, usually more though. Today on a team game, I settled my capital by 2 grassland, 2 forest, 2 desert and 2 sea tiles. I was the first person to get Masonry and had 4 cities before 2500 BC. With quick expansion, and utilizing the deserts, I was getting over 1000 beakers a turn a little after year 0, because the Romans took one of my cities, due to bad defense on my part (Would've had 1000 science per turn a lot sooner). I started off with the Hanging Gardens (hence why I was able to get out the 4th settler so quickly) and got lucky and got a galley from a Barbarian village, which gave me the Pyramids from the artifact I found.

Egypt is a lot stronger bonus wise comparing the desert to sea squares than Japan. Around Deserts, there are a lot of hills, mountains and rivers, which is a production, growth and science mine. As Japan, if you're Japan and like you said, work 7 sea squares. Your 8th square will only be a forest. You lack production, where Egypt has everything it needs to win.

I know where you're wrong here. First of all, your Egyptian science beakers/turn is waaay off. If you can only get 60-120 beakers a turn at year 0, you're doing something really wrong. I can easily get 300 beakers before 0 AD, usually more though. Today on a team game, I settled my capital by 2 grassland, 2 forest, 2 desert and 2 sea tiles. I was the first person to get Masonry and had 4 cities before 2500 BC. With quick expansion, and utilizing the deserts, I was getting over 1000 beakers a turn a little after year 0, because the Romans took one of my cities, due to bad defense on my part (Would've had 1000 science per turn a lot sooner). I started off with the Hanging Gardens (hence why I was able to get out the 4th settler so quickly) and got lucky and got a galley from a Barbarian village, which gave me the Pyramids from the artifact I found.

Egypt is a lot stronger bonus wise comparing the desert to sea squares than Japan. Around Deserts, there are a lot of hills, mountains and rivers, which is a production, growth and science mine. As Japan, if you're Japan and like you said, work 7 sea squares. Your 8th square will only be a forest. You lack production, where Egypt has everything it needs to win.


Hey mate..

A few questions..

How many cities do you have at year 0?

How big is the poulation in your cities(total pop)?

Do you have library in any of them?

How many dessert tiles do you work at year 0?

How many of those dessert tiles have the affect of an tradepost= 4 trade?

How many tradetiles can you work in in the year 0. Both desserts and watertiles?


This is what you say:

"I can easily get 300 beakers before 0 AD, usually more though."

And

"I was getting over 1000 beakers a turn a little after year 0"

I wan't comment your numbers now. But please try answer my questions and we take it from there.

*cheers*

How many cities do you have at year 0?
Depends on how many Civilizations I capture, but I can usually get around 8+ cities if I can hit certain techs quickly enough. In the game mentioned above, I had 13 cities a little after year 0, 3 of which were Capitals.

How big is the poulation in your cities(total pop)?
The cities ranged from 2-10 population, my city with the 10 population had 2 whale squares and two forest squares; the rest were sea tiles. I got lucky and got Navigation for free from conquering the Spainards.

Do you have library in any of them?
Normally what I'd do is use all of my cities to build defensive units (Offensive units when I was attacking), settlers until I had no more room to expand, then I built Libraries. Most, if not all of my cities had Libraries, because I set up a key gold city, so I could rush Libraries for cities that lacked production.

How many dessert tiles do you work at year 0?
Generally, it depends but when I got looking for city placement I don't go rushing over to where the desert tiles are. I look at the areas that I could place my city, and think of the best placement for my city. I'd say around 8 of my cities had atleast 1 desert tile in them; those were the cities that lacked food. I moved my capital to maximize the deserts that were to the right of it's starting location, other then that I didn't move any of my cities to make room for deserts.

How many of those dessert tiles have the affect of an tradepost= 4 trade?
Only three of my cities had a trading post. I built a trading post in my gold city, which had 2 hills and the rest deserts (6 tiles) while I also rushed a trading post in a city with 4 desert tiles, 2 sea squares, 1 grassland and 1 forest. For reaching Code of Law first, I got a free trading post in my Capital.

How many tradetiles can you work in in the year 0. Both desserts and watertiles?
For sea squares, each of my cities always had atleast 2 in it's borders, other then my gold city. When I do my city placement, I don't look for places with X amount of trading tiles; I look for the most balanced placement that I can find that will allow me to build as many cities as possible. I had enough gold to rush the buildings I needed, so the extra science I was getting from Literacy helped me make the choice to try and fit in as many cities as possible.

When you quoted the two bottom quotes, I'll explain a little more on them. At around year 0, I'll start unlocking good trade technologies like Democracy, University, Industrialization and Coorperation. This means, that I can start rushing Libraries and Universities in cities that don't have them, because I'll be getting lots of gold from my gold city and Industrialization and Coorperation. It's simple math, 13*10= 130. I got a free market in my capital, plus I had a market and bank in my gold city (Was building Trade Fair.). This meant that I was easily getting over 300 gold per turn, making it very easy to rush 2-3 libraries per turn, or saving up to rush a university, which explains the quick beaker jump from 300-1000.

This all sound like you build smart, conqurer early and expand fast.

However your numbers don't seem accurate. In what year does all this take place?

Lets say you had 8 cities just before year 0. In the year 0 the average pop could not be higher then 6. But more likely around 5. This is simple math.

You settled a few cities in medival and perhaps 2-3 in industrial. The ones you settled in medival only have 20-25 turns to grow. BUT I belive that you didn't have all your pop on grow all time, You work balanced cities you say. also you are working tradetiles. So lets say half your workesrs doing trade. Then it takes around 10 turns for your cities to grow. AND I'm not counting in the pop loss you get from building settlers!

So your medival cities will have at best pop 6 in year 0. More likey 5 though.

The cities you settled in industrial (thats around year 1500 BC-0) Are settled with a pop of 4 and will at best also have a pop of 6.

Cities that you have conqurerd will at best have 6 pop.

By saying you have a city with a pop of 10 just tell me thats in year 400-600 AD. Two whales... yes... But even so it takes 3-6 turns to grow. Simple math its no way you can have a pop of 10 in a city around year 0. Unles you had an Great humanitarian in it.

By just saying.

So you have 8 cities with a pop of 6. Thats a total pop of 48. Your cities are probably fairly balanced. But lets say you are teching hard so thats 2/3 are working on sciense.

Thats 32 pop. 5 of those tiles are dessert with tradepost and the rest is water. 10 of the workers work in a city with library. (I'm also counting in Literacy bonus).

32 + 5 + 10= 52..... 52 x 2 = 104 + 10(literacy) sciensebottles. x 1,5 for democracy. Thats 171 beakers/turn. Thats very good in year 0. Especially for using Egypt.

To have 300 beakers/turn before year 0 you need atleast 12-14 cities and an average pop of 7 in them. Or library in every city. This simply because otherwise you wan't have enough workers to produce that amount of sciense.

Your numbers are wrong. Perhaps you had 300 beakers/turn in year 200 AD and could get Industrialisation and coporation around 200-400 AD So maybe around 300-500 AD you could start rushing libraries in all your sciense-cities.

I know you said you had a goldcity with a free market in it.. This means you get gold quite fast and early. Year 500 BC ? Anyway. A small pop in your goldcity this early don't give you much gold. Especially not before you are in democracy. Also this means your biggest city(goldcity) is producing gold and not sciense wich means you get less beakers..

I can go on and on with this but I find it hard to belive that the numbers you say you easaly do you can do. Perhaps you have managed it once. One time that you got realy lycky! But thats a total different thing...

One more thing though. The question was if Egyptain is the best tech civ? Look at the game that you describe. What in there helped you so much being Egyptain? The desert-tiles helped a little yes. But hanging gardens only +1 pop in capital when you started.

If you for example had been Chinese in this game instead you would have been stronger. + 1 pop more in every city that you settled, Writing and literacy for free, and half price library in industrial area wich means you could have rushed libraries in everyone of your techcities much faster.

Are my calculating way of?

No, your calculations are right, but you got a couple key things wrong.

I said my cities ranged from 2-10 population, but that was more of a play on words. The base of my cities ranged from around 2-5, while I only had one city at 10 population. The entire game, I was pretty much only working trade/food tiles, because I got a couple good horse rushes off. I only got a couple Great People in the game, the first one was a Scientist (Which I rushed a technology.. I believe it was University, but I forget) while my second Great Person was a Humanitarian. I got Irrigation first (and the bonus), which I didn't advance ages, as I wasn't sure if I'd still get the bonus. (I know it works for things likewhen the Chinese get Literacy for free, but I wasn't sure if it worked for Irrigation.)

I used my Humanitarian to add +1 population to all my cities. I settled the city in the Industrial Era around after I rushed University, because I got Navigation for free, which after getting some low-cost techs put me in Industrial. That means that this city started at 4 population + 1 from Humanitarian. So, it started at 5 population, with only 2 whales to work on (10 food?). I'm not sure about the math, but I was only working sea tiles in this city, and production when I needed it. I might have got the date wrong, but I know for a fact that my city had 10 population. It's lame that you can't post saved-games for the Xbox.

As for Science, you're right/wrongish. I had more then 8 cities, because I got quick expansion off and because I captured enemy capitals with high population at the time (4-6). I said that I had 13 cities a little after year 0, so I don't think I was wrong about how much science I was getting, just wrong about the timing.

As for Egyptians being the best in teching? No, I don't think they are. As well though, I don't think they're a "luck" civ as Morte makes them out to be. Chinese are obviously the best techers, simply because of thier early bonuses. Egyptians on the other hand, aren't that far behind.

To Morte - You claim that Egypt is a "luck" civ, but your basis is wrong. You state their lucky becuase you can only do well if you start off with the Colossus, and a bunch of deserts. But I believe this is false. You have to play the Egyptians differently, because depending on what wonder you get, is depending on how you play the early game. Think of Egypt as a civ with a changing beginning trait, but one is culture based, one is domination based, while the other two are technology based. Play the wonder, if you have Stonehenge, build temples. The early culture you get as Egypt always gets you a GP first, but with temples it will only add on, and you can probably get 2 GP by the time everyone has one.

As for the desert tiles? Pssh, c'mon man! You know as well as I do, that in every game there's always a hell of a lot of desert tiles, so don't even try to pull that one.

Well, Egypt is still really good in my opinion. I just played an online FFA, and I was surprised at what I saw! I played as the Arabs, and warrior rushed 2 other civs, to have a total of 3 capitals. I got to the Egyptian capital and attack, but they had archers defending (Not unusual), so I retreated. China was south of them (AI) so I captured their settler, built a city right beside China's capital and blocked off all of China's production with Archers. For the next little while, I just worked on expanding and building Libraries. But damn do those Egyptians tech! He had 3 cities, and he was still ahead of me in tech while I had 15! Two of those cities were science cities, with a settled scientist each, the other one was a production city (Right outside of China). I rushed a bunch of Libraries because I got the Seven Cities of Gold artifact, and switched to Democracy. I found the Angkor Wat, but I got the Hanging Gardens (Never got this one before off of the artifact) instead of the East India Trading Company. Even after all of this, I was still at 18 techs, and he was at 22 techs. He then culture flipped Kyoto (Can culture flip capitals), declared war and took my two cities down by China. After that, he declared war on China, so I sold China some techs (He was way behind in tech) so he could defend himself better. Luckily, the Egyptian player wasn't very aggressive towards the cities north of Kyoto (All 12 of them) and I was able beelining to Modern Infantry and Tanks before building Leonardo's Workshop.

I still won, but it was really close, and he teched like a beast, and none of my units were able to stop him, except for my small naval blockade.

Well, Egypt is still really good in my opinion. I just played an online FFA, and I was surprised at what I saw! I played as the Arabs, and warrior rushed 2 other civs, to have a total of 3 capitals. I got to the Egyptian capital and attack, but they had archers defending (Not unusual), so I retreated. China was south of them (AI) so I captured their settler, built a city right beside China's capital and blocked off all of China's production with Archers. For the next little while, I just worked on expanding and building Libraries. But damn do those Egyptians tech! He had 3 cities, and he was still ahead of me in tech while I had 15! Two of those cities were science cities, with a settled scientist each, the other one was a production city (Right outside of China). I rushed a bunch of Libraries because I got the Seven Cities of Gold artifact, and switched to Democracy. I found the Angkor Wat, but I got the Hanging Gardens (Never got this one before off of the artifact) instead of the East India Trading Company. Even after all of this, I was still at 18 techs, and he was at 22 techs. He then culture flipped Kyoto (Can culture flip capitals), declared war and took my two cities down by China. After that, he declared war on China, so I sold China some techs (He was way behind in tech) so he could defend himself better. Luckily, the Egyptian player wasn't very aggressive towards the cities north of Kyoto (All 12 of them) and I was able beelining to Modern Infantry and Tanks before building Leonardo's Workshop.

I still won, but it was really close, and he teched like a beast, and none of my units were able to stop him, except for my small naval blockade.

ya, i totally agree with you, the Egyptians are not the best tech civ, but they can be one of the best civs if played correctly. I have never been able to play well as them; they just don't fit my playing style, but in multiplayer i have played against some crazy Egyptian players. In one game i was playing as the french (my best civ believe it or not) and i was leading in tech pretty early while i was fighting off a mongol invasion for almost 1000 years. some time during that period the Egyptian player overtook me tech wise. I conquered the mongols, i had some twelve cities, decent navy and army (medival units) and it the year was around 1440 ad. Somewhere in the game said the Egyptian player was going to win a tech victory so i declared war and brought my army over to fight (i had three catapults, two knight armies, a pike man army, and a spy army). i got in side his borders and i was ambushed by tanks, a bomber and his battleship fleet:eek:!? what was left of my army retreated to Paris, where two turns later it was nuked. somehow, ten turns later the Egyptian player won a economic victory after building the world bank:confused:!? If played right Egyptians can be hell to fight.:lol:

Well, Egypt is still really good in my opinion. I just played an online FFA, and I was surprised at what I saw! I played as the Arabs, and warrior rushed 2 other civs, to have a total of 3 capitals. I got to the Egyptian capital and attack, but they had archers defending (Not unusual), so I retreated. China was south of them (AI) so I captured their settler, built a city right beside China's capital and blocked off all of China's production with Archers. For the next little while, I just worked on expanding and building Libraries. But damn do those Egyptians tech! He had 3 cities, and he was still ahead of me in tech while I had 15! Two of those cities were science cities, with a settled scientist each, the other one was a production city (Right outside of China). I rushed a bunch of Libraries because I got the Seven Cities of Gold artifact, and switched to Democracy. I found the Angkor Wat, but I got the Hanging Gardens (Never got this one before off of the artifact) instead of the East India Trading Company. Even after all of this, I was still at 18 techs, and he was at 22 techs. He then culture flipped Kyoto (Can culture flip capitals), declared war and took my two cities down by China. After that, he declared war on China, so I sold China some techs (He was way behind in tech) so he could defend himself better. Luckily, the Egyptian player wasn't very aggressive towards the cities north of Kyoto (All 12 of them) and I was able beelining to Modern Infantry and Tanks before building Leonardo's Workshop.

I still won, but it was really close, and he teched like a beast, and none of my units were able to stop him, except for my small naval blockade.

I agree that Egypts can be good. As every civ can be realy good. They can be realy fast in the beginning as we have been talking about earlier. However in the long run I still don't think they are the best civ in tech though. This game that you describe pretty much states what Egyptains can do and are good for. They tech fast in the beginning. They can get up to 50-100 beakers/turn quite fast wich means they will get the first 15-20 techs in the techtree quite fast. Other civs that in my opinion are stronger in the longrun will outtech them in midgame though. And if played right probably outtech them in the start too.. Unless egyptains get lucky and start with clossus and ALOT of desserts...

If I don't get extremly unlucky I should be able to outtech Egyptains and beat them to combustion every time with China, Spain and Zulu.

You play on ps3 Kadazzle right?

Last weeks GOTW there were Zulu. My Psn is Dalagatan. I won a tech win on deity in year 950 AD and an economic win on Deity in year 850 AD. That is how strong for example Zulu are. I doubt I could pull of an techwictory before 1000 AD with Egyptains but if they came up in an GOTW soon we will see if its possible.


To Icaria909:

Yes so Egyptains researched space flight in this game in year around 1440 AD. However they are mostly not so strong in economic and productionwise they are average, so it would take him a quite while to launch his spaceship. Also 1440 isnt so fast in my opinion. Strong of him to atleast hammer up the worldbank 10 turns later. Probably had a few hammers saved up for this one..

I agree that my numbers in an GOTW game isn't the same as playing in an MP game. But it gives you an example on how fast teching can be done with strong teching civs...

In conclusion: Egypts are good, probably not the best techwise.. They can be fast in tech in the start and the player playing them should take advantage of this and try to finish game early with them. As every civ its very much up to the player who plays the civ. A realy good player can ofcourse outtech every civ with egyptains, As he also could do this with the French, Russians.. and so on..

*cheers*

Well, I just started another game, and I played as the Zulu vs the Egyptians (Player), England (Player), French (Player) and the Mongolians (AI). Like you stated above, Egypt does well early game, and damn did they in this game! They started with Colossus and got Horseback Riding in 3 turns, then tried to rush me. Luckily, I was starting to build archers (Got it off of the French Player, got Monarchy off of English after I conquered them) so I was able to stop them. If they learned how to rush more effieciently, I wouldn't have been able to take the French capital to get Bronze Working, because I would've been dead!

I play on the Xbox 360, my GT is Mikez Gamertag. Original, eh?

Great people are decided by what techs you research, so you can force a great builder. Not luck. Can you explain this? How do you force certain GPs?

Great People are generated by techs you research. Say you research Bronze Working first. You will pop a Great Leader as your first GP. The way I take it as, is if you research a technology, the type of GP (Not the exact one) associated with that tech is put into a queue of great people.

So, if you're French it is really easy to pop a Great Engineer as your first GP, because you can get Masonry right off the bat. That's why I also believe the French are a lot better then some people say. I'm currently writing a pretty good strategy for them right now.

Great People are generated by techs you research. Say you research Bronze Working first. You will pop a Great Leader as your first GP. The way I take it as, is if you research a technology, the type of GP (Not the exact one) associated with that tech is put into a queue of great people.

So, if you're French it is really easy to pop a Great Engineer as your first GP, because you can get Masonry right off the bat. That's why I also believe the French are a lot better then some people say. I'm currently writing a pretty good strategy for them right now.

In 10-15 turns you won't be still alive against good players. I met only one good french player and I killed him with veteran riflemen using arabs while he had catapults. That's only because he started a lot of tiles away (10 counting the sea, about 40 on the land)

And, that doesn't happen every time but a good percentage

I haven't even posted a strategy for the French, so how can you comment?

Great People are generated by techs you research. Say you research Bronze Working first. You will pop a Great Leader as your first GP. The way I take it as, is if you research a technology, the type of GP (Not the exact one) associated with that tech is put into a queue of great people.

So, if you're French it is really easy to pop a Great Engineer as your first GP, because you can get Masonry right off the bat. That's why I also believe the French are a lot better then some people say. I'm currently writing a pretty good strategy for them right now.
I played Mongols twice on deity SP and researched bronze working first and I got a great builder (Gilgamesh) the first time and a great artist (Aesop) the next time. I had about 5-6 techs the first time I got my GP - maybe it chooses randomly from the techs you have?

I played Mongols twice on deity SP and researched bronze working first and I got a great builder (Gilgamesh) the first time and a great artist (Aesop) the next time. I had about 5-6 techs the first time I got my GP - maybe it chooses randomly from the techs you have?

No. He wants to say he knows everything, but that's not true. I played more than 1000 games and know if one is perhaps lying..

That depends on:

The last technology (true, but not as Kadazzle said, only a little percentage)
The civilization you chose
What aim you have got, for example building many units will give a percentage of great leader..

Wait; perhaps I should clarify my last post. When I said I researched bronze working first - I probably wasn't the first one to get it - rather it was the first tech I researched. My tech path was: bronze working, pottery, irrigation, alphabet, literacy. I did get the irrigation and literacy bonus so I was the first to that.

I'm going to try again - this time try and be the person first to research bronze working - see if it makes a difference.

I'll clarify what I said.

The way I take it as, is if you research a technology, the type of GP (Not the exact one) associated with that tech is put into a queue of great people.

Here is for Morte, I underline the part where I wasn't sure if I was right or not.

Jauggy, you're a little new around here, but Morte is a little pest most of the time, so don't worry about him.

First off, I did a little testing and all of what you said (Morte) is mostly wrong, from my results. Here is a little theory I came up with, that pretty much explains the GP, in my mind. The civilization you choose doesn't matter what GP you will get first, it only matters what you build, and what you tech. Secondly, it's not the last technology, it's a percent of all of them, which I will explain a little farther down. I played as England, and sure enough, I got a Great Leader as I researched Bronze Working first, and only built warriors, archers and a settler. I believe your math is a little off too, Morte. I don't think what you build is done in percentages, but I believe it is a multiplier. Say you research bronze working, then pottery, then Irrigation. If you get your first GP and you only have those three techs, the percent you get a great Leader (Bronze Working), Scientist (Pottery) and Humanitarian (Irrigation) increase, but the chance you get a Great Builder and a Great Explorer are still there. Then, what you have been building is used as a multiplier, to add to these percentages. So, Jauggy got a Great Builder first, meaning that he probably built a building. He didn't research any Great Builder technology, but because of the building he built, he got a multiplier towards getting a Great Builder, which only had a small percentage of getting, until he built a building/wonder.

I'll clarify what I said.



Here is for Morte, I underline the part where I wasn't sure if I was right or not.

Jauggy, you're a little new around here, but Morte is a little pest most of the time, so don't worry about him.

First off, I did a little testing and all of what you said (Morte) is mostly wrong, from my results. Here is a little theory I came up with, that pretty much explains the GP, in my mind. The civilization you choose doesn't matter what GP you will get first, it only matters what you build, and what you tech. Secondly, it's not the last technology, it's a percent of all of them, which I will explain a little farther down. I played as England, and sure enough, I got a Great Leader as I researched Bronze Working first, and only built warriors, archers and a settler. I believe your math is a little off too, Morte. I don't think what you build is done in percentages, but I believe it is a multiplier. Say you research bronze working, then pottery, then Irrigation. If you get your first GP and you only have those three techs, the percent you get a great Leader (Bronze Working), Scientist (Pottery) and Humanitarian (Irrigation) increase, but the chance you get a Great Builder and a Great Explorer are still there. Then, what you have been building is used as a multiplier, to add to these percentages. So, Jauggy got a Great Builder first, meaning that he probably built a building. He didn't research any Great Builder technology, but because of the building he built, he got a multiplier towards getting a Great Builder, which only had a small percentage of getting, until he built a building/wonder.


Only few words to answer you.

Are you sure I'm the pest? Maybe I'm only trying to tell him what is wrong before you give him wrong percentages and not only. Saying use zulu or saying use the worst civ is not a suggestion.

There's also backfilling techs. If you have enough beakers, some of the low techs you get automatically. So I may have got a builder from having horseback riding - which I may have got automatically due to having 20 beakers (the requirement to finish it in 1 turn).

However, there's still too much randomness to force a certain GP if you have several techs.

Also a correction to your post - pottery is associated with a great artist (Plato), not scientist.

How are you getting to the modern era at 0 AD? Is this MP? Curious because iv taken over capitals with eygpt and still havent made it to modern that early. Also there is times where i dont get a signifcant amount of deserts.

I love Egypt.

If I am fortunate enough to start with, 2 desert, 2 forest, and Collusus; I like my chances against anybody. You just better hope that there is no Scientist given to go along with it. With a Library you are 32 per turn, with only 2 squares. That is deadly at the beginning of the game.

It seems this thread is also missing the importance of the Wonder given. We all know the advantages of Collusus and the Gardens. But the Culture increase is huge in achieving the next Great Person, AND protecting yourself from a flip.

I know where you're wrong here. First of all, your Egyptian science beakers/turn is waaay off. If you can only get 60-120 beakers a turn at year 0, you're doing something really wrong. I can easily get 300 beakers before 0 AD, usually more though. Today on a team game, I settled my capital by 2 grassland, 2 forest, 2 desert and 2 sea tiles. I was the first person to get Masonry and had 4 cities before 2500 BC. With quick expansion, and utilizing the deserts, I was getting over 1000 beakers a turn a little after year 0, because the Romans took one of my cities, due to bad defense on my part (Would've had 1000 science per turn a lot sooner). I started off with the Hanging Gardens (hence why I was able to get out the 4th settler so quickly) and got lucky and got a galley from a Barbarian village, which gave me the Pyramids from the artifact I found.

Egypt is a lot stronger bonus wise comparing the desert to sea squares than Japan. Around Deserts, there are a lot of hills, mountains and rivers, which is a production, growth and science mine. As Japan, if you're Japan and like you said, work 7 sea squares. Your 8th square will only be a forest. You lack production, where Egypt has everything it needs to win.

1000 beakers year 0ad? I dont believe it. Pyramids gave u that expansion lucky i think.

1000 beakers year 0ad? I dont believe it. Pyramids gave u that expansion lucky i think.

That's nothing.. I got 3000 beakers by 2000-1500 BC

That's nothing.. I got 3000 beakers by 2000-1500 BC

Which civ?

Edit is that even possible?

Which civ?

Edit is that even possible?

I was kidding, I was bored about all these "I got 2000 beakers by 3900 BC"