What is the toughest civ to play on Emperor?

bryce00 said:

Thanks folks. I started with Cleo and got Colossus and eventually an economic victory. They put me on a fairly large island so I settled it, focusing on desert tiles, then planted a little city on the main continent close to England but not so close i couldn't build it up a bit. Had a huge tech lead and pretty much rolled everyone but China. Caravan gold and rifleman +1 move seem mostly useless.

Click to expand...

Aye, the Caravan Gold comes way to late in the game, especially if you're on an island, as well as the +1 rifleman movement is rather worthless unless you're being attack by a large number of units. The +1 Food and Trade from Desert tiles probably helped you a lot, as if you set up 2 Gold cities, you'll be making a crap load of gold, and they'll be growing quickly.

A thing about the Russians though. I believe you're underestimating their +1 Food from Plains worth. Most people generally once they hit the 100 gold mark, rush a Library. During my online game, instead, I rush a Granary, which got me 4 food from three of the plain tiles in my border. 12 food from 3 tiles is insane, plus I got an extra 2 food from Irrigation. After that, and getting the Hanging Gardens, Samurai Castle and Leonard's Workshop, the game was over. I had over 6 cites, all above 15 population when only 2 other civs had their capitals at or over 15 population. (3-5 population per square is insane..)

I think on emperor and higher, maximizing your civ's bonuses becomes critical. and it is a good strategy for longer term play.

i'm not going to do a thurough explanation of all the civs, my article about buying world power dictates my favorites

I think shooting for economic power is the most versatile and powerful strategy, second only to a strong catapult/legion rush

the arabs are particularly good at this.. so are the germans. so with a competent player, you had better expect these kind of attacks, slow your growth and increase your defence in response or you'll end up getting steamrolled.

now for russia. the +1 food from plains is HUGE. it lets you settle in areas that otherwise would suffer from mediocre growth.
they also get loyalty.. so you may mention catapults but I guarantee you'll lose against an army of loyalty vet archers that are fortified. and if they get pikemen they're safe until you have tanks

the civs that get the 50% gold bonus are arguably the strongest. it can mean 300-500gpt if the player knows what they are doing. and it stacks with democracy/settled industrialist.

personally I play on random.. gives me the variety I need to keep the game interesting.

only civ I think was done badly is the mongols. they should receive a settler for each barb hut rather than a city. because it denies them ever getting use of the bonus resources under the barb tiles.

regardless of what civ you're playing, the game comes down to a few points:

defence has a major advantage, because of where the defencive techs are in the tree. you can reliably get to modern infantry before your opponent gets to tanks or bombers if you know what you're doing.

land is power land is power land is power
unlike all other iterations of civ.. there is no restrictions placed on how many cities you can have. giving ICS, TCP, and other mass city strategies real power.

city placement is critical, since you cannot improve tiles at all.

if you can defend yourself, an economic strategy will often prove to be the most effective

NaZ

NaZdReG said:

only civ I think was done badly is the mongols. they should receive a settler for each barb hut rather than a city. because it denies them ever getting use of the bonus resources under the barb tiles.

Click to expand...

I lost several games in a row on Emperor with the Mongols, and I was completely fed up with them for the reason you state. Not only do you not get the bonus tiles, the villages are often really badly placed.

However, I then re-read the post here detailing how to play them, tried it, and it worked. Playing the Mongols is completely unlike any of the other civs. You have to treat the converted barb villages as disposable hammer sources for an early rush.

Initially you go with Horsemen because you can get Horseback Riding much earlier than Bronze Working, and you want strength 6 armies that can completely overrun lightly defended colonies. Horsemen won't get you capitols, but they do get you another big boost to production from captured secondary cities. Don't build any infrastructure at all, and beeline for Mathematics, and you can take down just about everyone before they manage to expand.

I did have a bit of a problem with the French, because Paris generates so much culture that it started flipping his secondary city back right away after I took it. So I didn't bother to defend it, I just wiped out his units and advanced on Paris.

- Gus

NaZdReG said:

only civ I think was done badly is the mongols. they should receive a settler for each barb hut rather than a city. because it denies them ever getting use of the bonus resources under the barb tiles.

NaZ

Click to expand...

I'm glad this was written. I'm surprised that a discussion on the most difficult civ on higher levels did not turn to the Mongols sooner.

In most games, so much can be done to set things up in the very early part of the game, and it is here that I think the Mongols suffer the most. Gaining cities from barb states has two negatives involved right off - not being able to utilize the tile under the city is huge, but there is also the aspect of NOT getting the cash, spy, tech, or caravan that all of the other civs get as well.

Yes, it means a city that you did not have to pay for with your own settler, but as others have pointed out the city placements are often so horrible that they become almost more of a drag. Even the AI places cities better.

The idea of having these cities become mini-factories for horsemen is interesting, but I have found that all of these cities will leave me much too open for attack - which then allows rivals to get your techs, some money, and land. Just impossible to get enough defense/offense generated to defend them all. Especially true when you capture one near an enemy city that later develops decent culture. Might as well bail on that city.

Later on, the Mongols can be a very nice production civ - though they even miss out on the communism "first to" bonus of cheaper factories by having the tech for free (I think this is true - don't think I've checked it for sure). Still, the increased production from mountains and the earlier chance at the communism government is nice (I think that with the free communism tech you don't have the option to immediately change without anarchy like you would with others too).

I'm playing a Deity game as the Mongols now, and what I ended up doing was leaving the barb cities alone. I build up some forces and had a few settlers ready, and when the AI cleared the barbs that were close to my capital I placed cities down so I could use the tiles. All other settling on my own went to the nearby islands as they had better coastal tiles and tiles under the huts and relics I could use.

With a small core of about 4 cities at home building units and the island cities used for science and gold, I held my own through the difficult early stages and have myself poised to win by domination very soon. It will only get better once I have my production increase - and this was against some difficult civs to play against under these circumstances (India, Japan, England, and the Aztecs).

Yes, you can severely curtail AI expansion by using a great many cities to produce a Mongol Horde (try doing this on the Barb-heavy scenarios), but I felt it left me too exposed in the games where I tried this as the AI's dogpile you at some point and skirmish defense can only last so long. Sucked that I had to let the AI take all the barb cities and the gifts they came with in my current game, but in the long run I found it to be better to take and use the tiles left behind.

If you play the Mongols correctly, there never is an AI dogpile. You eat anything that leaves their capitols, so they never expand beyond 1 city. And you take the capitals soon after getting Catapults. When I did this, the AI never got beyond archers and legions, because I killed them all too quickly.

If do it right, there's never any question of defense. Out of habit I parked an archer or warrior in every city, but in practice nothing every approached any of my cities before game end.

You do get the Communism bonus (cost 134 factories) unless someone else researches it before you get to the Modern age. Unless it's you start the game with a tech (i.e. English and Monarchy), the game treats techs acquired this way just like normal research. So the Chinese get +1 science in all cities from Literacy, for example.

- Gus

Russia is far from weak, and while I agree that they are probably best-suited to a culture victory, I think they are near equally as strong going for any victory condition. The defensive aspect of having ALL defensive units with loyalty allows so much less to be spent in hammers and gold that the re-direction of those assets can push your civilization anywhere you want it to go, all while the rest of the world tries to huff and puff and blow your house down with absolutely no success.

It may not be the fastest. It may not be the most specialized (as I usually don't even decide which type of victory I want until mid-game). And it may feel like your resources are scattered. But in truth, the civ is actually just powerful across the board in all phases of the game thanks to that impenetrable defense. Couple that with some plains tiles & granaries, and you can do whatever you want, whenever you want.

Hertsh said:

First, Russia is not weak if you play them right. All Civs are strong if you play them right. That was the initial intention of Sid Meier who claimed that all Civs should feel "overpowered".

Secondly, I hear you and others saying that it is silly with half cost spy. I disagree. I get out two spy rings in the time you get out one with another Civ. Two spy rings are twice as effective/efficient. You can steal double amount of money and double amount of GPs. Just put them on ships and you have tons of good stuff from your enemies.

Thirdly, I don't like the use of degrading words like silly and stupid. We are all allowed to have our views. Please state why you don't like something instead of claiming that I'm stupid who think differently from you.

Click to expand...

He wanted to, but how can you say russians are one of the best civ? They are considered in 2k games the worst civ maybe, and I don't know why in this forum you say the opposite. Maybe you haven't experienced everything, I haven't seen top players writing in this forum at least, and you should understand that obviously some civs are better than others. Now don't tell me mongols are better than chinese and indians better than zulu, because you would lie.

GamerDad said:

The defensive aspect of having ALL defensive units with loyalty allows so much less to be spent in hammers and gold that the re-direction of those assets can push your civilization anywhere you want it to go, all while the rest of the world tries to huff and puff and blow your house down with absolutely no success.

Click to expand...

I like your reference to the big bad wolf and the three little pigs. AND I do agree with the point that the extra hammers can be used for other stuff than defensive units.

You do feel overpowered when you play with the Russians, just as you do feel overpowered when playing some other Civs. That is one of the things that I really love about this game, that you always feel like you found the strongest Civ when you play one of them in the right way.

MorteEterna said:

He wanted to, but how can you say russians are one of the best civ? They are considered in 2k games the worst civ maybe, and I don't know why in this forum you say the opposite. Maybe you haven't experienced everything, I haven't seen top players writing in this forum at least, and you should understand that obviously some civs are better than others. Now don't tell me mongols are better than chinese and indians better than zulu, because you would lie.

Click to expand...

They are considered the worst civ by whom? Everyone who plays the game forms their own opinion. Our point is to urge players not to avoid trying Russia because others post about how "bad" they are. When in fact, they are actually very strong.

Mongols are better than Chinese if you as the player are better at a Mongol strategy. It's all relative, friend. There is no "best" and "worst."

GamerDad said:

They are considered the worst civ by whom? Everyone who plays the game forms their own opinion. Our point is to urge players not to avoid trying Russia because others post about how "bad" they are. When in fact, they are actually very strong.

Mongols are better than Chinese if you as the player are better at a Mongol strategy. It's all relative, friend. There is no "best" and "worst."

Click to expand...

Ok, then I will try to answer you in one sentece because in this forum you seem to not understanding the 'rules' of the game:

One player, with the same skill using chinese and mongols, would use chinese obviously better, because mongols means having no gold, bad production, bad cities (usually). And I will never see the top player using mongols, because they are the most easy to conquer if you know how to play, obviously. This is not only my opinion, and at least I have experience before saying mongols are better than zulu perhaps.

MorteEterna said:

Ok, then I will try to answer you in one sentece because in this forum you seem to not understanding the 'rules' of the game:

One player, with the same skill using chinese and mongols, would use chinese obviously better, because mongols means having no gold, bad production, bad cities (usually). And I will never see the top player using mongols, because they are the most easy to conquer if you know how to play, obviously. This is not only my opinion, and at least I have experience before saying mongols are better than zulu perhaps.

Click to expand...

1. That was three sentences.
2. I understand the "rules" just fine, thanks.
3. Every civilization has pros and cons. It is called balance. Again, there is no "best" and "worst." These terms are only relative to each player's skill with a certain civilization.

GamerDad said:

1. That was three sentences.
2. I understand the "rules" just fine, thanks.
3. Every civilization has pros and cons. It is called balance. Again, there is no "best" and "worst." These terms are only relative to each player's skill with a certain civilization.

Click to expand...

Ok, I was going to say one sentence but it wasn't enough. However, you still don't understand 'my' point (because a lot of players think as me). Many civs, are better than others, then, it depends also on the skill, but with experience you will understand you are wrong (not just an opinion..) because perhaps zulu are 5 times better than mongols, and probably you will never win with mongols, if you stop them then they have better cities and more gold than you. There are a lot of things that means one civ is better than another one.

MorteEterna said:

Ok, I was going to say one sentence but it wasn't enough. However, you still don't understand 'my' point (because a lot of players think as me). Many civs, are better than others, then, it depends also on the skill, but with experience you will understand you are wrong (not just an opinion..) because perhaps zulu are 5 times better than mongols, and probably you will never win with mongols, if you stop them then they have better cities and more gold than you. There are a lot of things that means one civ is better than another one.

Click to expand...

"A lot of players" is not "all." We'll have to agree to disagree.

I have to go with Charlemagne. Even though his UB is arguably the best. He has awful traits and awful starting techs. The early game is pretty important, and he has the hardest time getting off the ground.

That said, you certainly can do well with him. Personally, I think the egyptian war chariots are solid enough to get you off to a good start.

Another one I think is weak is Sitting Bull. His uniques and one of his traits are awful. But he does has philosophical and solid starting techs. So if you can avoid the temptation to try to make super-archers, you can ride a specialist economy to victory.

GamerDad said:

"A lot of players" is not "all." We'll have to agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

And "a lot of players" does not even equal the majority, it plainly means that they are many, i.e. more than 20 according to my definition. I think we are "a lot of players" that like the Russians as well.

And BTW, top ranked players are not equal to the best players. There are great players that are not top ranked in the MP world. I´ve played many SP games and few MP games, and I still rate myself a very good player knowing that I win on Deity almost all games.

Hertsh said:

And "a lot of players" does not even equal the majority, it plainly means that they are many, i.e. more than 20 according to my definition. I think we are "a lot of players" that like the Russians as well.

And BTW, top ranked players are not equal to the best players. There are great players that are not top ranked in the MP world. I´ve played many SP games and few MP games, and I still rate myself a very good player knowing that I win on Deity almost all games.

Click to expand...

I won every game on deity if I want and it means nothing. In fact, if I could get points playing in single player, I would get a lot of points. Then, multiplayer IMO is 4-5 times harder than playing on deity, that is like playing on chieftain. I don't understand why you still think I am wrong, I told you why, and you can't understand. Tell me who uses russians and is the best perhaps, that can win more than 90% of games. Maybe, there is only cuatroshuiamian in x360 that I teached, but he doesn't use only russians and he still can't win against me using romans.

Then, SOME CIVS, are BETTER than OTHER CIVS (key words), no excuses, it's how the game is. You can play better some civs, but if you take one player with 5 skill (example) and another with the same, and the first uses chinese while the second uses mongols, the result is assured, chinese will win in every case. Same example for romans - russians, zulu - indians, and maybe I should continue for the infinite..

Multiplayer is most definitely tougher than playing on Deity. Even within Multiplayer, there are different levels of play. In a game with intermediate players, the Russians, could possibly be better than say the Zulus as perhaps the Zulu player won't be able to press the early rush and get his hand on the Russian player, allowing the Russian to take advantage of his plains bonus and have a direct shot to a culture victory. While a similar matchup between an elite Zulu and elite Russian player would have a completely different outcome because the Zulu's rush would give him a big enough advantage early on that the Russian couldn't keep up. Of course...there's the random factor of what your starting location is like, what you get from the barbs, who gets the artifacts, Great people etc etc that can always affect the outcome dramatically.

First off, Ranked Matches online are harder then Deity, but not by much. On Deity it's more repetitive; you rush, defend their attacks, sweep the board. Online, you have to adapt better to what everyone else is doing, and place your cities better, but it still comes down to defending against rushes, rushing, and expanding quickly.

Morte, I'm not sure what the name is, but someone in the top 10 for Free For All matches on the Xbox360 leaderboards uses the Indians. Proving, that if you use the abilities of your civ well, you can beat a player of the same quality.

I'm a big fan of using the Indians for any kind of victory, although I find that the placement of your first city in MP is particularly crucial. It's also interesting trying to anticipate how the other players will interact with you. I've had a few games where I've focused on production to get Archers for defense, and then not been attacked until the Modern Era. In other games, I've focused on technology pushes and then been overcome in the early game because of my lack of defense. In Deity on SP, it's relatively easy to anticipate how the AI will act: they always attack (but usually not until the Medieval era).

I'm only on PS3, but I'm always open for a game.

Kadazzle said:

First off, Ranked Matches online are harder then Deity, but not by much. On Deity it's more repetitive; you rush, defend their attacks, sweep the board. Online, you have to adapt better to what everyone else is doing, and place your cities better, but it still comes down to defending against rushes, rushing, and expanding quickly.

Morte, I'm not sure what the name is, but someone in the top 10 for Free For All matches on the Xbox360 leaderboards uses the Indians. Proving, that if you use the abilities of your civ well, you can beat a player of the same quality.

Click to expand...

Dorpsgek uses indians and arabs, or maybe it was M Proto, but I never lost to them. When I was playing to M Proto, I dominated him with chinese in a game converted to 1v3, and against Dorpgsek never had problems. Indians are a lucky civ, you need luck to win with them and you know..