What is the toughest civ to play on Emperor?

Each player choose the way they like to play the game and this won't fit with any civ. If you don't rush in the early game, indians are better than zulu. Surely if everybody would play the same way than you could say that this civ is always better than an other one, but as each player play a different type of game some civs are better for a player even if it's not a good one for a top player.
As example, I never player zulu in MP because I don't like to rush so even if it is the best civ for some player I wouldn't be good with them. Still I can beat a zulu, arab, chinesse or roman player 90% of the time without using these particular civilisation. So I think the best civ is really relative to the type of play you like and decide to adopt and this is good because this mean that it's not everybody that play the same civs the same way in all MP's games.
 
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..

So we actually start getting on discussing terms... I'm glad. :goodjob:

I think that we are discussing from different points-of-view and thus the arguments about the best or worst civ. In MP it is much more about early rushes and strenght at the beginning of the game. If you are strong after medieval you are set to go for a victory. In SP it is more balanced for the player to go for a quick rush game or a long tech game where a civ that is strong early in the game suits for some strats and a civ that is strong in the later part of the game suits for other strats. In MP, there is no use in playing a civ that is strong later in the game because you will not be able to hold off and grow strong in the early parts. Thus your point (from an MP perspective) that Indians and Russia are weak, and my point (from an SP perspective) that Indians and Russia are fun and strong.

Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to play a full MP game too often and thus I cannot gain ranks and prove anything different. I play often but usually short games since my daughter requires attention. :)
 
I tried using the Japanese in the UK map because of the sea and islands in the map, but every time i kept LOOSING (one time the arabs won by strighly moving their only warrior unit into my undefended city. My warriors was walking around exploring) when playing them, so i tried the RUSSIANS. I'm not finished with the game. I built myself three cities and converted FOUR egyptian one's. They only had a capital left, which actually lost their culture bonus to my SUPREME culture of moscow. Then the Aztecs (In Southern and Eastern England) , being at war with Egypt... and me, captured Thebes with a knight unit (at this time i already had RIFLEMAN ARMIES in every city), which gave me the oppertunity to take full control over Ireland by capturing Thebes the same turn with my waiting knights army (I had Democracy, so i couldn't decleare war on Egypt myself). Then i kept on building up my civ. Even if almost every civilization is at war with me at the same time i mostly keep them away with my GUARDS RIFLEMEN ARMIES and BATTLESHIP FLEETS (they havent really touched a single city of mine). The chinese (In Scotland and Northern England) kept on sending crusers to destroy my battleships, but they didn't actually have any luck. So i started building up my army. Not to long afterwards, with a SUPERIOR army of artillery and TK54 Tanks (or something like that), i started the Battle of Britain, this time with the Russian Ireland as the attacker. I last saved the game with the whole of Scotland and North-Eastern England under MY control. The Chinese Only have one city left in the North-Western England. In Wales and Western England was a WAWERING Spanish Cicilzation. Also, the aztecs begged me for a peace with no terms (They'r actually smart enought to see my strenght, so they could focus on their war with the spanish). I Agreed (I had Democracy, so i couldn't disagree). I got the strongest navy in the WORLD/UK, my economy and techology is superior, i have 3/5 capitals and have been able to build the UN for about 50 turns now. Then i saved the game and quit.

My conclusion to this is that the russians ARE one of the best civs in the game, just because their flexibility. Here i played on King difficulty.

veBear
 
Each player choose the way they like to play the game and this won't fit with any civ. If you don't rush in the early game, indians are better than zulu. Surely if everybody would play the same way than you could say that this civ is always better than an other one, but as each player play a different type of game some civs are better for a player even if it's not a good one for a top player.
As example, I never player zulu in MP because I don't like to rush so even if it is the best civ for some player I wouldn't be good with them. Still I can beat a zulu, arab, chinesse or roman player 90% of the time without using these particular civilisation. So I think the best civ is really relative to the type of play you like and decide to adopt and this is good because this mean that it's not everybody that play the same civs the same way in all MP's games.

I belieave in finding a civ that fits your play style because you would most likely do your best with that civ BUT even if you dont like to rush, ZULUS are still way to easy to rush with. Also if you have a success rate of 90% against those civs than they dont know how to rush or use there free ai caps.
 
So we actually start getting on discussing terms... I'm glad. :goodjob:

I think that we are discussing from different points-of-view and thus the arguments about the best or worst civ. In MP it is much more about early rushes and strenght at the beginning of the game. If you are strong after medieval you are set to go for a victory. In SP it is more balanced for the player to go for a quick rush game or a long tech game where a civ that is strong early in the game suits for some strats and a civ that is strong in the later part of the game suits for other strats. In MP, there is no use in playing a civ that is strong later in the game because you will not be able to hold off and grow strong in the early parts. Thus your point (from an MP perspective) that Indians and Russia are weak, and my point (from an SP perspective) that Indians and Russia are fun and strong.

Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to play a full MP game too often and thus I cannot gain ranks and prove anything different. I play often but usually short games since my daughter requires attention. :)

You dont always need to rush to win. If your playing free for all or Teams than theres only one cpu, which isnt too significant. But head to head rushes are important. Ive taken out all the AI and 2 secondary cities with ONE arab horsemen army (kind of pathetic). THATS 6 free cities plus free settler. Ive come to the conclusion that a player should always rush a horsemen army this way you can grab a cap and even defeat the opposition horsemen army.
 
Top Bottom