Greece better than Babylon and Poland?

Well think about it like this...Diplomacy victory with the DLC is one of the most plausible and optimal victory types, whereas in Vanilla Diplomacy Victory type was probably the least-rational victory to pursue. You had to reach the end of the tech tree and then build United Nations - with that much science you could just go to space. Therefore in Vanilla, the Greek UA did not directly help them achieve victory but purely provided them with economic benefits. Now with the DLC their UA actually helps them directly achieve a plausible victory type.


Also on the DLC, gold may bring less influence but I feel that there are a lot more quests now, so you can still gain just as much influence, just in new ways.

Athenaeum said:

How were they nerfed in the DLC? They had the same UA in Vanilla, did they not? Were their special units better or something?

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure horse units didn't take a city attack penalty back then.

Athenaeum said:

How were they nerfed in the DLC? They had the same UA in Vanilla, did they not? Were their special units better or something?

Click to expand...

budweiser said:

I'm pretty sure horse units didn't take a city attack penalty back then.

Click to expand...

The Horse unit city attack penalty was introduced by either the first or second balance patch during Vanilla and impacted all players weather they got DLC or not. But at the time, many balance patches were followed a week later by a DLC.

I agree, Greece is underrated for sure.
I havn't had much experience with Poland, but I have played Korea, Babylon, and Greece on pangaea deity with the default settings. Although I've won fairly easily (between turns 320-360) with both Korea and Babylon, I found Greece with diplomacy the quickest way to victory. I've won as soon as turn 280. There are two crucial things that i've found when playing as Greece: economy, finding all the city states in time to get them as allies. My strategy is getting a few key city states allies at the beginning of the game, usually maritime or cultural, focus on infrastructure, then towards the end just buy all the other city states. The only real problem ive had is that sometimes i neglect military too much, and end up getting wiped out haha. To give you an idea of how little i spend on military, ive gotten to turn 150 with one or two archers or composite bowmen plus the warrior you get for free.
Anyways, my point is that maybe some people here havnt had enough experience with Greece? And that in my experience, the above strategy has worked astonishingly well for me.

Victory speeds are not comparable between victory types.

As for greece being good, yes. Better than Poland and Babylon ? no. Easier allies is valuable but once again look at what is exactly different. When people make that kind of argument they often display it as if one side had exclusivity. I've read many times that Venice was so good because you can ally city states easily with the gold ! No.
Poland and Babylon will still get some CS allies AND also 7 policies for one and more science for the other. An unguaranteed easier time with CSes hardly compete. It is the difference between the number of CS allies you get with greece compared to a normal civ that matter, not the total number of allies. With that in mind I find it really hard to believe you'll get a difference so huge that it beats free policies, a headstart in science and more GS.

If we're speaking some kind of huge 30 CS game then Greece value increases a lot. But for your traditional 16 CS game there is no way a few additional alliances are worth as much.

dav99 said:

I agree, Greece is underrated for sure.
I havn't had much experience with Poland, but I have played Korea, Babylon, and Greece on pangaea deity with the default settings. Although I've won fairly easily (between turns 320-360) with both Korea and Babylon, I found Greece with diplomacy the quickest way to victory. I've won as soon as turn 280.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you can win with Poland or Babylon on Diplo before 280 too. This isn't a good comparison.

Acken said:

Victory speeds are not comparable between victory types.

As for greece being good, yes. Better than Poland and Babylon ? no. Easier allies is valuable but once again look at what is exactly different. When people make that kind of argument they often display it as if one side had exclusivity. I've read many times that Venice was so good because you can ally city states easily with the gold ! No.
Poland and Babylon will still get some CS allies AND also 7 policies for one and more science for the other. An unguaranteed easier time with CSes hardly compete. It is the difference between the number of CS allies you get with greece compared to a normal civ that matter, not the total number of allies. With that in mind I find it really hard to believe you'll get a difference so huge that it beats free policies, a headstart in science and more GS.

If we're speaking some kind of huge 30 CS game then Greece value increases a lot. But for your traditional 16 CS game there is no way a few additional alliances are worth as much.

Click to expand...

I don't think its so clear cut though. Babylon I can concede because they get a really good early range unit and better walls but Poland doesn't get any early military advantages assuming you can't bribe your opponent elsewhere - which realistically is akin to cheating.
If Poland gets forward settled by someone like the Zulu's or Rome you're going to be in for one hard fight and that alone could cripple your game.
Greece though gives you a decent early meatshield UU that can make a big difference in handling early wars. The other thing is I think people can overate ranged units. If you get an impi rush from Shaka he'll have medic or cover promotions on all his units so you'll struggle to do more than 15 damage with a comp bowmen. A hoplite will do far better in a defensive position.

Hello everybody, first time poster and recent Civ convert here.

Got to agree Greece is a powerful outfit. Not trying playing as them yet. However just lost a turn 332 DipV to them on Prince. I was 4 turns from launching in what would have been my fastest finish lol.

Redaxe said:

I don't think its so clear cut though. Babylon I can concede because they get a really good early range unit and better walls but Poland doesn't get any early military advantages assuming you can't bribe your opponent elsewhere - which realistically is akin to cheating.
If Poland gets forward settled by someone like the Zulu's or Rome you're going to be in for one hard fight and that alone could cripple your game.
Greece though gives you a decent early meatshield UU that can make a big difference in handling early wars. The other thing is I think people can overate ranged units. If you get an impi rush from Shaka he'll have medic or cover promotions on all his units so you'll struggle to do more than 15 damage with a comp bowmen. A hoplite will do far better in a defensive position.

Click to expand...

I doubt hoplites can stand against Impis. You need Longswords, XBows or Pikes usually. Good luck with CB and Hoplite

But you're right that Greece has better UUs. If we talk singleplayer though I don't think there are many situation where Poland wouldn't survive.

Redaxe said:

I don't think its so clear cut though. Babylon I can concede because they get a really good early range unit and better walls but Poland doesn't get any early military advantages assuming you can't bribe your opponent elsewhere - which realistically is akin to cheating.
If Poland gets forward settled by someone like the Zulu's or Rome you're going to be in for one hard fight and that alone could cripple your game.
Greece though gives you a decent early meatshield UU that can make a big difference in handling early wars. The other thing is I think people can overate ranged units. If you get an impi rush from Shaka he'll have medic or cover promotions on all his units so you'll struggle to do more than 15 damage with a comp bowmen. A hoplite will do far better in a defensive position.

Click to expand...

I suppose when people talking about ranged units they talk about 4+ of them, and they certainly won't use comp bowmen as meatshield... actually Hoplite strength's (13) is slightly stronger than Composite Bowman attack (11) assumed that they aren't used as meatshield, and in my last game as Rome, Greece hoplite (and Corinth) can't really put a fight against my Legion and... Composite Bowman.

Poland UA's mean you got a free policy by each age, thinking it as accumulating their's UA that end with a free tree of policy by Modern age (if your game last as long) It mightn't seem much but policy is very essential to early game growth since around turn 10-30 in any difficulty higher than King AFAIK.

Acken said:

I doubt hoplites can stand against Impis. You need Longswords, XBows or Pikes usually. Good luck with CB and Hoplite

But you're right that Greece has better UUs. If we talk singleplayer though I don't think there are many situation where Poland wouldn't survive.

Click to expand...

I think that Redaxe's "Poland" analogy applied to most civ that have UU that come at or later than Impi's pratical age of Renaissance (Ie. Winged Hussar and Caroleans), or UU that won't help in defense against Impi (Ie. Battering Ram or Atlatist) or just plain random (Kris Swordman) which is... most civ.

Acken said:

I doubt hoplites can stand against Impis. You need Longswords, XBows or Pikes usually. Good luck with CB and Hoplite

But you're right that Greece has better UUs. If we talk singleplayer though I don't think there are many situation where Poland wouldn't survive.

Click to expand...

hoplites and impis arent even close. That would be like comparing a humvee to a tank.

dav99 said:

I agree, Greece is underrated for sure.
I havn't had much experience with Poland, but I have played Korea, Babylon, and Greece on pangaea deity with the default settings. Although I've won fairly easily (between turns 320-360) with both Korea and Babylon, I found Greece with diplomacy the quickest way to victory. I've won as soon as turn 280.

Click to expand...

Turn 320 isn't "fairly early", it's about average for playing a standard civ. Turn 360 is actually fairly late to win by as a standard civ (unless seeking a specific type of victory even after its apparent that switching to another form would be faster.)

As Babylon or Korea I can launch the space ship by turn 275. As them diplomatic earlier, but depends on how good I managed the timing of the first UN election.

Gold to become allies isn't the bottleneck for diplomatic victory, science to reach Information era to found UN and reach Globalism is.

Acken said:

I doubt hoplites can stand against Impis. You need Longswords, XBows or Pikes usually. Good luck with CB and Hoplite

Click to expand...

They would hold up reasonably well compared to any other unit from the early game. The only other options are Swordsmen, Legions or Pikemen as you say but all of those either require iron or they are much more expensive to build or require tech deviations that really delay your National College.

A Hoplite with a strength of 13 can fortify on rough terrain at about 21-22 if we take into account the +40% fortify bonus and +25% terrain bonus or else a shock2 promotion on open ground. If we combine drill 2 promotions, rough terrain and a river in a strategic place your even better positioned.
Pikemen are also a lot more expensive to build too and your cheaper hoplites will at least allow you to replace your army at a rate that might be more comparable to Diety's Shaka Impi building speed.

If I'm not mistaken the Buffalo promotions also make the Impi stronger against ranged attacks so assuming you can't get to Crossbowmen in time composite bowmen are a waste except maybe for 1 garrisoned in your city to follow up on the city attack. Beelining to construction or ironworking is also not ideal but bronze working is not hard to get early so there's a tech advantage there too which really drags down the use of the Legion or Swordsmen because IronWorking is generally not a high priority tech.

Well I'm not saying Hoplite wouldn't fare better.
It's just that bringing the Impis argument is more about who dies quicklier between Greece and Poland than who is better if you plan to hold with spearmen.
Granted it may be enough to buy you a couple turns to get something else.

But that's why you don't compare the civs directly to each other and find some situation that advantage one over the other. It's not like Greece will never be better than Poland. It's just that overall Poland does better most of the time and is then a better civ... overall.

Poland is weaker in the beginning of the game, pre medieval era. Not weaker than a "neutral" civ, but weaker than civs that have early game UUs or other early game bonuses. Before medieval you have only one extra SP and even if you use it, for example to finish Tradition faster, that bonus will not be significant right away, it will be felt best later when you will gain significant growth and extra science which will let you get techs a lot faster and snowball.

If you do a liberty honor mix, starting left side liberty and then continuing with honor, you could have Warrior Code and use that great general to plant a citadel and survive an Impi rush with Spearmen and CBs, but you need the right terrain. So you gain the benefits of having an accelerated start because of liberty and still finish honor before renaissance (or do whatever, honor left side and start other trees), which is a lot better than a "neutral" civ, that would have been forced to go full honor to get a Great General for defending against a carpet of doom.

joncnunn said:

Gold to become allies isn't the bottleneck for diplomatic victory, science to reach Information era to found UN and reach Globalism is.

Click to expand...

It's actually the other way around in my games. In some cases I'd need 2-3 more city states for a diplomatic win but the AI has them influenced in 250s. If my science game is subpar due to setbacks, I get Globalization fairly consistently around T250 on Standard Deity, and under 230 if my science is better, and probably around 200 on a crazy map like DCL Spain

^ Kill that AI

As others have said, Greece is a good but not god-tier civilization. It doesn't even come close to Poland, imo.

claudiupb said:

Poland is weaker in the beginning of the game, pre medieval era. Not weaker than a "neutral" civ, but weaker than civs that have early game UUs or other early game bonuses. Before medieval you have only one extra SP and even if you use it, for example to finish Tradition faster, that bonus will not be significant right away, it will be felt best later when you will gain significant growth and extra science which will let you get techs a lot faster and snowball.

If you do a liberty honor mix, starting left side liberty and then continuing with honor, you could have Warrior Code and use that great general to plant a citadel and survive an Impi rush with Spearmen and CBs, but you need the right terrain. So you gain the benefits of having an accelerated start because of liberty and still finish honor before renaissance (or do whatever, honor left side and start other trees), which is a lot better than a "neutral" civ, that would have been forced to go full honor to get a Great General for defending against a carpet of doom.

Click to expand...

A mass impi rush would be stopped best with machinery technology and xbows. Gunpowder technology also would be useful also. Worst units you could use are mobile archers.

Except if you consider impi is unlocked by civil service which you can get earlier than machinery and also consider the fact that the deity AI can tech to medieval much quicker than you can. Impi rush is difficult to handle if Shaka doesn't have anyone to bribe against.