Resource icon

[vanilla] Civilization Guide: DLC Inca (vanilla)

Overview Discussion
Pouakai

Pouakai

It belongs in a museum.
Moderator
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
7,195
Location
Aotearoa
Last edited by a moderator:
Pouakai,

Thanks for the guide, an interesting read. However, with the food oriented UB, the Temple of Artemis and the Hanging Gardens on top, I would think you'd advocate a tall empire over a wide one.

On the other hand, the no cost hill-road and half cost otherwise would advocate a network of trade roads and thus many cities for cashing in big (and since you are in mountain range, Machu Picchu will synergize well with this).

Seems like this makes the Inca very versatile for either type of empire. Would you agree?
 
ShahJahanII said:
Its a unique improvement.
Just saying...
Click to expand...

Exactly how much value does this comment add to this thread? I think zero is an overstatement.

Why don't you rather discuss my comment about wide versus tall than trying to up your postcount by adding useless gibberish?
 
EDIT: How good is the game with the Inca's start bias?
I think I remember getting an Inca start with ONE mountain.
The pics seems waaay too ideal.
 
My experience with the Incas is that they are not as hideously sensitive to their start region as the Iroquois, and with even a decent starting situation they can do well because on any given city location they won't *under-perform" the standard buildings the way a Longhouse does.

That said, this is probably the civ that I've quit early with the most (I play mostly on Continents/Continents Plus), because I tend to avoid the Iroquois in general.

Even if they get a nice region of hills but no mountains, the Inca are competitive because they can terrace-farm the unirrigated hills for 2F/2P; eventually the lack of bonus from civil service/fertilizer will damp their long-term growth but by then they've been highly productive for a while, and you can go middle-wide instead of purely tall. If they get a smattering of mountains with lots of hills they will just explode.
 
wannabewarlord said:
Pouakai,

Thanks for the guide, an interesting read. However, with the food oriented UB, the Temple of Artemis and the Hanging Gardens on top, I would think you'd advocate a tall empire over a wide one.

On the other hand, the no cost hill-road and half cost otherwise would advocate a network of trade roads and thus many cities for cashing in big (and since you are in mountain range, Machu Picchu will synergize well with this).

Seems like this makes the Inca very versatile for either type of empire. Would you agree?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. I have had games where I control half the world as the Inca on a large map, and others when I have four cities, each above size 20. They are so incrediably versatile that they can play well with either strategy, similar to the victory conditions.

ShahJahanII said:
EDIT: How good is the game with the Inca's start bias?
I think I remember getting an Inca start with ONE mountain.
The pics seems waaay too ideal.
Click to expand...
That was the first start I got when I was doing a play-through for this article, no re-rolls at all.

weregamer said:
My experience with the Incas is that they are not as hideously sensitive to their start region as the Iroquois, and with even a decent starting situation they can do well because on any given city location they won't *under-perform" the standard buildings the way a Longhouse does.

That said, this is probably the civ that I've quit early with the most (I play mostly on Continents/Continents Plus), because I tend to avoid the Iroquois in general.

Even if they get a nice region of hills but no mountains, the Inca are competitive because they can terrace-farm the unirrigated hills for 2F/2P; eventually the lack of bonus from civil service/fertilizer will damp their long-term growth but by then they've been highly productive for a while, and you can go middle-wide instead of purely tall. If they get a smattering of mountains with lots of hills they will just explode.
Click to expand...
I have had games where there were no mountains near the Inca and they still did well enough to stay as a threat consistently throughout the game, maybe buttoning off a bit towards the end.
 
Thanks for the guide!

I'm a big fan of the Inca's flexibility. They seem to synergize with my sloppier (or less micro-oriented) playstyle, where I don't want to spend time calculating trade route benefits/ city size/ benefits of having roads for ease of movement of troops, for example. And I don't have to worry so much, when the roads are cheaper.

I also find their hill movement bonus incredible useful in wartime and in early scouting; I remember one game where I sent my knights over hills to attack a city - had fun imagining the shock of the defender at seeing them suddenly appear.
 
Incas and Aztecs (since the patch that gave them forest movement) are the two civs that can build a second warrior instead of a scout early, and still have a shot at their fair share of ruins. I know folks who play on the higher difficulty settings do this anyway because they have no real chance at most of the ruins anyway and need the extra combat power against barbarians, but on Prince where I usually play both choices have advantages.

(Of the two, Aztec warriors are even better, as their warriors get a nice promotion they can keep all game, but of course the Inca get the movement bonus for everything at all times.)


On a previous topic, in reflecting that I've restarted with the Inca more often than any other civ, I think another part of that is that I've *started* with them a lot. They are one of my favorite Civs overall.
 
I admit that I've played the Inca exactly once and that was after I downloaded the DLC. I didn't get the best start (No hills) and I didn't understand how to maximize the Inca's strengths. After reading your excellent guide I'm going to give them another shot.

Thank you for your insights and for your work.
 
I like the article but it seems to focus only on a tall approach.

A wide approach is also very viable for Inca, due to traderoutes and machu pichu. Even more important is the fact that so many city sites are good for them. Though they are best on hilly mountain region they don't underperform under normal conditions. Thus, more spots to settle.

And you completely skipped the warpart. How about retreating crossbowmen? Or riflemen? How about abusing the hill movement to your advantage? Why not mention the fact you should not build scouts on hilly regions since slingers will enjoy an almost simmiliar movement speed there?

Hope I don't sound negative, your strategy sounds good and is actually one I haven't tried yet with them, I sure will sometime soon. Just trying to give some constructive criticism.
 
Pouakai said:
You make a good point. I have exams from now until the end of November, but after that I will edit the article.
Click to expand...

Awesome, can't wait. Inca is perhaps my favourite civ and that is hugely due to their superb adaptability.
 
I'm not sure if you find this tidbit of information redundant but cavalry and Inca's UA have great synergy, meaning the only terrain that could impede mounted units are forests and river crossings. This is especially useful w/ horsemen covering your flanks and uber in hit and run styles, less useful with knights because of their 3 vs 4 movement points. And in the late game amazing w/ tanks.
 
ezbutton said:
I'm not sure if you find this tidbit of information redundant but cavalry and Inca's UA have great synergy...
Click to expand...

It's not redundant, Pouakai's mentioned the benefit, but this article could use an expanded section on tactics. Cavalry normally shine on open ground (so they need Shock), and infantry benefit from the terrain defense bonus, multiplying the value of drill. I think the Inca's unique ability turns this on its head.
Cavalry with the drill promotion are incredible at hitting archers and siege - they tend to set up on hills for the visibility. With Incan mobility, horsemen can often escape after such an attack. Giving a majority of infantry the shock promotion provides an essential front line when attack cities on the plain.
I think the tactical use of Great Andean Road - to say nothing of the Withdraw ability - deserve a section in the guide
 
How much of an impact does no tile improvement maintenance have?
I know how much it helps on roads, but does it really have a significant impact for tiles like farms and mines etc, etc?
 
askia53 said:
How much of an impact does no tile improvement maintenance have?
I know how much it helps on roads, but does it really have a significant impact for tiles like farms and mines etc, etc?
Click to expand...

None, those are free. It affects roads and railroads only.

Still, it is a huge benefit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FXS_Sar
New Civ Game Guide: Inca
6 7 8
Replies
155
Views
7K
Krikkit1
K
Hinin
  • Locked
[DLL] (8-NS) 4UC Inca - Make Terrace Farm A Common Improvement and Other Changes
Replies
16
Views
1K
Recursive
Recursive
A
  • Locked
(8-20a) 4UC Inca: Pata-Pata Yield Rebalance, UU2 Rework, and Qullqa Simplification
Replies
4
Views
824
Recursive
Recursive
Laurana Kanan
Shawnee - Exploration Age Civilization Discussion
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
12K
Rac
Rac
Eyswein
6otM180 Announcement
Replies
0
Views
2K
Eyswein
Eyswein
Top Bottom