Not Impressive Winning w/ Strong Civs.

[Manock]

Alot posts arguing who is the strongest civ. Dont get it. Winning with a strong civ is not impressive. Just once would like to play a mp that doesnt have Chinese, or Aztecs.

I feel a loss when I dont have at least one Great Wonder when I go down to Chinese guns. Other than that. Ho hum.

 

[Kadazzle]

Fo fum?

I don't see the point of posting this thread. Posting in the said threads I believe would be much more approved.

 

[GGrayson]

I've gotta agree with you. I won so many games with the chinese that it got too boring, and I'm sure it was for others that played multiple times against me while using the chinese. But debating "which is the strongest civ" is the most played out thread on any of the civ rev boards, and it rears it's ugly head all the time, even when the thread isn't dedicated to it.


Choosing random civ each time has really helped spice up my MP play (single player has just gotta a little too old for me, tired of handicapping myself to get a challenge from AI). It is really nice to beat someone with the french, mongols, indians or any other civ that I'm not used to playing with and doesn't have the greatest of bonuses. What I am learning is how to play a lot more flexiblely, and learning that even the consesus weaker civs can be very very powerful if things play out right.

 

[Frelinder]

I agree on that The debate of wich civ that are the best or most powerfull is is simply a bit ridicilous.

However its perhaps slightly more easy to see what civs are best for war and what civs that are best for teching fast.

China is one of the best because it leaves so many options. you can rush with them, you can expand fast with them and tech fast. And so on. However their bonus are more or less the most boring ones in the game(my opinion) The mongols have the most intresting bonus..

The question isn't realy which civ is the strongest. Its more like How to use the choosen civ in the absolute best way its possible. If mastering this all the Civs are more or less equal.

One important thing here is that what people think of certains Civs might give you the oportunity to surprise them.

I mean if you see a Zulu, arabs you more or less expect an early rush and start to build alot of defence. This the Zulu player can take advantage of and instead choose to not be agressive and start teching like crazy while his opponent are wasting hammers on alot of defence..

Another thing if you play the French people maybe don't expect an early rush from you.. Well you can use this and do a rush with the french and they wan't understand whats hitting them before its to late

To Anarak.. It would be cool if there were an serie, MP leage that you only could play random civs. This means the top player in this serie is the ones that can master the game best... and just not a certain civ best and do the same horse-rush over and over again in every game..

also the games would be more fun with more viarety and we would se MP games with Indians, Mongols, Russians and French in the same game... cool eh

 

[MorteEterna]

I agree on that The debate of wich civ that are the best or most powerfull is is simply a bit ridicilous.

However its perhaps slightly more easy to see what civs are best for war and what civs that are best for teching fast.

China is one of the best because it leaves so many options. you can rush with them, you can expand fast with them and tech fast. And so on. However their bonus are more or less the most boring ones in the game(my opinion) The mongols have the most intresting bonus..

The question isn't realy which civ is the strongest. Its more like How to use the choosen civ in the absolute best way its possible. If mastering this all the Civs are more or less equal.

One important thing here is that what people think of certains Civs might give you the oportunity to surprise them.

I mean if you see a Zulu, arabs you more or less expect an early rush and start to build alot of defence. This the Zulu player can take advantage of and instead choose to not be agressive and start teching like crazy while his opponent are wasting hammers on alot of defence..

Another thing if you play the French people maybe don't expect an early rush from you.. Well you can use this and do a rush with the french and they wan't understand whats hitting them before its to late

To Anarak.. It would be cool if there were an serie, MP leage that you only could play random civs. This means the top player in this serie is the ones that can master the game best... and just not a certain civ best and do the same horse-rush over and over again in every game..

also the games would be more fun with more viarety and we would se MP games with Indians, Mongols, Russians and French in the same game... cool eh

Not pretty much when I get mongols and the other one zulu, that would be unfair and stupid. Maybe better getting bugs than beeing unlucky for getting a bad civ and loosing..

 

[Frelinder]

Not pretty much when I get mongols and the other one zulu, that would be unfair and stupid. Maybe better getting bugs than beeing unlucky for getting a bad civ and loosing..

well after 50 games its not luck anymore. Then the random factor should have made it quite fair and even for everyone

 

[MorteEterna]

well after 50 games its not luck anymore. Then the random factor should have made it quite fair and even for everyone

No, and I tell you this because one, really lucky could get a lot of times the best civs that he can use while the other one can't use the civ he gets. That would be unfair. It would count too much on luck

 

[Kadazzle]

Obviously you don't know odds or percentages.

Take 50 games, then look at how many civs there are. Now, try to convince me that you'll get Mongols every time, and your opponent will get Zulu every time.

 

[MorteEterna]

Obviously you don't know odds or percentages.

Take 50 games, then look at how many civs there are. Now, try to convince me that you'll get Mongols every time, and your opponent will get Zulu every time.

Obviously you don't know odds or percentages.

In fact, it won't happen that out of 50 games every time you play at least 2 times each cvilization.

In fact, it could happen that you play 10 times zulu, 10 times chinese, 10 times arabs, 10 times aztecs, etc.. Then don't tell me what you don't know.

 

[Kadazzle]

Yes, but it would be lucky if you played 50 games, and got 10 times zulu, 10 times chinese, 10 times aztecs, 10 times romans and 10 times arabs. You want to know why? Becausde the odds and percentages don't go like that! Please, don't talk unless you know what you're talking about. It's the same as if you played 50 games, you wouldn't get mongolia 50 times.

 

[MorteEterna]

Yes, but it would be lucky if you played 50 games, and got 10 times zulu, 10 times chinese, 10 times aztecs, 10 times romans and 10 times arabs. You want to know why? Becausde the odds and percentages don't go like that! Please, don't talk unless you know what you're talking about. It's the same as if you played 50 games, you wouldn't get mongolia 50 times.

You still don't understand. Percentage doesn't mean if it is 33,3333333% of getting a civ you get it 1/3 times. It means it can be 1/3/1 times, then you could get 50 times mongolia, you don't know. What I'm saying is that there could be lucky players and unlucky players, and that could happen. Like playing poker and winning 5000 $ and not winning..