Any Civ recomendations for Regent?

[Raxelgrande]

Well, hello. A friend recently introduced me to the civilization franchise and he got me hooked.
I managed to win easily in Chieftain by a late domination victory with The Incans and in Warlord becoming the UN president as The Dutch.

Now, as the title says, what are your recomended civs to play regent? Or in any dificulty, civs that you like and that you recomend to a new player like me.

 

[vmxa]

Any will do, but China comes to mind as I have not played them in some time and their UU is fun (Rider).

 

[justanick]

Now, as the title says, what are your recomended civs to play regent?

When playing at demigod or below, expansionistic civs have a serios advantage regarding bonus huts. Unless you deaktivated bonus huts you should choose an expansionistic civ(Inca,Zulu, Hitties, Arabs, Mongols, Portuguese, Russia or the USA). Inca, Arabs or Russia seem like good choice.

The Inca are agricultural which is arguably the best trait.

The Arabs have a strong UU, similar to the chinese, but cheaper and hence of better availability when it counts. Having what you need when you need it is crucial.

Russia has an UU that is more expensive than regular cavaly. But it has the blitzability. You should try russia at some point, but maybe not right now.

 

[Aabraxan]

The agri civs get a power boost from Turn 1, but I've always enjoyed the commercial and industrious civs. China and Rome come to mind.

 

[WeirdoJoker]

I used to do well as Rome when I played Vanilla, but so far I've Retired from 3 games (2 at Warlord, 1 at Regent), and lost my one at Monarch. Whatever the reason, I just cannot seem to figure out how to play Rome. Maybe if I try it again at Regent ... I was, relatively speaking, kind of close at Monarch, which is still my best one yet score-wise.

China has been much better, with my 4th highest score at Regent (and anticipating great things at Monarch). I definitely like Agricultural and Industrious, whether together (Mayans for my next game!) or in combination with something else.

 

[vmxa]

@Aabraxan

I play France a lot as they are also ind and comm, with a very useful UU.

@WeirdoJoker

You want to get lots of Legionary units as quick as you can and smash neighbors. Early UU's with great stats can run over civs. Rome's are best imo as they have strong offense and defense. It is like having a pike so early that can kill anything around at that time, is powerful. In a decent start, you can run over people on Monarch and Emperor and even DG, though on DG that needs a fair amount of experience.

Of course you do need to have iron close to the start location.

 

[WeirdoJoker]

@WeirdoJoker

You want to get lots of Legionary units as quick as you can and smash neighbors. Early UU's with great stats can run over civs. Rome's are best imo as they have strong offense and defense. It is like having a pike so early that can kill anything around at that time, is powerful. In a decent start, you can run over people on Monarch and Emperor and even DG, though on DG that needs a fair amount of experience.

Of course you do need to have iron close to the start location.

That was, of course, my initial intent - and problem. Iron was far enough away that by the time I was able to get it hooked up, Legionary was obsoleted ... a complete waste of an otherwise good UU.

 

[Aabraxan]

@Aabraxan

I play France a lot as they are also ind and comm, with a very useful UU.

Logically, I know I should play France pretty well, but they've never really clicked for me. For whatever reason .....

 

[vmxa]

It happens.

 

[Aabraxan]

Getting back to the OP:

Well, hello. A friend recently introduced me to the civilization franchise and he got me hooked.
I managed to win easily in Chieftain by a late domination victory with The Incans and in Warlord becoming the UN president as The Dutch.

Now, as the title says, what are your recomended civs to play regent? Or in any dificulty, civs that you like and that you recomend to a new player like me.

It would help to know what kind of victory you want.

 

[tjs282]

It would help to know what kind of victory you want.

And also what size map and landform you like to play on.

I actually wrote a massive Wall'O'Text^TM to try and answer this question, but then thought "Ah, screw it, that's too much to read, I'll distill it into a Table instead" (and then found I was putting the same Civs in everywhere!). But generally, you will have an easier/ more fun game if you choose a Civ based on its traits with respect to the Victory-condition you want to pursue, and the map you're playing. There are essentially 3 types of Victory-conditions:

1. Conquest/Domination = 'Military'. If you want to win like this, you'll probably want to use a Militaristic tribe (no, really?), ideally one with a fast (M>1) Unique Unit (Ancient or early Medieval). But if you beeline to MilTrad/Cavalry as quickly as possible (should be easy at Regent!), you can conquer using any tribe
2. 20K Culture-city/100K Culture-total = 'Cultural'. For this it's best to pick a Scientific and/or Religious tribe, which get cheap Culture-generating buildings. Pick your other trait according to map type/size
   
3. Diplo/Space = 'Scientific'. Scientific tribes are good for this (well, duh...)

The other Civ-traits are more context-/map-(in)dependent. Agricultural is generally considered to be the strongest trait on most map-types, since it gives the possibility of faster growth under Despotism -- provided you get a start with freshwater. Industrious (faster Workers) is also strong, and Commercial (more productive towns, bonus commerce in larger towns) is helpful on most map-types, and especially for longer/science-focussed games.

Expansionist and Seafaring are more map-dependent. As @justanick says, Expansionist is great on Pangaea/Continent maps, but weak on Archipelago maps (since your Scouts swiftly run out of places to explore). Conversely, Seafaring is preferable on Archipelago maps, and can still be useful on Tiny–Standard Continental maps, but it's weak on larger Continental maps -- especially those with less land (= wider Oceans) -- and essentially pointless on any Pangaea (where fewer towns will likely be coastal, and +1 ship-movement gives little advantage).

 

[justanick]

One reason why i think it to be a good idea for new players to use expansionist(or seafaring at archipelago) are early contacts and map information. It helps to not be in the dark and get a feeling for what the AI Civs do at a respective date or turn number(and getting the benefits from huts gives another initial advantage which helps at surviving well enough).

More experienced players already have a feasibly good understanding about that. So they are more prepared to play civs that are not expansionist.

 

[Raxelgrande]

And also what size map and landform you like to play on.


Expansionist and Seafaring are more map-dependent. As @justanick says, Expansionist is great on Pangaea/Continent maps, but weak on Archipelago maps (since your Scouts swiftly run out of places to explore). Conversely, Seafaring is preferable on Archipelago maps, and can still be useful on Tiny–Standard Continental maps, but it's weak on larger Continental maps -- especially those with less land (= wider Oceans) -- and essentially pointless on any Pangaea (where fewer towns will likely be coastal, and +1 ship-movement gives little advantage).

From the little experience I have, I can tell that Exansionist and Seafaring don't get the credit they deserve. You can really get an advantage going that can win you games.
I ended up playing as the byzantines in a 70% water continent map, for now I have a solid expansion fase and managed to get the Great Lighthouse using a scientific leader. My plan is to focus on science/culture and build enough Dormons that if combat breaks out i can swiftly defend and counterattack. Probably in my next game I will go with a Militaristic Civ, between China, Vikings and Rome.
Overall you gave great advice, thank you!

 

[WeirdoJoker]

From the little experience I have, I can tell that Exansionist and Seafaring don't get the credit they deserve. You can really get an advantage going that can win you games.

I do not generally do well with Expansionist ... except for Russia (Scientific), I suppose I don't know how to exploit that characteristic.

Seafaring, though, has turned out great so far. Played 6 Seafaring at Regent - Spain twice (one defeat), Carthage, Vikings, Byzantines and Netherlands. The latter was a great Diplomatic victory (my #5 score to date), and the Vikings are just great for Domination (the Berserkers are really worth it).

I ended up playing as the byzantines in a 70% water continent map, for now I have a solid expansion fase and managed to get the Great Lighthouse using a scientific leader. My plan is to focus on science/culture and build enough Dormons that if combat breaks out i can swiftly defend and counterattack.

My one Byzantines game I won the Space Race.

Probably in my next game I will go with a Militaristic Civ, between China, Vikings and Rome.

China and Vikings are great. I play China a lot, with a victory at each of Chieftain, Warlord & Regent (my #4 score, also Diplomatic). (Two defeats at Warlord before I figured out some things above Chieftain.) I just cannot figure out Rome, though ... no victories in C3C yet (2 Warlord, 1 Regent, 1 Monarch), though I used to do well with them in Vanilla. Granted, not having Iron really stunts Rome's ability to grow early in the game, but still...

 

[justanick]

I suppose I don't know how to exploit that characteristic.

Research the cheapest techs first and trade for techs even if for an obscene price.

Both enable you to not got those cheap techs from huts and get more expensive ones instead. In other words your first builds should be scout and probably scout again so that you maximize your exploration and your hold on huts.

Also make sure to not have or produce a settler when entering a hut. You may get free settler, so donnot turn off that possibility by already having a settler or building one.

 

[WeirdoJoker]

Research the cheapest techs first and trade for techs even if for an obscene price.

Both enable you to not got those cheap techs from huts and get more expensive ones instead. In other words your first builds should be scout and probably scout again so that you maximize your exploration and your hold on huts.

Ok, that makes sense. Maybe next game (still on my Mayans game).

Also make sure to not have or produce a settler when entering a hut. You may get free settler, so donnot turn off that possibility by already having a settler or building one.

This, I do not understand.

 

[Aabraxan]

You cannot pop a settler from a barb hut if you have one or have one in production.

 

[WeirdoJoker]

You cannot pop a settler from a barb hut if you have one or have one in production.

Ah, I didn't know that. Seems a bit of a precarious balance, though ... I would think you'd want to be popping settlers like crazy as a general rule (which I try to do), and to wait even a turn before popping the hut might be to risk someone else getting there first.

 

[tjs282]

Ah, I didn't know that. Seems a bit of a precarious balance, though ... I would think you'd want to be popping settlers like crazy as a general rule (which I try to do), and to wait even a turn before popping the hut might be to risk someone else getting there first.

When your Scout finds a hut, you switch any Settler-builds in progress to something else (such as a Temple) temporarily, and then switch that back to the Settler-build once you've popped the hut.

And ideally, already-built Settlers shouldn't be active for more than a turn or two anyway -- just long enough for them to reach your next planned town-site (which should already have a road in place from your Settler-source).

 

[Aabraxan]

Ah, I didn't know that. Seems a bit of a precarious balance, though ... I would think you'd want to be popping settlers like crazy as a general rule (which I try to do), and to wait even a turn before popping the hut might be to risk someone else getting there first.

@tjs282 hit the nail on the head.

When your Scout finds a hut, you switch any Settler-builds in progress to something else (such as a Temple) temporarily, and then switch that back to the Settler-build once you've popped the hut.....

@WeirdoJoker , as long as you switch to something that costs more shields than a settler, you don't lose any shields. You can switch back in the same turn without losing any time.