Tito9000
Chieftain
On a scale of 1 to 32 wat would u rate Arabia. Plus for wat kind player wuld u say wuld have fun with this tribe.
Arabs
- Thread starter Tito9000
- Start date
Not a civ I'd play normally, but I did fairly well with them when I have used them.
Little Corporal
fromage
Arabs are good for warmongers and builders. Warmongers will enjoy the fast, cheap, and powerful UU. Builders will like the good expansion abilities, cheap temples/cathedrals, and short anarchy time.
Dreadnoughtt
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2006
- Messages
- 63
14/40=11.2/32
5/10 pts for the religous trait
1/10 pts for the expansionist trait
1/10 pts for the trait synergy
7/10 pts for UU
Their traits don't match up well; the only advantage you have playing as them is their 1-2 turn anarchy and a ok UU. Not that great of a civ overall. I get better results playing as a agricultural/industrious/scientific civ
5/10 pts for the religous trait
1/10 pts for the expansionist trait
1/10 pts for the trait synergy
7/10 pts for UU
Their traits don't match up well; the only advantage you have playing as them is their 1-2 turn anarchy and a ok UU. Not that great of a civ overall. I get better results playing as a agricultural/industrious/scientific civ
Tomoyo
Fate
In other words, everyone?Little Corporal said:
Arabs are better for more experienced players that know how to use the expansionist trait and protect their attackers from counter-attackers. They have an excellent UU, but have two of the worst traits. They are better on lower levels and weaker on higher levels. They are better on Pangaeae and worse on Archipelago, better on Dry and worse on Wet, and better on 5 bya than 3 bya.
AutomatedTeller
Frequent poster
The arabs are good for a bunch of things... but aren't optimal for anything.
Want to sweep the world with fast moving knights? Arabs are good... chinese are better.
Want to make a 100K culture victory? Arabs are good - Celts or Babylon are better (Celts expand faster, Babylon has more cheap building)
20K victory? Scientific civs are better
I'd go with the conquering style with arabs, myself. Rush to republic, building a bunch of veteran horsemen along the way and expanding, then slowing research enough to build an upgrade treasury as we get to chivalry...
revolt to monarchy, upgrade my horsemen to Ansar's and sweep the world. By that time, the AI should have built a decent road network, so your ansars will be able to get from place to place really, really fast. If you bring along a few pikes to hold taken cities, you can even cut down on losses to counterattacks.
Want to sweep the world with fast moving knights? Arabs are good... chinese are better.
Want to make a 100K culture victory? Arabs are good - Celts or Babylon are better (Celts expand faster, Babylon has more cheap building)
20K victory? Scientific civs are better
I'd go with the conquering style with arabs, myself. Rush to republic, building a bunch of veteran horsemen along the way and expanding, then slowing research enough to build an upgrade treasury as we get to chivalry...
revolt to monarchy, upgrade my horsemen to Ansar's and sweep the world. By that time, the AI should have built a decent road network, so your ansars will be able to get from place to place really, really fast. If you bring along a few pikes to hold taken cities, you can even cut down on losses to counterattacks.
