Asian civs

[JWAT44]

Which is the best Asian civ? Please explain why.

 

[ShahJahanII]

Okay you got me this time but I call dibs on making the next civilizations poll

I chose China because they can put up a good fight, and enough paper makers gives them the funds to support a large army. They are my favorite civ in the whole game.

 

[Man vs Civ AI]

Okay you got me this time but I call dibs on making the next civilizations poll

I chose China because they can put up a good fight, and enough paper makers gives them the funds to support a large army. They are my favorite civ in the whole game.

I agree... China for the military support.

 

[black213]

Siam because it has lot's of variety on how to play it while primarily focusing on City-States. But as Siam you won't have much gold as you spend it on City-States.

 

[JWAT44]

Okay you got me this time but I call dibs on making the next civilizations poll

so you would be doing the US, american indians, and polynesia right?

 

[Truthy]

China is good for their great general emergence.

 

[ShahJahanII]

so you would be doing the US, american indians, and polynesia right?

Pretty much

 

[jtb1127]

someone just took your poll.

 

[JWAT44]

someone just took your poll.

where?? jk lol but really?

 

[Shind]

It depends what you mean for. The best one city challenge is Siam. Ghandi is a great tradition builder(courthouse exploits aside!) for small empires. China is probably the best overall in the game.

 

[BranjoHello]

Voted for Japan, they are strong military civ.
If you prefer culture Siam would be better choise.

 

[bcaiko]

According to my "All Asians" civ game (I included Polynesia, though), it was decidedly Japan. Maybe because I was playiong them. I mean, c'mon. SAMURAI.

 

[Aspon]

its about stratagys and methodologies of play and what you have to consider is the full effect of this.

given the right circumstances siam can be phenemonal but the problem is it would require unique circumstances such as a huge amount of gold a lot of lux resources and maritime states around. peity been a must to benifit from the large population, eg must keep happy.

city states are a huge influence and it is hard to have a succesful strat without them.

so civilizations with unique abilitys geared this way are very effective however i think that the greeks advantage is much better then siams advantage for the vast majorty of circumstances.

I know that greece isnt a contender in this survery but there are different angles and metholodies of play and when one method is dwalved by another it is pretty much void.

the chinese unique unit and great general advantage is clearly something that makes for a war strat effective.

now the japanese unique abaility is not all its cracked up to be sure there better then some civs but i find for war that the chinese extra combat effectiveness (with generals) is more useful.

india are basically meant to be played few cities and high pop i find this not so useful as the frnech and aztecs are still better for culture win. india would definatly be a contender if they didnt have the unhappiness flaw for numbers of citys but they do so there not.

city states often have an abudance of resources and been able to easily take them over allows for a rich ecomony, however this will annoy all other civs in the game and ruin diplomacy, that and you should have city states for allys anyway so mongolia are not effective for higher difficulities of play may be good for multiplayer against only human oppenents good way of crippling someone relying on the patronage track. useless for high difficulties against the ai though.
so my vote is def china.

a better survey would be who is best out of

Greece
France
China
Babalyon
Aztecs

it is actually more debatable then people would think. I find the aztecs are really good on the higher levels of play notworth touching for anything lower then emperor though.

 

[Morningcalm]

The thing that annoys me about Siam is that their Wat, the university replacement, lacks the bonus science from jungles that the regular university has. Which is weird, since Thailand is largely jungle. It's true that they're among the more versatile Asian civs though. Japan and Mongolia are far too much war-related, China at least has the paper maker for some infrastructural diversity.

 

[snarzberry]

... so mongolia are not effective for higher difficulities of play may be good for multiplayer against only human oppenents good way of crippling someone relying on the patronage track. useless for high difficulties against the ai though.

spectacularly wrong.

 

[Aspon]

spectacularly wrong.

ive beaten it on deity and i dont like mongolia maybe theres a strat im missing but i just dont rate them.

I like to think logically though so please explain where I am wrong. the extra movement for horses and the mongal replacement to the night are nice but Arabia has the camel archer which is pretty much just as nice and the extra gold from trade routes.

I don't do much fighting against city states unless it gets ridiculous eg a city state that has 7 dyes or gold mines in its regions and city states are not hard to conquer anyway if you really want them.

if you are playing anything lower then emperor please shut up because any civ is good there.

 

[snarzberry]

ok I'll explain why you're wrong to claim that Mongolia is useless to use on high difficulties.

You are correct that the UA is clumsy and weird and can largely be ignored as it's better to ally CS's than to destroy them, you usually only get use from this when fighting your enemies allies. However this dwindles into insignificance when it is compared with the pure unadulterated awesomeness of the keshik and khan based army that Mongolia can field.

It is your underestimation of the potential for the human player to take advantage of tactical superiority VS the AI when using these units that is leading to you seriously underrate Mongolia as a civ for higher difficulty levels.

If you can beat deity on standard settings then you're no doubt a good player, you just haven't explored this civ fully or realised the potential for the beat down that you can deliver with keshiks and khans. The camel archer is not in the same league, to put it mildly.

 

[fmlizard2]

I vote Siam for quality UU and UB, and also for a UA that benefits any playstyle. The other Asian civs are decidedly militaristic in nature, except India which is pure vertical small turtle empire, with worse UU and UB.

Siam's UA never goes out of style and is useful for any playstyle.

 

[Aspon]

ok I'll explain why you're wrong to claim that Mongolia is useless to use on high difficulties.

You are correct that the UA is clumsy and weird and can largely be ignored as it's better to ally CS's than to destroy them, you usually only get use from this when fighting your enemies allies. However this dwindles into insignificance when it is compared with the pure unadulterated awesomeness of the keshik and khan based army that Mongolia can field.

It is your underestimation of the potential for the human player to take advantage of tactical superiority VS the AI when using these units that is leading to you seriously underrate Mongolia as a civ for higher difficulty levels.

If you can beat deity on standard settings then you're no doubt a good player, you just haven't explored this civ fully or realised the potential for the beat down that you can deliver with keshiks and khans. The camel archer is not in the same league, to put it mildly.

fair point i still say id rather take some UAs of Aztecs or greeks though.

 

[JWAT44]

i say china because of a very strong economy right from when you research writing onward and a unique unit that can defend your economic empire until rifling when you convert that strong economy into a large military to conquer everyone