Best Civ for Consistent Wins on Diety Pangea/Continents?

The problem is you are selectively reading what I wrote.

The argument was focusing on early game rushes that happen between turns 10 and 14. I was saying that for me, that means a rush by an AI civ with like 5 to 6 warriors. That is a typical AI rush that can be a challenge. However, that is not common between turn 10 and 14.

Some other people were wanting to include barb rushes between 10 and 14 in that discussion. My point was I don't count those because they are easy to deal with. The only way I would count that is if you got rushed by 2 barb camps at once in turn 10 to 14. Again, not common.

Understood?

 

I've definitely been holding my own against the AI and gotten blitzed by barbs from the other side. It can and will take you right out of the game. It may not happen in every game but it happens often enough to matter. As I understand it that's exactly the sort of situation this thread asks us to consider; which Civ has the best chance when everything goes wrong.

 

Yea but I don't count those situations either because if barbs atrack when AI is attacking your city, it is more likely the barbs will attack the AI civ units and vice versa. Barbs attacking at same time as AI civ is usually a blessing.

 

Usually isn't always. Bad barb starts happen often enough to notice even without involving an AI civ. When they do attack at the same time as the AI it's just luck whether they show up at your flank or the AI's.

 

Ok I give up... you win... trust me I really don't care. When Civ VI first came out I bought it and all the extras but hardly played it until just recently. In that time period Civ V basically died months before Civ VI and really died after the release. I didn't post on here for about two years and recently started to post again because I was messing with Civ VI but I am pretty much done with the game again.

I enjoy listening to your argument though. Every time someone calls you out on some BS you posted you just say I don't count that or again I don't count that either lol. Must be nice to rebuttal and just say "that doesn't count" I am right and you are wrong. because those things don't happen or they don't count or they only happen 10% of the time so it isn't relevant.

 

I'm just being clear on my opinion lol. When AI civ attacks and barbs attack at the same time, that is generally a good thing for me. You want me to lie and say it sucks? Barbs can be an effective defensive force. The AI civs use them in the exact same way when you attack one of their cities and the barbs suddenly show up.

 

You aren't wrong that this is sometimes good, but it depends on the situation. If the barbs are pillaging any resources you've developed, reducing your cities or attacking your units, that's not helpful. If they are doing the same thing to the AI, it is helpful. Barbs are a chaotic element in the game. If you are intelligent (and lucky) you can turn them to your advantage a lot of the time, but sometimes not.

Someone posted about Nubia that even if the arguments in favor of Nubia were true, an early army made up of ranged-type units with no cavalry-type units would be boring. First, I like Nubia, but prefer Rome, so I'm not getting into the main argument about who is best all over again. However, I have played many games as Nubia and others in which I go with an early Archer-dominant army as an offensive force, though one that isn't bad at ranged defense either. Usually this is supported by melee units to actually take cities, though I sometimes have used cavalry, wheeled or anti-cavalry units for the same purpose. I think these games are far from boring. Certainly, "boring" goes to personal taste and play style. This approach suits my style, which is to rush with this type of army for an early expansion and potentially a domination game. I then play the map with options to go through with continued domination, consolidate and go for later domination, or build on this early expansion for a cultural or science victory. There are many ways to play the game and have fun doing it.

 

Nubia is in my Top 5 fun to play civs. I was a big desert start player in Civ5 so I guess I know how to make them work well. IMO Nubia warmongering isn't boring. Pitati are glass cannons and things can easily go south especially when medieval rolls around. The perfect supplement to the fast moving Pitati are cavalry... so I think it's actually a fun highly mobile mix. It's the melee that's boring even though they are a bit better with the patched +1 movement.

 

For this conversation to ever amount to anything of value (optimistic, I know) people are going to have to agree on what counts as The Early Game. Is it Ancient Era or even fewer Turns? Victoria plays like it's the first 20 Turns, which is how the hardcore players do; the first city you smash has just enough time to make a District so then you get your State Workforce boost out of their ruins. MarigoldRan is playing Slinger-into-Archery-boost.

Aztec/Mining start lets you chop into 4 Jags by Turn 20 (I will forever call them Jags even if they are no longer called Jags), 3 if you start with bad dirt, which is enough to pummel anyone who tries to come at you or defend with a Slinger/Warrior force. You actually want your neighbor to be close enough and aggressive enough to declare on you so you get to smash them in the field and get your Defensive Tactics boost. Then the AI loses its mind trying to decide to build Walls or defensive units, neither choice being sufficient, as you mercilessly advance.

Pitati Archers are great, and you can have a big mess of Slingers by the time Archery is done. And not enough Gold to upgrade all of them yet. And they have to be home, within your borders, not out scouting or poaching unaccompanied Settlers. You're probably building 1-2 Pitati from scratch before you're ready to go adding to your empire. This will get you there, but you will be slower than Aztecs. Not by a lot, but when you are trying to get a sub-150 Victory those turns matter. That's the game Victoria is playing, not to just win but faster than they have before.

Both Civs are ridiculously equipped to rule the Ancient Era. One, in the opponent's hands, can kill you before you get your first Settler out.

Nubia's real power, IMO, comes from fantastic Mines and the ability to get The Pyramids almost every game. Try that focus, MarigoldRan, and see what happens. You start swinging a little later but no one withstands when you start making a new Pitati Archer reinforcement every 2 Turns because your Production is through the roof.

 

Not speed but consistency. Which one is better at surviving the first 20 turns, ALL OF THE TIME?

The logic is if you can survive the first 20 turns in decent shape, the game is won.

And the answer is probably: tied since both are at 100%.

 

When you hit Victoria's skill, the Civ doesn't matter much. Victoria plays England, for Pete's sake.

But given two players of comparable skill playing Aztecs and Nubia, Monty is going to win in a scuffle. Too many free Hammers from victims turned into Builders, which are then turned into Districts.

If we are back to talking consistency, I vote Rome. Culture is hard to come by with recent patches and that free Monolith is ridiculously advantageous. Roads and Trade Posts are more free advantages that let you focus on building Settlers and troops in the early game. Rome thrives on just about any starting dirt (Nubia and Aztecs can get some miserable starts,) and you are going to get access to those second ring resources even sooner than you thought possible. My criterion for an exceptional Civ is 10 cities by the end of the Classical and Rome has never failed me.

 

Free monuments are great but not nearly as big of an advantage as having Eagles right out of the starting gate or half cost fast promoted slingers into Pitati archers. Rome is top tier but they are weaker than both Aztec and Nubia in the opening IMO. They really don't have anything at their disposal in the first 20 turns to defend against a quick warrior rush. I've had bad starts with Rome.

 

If we are back to talking consistency of wins, Rome has the advantage because of starting bias. Aztec and Nubia can have some spectacularly bad starting dirt, Desert and Grassland. And if you don't have the Hammers to get those Jags and Slingers out quickly and not by crippling your empire in other areas, you will fall behind. You will have a sprawling empire of 8 feeble cities.

If we are talking speed of generating combat strength, Aztec and Nubia are superior. But their starts are sometimes just horrific, 4 Food 3 Hammers or you have to move 3 Turns to get to something productive.

 

I'm not even sure what Rome has for starting bias. I rarely pay attention to this honestly as it just doesn't seem to be a major factor. For example - with Norway I seem to get heavy jungle starts even though they have a woods bias. I've played tons of openings with Aztecs and probably had 2 or 3 really poor tundra starts but o/w it was fine. This is my typical experience with any civ. It's a minor consideration IMO and it certainly doesn't trump the powerful early unique units of Aztecs or Nubia. It would be interesting to see a test of this but I don't want to churn through that many restarts.

 

You would think Rome would have a starting bias of hills beside a river.

 

Desert start bias is not a problem for Nubia.