Best Civ for Consistent Wins on Diety Pangea/Continents?

[MarigoldRan]

..b e f o r e Y o u g e t 6. s l I n g e r s
look you clearly think they are the best, good on you. Just do not be so blind as think everyone feels the same.

Well yeah. But if you're going to die before 6 slingers, that means you're going to die before 3 Jaguar Warriors. 3 Slingers and a Warrior can hold off a rush just as well as TWO Jags. Also, the builder bonus doesn't matter if we're talking about that early of a game because two Jags aren't going to pick off a builder against a dedicated 5 warrior early rush.

Also, if you can rush down 1-2 enemies in the early game, it doesn't matter if it's continents or Pangea. You're going to have more cities than the AI and even in a science race you're going to win.

I understand Sumeria and Aztecs can win faster, but for consistency, the Nubians will reliably win. You don't need to kill everyone with Pitati. All you have to do is take down one-two other civs and the game is eventually won. And the Nubain bonuses are perfectly designed for that.

Walls don't slow Pitatis much. 5 archers firing at a city can take down a wall in 1-2 turns.

I've read posts by Victoria about surviving a rush of 5 warriors with 2 warriors and a scout. With Nubia, you could instead have 1 warriors and 4 slingers by that time, which is much more survivable. Also, the Aztec bonus where you get builders don't matter if you're getting swarmed by barbarians and/or AI warrior rushes because you aren't going to get those extra builders without offensive combat victories.

And I still don't understand why she thinks 2 Jags is better than a warrior and 3 slingers. Given the micro potential of 3 slingers, they can hold off almost anything in the early game.

Is that the main threat? I've seen Shaka and a few other AI do this, usually after they get some archers to help with the early rush. But that's mostly when I've played badly and left my capital too poorly defended. On the other hand, the Barb horse rush has been devastating many times. To me, that's the severe early game threat that you will most likely have to withstand, even with best play.

Yes.

Pitati and mass slingers counter all of this. Rome's primary bonus is the early monument so you can get Agoge fast. But the Nubains effectively start the game with Agoge, as long as you're building slingers.

Rome's legions are nice, but oftentimes they don't come into play until the game is already won or lost.

 

[EditorRex]

Yes.

Pitati and mass slingers counter all of this. Rome's primary bonus is the early monument so you can get Agoge fast. But the Nubains effectively start the game with Agoge, as long as you're building slingers.

Rome's legions are nice, but oftentimes they don't come into play until the game is already won or lost.

No, Rome's primary bonus in my opinion is the free and instant roads on any city you build or conquer back to Rome. This makes moving non-Cavalry units much more practical, both for offense and defense. But the monument is also about a lot more than Agoge, which I only use in some games. Free monuments in every city you build add up to an edge in loyalty and cultural development that goes deep into the game. Rome does not have to invest hammers or spend money to get these culture-generating items in every city. It's a head start to better forms of government, and every card in the game.
One other thing besides the legions (swordsmen you can build without iron that perform some engineering tasks), is the Trading Posts. In conjunction with the roads, these make Rome a potential economic dynamo, with bonuses to culture, science and faith if played correctly. With Magnus' promotions, you can also use internal trade to jump start your small cities with extra food even if they are normally too far from the Magnus city.

Anyway, about the Nubians, I do like them and have experimented with playing them. But I find that they are susceptible to the wrong Barb conditions and certain AI. They don't do well if they are forced to fight an early aggressive foe with strong horse, wheel or infantry units. I've had bad experiences in starts next to Scythia and Sumeria, for instance.

 

[eleven11]

Anyway, about the Nubians, I do like them and have experimented with playing them. But I find that they are susceptible to the wrong Barb conditions and certain AI. They don't do well if they are forced to fight an early aggressive foe with strong horse, wheel or infantry units. I've had bad experiences in starts next to Scythia and Sumeria, for instance.

I eat Deity AI Sumeria for lunch with Nubia. However, I do need a few warriors on the board to soak up some damage. Two is usually plenty early on and then I move to horsemen. The maneuverability of the Pitati helps get maximum damage on a warcart to take 1+ more down per turn. Once they get an upgrade or two just 1 Pitati hit can be enough to take a unit out of the fight.

I find they are best when facing a defensive war first and then to swing that momentum into conquest and then either peel back or press on. Horseman or Chariots + Pitati are a force to be reckoned with. Swordsman slow things down. I find their biggest downside is that Oligarchy doesn't affect their damage... however, maybe that's a good thing. No dire need for lots of culture in the early game.

Nubia was the first Civ that allowed me to compete on Deity because their UU and UA directly cancelled out the AI's early military advantage while allowing some leftover production to get an early district or two online.

 

[MarigoldRan]

No, Rome's primary bonus in my opinion is the free and instant roads on any city you build or conquer back to Rome. This makes moving non-Cavalry units much more practical, both for offense and defense. But the monument is also about a lot more than Agoge, which I only use in some games. Free monuments in every city you build add up to an edge in loyalty and cultural development that goes deep into the game. Rome does not have to invest hammers or spend money to get these culture-generating items in every city. It's a head start to better forms of government, and every card in the game.
One other thing besides the legions (swordsmen you can build without iron that perform some engineering tasks), is the Trading Posts. In conjunction with the roads, these make Rome a potential economic dynamo, with bonuses to culture, science and faith if played correctly. With Magnus' promotions, you can also use internal trade to jump start your small cities with extra food even if they are normally too far from the Magnus city.

Anyway, about the Nubians, I do like them and have experimented with playing them. But I find that they are susceptible to the wrong Barb conditions and certain AI. They don't do well if they are forced to fight an early aggressive foe with strong horse, wheel or infantry units. I've had bad experiences in starts next to Scythia and Sumeria, for instance.

Yes, but none of this matters if 5-6 warriors shows up on your doorsteps on turn 15.

When it comes to consistent wins, Nubia is the best since they're the only ones where you can get 6-7 good military units by turn 15.

Once you're in the double-digit number for Pitati, AI Horsemen don't do anything to them. They tend to send them in one or two at a time, and you can just mow them down with 4 Ptati shots per horsemen. Then move on to next target.

Sumeria? Pfffft. They're easy (also you can cheese them and make friends if necessary).

The ONLY civ you can't easily kill with Ptati is Scythia with horses and maybe the Kongo and their Mbeba.

The idea is to build NOTHING but Ptati with the occasional scout to take cities. This is one of the best scaling units once you hit critical mass.

On Huge Continents or Pangea I normally have 15-20 cities by turn 100, at which point you can do anything to win.

The issue with Pitatis is people don't get enough of them. They think of them as a "cool archer" but its so much more than that.

As Nubia you shouldn't build anything EXCEPT slingers, Pitati and the occasional scout (for taking 0 health cities). That's the optimal way to maximize their +50% ranged units production advantage.

People don't realize how strong those things are because they only get 5 or 6 and then complement them with other units thinking "oh I need a meatshield in front." But with sufficient numbers of Ptati, you don't need a meat shield because they'll slaughter anything that gets close, and when they're occasionally wounded, just pull the wounded behind and put a fresh one in front. The game calls them "archers" but Pitatis are actually 3-move ancient era DEATH MACHINES. The right number of Ptati is somewhere between 20 and 30 per front.

 

[Victoria]

The right number of Ptati is somewhere between 20 and 30 per front.

That’s reason enough never to play them

And I still don't understand why she thinks 2 Jags is better than a warrior and 3 slingers. Given the micro potential of 3 slingers, they can hold off almost anything in the early game.

Well clearly I am stupid then because when 5 warriors swarm me my Nubian slingers cannot stand there range 1 and shot because they die.

 

[MarigoldRan]

You always assign them so that only one warrior can attack one of them per turn. Rivers are your friend.

Also, you know that thing you do with scouts where you can lure them away? Turns out slingers are just as good at it. Think of them as scouts with a ranged attack, that can be upgraded to archers.

The advantage of lots of slingers is you can rotate out the damaged ones. They also get experience super quickly.

Two slingers can always take out a warrior if they get to shoot first.

 

[Victoria]

The advantage of lots of slingers

B e f o r e 6. s l I n g e r s
Ok ... I’m going to play 10 Nubian starts to turn 30 on deity but I must stress that even of Nubia does very well there is no way I want to play a game with 30 archers per front and nothing else, that’s not a game, that’s just moronic, at least with knights you have to think what you are doing. Suggestion for build order?

 

[Fluphen Azine]

LOL... that's not a game... that's moronic! I think this back and forth is getting a little personal but entertaining

 

[Victoria]

Agreed

 

[Arent11]

Suggestion for build order?

The suggestion was slinger, builder (chop forests for more slinger), slinger... -> upgrade to archers. Right now I would also lean to Aztec because of immediate strong eagle warrior, but I'm open for new ideas. The +5/healing of scythia seems also good for immediate survival.

 

[Victoria]

When it comes to consistent wins, Nubia is the best since they're the only ones where you can get 6-7 good military units by turn 15.

This is just over optimistic and makes me feel you reload until you get a great map.
I played 10 games and had no issues with early civs whatsoever .. but never got those units by thats time.
however some things became clear.

1 Upgrading to archers at 60 gold is not simple and then there is the 1 maintenance afterward
2 Forcing animal husbandy-archery means no mining ... meaning no chop, this seems to contradict a lot of what you espouse.
3 The start positions are sometimes good but often poor, here is a classic example

You may be able to get 6-7 military units by turn 15 with the most wonderful start that reloads get... and what constitutes a "good unit"? Because it you are saying an archer you unlikely have archer by then and if you have then have you managed to get 300 gold to upgrade 5 archers?
Your strategy has one path, which is not very flexible and I was bored of it by game 3 because it does not fit the situation a lot.
I'm with the 5 other people on Aztecs, they are a fine civ to play, interesting and flexible from turn 1
I agree its a great civ, I have no issue with that and it may be that they survive to T30 but maybe they do not.
The lack of fair consideration in your posts which have what seem to be highly optimistic statements, make your arguments loose weight

However... to anyone that has bothered to get this far... I played 10 aztec games and 10 roman games to T20. The aztencs got attacked twice early by civs and survived and the Romans once and survived. The Monument is a big benefit, underrated is those +2 culture points from T1. The Aztec however I enjoyed more. I guess the point is that normally you do survive and win so the OP question is a bit moot. Maybe your intention with the post was to espouse Nubia with an archer flood strategy So I'm gonna play just like that... the issue I have with Nubia if I remember correctly is they strugle to build districts and its just about taking cities. The Romans have always been great and solid but I have not played enough, perhaps now I'll play a few games as England is just soooo bad they are pointless. Gilgamesh is awesome though, no maintenance in the chariots that do not count as cavalry but upgrade to knights is just scary. Another thing about Sumeria is if you have grassland then zigs are great while for most other civs grassland is useless.

 

[MarigoldRan]

All you need is two forests to get 6 slingers by turn 15-20 (depending on map). To get it on turn 15 you need a plains hill settle and another 3-hammer tile. Mining first.

Flexibility? Who cares. You'll survive the early game guaranteed and then you can win however you want.

Boring? Sure. But that's not what I asked in the thread. "Which civ is the most consistent to win with." And the answer is Nubia, and perhaps the Aztecs, because they're the hardest to kill early on.

Your start position is fine. Settle on the marsh and work the 4-food tile. Then the 2 hammer, 2 food tile. Slinger than builder. Tech mining.

Scout around and if no one is close and you're not threatened, don't chop until Agoge.

The question is this: Do I chop before Agoge or after?

"After, if possible." But if you're threatened, you have the flexibility with this build to chop before.

Also, the thing with Nubia starts is on average they are more isolated than others thanks to the desert bias. But on maps where you start 7 tiles away from another Civ, this build will give you the flexibility to survive early.

With Slinger -> Builder, Mining first, with Nubia you'll ALWAYS survive to turn 30. That's why they're more consistent than the Romans.

[Edit: With the start you posted, if you settle on the marsh, builder first might be better because there's things for your builder to do. So again, there's flexibility there. The desert and the coast probably means no one spawned close to you, so you can get a little greedy early on

But you go mining first because it's always the safest option]

[EDIT: This is a very specific statement and not optimistic or loose at all].

I would also like to point out that the little pyramid thingy improvements that Nubia gets give you a +20% district building time on top of the +20% district building time you get as Nubia. While this econ bonus is not nearly as good as the Aztecs, it's still pretty damn good.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

Slingers don't improve your best unit. Jaguars do.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

I ran a few games myself Victoria and I came to some of the same problems. I went mining first though to chop but the funny thing was my first few games I only had one tree in my first two rings. Land was not very good. I rolled the Civs next to me but I find the Aztecs easier to play in general and they seem to get better starts. I am not trying to debate one or the other but I was excited to try something I don't normally do which is play Nubia since I usually just go All Random/All Standard/ Deity Pang.

I ran a few games with Monty and I always was able to send the next door neighbor to the dustbin right away. I find the Eagle Warrior to be unstoppable... I am not so sure in Civ VI but in Civ V they were so strong that people wouldn't even upgrade them to swords because of the bonuses.

Anyways I voted for the Aztecs. I found Nubia to be very strong but I think a player needs a little more finesse with them compared to the more direct Aztec Empire.

My first game my neighbor was Wilhelmina and she was relentless with building archers which became a pain with my P. Archers because of the defensive land position she had with tons of hills and Mtns and of course barb camps all around to help her in her effort. I ended up not being able to take her cities without horses since I was so focused on building the Archers... Archers Ho!

 

[eleven11]

I actually prefer Nubia starts. Sure, some can be trash but Pyramids are a wonder option 95% of the time (and I want this 100% of the time). It's also quite feasible to warmonger with a Pitati swarm while chopping it in.. and a district or two while you are at it. To me that is the power of the Pitati - create swarm then unleash swarm. While that's going on I use the UB district bonuses to get the empire moving quickly. Very similar in strategy to Aztecs. If this was StarCraft then Nubia would be the Zerg.

Edit: And yeah you are going to want Horsemen eventually. Pitati can take a city with walls but it definitely slows them down. Horsemen can keep them clear of other units and can swing in to cap it when the walls are down.

 

[Victoria]

My first game my neighbor was Wilhelmina and she was relentless with building archers which became a pain with my P. Archers because of the defensive land position she had with tons of hills and Mtns and of course barb camps all around to help her in her effort. I ended up not being able to take her cities without horses since I was so focused on building the Archers... Archers Ho!

yesterday in one game my only neighbor was Persia who had immortals parked in cities with single paths through the mountains (Mountain woods... 3 MP)
I found the other problem today, I walked into Qins territory and at one place he had 5 archers. Sure Qin died But bonny scotland was behind them with archers in cities and swordsmen... all in jungle... every move you are delayed is a move you start lagging behind in science.

This game is not simple and I said about a year ago that on flat clear ground you will always do well, its when terrain gets rough things go equally so.
It has been an inetersting test and all up I've done about 25 games with Nubia, quite a few to T50 just to see when they run out of steam... which they do... Push 30 archers and you end up way behind, I do find monuments, wonders and city grouping are lacking from this strat a bit. Still a great civ but ... I am not changing my vote... however my first 3 games as Rome have been interesting, the problem is that bar the monument (which is fantastic) they still are a little touchy at the start, got swamped by barbs in one game and while I survived I was not in much of a state for a while afterward.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

I always like me a game as Rome but with Aztecs I must of just had 8 free builders in 10 turns. I played a couple more as Nubia and I had some difficulty getting out enough slingers/archers in a timely fashion. Not enough data but I keep rolling difficult starts with them... you need Flat Land to really make them work. All these Hills and Mtn's in my way make that archer rush more difficult. I seem to have plenty of gold but unlike his picture on the general discussion thread how to play a Nubia Rush you can see that Rome is on some serious flat land... I haven't had that roll yet.

 

[Eliminator_Sr]

Dude first of all it's EAGLE warriors not Jaguar. Slingers are terrible - they go down so fast. I'm not sure what you are taking about with 'slingers have better micro'. Also for a loss we are talking far from an optimal start so no plains hill or high production tile. In fact if I have 5 production and you have 3 production early and I have Aztecs - you are in trouble because I can just send my starting eagle right at you. I am in less trouble if the tables are turned because I still have my 28 str starting unit. You can argue Nubia is 100% survive (I disagree but for the sake of argument I'll concede) then I can just as easily argue 100% survival for the Aztecs and then it becomes all about faster victory time and the Aztecs still come out ahead.

 

[MarigoldRan]

As a human would you rather get rushed by Nubian Pitati or Aztec Eagles?

Pitati are fine on broken terrain because they can move onto a hill and shoot afterward. Getting 30 Pitati will slow you down, but it guarantees a neighbor death and room to expand and that's all you need to win.

After the rush, the rest of the game is teching to Ballistics while spamming Commerce districts. No finesse required. Then upgrade the Pitati to field cannons and GG.

I reckon the Aztecs are just as easy, but a Pitati rush NEVER fails (against the first target). In contrast, Eagle rushes can fail if the AI is either:

1. Rome or Scythia (I 've seen Rome get knights by turn 65 and legions by turn 40).
2. Anyone who masses archers (e.g. Mongolia or Nubia)
3. Get walls up quickly.

I understand that Aztecs are more snow bally, but getting to that snowball with Eagles is a lot more difficult than with Pitati.

Put it this way: on Deity would you rather play as the Nubians against the Aztecs, or play as the Aztecs against the Nubians?

yesterday in one game my only neighbor was Persia who had immortals parked in cities with single paths through the mountains (Mountain woods... 3 MP)
I found the other problem today, I walked into Qins territory and at one place he had 5 archers. Sure Qin died But bonny scotland was behind them with archers in cities and swordsmen... all in jungle... every move you are delayed is a move you start lagging behind in science.

This game is not simple and I said about a year ago that on flat clear ground you will always do well, its when terrain gets rough things go equally so.
It has been an inetersting test and all up I've done about 25 games with Nubia, quite a few to T50 just to see when they run out of steam... which they do... Push 30 archers and you end up way behind, I do find monuments, wonders and city grouping are lacking from this strat a bit. Still a great civ but ... I am not changing my vote... however my first 3 games as Rome have been interesting, the problem is that bar the monument (which is fantastic) they still are a little touchy at the start, got swamped by barbs in one game and while I survived I was not in much of a state for a while afterward.

Fine, but if you were the Aztecs in those games you'd have similar trouble. Note how you crushed the Qin DESPITE their archers. And once you've crushed one, the game is won.

Lagging behind in science is fine, so long as you can eventually get ballistics before the AI gets Steel.

The thing is this: when you're "being slowed down" shooting at a city with your archers, you're not actually being slowed down. What I mean is that every shot into a city gives your archers free experience. Even if you don't take the city, you could easily end up with 5-10 Full Promotion archers.

When you upgrade those archers later into field cannons, they're going to crush everything in their path.

 

[Eliminator_Sr]

Put it this way: on Deity would you rather play as the Nubians against the Aztecs, or play as the Aztecs against the Nubians?

On single player Deity I would rather play as Aztecs against Nubia. The AI doesn't use ranged units all that effectively and you can easily strangle them with Eagles if you start right next to them. It would be more difficult in the reverse case because your archers will struggle to take cities as easily especially when Aztecs get luxes hooked up. Multiplayer is different and Nubia probably has the edge there because of hit and run tactics but they can still be countered with encampments and ranged plus cavalry.

Both civs are super overpowered. Nubia is kind of a one trick pony though and their style of play doesn't really make for the most fun games.