Best Civ to turtle with just a few cities

Abraxis

Joined
Nov 17, 2008
Messages
1,313
Location
Ottawa, Canada
After playing a 130 hours and always having huge sprawling empires, I've decided to switch it up and am now trying to build up rather than out with few cities (no more than 5). I also intend to play as peacefully as possible.

I was wondering which Civ you guys thought is the best for this, from what I gather, the candidates are...

Persia: This is the Civ I picked for my first try. I grabbed chicken pizza, so with Darius' ability, I now have 100% longer golden ages. I figured I would focus on happiness, take Piety and Freedom civic branches, and try to sustain a constant golden age supplemented with great people. Now I'm not so sure if this tactic is really optimized for such a small empire, as fewer people mean fewer tiles worked which means the golden age isn't as strong. Also specialists receive no bonus in a golden age.

India: The obvious choice due to happiness, but his other bonuses kinda suck imo, I'm not sure if it's really worth it.

Egypt: The burial tomb awesome for keeping your GPT and happiness up and the racial trait, combined with the wonder bonus in tradition, makes wonders your **female dog. Which kinda makes it the wild card of racial traits, as you have first dibs on any bonuses your situation requires. UU, nothing special.

Greece: Sit back, farm gold, get patronage, and let city states pump every bit of your economy full of steroids. Personally, I think Alexander might be the best for this strategy.

Siam: Similar to Alexander, differences being it's more expensive to sustain the bonuses from Patronage (as they won't double like the natural bonuses do). But you don't have to worry about getting caught up in as much political drama with fewer city states to protect.

Native America: I haven't thought much about this, but given a large forest at the start, his huge production bonus from the longhouses will allow him to build wonders probably just as well as Ramses, if not better. Food wouldn't be nearly as big of an issue for his production cities either, which means he should be able to build up a solid foundation very quickly. He saves money on roads too which is good for GPT (though not great with a small empire). This of course is assuming he starts in a good forest, his would be interesting to try to see how it goes.

So what are your opinions?!? who's best cut out for his and why?

**Damned censorship
 
FWIW, CMIIW, but turtling is not gonna help you in this game. Better if you build 5 cities, take over 2 or 3 civs, and stop afterward and have some good units in case some civs got face heel turns and decide to attack you. For this reason, I love me some Arab. Good GOLD bonus really help with some purchasings. Bazaar gives you more luxuries to trade thus more happiness.
 
When you say 'turtle' I think 'defence'. Assuming you have to defend yourself eventually, the determinative factor is really the terrain rather than your civ - a nice choke point will let you turtle up well for a diplo or cultural victory, while wide open expanses will make it hard with any civ. (Assuming you're not playing at a difficulty too low for you which lets you turtle and still have a tech lead.)

With that in mind, some other Civs that are good for defending your chosen battleground are:

England (longbows dominate at defence, ships of the line aren't too shabby at that and at proxy wars either)
France (when turtling with few cities you may not get iron or horses; musketeers are easy to get and resource-free. free culture also doesn't hurt)
China (paper makers are awesome, and CKNs are good for defending also)
Siam for the reason you set out, and because they get their kickass resource-free elephants to help defend, while wats also generate culture
Iruqouis for having far superior mobility through your forests while defending
 
Babylon is also good. Their bowmen is good defence in the very beginning of the game and their tech advantage makes defending easier later. Their improved research is also good for diplo/science victory. I did a deity space ship race with them with 3 cities (and one of them was just to get coal) and was able to keep up with their teching pretty good. It would have been harder with another Civ.
 
@ Zenstrive

well, on emperor, the diplomatic penalty for declaring war is so big it seems like you can forget about ever allying with any civ you knew at the time of DOW, unless they were also at war with them, or are just as obnoxious (Genghis/Askia). If you totally wipe someone out, they will hate you even harder. I have actually had the same civ declare war on me every turn for several turns just because he wanted to embellish it that much (I'm sure that's why).

Once you start taking people over, you're committed to taking people over. Civs rarely accept peace until you've beat the hell out of them, which means you pretty much HAVE to expand if war starts.

Alternately you can sit there not attacking and let the other guy drag all his friends into the war until everyone hates you.

No, no, I wanted a peaceful game, I mentioned that. It can be done as I've maintained it for about 500 turns in my current game (20 civs/Epic). I'm interested in Economical assessments of civs in a perminant 5 city situation.

I am not interested in having my question or topic of discussion invalidated and derailed because it doesn't fit your play-style. And you just thought you should come in and mention that.

Cool display pic btw.
 
Aztec? Nah. Babylon works though. I would also say China works.
 
Alex og Greece is awesome for this. If you also use 'Legendary Start' you'll get a wicked awesome capital. Also, Cs's love you so much it's ridicoulus. you can basically be friends with all of them while still beeing filthy rich. I did one with 5 cities.
 
How about Oligarchy, and later on Nationalism - or whatever those social policies are that give strength bonuses when fighting within your territory. Makes it much easier to turtle, counter-attack an invasion force, even defend in open terrain... Even when you fall a bit behind in military techs or numbers...
 
Top Bottom