Best civilization for the real world map?

mirror

Chieftain
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
3
Hi, I'm new here. I have played civ1 several times and I'm learning civ2. My goal is to win in deity level, with high scores if possible.

I have a question. Suppose you are playing in the world map, with deity level, strongest barbarians, 7 civilizations, fixed locations, and fixed resources. Then what is the best civilization to play? I guess it is Sioux, because there is not much threat of invasion. But south America is a poor place, so there might not be enough rooms for cities. I want to hear your opinions. Thanks.
 
I like to be in the center of everything. I think the civ i had the most success with was Russia (although it was a long time ago). I'd try to tie any European civs down and claim as much territory in Asia (and Africa if possible) as i could then get a boat to America and claim some territory there. Then all those other areas where I had less competition.
 
India perhaps? There is a nice SSC site near your starting location, you are your own Key Civ (purple) and you have a lot of nice expansion grounds east and west (you also have near access to offshore islands if you want to colonize them and go for a trading game) If you run on Persia or China, be sure to wipe them out ASAP. Nab the HG and Colossus, expand quickly and you should be good to go!
 
I would suggest the French, Germans, Russians or English.

Europe gives access to a relatively large amount of rivers, and most of them are on grassland. Rivers, especially on grassland, give a huge benefit, particularly in the early game. Getting 3 trade in a city allows you to allocate the last trade arrow to whatever you want (usually science), whereas having only 2 forces you to produce half taxes and half science. Building on a river can get you this for size 1 cities (only other ways are working trade specials or ocean, and the latter cuts other production too much).

Unfortunately, the European rivers don't help much for transportation (in contrast to the North American river system, which is a plus for the Sioux), but the grassland should make up for that.

The second advantage to Europe is that it is one of the best places on the world map from an early trade standpoint. Great Britain offers an offshore trading partner (if occupied), or a relatively easy place to colonize (and then send trade caravans from) if unoccupied. Also, Europeans can send triremes to North America with a much smaller detour than can any other civ, if you want a somewhat longer early trade route. Europe also doesn't lose any advantage in trade with America once caravels are developed, and should have easier access to the older (and usually better) cities on that continent (particularly if the Americans are there).

The French and Germans are roughly equal in terms of starting positions. They have river and access to more. The Russians have to walk a little more for the European Rivers, but they have a river of their own, and also will be able to expand in both directions, instead of just east.

As the English, all your core cities can get an offshore bonus with any city in the world when trading, so it saves you the trouble of building some good cities there in order to trade (though you do lose the chance of having someone else occupy England and have a close market for a lot of cities). You are also a couple turns closer to North America, if you want to send caravans or settlers that way, and your core cities are pretty well protected from aggressive neighbors (unless the Celts happen to be there, but you should then eliminate them post-haste).

The downside to England is that you only get 1 river square, and will have to build a trireme earlier than you might otherwise want in order to expand.
 
I remember dominating as the Persians because of my central location.

Nothing like terraforming the entire Sahara into grassland "just because I can".
 
Ahh yes i found the Germans to be pretty good also, and i liked the english but I dont think hey would be harder than germans.

Who would be the worst?

maybe japan? you need the trireme but you don't get all the civs of europe when you disembark.
maybe spain other civs block you in and you fail to take one out..
maybe carthaginians because of the limited places to settle...
 
I agree that Japan is the worst. England is much better simply because it has enough land that you can expand a little bit before having to build the trireme, whereas in Japan you have to wonder if using your second Non settler is a good idea.

I think the next is the Mongols; they don't have any access to water, and too many squares are hills and plains.

After that is probably Carthaginians, and then Spanish, Greeks and Persians, with the Vikings and Romans marginally better.

A lot of this is open to debate, particularly how to rate civs that are "close" to good locations.
 
I thought being isolated is good, but probably I was wrong. So is it essential in high difficulty level to be commutative with other civilizations? I feel nervous when foreign units are wandering near my cities, especially diplomats. How do you keep them away from your territory?
 
Do you play classic (2.42) civ 2 or do you play Multiplayer Gold Edition? Equivalently, do foreign civs behave reasonably towards you (classic), or do they start to hate you very quickly (MGE).

Proximity to other civs in the early game is useful for a couple of reasons. One, more relevant in classic than MGE, is that you can get a few techs from them, instead of researching them yourself. The second reason is that it gives you a place to send trade caravans.

Trade caravans give you a delivery bonus of gold and an equal amount of science. With some experience you learn to make deliveries worth hundreds of gold and science. One of the factors of for calculating the delivery bonus is if the destination city is on a different "continent" (read landmass) than the source city, in which case the bonus is multiplied by 2.

Usually, it is desirable to be a little further removed from others than you are in Europe, but the quality of the land there is good and it is one of the few places that offer the possibility of offshore trades relatively early.

You may have better results on a random map than on the world map.
 
Babylon against Germany, France, China, India, Egypt,and Spain. Take over Egypt first, then India. Settle Australia and trade from there back to Europe. Start on China and then settle The Americas. Expand on all Continents. Then start taking out the Cramped Europeans.
 
Babylon against Germany, France, China, India, Egypt,and Spain. Take over Egypt first, then India. Settle Australia and trade from there back to Europe. Start on China and then settle The Americas. Expand on all Continents. Then start taking out the Cramped Europeans.

you cant have egypt and spain or france and germany you probably mean romans and either greece or england.
 
Whose in North Africa on Fixed starts?


Babylon against Egypt, Rome, India, China, Germany, and Vikings? I never played against 7. I kept it at 5 or 6. I always got 3 in Europe though. Hmmm?
 
If you want ideas about playing deity, you might find this thread interesting. The players in this succession game were playing without wonders, but there's plenty to learn from (not to mention there are a few amusing stories).
 
Thank you for your kind answers. I have things to do these days, maybe I can try later.
 
Is the general idea to have 1 or 2 neighbors for trade, future cities and tech, and the rest toghether so they don't become too big?
Add england and japan for weakness ;)
 
I have played a lot on large earth, but the overwhelming majority have been OCC games (you never own more than one city throughout the game). My thoughts are:

1. Your early success depends a lot on luck starting in mainland Europe with unknown rivals. Early conflict is a given and that is a big part of the luck factor: the outcome of a single early battle could significantly affect the rest of the game.

2. English/Celts, without the other one as a rival, are perhaps in the best overall starting position for reasons Prof. Garfield has already mentioned: your first few cities are safe from a wandering rival unit while you are close enough to meet european rivals early in the game.

3. Planing a large empire, regardless of the map, you have an edge playing purple as already mentioned. Of the 3 choices (Indians, Mongols, and Sioux) Indians are perhaps the safest bet but the other two are OK too.

4. If you start alone in Africa, the single most important thing to do is to fortify a unit in Sinai as soon as possible. (Later on, build a fort there.) This gives you time to settle Africa at your own pace but do not take too long as AI will arrive at your shores with triremes soon enough.

5. If you start in mainland Asia or America, your strategic planning depends a lot on where your rivals are as you may or may not have close neighbors. Check "Top 5 cities" every single turn and if in Asia explore with as many units as you can afford. If in America, you have only two possible neighbors. Finding out if they are in the game or not should be your first priority.

6. Starting as Japanese is not necessarily most difficult. If Mongols or Chinese are in the game, it is somewhat similar to playing as English/Celts. If not, settling East Asia should be your top priority.

7. I would say the most difficult of the historical positions is starting in the middle of a crowded europe.

8. For an even bigger challenge start in New Zealand with other rivals in their historical locations.

9. For the ultimate challenge start in Hawaii.
 
I have played a lot on large earth, but the overwhelming majority have been OCC games (you never own more than one city throughout the game)...

8. For an even bigger challenge start in New Zealand with other rivals in their historical locations.

I liked to play as New Zealand - I'd rename myself Hone Heke and the tribe as the Maori and my city as Auckland. then if I was winning I'd build a massive sub fleet and drive the other guys from the oceans before taking the win.
 
Back
Top Bottom