Best Civilization
- Thread starter XAVI ACE
- Start date
Ironikinit
Prince
Zouave, when cities renounce the owner, the armies stationed there disappear and the population stays the same, AFAIK. I don't know if improvements stay or not. One or two defensive units appear. I'm not crazy about the rule, but it does make it a lot harder to steamroller a rival civilization.
As to the best civ, I like the Babylonians so far, mainly because the scientific/religious combo suits my playing style. I agree with Ceredhion that the earlier special units appear, the better, because they allow the Golden Age early on and combine it with a good attack unit, which almost guarantees success in the early war I like to provoke. I also like civs that start with bronze working (like the Babylonians), because then I can research iron working straight away, which helps with planning.
The Persians have a great special unit, maybe the best in the game IMO.
Some civs, such as the Japanese, have a special unit that comes from a "skippable" tech, which is a drawback. Samurai are good units, but I often skip feudalism unless I happen to be at war when it becomes available. Same deal with the Chinese. I can't really see skipping military tradition though because cavalry are too valuable.
The Americans are maybe the worst civ, IMO. I'm not big on the expansionist attribute and their special unit comes very late in the game.
As to the best civ, I like the Babylonians so far, mainly because the scientific/religious combo suits my playing style. I agree with Ceredhion that the earlier special units appear, the better, because they allow the Golden Age early on and combine it with a good attack unit, which almost guarantees success in the early war I like to provoke. I also like civs that start with bronze working (like the Babylonians), because then I can research iron working straight away, which helps with planning.
The Persians have a great special unit, maybe the best in the game IMO.
Some civs, such as the Japanese, have a special unit that comes from a "skippable" tech, which is a drawback. Samurai are good units, but I often skip feudalism unless I happen to be at war when it becomes available. Same deal with the Chinese. I can't really see skipping military tradition though because cavalry are too valuable.
The Americans are maybe the worst civ, IMO. I'm not big on the expansionist attribute and their special unit comes very late in the game.
scorch
Legalize Pot
i gotta question religious civs. Sure great, cheap temples, but then scientifc civs get cheap libarys. And their special ability, revolutions take one turn. Well, thats usefull about 5 times a game.
Same with expansionist civs, scouts are nice, but you only ever use them at the start of the game.
I think that the best to go with is industrious civs, as workers last a life time.
Same with expansionist civs, scouts are nice, but you only ever use them at the start of the game.
I think that the best to go with is industrious civs, as workers last a life time.
trainspotter9
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2001
- Messages
- 6
There are alot of great civs out there and the best one depends much on your playing style. If I had to play a Civ game for money though, I would choose Persians. The trusty immortals can always wipe out a couple civs early and set me up for total world domination.
The two 'best' civs in my opinion are the Persians, and Babylonians. Persians because of their Immortals, and Babs because of their scientific/religious attributes.
Persians are great early on for conquest.....nothing quite like stacks and stacks of Immortals on the march to your foes lands! you gotta love it.
Babylonians, with the bowman, (ok, I guess, especially early on), are excellent for culture contests. I've soaked up more enemy cities with Babs than anything else.
Hmm. Americans? Ok. The expansionist attribute helps out with goody huts early, but the UU comes late in the game when the victor is pretty much a given. (And until the patch, you could'nt even use the F-15's to protect your cities from enemy bombers).
Persians are great early on for conquest.....nothing quite like stacks and stacks of Immortals on the march to your foes lands! you gotta love it.
Babylonians, with the bowman, (ok, I guess, especially early on), are excellent for culture contests. I've soaked up more enemy cities with Babs than anything else.
Hmm. Americans? Ok. The expansionist attribute helps out with goody huts early, but the UU comes late in the game when the victor is pretty much a given. (And until the patch, you could'nt even use the F-15's to protect your cities from enemy bombers).
Ironikinit
Prince
scorch, if I remember correctly, non religious civs suffer 10 turns of anarchy, which, if you are right in saying that you change governments 5 times a game, means 45 turns of extra production since religious civs only suffer 1 turn of anarchy. That's 45 extra turns of research and taxation.
I don't change governments quite that often, but I still like religious civs. Cheap temples rock.
SteveLS, yeah, I agree, the Americans are one of the worst civs, if not the worst. I'm interested in what others see as the worst civs and why.
I don't change governments quite that often, but I still like religious civs. Cheap temples rock.
SteveLS, yeah, I agree, the Americans are one of the worst civs, if not the worst. I'm interested in what others see as the worst civs and why.
Revolutions and periods of anarchy from war weariness or general unhappiness will last anywhere from 1 to 10 turns. The mean appears to be around 5. The type of government you had prior to anarchy does not appear to have any effect on how long the anarchy lasts. It is quite random from my experiences.
Five turns is expensive if you change governments a lot. Ten government changes adds up to 50 turns out of 500 or so in an average game. That's 10% of the entire game.
If you play peacefully and go from Despotism to Republic, and then to Democracy and try and stay there for the rest of the game, that's only 2 periods of anarchy (10 turns) from government swaps, a fairly insignificant amount.
But if you like to go to war you'll need to swap between Communism and Democracy several times and that's when Religous really shines.
As for the worst civs, well all things being equal I'd have to say the poor Americans and English. Expansionist means jack on Deity level and their special units are both useless in battle and available too late to really maximize a golden age. However, their scouts are good for realizing that your starting spot will afford you absolutely no hope of winning on Deity so you may as well hit CTRL-SHFT-Q. This has saved me countless amounts of frustration.
Five turns is expensive if you change governments a lot. Ten government changes adds up to 50 turns out of 500 or so in an average game. That's 10% of the entire game.
If you play peacefully and go from Despotism to Republic, and then to Democracy and try and stay there for the rest of the game, that's only 2 periods of anarchy (10 turns) from government swaps, a fairly insignificant amount.
But if you like to go to war you'll need to swap between Communism and Democracy several times and that's when Religous really shines.
As for the worst civs, well all things being equal I'd have to say the poor Americans and English. Expansionist means jack on Deity level and their special units are both useless in battle and available too late to really maximize a golden age. However, their scouts are good for realizing that your starting spot will afford you absolutely no hope of winning on Deity so you may as well hit CTRL-SHFT-Q. This has saved me countless amounts of frustration.
BigDog
Chieftain
Some good advice here for Deity level players, but what about those of us lesser mortals playing Regent level? I've tried the French, which was a disaster, and I'm currently with the Americans, which isn't going too badly (although I'm still last..perhaps I'm more of an Empire Earth type of guy).
Magellan
Chieftain
Persians, persians, persians. The no brainer strategy is to play Persia, get a source of iron, and then conquer with Immortals. Immortals, by far, are the best CSU for a conquer the world strategy. I like Cossacks too, but getting Immortals early makes them clearly better.
As a second one, I'd go Roman. The Legionary is 2d to the Immortal. Use the same strategy. If you can't conquer the world with Persia on anything below deity, something's wrong. I think Persia is actually too strong.
As a second one, I'd go Roman. The Legionary is 2d to the Immortal. Use the same strategy. If you can't conquer the world with Persia on anything below deity, something's wrong. I think Persia is actually too strong.
DB_Terror
Chieftain
I think religious is the most valuable characteristic. Being able to switch governments makes life so much easier when you want to go Communism for a little war.
Since I like fighting, I also prefer militaristic civs. I kinda like the Japanese because they are religious and militaristic, and have a great unique unit which stands above all other units in its age (indian elephants just can't kill a samurai!)
I think it's important to have a uu with a strong attack early so you can claim more room in the beginning by wiping out weaker civs. The Persian immortals are pretty good at that too.
My fav 3 civs are Japan, Persia, Babylon (haven't tried them all yet, though).
Since I like fighting, I also prefer militaristic civs. I kinda like the Japanese because they are religious and militaristic, and have a great unique unit which stands above all other units in its age (indian elephants just can't kill a samurai!)
I think it's important to have a uu with a strong attack early so you can claim more room in the beginning by wiping out weaker civs. The Persian immortals are pretty good at that too.
My fav 3 civs are Japan, Persia, Babylon (haven't tried them all yet, though).
Blackdragon
Chieftain
ENGLAND, ENGLAND, ENGLAND 5:1
I think the french are best for a peaceful game.
They get a comerce and industrius which is a big help for building civ's and they get the special unit in the mid game right about where expansion comes to a close and you are forced to fight. The Muskateer takes a great defencive unit and bumps its attack streangth so it is less important to build up on offencive units so you can afford to build up a strong defence force and then react to the first agressive niehbor with an immidiate counter attack.
They get a comerce and industrius which is a big help for building civ's and they get the special unit in the mid game right about where expansion comes to a close and you are forced to fight. The Muskateer takes a great defencive unit and bumps its attack streangth so it is less important to build up on offencive units so you can afford to build up a strong defence force and then react to the first agressive niehbor with an immidiate counter attack.
I just played the Persians a couple of times. They're awesome. In one game -- you won't believe this -- I had 4 sources of Iron and one horse . . . starting within the city radius. But, of course, the evil computer demons decided to crash my game. I never got a chance to save it!
Foedread
Chieftain
Hey everyone,
This is my first post and I was wondering what you guys thought about the Zulus. Right now I'm playing as them and so far you haven't comented on them. Is this because they're too crappy to mention or did you just forget.
This is my first post and I was wondering what you guys thought about the Zulus. Right now I'm playing as them and so far you haven't comented on them. Is this because they're too crappy to mention or did you just forget.
Similar threads
