Best desert civs?

[hisagishi]

So I have played 3 or 4 games with arabia and am wondering is there any other better desert civs?

I am honestly not in love with the camel archers, they just seem to die way to fast for me. I know you are supposed to attack then back up but there are way to many mountains in my game config for that to work very well. (continents, 3 billion world age)

Desert is usually my fav due to how exceptionally easy it is get a religion up, and flood plains are just so good, combined with no one I play with usually build the petra so its almost always available.

 

[consentient]

Arabia are one of the very best civs, and certainly the best desert civ. I suggest you watch some video LPs to help you manoeuvre your units. Camel Archers are among the best units in the game for Pangaea domination.

 

[stormtrooper412]

Mayans get a surprising amount of desert starts for some reason and their UB works well with getting to DF faster

 

[Bimblecrumbs]

To use Camel Archers, you have to pay close attention to the terrain upon which you're fighting. A first step onto any flat tile or a normal hill/jungle/forest means that you can shoot and back up. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that forested/jungle hills and marsh tiles use up 3 movement points; these should be avoided because you can't shoot and retreat with Camels (Keshiks can though).
If possible, look for other options or attack the city from another direction/multiple directions. 2 camels can often cycle in and out of 1 tile when attacking a city.

In a more general sense, maps which are 3 billion years old are tough for Dom victories. If in doubt, choose another victory condition.

 

[cazaderonus]

I am honestly not in love with the camel archers

Wut ?!

Those things are beasts. And i find it almost impossible to lose any if not done on purpose, or the occasional screw up, with their ability to move after attacking.

It's like saying artillery with logistics sucks imo

 

[hisagishi]

Wut ?!

Those things are beasts. And i find it almost impossible to lose any if not done on purpose, or the occasional screw up, with their ability to move after attacking.

It's like saying artillery with logistics sucks imo

Yeah I can see how useful they would be now, its just the map type I was on didn't lend well to them at all :/

I'll try them on a more flat map type and see how well they fare.

 

[FrostK]

if u want to play map with plenty of hills and mountains - try Inca

 

[CraigMak]

Honestly you can't beat Arabia. Camel archers are so absurdly good they are indeed free win mode.

Morocco is pretty fun to use. If you can combine Kasbahs with Petra you get some really beastly tiles. I would ignore their UA though and send caravans only to yourself as usual.

 

[BBMorti]

I have a hard time seeing what civs would beat Arabia as a desert civ. It depends a bit about what you go for, I guess. I just recently finished a turn 218 culture victory (deity) with Egypt, it is great as spamming wonders even on the highest settings, especially after landing the petra.

Only other civ I would rate at high as Arabia on desert would be some Inca petra start with a lot of nice hills, or if something like Babylon happened to spawn there

 

[joncnunn]

For Desert Civs, as I recall only two civs have a pro-desert bias:

1. Arabia
2. Morocco

Arabia is much better than Morocco and with no other candidates it makes it the best desert civ if we just go that way.

The Inca have a pro-hills bias though which isn't impacted in either direction. The Incans would do really well on a flood plains start next to lots of hills, they'll even get food, hammers, and faith from non-fresh water desert hills. If Mt Sinai happens to be in the general area, they may even get a food bonus from hills tiles next to it (with terrace farm)

And if you want to go so far as to turn starting bias off, then the Dutch (who have a grassland bias) would love a flood plains start.

 

[Illianor123]

As joncunn says, Dutch polders are the best way to capitalise on flood plains