Civ Discussion - Mississippian

[bengalryan9]

I think it would be interesting to evaluate each civilization based on the phrase "I play X when I want to...". For example:

• I play Carthage when I want to create all around powerful economic basis for future ages
• I play Egypt when I want much more chances to build critical wonders
• I play Greece when I want to befriend all independents
• I play Maya when I want my core cities to have crazy production
• I play Persia when I want heavy conquest game

The thing is, I don't have that strong answer for the other 6, including Mississippians.

Honestly I find this line of thinking to be somewhat reductive. Just because a civ isn't "the best" at a certain task doesn't mean they're not worth having around (and I'm not even sure I agree with all of your examples anyways), and this line of thinking also tends to ignore two of the main reasons to play any civ: "I play X when I want a different experience and in order to have fun". TBH, I find that it's the civs that *aren't* the best are the ones that tend to meet those two qualifiers the most for me.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Honestly I find this line of thinking to be somewhat reductive. Just because a civ isn't "the best" at a certain task doesn't mean they're not worth having around (and I'm not even sure I agree with all of your examples anyways), and this line of thinking also tends to ignore two of the main reasons to play any civ: "I play X when I want a different experience and in order to have fun". TBH, I find that it's the civs that *aren't* the best are the ones that tend to meet those two qualifiers the most for me.

I don't think that you contradict with my point. If you want to play some civilization to get different experience, this civilization needs to provide different experience. And for this it needs some kind of specialization.

 

[bengalryan9]

I don't think that you contradict with my point. If you want to play some civilization to get different experience, this civilization needs to provide different experience. And for this it needs some kind of specialization.

I would say someone like Aksum or Han provides a different experience in that your main goal when you play as them is to maximize the efficiency of their UIs, something you wouldn't do with any of the civs on your list. Both of these UIs require different set ups to take full advantage of so they're going to play differently (and, in my personal opinion, are both more fun to play, but that comes down to preference).

I don't even agree with the idea that every civ needs some type of specialization. There should always be a handful of more generalist civs as well - they tend to pair with more leaders in the game, they tend to be easier for new players to learn the game, and they're usually just more flexible overall. Specialist civs can also basically be non-existant for players who don't want to play in that specific way... for example, Mongolia is the only civ in the game I have yet to use because I'm just not interested in a military playstyle (the one game I did play that way I went Persia>Bulgaria>Prussia). Which I also think is fine - not every facet of the game has to be designed to meet my particular approach to the game either.

A civ like the Mississippians would probably be a good starter civ for someone playing the game for the first time on a lower difficulty level - easy placement rules for their UI, easy traditions to understand and take advantage of, a powerful ranged UU, and plenty of gold to mess around with. Maybe that doesn't translate to the best performance by seasoned players on Deity, but I think that's ok (and, if anything, it gives very high level players a path to challenge themselves by choosing them).

 

[Sagax]

I think it would be interesting to evaluate each civilization based on the phrase "I play X when I want to...". For example:

• I play Carthage when I want to create all around powerful economic basis for future ages
• I play Egypt when I want much more chances to build critical wonders
• I play Greece when I want to befriend all independents
• I play Maya when I want my core cities to have crazy production
• I play Persia when I want heavy conquest game

The thing is, I don't have that strong answer for the other 6, including Mississippians.

• I play Mississippi when I actually want to create all around powerful economic basis for future ages, with impactful and interactive traditions that last the entire playthrough - instead of having an explosive Antiquity start but with little to no turn-by-turn impact in subsequent ages, which is Carthage.
• I play Aksum when I want a gold-centric playstyle that encourages use of trade routes, where I can mostly buy the infrastructure and dedicate more hammers to wonders.
• I play Han when I want to focus on science and keep AIs and IPs at bay by generating just enough influence - while also being able to strategically settle better than most other civs.
• I play Maurya when I want to play unapologetically wide, and laugh at the concept of settlement limits. And this can be done peacefully, without a single war declaration.
• I play Khmer when I want to feel the traditional tall playstyle, with highly productive cities based on high population.
• I play Rome when I want to lean into conquest, but don't want it to be the end all, be all of my strategy. I want to lay down my arms at some point and have bonuses that remain relevant after that.

I see "specializations" as more of a gradient than strictly defined boxes, with different civs scratching different combinations of itches. How well a civ accomplishes things will vary with difficulty levels, but that's a question of balance, not of the civ's purpose in the game.

 

[Lord Lakely]

'Buildings receive Gold Adjacency from resources'. That's all you need to know about Mississipian starts. If you pick them in Antiquity you can go ham with Urban Centres and the rest is history. It's Carthage with Cities.

For all intents and purposes, the Mississipians are a stepping stone for the stronger leaders in the game (Augustus, Tecumseh, Isabella, Himiko, Catherine, Machiavelli, Tubman, Ashoka, Pachacuti, green Xerxes) to do whatever ridiculous things they want to be doing even faster than they normally would. It's a heinous amount of gold (larger than Aksum's already *very big* gold gains), and it lasts until the very end of the game.

I think they're near the top of the Antiquity age power rankings imo. Not ahead of Maya and Greece, but probably on par with Han (and I have a very high opinion on Han).

 

[MutilationWave]

I don't have much to add that hasn't been said, but they are my favorite antiquity civ. I absolutely love the way burning arrows shake up your offense, making you think differently. 2 tile 1 movement pillage is insane. Just such a great UU.

EDIT- If they could focus fire on tiles instead of units that would be awesome, but they're already so good it's hard to justify.

 

[SemiLazyGamer]

One thing people sleep on is that the bonus food from resources (and gold from shell tempered pottery) also applies to the Palace and City Hall, which means you can get some fast growing cities and towns if you settle next to them.

Also, your science and production adjacency buildings will also have a ton of food (and gold with the tradition).

 

[m_mus]

To warm this up: I just finished Antiquity with Mississippians + friendly Xerxes and boy was I swimming in money at the end. Come first turn Exploration age, and with over 30 Potkops I am sitting at already 150 culture. (Had 2 cities and q urban center in Antiquity). I took Shawnee to secure the Serpent Mound and I am already looking forward to these juicy yields.