CIV of the week-Babylonians!

[The Splang]

in case anyones wondering about the Babylonians strengths ill put them right here so we may discuss what we beleive they will be good at. If your someone who dosen't like unique civs then this thread probably wont bennefit you, but i think it'll be interesting anyway.

the babs (as i will now call them to keep my hand from cramping up) are a scientific and religous civ, this meens that-

they get a Free science tech at the begining of each era, this will give them a big bonus in tech, they also get science improvements at a lower cost, i imagine some more peaceful players will be having some fun going to AC MUCH sooner than usual. them starting with bronze working will also help defend your citys from the unwashed hordes!

they also start with ceremonial burial, witch puts them on the new road (according to screenshots) to monarchy, a good goverment, they will have no trouble getting into the new goverment withNO anarchy, they will also have much more culture and happiness due to lowered production costs for religius improvements.

There unique unit, the Bowman is very promissing early on with these stats

Attack-2, defence-1, Movement-2 , it looks like they will be able to scout easier, and get a good front up to the enemy in no time.

the babs will most likely be used by people who like science, and culture in there strategy, thou there weopon is fast, its really best used to chase early invaders away, and with that comes a early bost in trade beouse they get there Golden Age early, just another boost to what looks like a scientific powerhouse.

 

[ERIKtheRED]

I'm a bit mystified by the bowman. I have a fair knowledge of history but have never heard of Babylonian bowmen, although I concede it is possible that their archers were superior. It is fairly difficult to see a special unit for a civilization like Babylon. I am concerned that archers with stats of 2-1-1 will be totally useless- not fast to make their weak attack useful and no good on defense. Perhaps ranged fire will compensate...

Also: They described the bowmen's superior armor and composite bow, leading one to assume an advantage would come in attack or defense. Why movement?

------------------
"Consumerism is slavery by goods."
"The police are not here to create disorder. The police are here to PRESERVE disorder."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

[This message has been edited by ERIKtheRED (edited August 10, 2001).]

 

[Sundance]

Is it possible to fire arrows from distance? say 2 spaces from the a horseman, so that he will be unable to retaliate and therefore, at the end of combat, reslut in a one-sided injury. (Same concept as shooting from cannons)

 

[ERIKtheRED]

I'm pretty sure this is not the case. When used in an army, however, archers would fire first before the enemy came into melee range. This would all happen in one square. There would be some complicated combined arms system for calculations. From the article, it seems that archers also have an advantage against city walls.

I could be wrong- an archer might shoot two squares, but that is like 100 km on a civ map, which isn't too realistic.

------------------
"Consumerism is slavery by goods."
"The police are not here to create disorder. The police are here to PRESERVE disorder."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

 

[Sundance]

hmmm, 100km would sound rather unrealistic no matter how swift the arrows are <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>

But what about cannons and other machines of destruction? I'm not refering to the distance of the space but rather I read some where that when placed upon mountains the range of the artillery would be increased... Now if we are all dealing with face to face, one square distanced combat, then would the range come in to play?

Granted, if it is possible in Civ to inflict a biased out come thru the means of massive cannons - like the german "Big Bertha", which they used brilliantly against the French in WW1 - then I would for one congratulate the Sid team on a realistic improvement for the benefit of us players.

[This message has been edited by Sundance (edited August 10, 2001).]

 

[duke o' york]

Mayeb this is a bit obvious to everyone, but since we're getting a Civ of the week, does anyone think it'll be 16 weeks until Civ 3 is released? They said in the fall, but that'd be just in time for Christmas - which is the best time to release stuff.

I thought the bowman seemed a bit rubbish, to be honest, when compared with the Civ 2 archers, but at least they don't need any special resources to build. The Romans look like a good civ for my game, especially with masonry for the pyramids, but their legionaires will need iron working to build. I find it a little bit strange that you can't discover iron resources until after you research iron working - how are you supposed to research it when you have nothing to actually work on? This is a minor quibble, especially given my frequently expressed opinions all across this site that realism must be secondary to gameplay. The whole thing looks great though!

------------------
in vino veritas

 

[thedirk]

I don't really like the bowmen as a special unit. The stats (2/1/2) make it the equivalent of the Civ 2 horsemen. This unit is nice for scouting early in the game, finding goodie huts and such. However with stats like that it is virtually useless in battle. I would have thought that they would recieve increased attack or defense, rather than movement. As is, I don't see myself liking this unit, although the rest of the Babylonian features look good.

 

[Cunobelin Of Hippo]

The Bowman is a EARLY archer guys (I'm betting). Undoutably, by the time Chivalry rolls around, we will see stronger archers available.

Hammurabi is definitely the coolest looking leader I've seen so far

 

[delsully]

I find the extra movement of the archer to be very useful, esp. when encountering a foe. The extra move will enable you to attack an enemy easier and will be beneficial when you happen upon a unit. Instead of being at their mercy, you can either attack or retreat. I just hate it when I unknowingly move right next to an enemy and get whacked.

 

[Heffalump]

I have trouble getting excited about a special unit that will be obsolete about the time i'm building my first temple.

 

[ERIKtheRED]

As I think about it, it seems to me the ranged attack will work out as enough of an advantage that the low stats will not be too much of a problem- perhaps enough to extend the unit's life into the middle ages. A fast good unit is infinitely better than a fast poor one.

If this is not the case, however, we have two dreadful scenarios:
1. All special units are weak and not much better than standard troops <OR>
2. While some special units are worthless, others are powerful and game balence is destroyed

------------------
"Consumerism is slavery by goods."
"The police are not here to create disorder. The police are here to PRESERVE disorder."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

 

[G-Man]

The babylonian special unit should be some kind of a chariot archer - the babylonians used chariots much more then ordinary soldiers (compared to other civilizations in that era) so they could control they're empire from babylon without making too many outposts.
This unit will be better for the game as well - because it's faster then any foot soldier, it will allow you to give nearby civilizations a quick knock-out, thus allowing you to expand faster in the beginning.

------------------
Mate, this parrot wouldn't "VOOM" if you put 4 million volts through it!
Monty Python

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Their virtue surely will be that since we now have armies vs individual units...that they can team up with horse units and provide arrow support?

Plus it may turn out to be a rush players unit as it is quick and if in a large army could monster the early and weak defenses of some civs (the babylonians benefitting also in the early stage due to golden age as their civ specific unit is early).

I see this archer as potentially useful and the babylonians as perhaps a civ3 rushers civilisation (unless something better comes along or that archer units are pants vs other units of the period.)