Civilization elimination thread

How did you start each game? You went writing and planted the great scientist, and so on and so forth. There may be small changes in what you do due to different victory conditions but i am guessing the early game was nearly identical each time, and the mid to late game probably was not much different either. If i am wrong plz tell me but that's what usually happens to me when i play Babylon.

 

In my diplomacy win (Emperor, Lakes map), I went Calendar and Mining before Writing, got Oracle and GL before NC; defending with bows against an early war with India and China; successfully counterattacked both; then war on France, Persia and England in that order, all the while amassing gold (from the conquests) to ally with a bunch of city-states (including several liberations). Quite an exciting game.

 

@Awsome_Sause

Oh, come on... Pottery + Writing is like 20 turns. Let's say you do a NC rush, that's like 45. So are you saying that these 45 turns are paramount and determine the entire game?

Can you honestly tell how often you used the same strategy to win a game (science, culture, domination, diplo, time)? Almost every type of win has a best-case strategy and it is widely used/exploited. It is also not fair to discard a civ's strengths - besides, let's face it, Spain with GBR start is the best science civ, as they get a free GS on T1-5, and they get to research the base tech in under 5 turns and do better than Babylon thanks to the doubled production from GBR.

Granted, it happens rarely, but if anyone has the urge to debate science, Spain + GBR beats them all.

 

Im playing my first game as Babylon and I have to say im loving them I have been ahead the whole time and am only now getting to a point where im even with the other ais that are left im going for domination. I get that some people view them as paint by numbers but I think there is some versatility in them sure you can go space race, but I think domination is also another great option for them given the right circumstances. I like that korea won I feel they are more versatile than Babylon I like that they make every specialist slot attractive I always tend to pop tons of great people when I use them. I may give inca another shot down the road people tend to like them alot and have brought up some great points in there favor.

 

I'd have austria and mongolia top 10 (leaving netherlands and..... siarthage), and keep the top 7.

 

Ofc korea won, crazy broken hwachas are just to damn stronk

 

Surprised (pleasantly) that Korea won. I've never understood the Inca love.

 

It's not just a question of strategic inflexibility. As someone pointed out, Civ has 5 victory conditions, and optimal strategies for most. If that was all there was to the game it wouldn't have the replay value that's kept it going for 20 years and 5 incarnations. So much of the Civ experience is tied to differences in maps, spawning locations, the identities and fortunes of other civs and your relations with them, and now also the identities and distributions of city-states. None of which tends to have much impact on Babylon's strategy - in all Civ games there's been the 'runaway problem', in which regardless of map conditions, diplomatic relations or pretty much anything else, a civ gets itself into an unassailable position where the rest of the game is just a plod to the end. Babylon is designed to be that runaway, and as a result loses a large part of the point of playing Civ at all. Its success is not particularly dependent on starting location, it plays with few cities, and past a certain point the tech advantage makes relations with other civs irrelevant beyond farming a few friendships for RAs. Babylon doesn't just play the same way every time, it plays the same way regardless of what is happening on the rest of the map.

 

I'm a latecomer to this thread for sure, but I'm shocked Greece isn't in the top ten. I know some people voted based on whether they enjoy playing a civ, but if this was a simple matter of effectiveness, Greece is pretty amazing.

 

Greece has become very weak in G&K, since gaining and maintaining influence is trivial for everyone, the new resting influence system means that anyone can maintain influence of at least 30 with no natural decay, and to use Greece's UA effectively relies on obtaining both the Patronage finisher and the religious belief that limits influence loss with CSes; it does nearly nothing in isolation, and the dependence on a religious belief hampers performance at higher levels where you can't rely on getting your choice of religious belief.

You'll always gain more in terms of the number and strength of CS alliances with Sweden than with Greece, and in terms of the benefits from friendship or alliance Siam is superior - which doesn't give Greece much of a role. It has a UA that prevents you losing influence, but no unique way of actually gaining it to begin with, and natural influence loss is now a non-factor anyway.

On top of that its UUs are too early in the game to be game-changing and the Hoplite is not particularly good for early rushes, while neither retains unique abilities of any kind on upgrade.

Couple all of that with a general dislike of the Alexander AI - also used as justification for some votes - and it would be very surprising if Greece had main the top 10.

 

Ah, good point about G&K. You're right, it is way way easier to maintain influence now. So yeah, I guess that takes away his huge advantage, at least as a player. The Alexander AI on Deity is still pretty tough. I find that if I don't take him out early, he usually becomes my biggest threat unless I also have CS advantages, or there's another AI fighting him for it like Siam.

 

Yeah these are all true and i hadn't considered that mercantilism would work on sold lux's!

My main concern is with synergy. I see it like this:
UA is for quick expansion and for going wide. Also good for gold and happy, possibly for a diplo win.
UI is for picking the relevant city spots and helps growing tall well.
UU gets benefits when attacking cities and when not in friendly territory. Probably the strongest part of the civ. Renaissance is too late to use it 'just to set your game up', this should be used for a domination game, or at least a puppet empire.
In conclusion, I'm struggling to see a path to victory that would make effective use of all 3 elements. Sea beggar is strong but none of the 3 look like a 'keshik' i.e. stuff the UA, the UU is so good we don't care. Perhaps I am wrong.........

 

Very weak? If anything he received a buff like everybody else. Having no need to pay influence with your religion in their lands is pretty damn powerful stuff. And halved influence drop is pretty useful in earlygame when most people don't have patronage opener yet.

There's also no need to criticize the UA for not helping to increase influence in the first place since G&K has so many CS quests now. If anything that should be a good thing for Greece compared to other civs. Without a plethora of CS quests the Sweden UA would shine a lot more brilliantly. However with more CS quests Greece can easily net influence and will stay longer in alliance with them without having to spend gold.

Whether or not you utilize the UU is completely up to you, but successful early conquests IS game-changing. If Greece's UU help with that, then they will have impact. An early conquest pretty much means more gold, which means more CS bribing. His UU and UA can have some decent synergy, actually.

 

I completely agree that Babylon is a runaway civ - hence the easy time it gets on the higher difficulties. I defended Babylon cause I believe that the early game is the most important and this is where you either build a good base for future domination, expansion, science or relations, or you just try to survive somehow till your civ's advantages kick in. In the multiplayer games I played, I painfully discovered that the good rushers will simply make you look like a fool if you go crazy with wonder building - why build a wonder, when you can conquer one?

However, the runaway ability simply shows that it remains a step forward than the rest. I do understand why it could be boring to some - I myself felt it from time to time. But it is not easy to discard a player's interests - mine are efficiency and optimization - with a decent military options when necessary. This is why I like civs like Babylon, Egypt, Maya, and Rome.

 

In absolute terms it's an advantage to gain influence more easily, as anyone can post-G&K; in relative terms Greece fares far worse because they just get so much less out of it than Siam, as well as the Greek benefit simply being inherently less useful to anyone else. And since anyone can be permafriends, and anyone if they so desire can minimise natural influence loss with the same opener and religious belief, not losing natural influence really is trivial. Most of the time you'll lose allies through other civs gaining greater influence than you, through election-rigging, or occasionally through coups. Greece does nothing to defend against any of those - you still need to actively cultivate influence. And if you compare Greece + Patronage + belief with other civ + Patronage + belief, rather than just Greece + Patronage + belief vs. other civ with neither, you'll appreciate just how trivial the Greek UA itself is.

Spoken, I suspect, like someone who hasn't played Sweden. Even with a plethora of CS quests you won't usually be able to focus resources on allying with more than three or four for most of the game. With Sweden I can retain reliable, uncoupable alliances with over half a dozen, and the more I ally, the more I can keep as they spawn GPs for me.

When do you ever lose an alliance in G&K through natural influence loss? Practically never past the very earliest game stages - usual influence just from two quests is 80-100, and by the time that runs down you'll have completed more quests or, past Renaissance, be rigging elections regularly. And anyone can (and if they want to make use of CSes likely will) take the Patronage opener - the Greek UA is unnoticeable if you go that route, and of marginal use otherwise. Moreover, this was a thread comparing civs to find the 'best', and that means Greece has to be compared against its competition rather than seen in isolation.

Can Greece maintain influence with CSes? Yes, but far less effectively than Sweden, or than an economic civ that can just buy extra influence. Consider the maths: if you lose 20 influence over 40 turns, and Askia loses 20 influence over 20 turns, all Askia needs to do to break even with Alexander is to make 250 gold more than Alex does in those 40 turns. Which he will easily do at any stage past the very earliest game, and probably then as well - in that time period he saves 80 gold per temple even without camp/city captures. And Songhai fell out of the race early.

Can it give you more of an advantage per CS than other civs? Yes, except for Siam and Sweden - or, as above, any civ with the minor economic boost needed to outcompete Alex.

Can it give you an influence boost high enough to protect your allies from coups? No ... unlike Sweden.

Can you use it for early warmongering? Yes, but much less effectively than Persia or most civs with early ranged UUs, due to a UU that's much less effective at taking cities.

Is it good enough at both warmongering and CS control together to justify its relative weakness in either sphere? Not a chance.

Of course it is - the point is that the Hoplite isn't particularly suited to it. Most early game conquests revolve around ranged troops and just use the spear to capture the city; the Hoplite's extra strength is insufficient by itself. The main exception - Persia - has a UU that is simply better at doing the job, because it can stand up much better to city defences and can attack a city, retreat to recover quickly, and get back into the fight without the need for archer support.

And if going for that strategy, civs I'd rather have would include:

1. Persia. Much better at gold production; if used for CSes, far outweighs Alex's advantage, and more generally gold is just a more versatile resource than CS influence. Plus the early conquest advantage, particularly during a Golden Age (which can come early enough, potentially).

2. Songhai: +2 strength on a spearman, or triple gold from capturing that city and a consequent boost to CS influence?

3. Sweden: Go on an early attack, conquer the city, get a GG into the bargain - huge amount of early CS influence.

4. Siam: I get more for my influence.

5. The Huns: No CS advantages at all, but capturing the cities is easy and I can then do it again once or twice more and gain yet more cash.

and marginally:

6. Austria: Then you can buy the CS when you're done with its bonuses.

So, in summary, you're selling Greece on its best-scenario strategy, which it is not brilliantly-suited to execute, and there are at least five civs that do it better only two of which made the top 10 (and those didn't make it because they could execute an early conquest + bribe). Greece's best strategy just isn't seen as being good enough to warrant the inclusion of superior competitors, let alone Greece itself.

 

And btw, the one who pointed out that victories have specific strategies which act as a guideline to others, was me

In any case, every race needs science. It makes little sense being able to crank out lots of Jaguar Warriors, Pictish Warriors, or Maori Warriors, just to see them falling one after the other against the enemy's ranged units. First, the enemy grows stronger through upgrades, and second, you may soon see him upgrading to XBows, Longbows or CKN before you ever managed to get a city.

This is why I open with a NC rush regardless of the civ I play (unless I opt for Monty, then I delay the NC to crank out more Jaguars and go Barb hunting, effectively leveling up the guys, gaining culture and opening more policies than the others). That at least puts you on par with the AI up until Emperor difficulty. For Immortal or Deity, any civ needs to get Education first, or it will drop way behind on the tech curve. After achieving this, an Astronomy jump for Renaissance is highly advisable as well for cities next to mountains.

 

Prioritising NC is one useful strategy - and probably essential on Deity - but I mix-and-match successfully up to Immortal. NC is only a big boost if you're going for a tall capital, and unless you grow quickly you could get more short-term science by settling and growing several other cities.

 

Difference in game style, pretty much.

As long as I'm not playing a peaceful culture game I usually get more than 4+ allies as early as Industrial period (Immortal). And if by chance I get a plethora of CS quests I can maintain 4+CS with a peaceful culture game. :/

As for the entire post, I was simply criticizing your statement in suggesting Greece had become "very" weak". I've seen no big changes that influenced Greece. He's awesome in Vanilla, and he still is in G&K. If anything from what I've got out of your long post, is that Greece is still a versatile/jack-of-all-trades civ. A bit worse than Maya in that department and economic civs, but still a solid pick. It didn't reinforce anything that indicated he had become "very weak".

I do agree that he's pretty hated as an AI civ though.

 

The fact that Austria didn't make it into the top 10, and especially the fact that it got 2nd to last, is ridiculous. Their UA allows them to buy city states! Did you not hear? THEY CAN BUY CITY STATES. Their UB is pretty sick and their UU is fantastic, and THEY CAN BUY CITY STATES. I think that Maria Teresa was a stupid stupid leader choice and there are several cooler leaders, and a coffeehouse is kind of silly too (not too silly, it's an Austrian cultural icon) but I mean if you downvoted them because of that it's pretty shallow. And THEY CAN BUY CITY STATES.

 

Just like with Greece, too many people just don't like civs that can really beat you. They apparently want passive opponents.