I agree with peter.I don't think protective is that great a trait.The only argument i would have aginst Hannibal and Carthage is that i've never really liked the numidian calvalry.It is one strength lower than a regular horse archer and i never find myself reasearching HBR very early. But other than that Hannibal would be a great choice due to his two traits and an even better choice if we could get some costal cities with Cothons.Also after more reasearch i'm beginning to like the vikings alot because of their unique unit.The Bersker gets amphibious to start with and keeps it when upgraded which means that we could potentially have a large force of amphibious riflemen and grenadiers to attack and raid enemy costal cities once frigates come along.It also allows them to attack across rivers without getting the -20% which could be helpful for attacking and defending.So right now my vote is split between Carthage and the Vikings,but thats just my two cents.
Civilization
- Thread starter Domino369
- Start date
If you see the aggressive trait as only granting a +10% attack bonus, then you're missing the forest for the trees!
True, Combat1 directly gives +10%
, but the real value of aggressive is that you get that promotion for free - without having to spend xp to get it. This opens up the other promotions!! Consider:
If you're non-aggressive, you can pump out 5xp units under certain civics rather easily. That's 2 promotions. Call it, C1 and C2. Great. But if you're aggressive, pumping out 5xp units, you already start with C1! So now you can get to C2 & C3
Or, what usually happens, is you take the C2, and then take a unit-specific promotion (say, Cover; or Pinch) And I'll reiterate: If we're relying on our Protective trait to help us out, then we've already lost the diplomacy game. And if somebody simply has it out for us, then enemy troops should never be allowed to seriously threaten our cities. They should be shredded with siege units before getting that close. Protective, in my view, is a wasted trait in multiplayer. (but then again, I've never played BtS MP
)No, we won't get any glimmer of the map. We won't even know if there is any ocean at all - it could wind up being a modified highlands map, or lakes
At least the Vikings still get a Unique Unit that doesn't depend on the seas, like the Dutch or Portuguese. But both Carthage's and Vikings' Building relies on coast. That's a problem, for sure.
I didn't know that the amphibious promotion sticks through upgrades!
That's really really good to know. Of course, that could also paint a target on the Vikings in the later game - nobody wants to fend off amphibious CR3 infantry - better to attack preemptively
As for Pacal II becoming obsolete really fast..
Financial and Expansive don't really ever go out of style
The Unique unit isn't that great, sure. But I really doubt we're going to have to rely on a terrific unique unit to win the game for us. The units just aren't that powerful, overall. They can give an edge in different time periods, at best.
And I could make a very persuasive argument that siege units are more important in your military portfolio than any other type of unit. True, they can't outright kill. But they can render even an infantry so weak that he can be taken out by a horse archer. Don't write off siege units, or we'll likely fall victim to an attack we can't repel
This coming Wednesday (11/19)
Tinkerbell
Prince
fine with me, who are the 10 most wanted?
Tinkerbell
Prince
That will be about 50 leaders....
Tinkerbell
Prince
I've made the first poll here, with 15 leaders:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=299403
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=299403
Rantamplanzzz
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Messages
- 61
Im with peter in what he said about agresive civilizations:
Combat 1 might seem a little advantage but it isent:
- exp 0 units with combat 1 have 68% chances of winning an equal unit without it ¡¡68% just for a 10% overstrength!! that means yuoll losse 3 units for every 7 he losse (wich means more exp for you and bigger gap int he future.
-Also as peter said, being combat 1 allow you to get cover or sock with the barracks with alow you a 25% strength advantage over same unit withoutha gresive, that means you win about 80%.
Agresive shouldnt be underestimated, also i think it wil have a psicological efect on human players, if they see you picking agresive leader is like: uhhhh... be carefull...
If we do next thing we have to do is look for allies before they allie against us
.
Combat 1 might seem a little advantage but it isent:
- exp 0 units with combat 1 have 68% chances of winning an equal unit without it ¡¡68% just for a 10% overstrength!! that means yuoll losse 3 units for every 7 he losse (wich means more exp for you and bigger gap int he future.
-Also as peter said, being combat 1 allow you to get cover or sock with the barracks with alow you a 25% strength advantage over same unit withoutha gresive, that means you win about 80%.
Agresive shouldnt be underestimated, also i think it wil have a psicological efect on human players, if they see you picking agresive leader is like: uhhhh... be carefull...
If we do next thing we have to do is look for allies before they allie against us
.
Indeed. The fundamental value of aggressive is not the Combat 1 promotion, in itself; it is the level 3 promotion the unit can get when it graduates from a Theocratic Barracks. Ordinarily that promotion require 10xp to achieve, but with Aggressive, it only requires 5.
Sullla
Patrician Roman Dictator
cujo376 said:
That's not true - a decision on the map and game settings are due by Wednesday. Then, after you know the map settings, you will have the chance to vote on your leader.
We're not THAT mean...
Rantamplanzzz
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Messages
- 61
are we going to be able to SEE the map, including enemy starting locations and hidden (until certain technology is researched) special resources?
Sullla
Patrician Roman Dictator
Do you see the map in a normal, Single-Player game of Civ4 before starting?
(That's a no, in other words.
)
(That's a no, in other words.
)Similar threads
