Dido Terrible

[SammyKhalifa]

Now I do have to say that when the civ was announced I thought I'd have a lot more fun playing as them than I do

 

[MarigoldRan]

Yes!!! Canada is AWESOME!!!!

 

[steveg700]

I think we've reached a point where no civ is that bad, but I also don't object to people claiming some civs or strategies are inferior to others.

Few people do, it's just that most expect such claims to be conducted in a responsible way that is fair and open-minded. They need to be willing to articulate the problems beyond issuing one or two sentence posts espousing false tautologies like "cities with walls make knights useless" or "you will always get bad starts with nothing but jungles". It is reasonable that flimsy claims and the attitudes that drive them be challenged to put forth real effort.

You should take Religious Settlements in 90%+ of cases; don't blame me-- blame Firaxis for bad balancing.

Well, I'd have to be sold on that 90% figure first. It's a pretty handy pantheon if you find yourself in game-after-game of mad scrambles for land where you stand to be claim-jumped out of choice settling opportunites on any given turn. I has its allure. But in terms of raw value proposition, I've gotten much bigger payouts from selecting another belief, like one that will set me up as enough of a faith magnate to be able to faith-buy a multitude of units whenever Monumentality hits the table. Or taking Forge just to get units out for conquest. It helps that a canny human player can set up "loyalty traps" that can either deter forward-settling or, better yet, make the AI's settlers yours.

 

[Bitterman]

One change I wouldn't mind is them getting the cothon earlier than celestial navigation, or maybe their capital just gets to build one for free. And the bireme doesn't have any way to shine. It's not like we'll be taking out a bunch of coastal cities or city-states with it, since both of those tend to be rare. Maybe if you have pirate problems, but they layout of the Seven Seas maps I'm playing doesn't really lend itself to that, because ironically the map is mostly land (which is why there tends to be more space between civ's).

Hmmm... In my experience against Phoenicia in MP with friends I would tell you that biremes are designed not to attack, but to defend your sneaky coastal cities in foreign land close to agressive neighbours. With 2-3 of those you can easily recapture and defend your city. Add quadris and you have an unconquerable early city in the middle of a foreign empire (or more than one).

 

[steveg700]

Hmmm... In my experience against Phoenicia in MP with friends I would tell you that biremes are designed not to attack, but to defend your sneaky coastal cities in foreign land close to agressive neighbours. With 2-3 of those you can easily recapture and defend your city. Add quadris and you have an unconquerable early city in the middle of a foreign empire (or more than one).

That's a way to look at it. Sure annoying that barbs skip over galleys to get'em, that's what I say. Those things can kill swordsmen and horsemen way too quickly.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Few people do, it's just that most expect such claims to be conducted in a responsible way that is fair and open-minded. They need to be willing to articulate the problems beyond issuing one or two sentence espousing false tautologies like "cities with walls make knights useless" or "you will always get bad starts with nothing but jungles". It is reasonable that flimsy claims and the attitudes that drive them be challenged to put forth real effort, not be given welcome and succor.

Oh sure, but sometimes it really is that simple, such as my lakes friend.

However, I don't think this is always true. Most people aren't going "If you disagree with my opinion you are a bad player"--- and yes some do! I'm pretty vocal about some things I consider crap and upon further discussion may realize it's not as so. Eg. I don't really care for classical republic but have learned to use it as appropriately.

Now if you think the quality of the discussion is bad, I guess that's kind of an issue. But as is, I think it would be easy to trivialy refute some points made here if it were so evident the argumentation was so bad.

There are certain posters that espouse arguments in a terrible and rude manner but I don't disregard them entirely just because what they said was mean.

But in terms of raw value proposition, I've gotten much bigger payouts from selecting another belief, like one that will set me up as enough of a faith magnate to be able to faith-buy a multitude of units whenever Monumentality hits the table. Or taking Forge just to get units out for conquest. It helps that a canny human player can set up "loyalty traps" that can either deter forward-settling or, better yet, make the AI's settlers yours.

Well if you ask me, all of these things can be done by acquiring a 2nd city faster. Usually Religious Settlements results in 3 cities faster and unless you have some kind of godly start it's hard for 1 city early game especially to outproduce 2-3.

Now of course, there are always exceptions. If they literally start in your face, God of the Forge can be better. Or maybe the surrounding land is really that bad. Maybe you are surrounded by horse barbs. But all these things are exceptions to the rule.