Egypt / Ramesses

[SuperNoobCamper]

Tried Playing Egypt sometime ago as a peaceful tradition civ and i failed miserably ... today i started another match as Egypt on a continent with Denmark, China, Germany and Brazil with a tight space to expand so i went Authority and seriously i really felt how ridiculous Egypt's early game can be.
For the record i managed to get both Pyramids and Stonehenge built at turn 48 epic (roughly turn 32 standard) after a monument and a Shrine; got the MoH and Statue of Zeus while my German neighbors got both Petra and Artemis.
Classical wonders i got Hanging gardens, Roman Forum, Oracle, Angkor Wat (The rest of classical wonders were gone by turn 150 Epic probably by an overseas Tradition civ.
War chariots are ridiculos (I annihilated china in the early classical era after an early ancient war crippled them costing them their first expansion).
They are much better than warriors both in terms of CS (for tributing purposes) and for barb hunting while being not that much more expensive.
Burial tomb is nice early university Imo, not game breaking but the warchariots totally surpassed my expectations.

 

[andersw]

Tried Playing Egypt sometime ago as a peaceful tradition civ and i failed miserably ... today i started another match as Egypt on a continent with Denmark, China, Germany and Brazil with a tight space to expand so i went Authority and seriously i really felt how ridiculous Egypt's early game can be.
For the record i managed to get both Pyramids and Stonehenge built at turn 48 epic (roughly turn 32 standard) after a monument and a Shrine; got the MoH and Statue of Zeus while my German neighbors got both Petra and Artemis.
Classical wonders i got Hanging gardens, Roman Forum, Oracle, Angkor Wat (The rest of classical wonders were gone by turn 150 Epic probably by an overseas Tradition civ.
War chariots are ridiculos (I annihilated china in the early classical era after an early ancient war crippled them costing them their first expansion).
They are much better than warriors both in terms of CS (for tributing purposes) and for barb hunting while being not that much more expensive.
Burial tomb is nice early university Imo, not game breaking but the warchariots totally surpassed my expectations.

Yes warchariots are great if there is enough flat land (and stuff to kill).

 

[Ranslee]

I always go Authority as Egypt simply because Production from War Chariots let you snowball early on. I build them up to the cap and farm barbs, city states and neighbours. Then you settle/conquer a lot of cities and get a huge early boost of culture/science from the Relics in Burial Tombs.

It's a unique flavor to use early warfare to develop dominance for future culture play in such an effective way.

 

[LifeOfBrian]

If anyone's interested in an Egypt playthrough, I recommend a series of videos by @Milae , starting with

.

 

[KaoticKanine]

Tried Playing Egypt sometime ago as a peaceful tradition civ and i failed miserably ... today i started another match as Egypt on a continent with Denmark, China, Germany and Brazil with a tight space to expand so i went Authority and seriously i really felt how ridiculous Egypt's early game can be.

Honestly, between this, personal experience, and recent playthroughs I've seen of Milae and Martin Fencka, it's got me thinking that either Authority is too good or Tradition and especially Progress need improvement. Cause at the moment, Tradition and Progress feel only really viable in isolated starts, which are extremely rare in my experience. The majority of the time, you're going to start with many major Civ neighbors, who will forward-settle and DoW you, thus making Authority necessary just to defend and go wide.

Of course, even in isolated starts (or ones that offer territory aplenty in between neighbors), you'll be swarmed by Barbarians, so taking Authority is kind of a no-brainer...!

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

Honestly, between this, personal experience, and recent playthroughs I've seen of Milae and Martin Fencka, it's got me thinking that either Authority is too good or Tradition and especially Progress need improvement. Cause at the moment, Tradition and Progress feel only really viable in isolated starts, which are extremely rare in my experience. The majority of the time, you're going to start with many major Civ neighbors, who will forward-settle and DoW you, thus making Authority necessary just to defend and go wide.

Of course, even in isolated starts (or ones that offer territory aplenty in between neighbors), you'll be swarmed by Barbarians, so taking Authority is kind of a no-brainer...!

I do not watch a lot of youtube content in general but i wholeheartedly agree, Authority does almost everything better than Progress and does most things better than tradition (tradition is still great at growing a massive capital early on).
Most of the Civs that are good as Progress or tradition civs are still really good as Authority.
My last game as Authority Egypt i managed to get a CV at 1760 and i could have done even better if i optimized world congress proposals and micromanaged greatworks and i got a similar result with Authority Arabia and Authority Brazil.

 

[KaoticKanine]

I do not watch a lot of youtube content in general but i wholeheartedly agree, Authority does almost everything better than Progress and does most things better than tradition (tradition is still great at growing a massive capital early on).
Most of the Civs that are good as Progress or tradition civs are still really good as Authority.
My last game as Authority Egypt i managed to get a CV at 1760 and i could have done even better if i optimized world congress proposals and micromanaged greatworks and i got a similar result with Authority Arabia and Authority Brazil.

Dang o_O And were those games on high difficulty? If so, it's got me thinking of starting a thread to address this. But I'd like to see what others think first.

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

Dang o_O And were those games on high difficulty? If so, it's got me thinking of starting a thread to address this. But I'd like to see what others think first.

All of the aforementioned matches were on Emperor difficulty, Epic Speed, standard size map with 8 civs, 16 city states, no events and ancient ruins on.
That was early but i'm sure i could have pulled it off even earlier had i optimized some stuff like WC proposals, Reformation Beliefs (TTGoG for more great writers), Greatworks optimization, World fair for a free policy (i was influential on everyone by the modern era so the only requirement that held my hand from building the Citizen earth protocol and winning was the number of tier 3 policies).

 

[DeAnno]

The buff to barbarians that happened recently (healing) was definitely a buff to authority as well. On deity especially barbs can get really out of control really fast on big isolated starts, and Progress has more trouble controlling them than before. The semi-recent nerf to Archers contributes to this too, they're far too frail to fight without a bodyguard or a city to hide in now so you need to either build more warriors or find a different solution.

 

[stii]

Dang o_O And were those games on high difficulty? If so, it's got me thinking of starting a thread to address this. But I'd like to see what others think first.

I think it is generally agree that on higher difficulties authority is better. Progress is certainly very unexciting whatever you are doing. It is still possible to win doing pretty much anything but it is much easier with better picks.

 

[Stalker0]

I think it is generally agree that on higher difficulties authority is better. Progress is certainly very unexciting whatever you are doing. It is still possible to win doing pretty much anything but it is much easier with better picks.

I think the better answer is.... on higher difficulties War is better....and therefore, anything that helps war is innately stronger.

that said progress is still my favorite. Part of the issue is that Progress is a later bloomer, so if you look at the first 150 turns of course Authority is going to look better. But when you see progress's engine kick in later in the game you can see its power. But of course if you have already conquered half the world by the time, doesn't matter what policy you have, your going to win.

 

[CrazyG]

To be honest, I don't think Egypt is a good tradition civ at all. I don't think we should make conclusions about authority vs tradition using it as a base.

Egypt's UA (the wonder part) is not that great. If you disagree then you should be absolutely blown away by America's UA. The UU and UB + artifact part of the UA are what carry him.

The buffing artifacts part of the UA is good (in combo with the burial tomb). However the burial tomb is a caravansary, which is not something you want to add to build orders in low production tradition cities. It directly rewards going wide and is great for puppets who like to build caravansaries for some reason. It's not on a tech you prioritize as tradition either.

If you spam war chariots you should probably pick authority. Tradition doesn't mind them, but if you don't expand much will you have the horses to upgrade them? Do you want to use those horses instead of selling them if playing a defensive tradition game?

On progress, nothing about Egypt supports it until the burial tomb which comes fairly late to build a strategy around.

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

Dang o_O And were those games on high difficulty? If so, it's got me thinking of starting a thread to address this. But I'd like to see what others think first.

This is the game i managed to get an early CV, the actual challenge was getting 2 tier 3 tenets as early as possible but with this absurd number of wonders it was trivial and i could have done better.
IMO the snowball potential is what makes Egypt strong and as @CrazyG said it's the burial tomb that makes Egypt strong.
War chariot with Authority generates so much early hammers usually enough to put you ahead.
about progress .... i still believe Progress regardless of the leader is he weakest ancient tree but that is another discussion.

Spoiler :

 

[Stalker0]

@SuperNoobCamper

Looks like you are using the 4C version of Egypt correct? Nothing wrong with but noting that as it does change the discussion slightly.

 

[stii]

I think the better answer is.... on higher difficulties War is better....and therefore, anything that helps war is innately stronger.

that said progress is still my favorite. Part of the issue is that Progress is a later bloomer, so if you look at the first 150 turns of course Authority is going to look better. But when you see progress's engine kick in later in the game you can see its power. But of course if you have already conquered half the world by the time, doesn't matter what policy you have, your going to win.

I guess you could go authority+ progress. I don't think the 2nd tier polices are very exciting so it isn't a huge loss. You only really want the two left authority polices so you can go into progress after that. As the authority finisher isn't great you don't lose much by relaying it and both the authority polices here are great if you found lots of cities.

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

@SuperNoobCamper

Looks like you are using the 4C version of Egypt correct? Nothing wrong with but noting that as it does change the discussion slightly.

I really did not get to use the Lancer replacement at all (the last war i had was in medieval era), Nilometer is not a game changer IMO and i'm sure it's not the cause of running away that hard.

 

[randomnub]

To be honest, I don't think Egypt is a good tradition civ at all.[...]

Corrected.

Its uniques don't railroad into any of the starting policies, you could say it's a versatile civ, while I suspect it's plain weak compared to most other ones. All this talking about the war chariots makes me wonder if I'm doing something wrong with them, because at 55 and only 1 CS (not even RCS) above the chariot archer it takes a while to pay for themselves in the early game, at 12 gained per brute killed, and it's very terrain dependant.

They're resource free and a good gold into hammers converter so that's something, but their window of opportunity is pretty small. Upgrade to skirmisher, when they start racking more hammers per kill, now we're talking, but on the other hand Egypt kit isn't rewarding warfare that much. Not to mention that the UU doesn't synergize with the UA (the gift of pharaoh isn't multiplied by UA into wonders %).

That being said, Authority is the tree that better rewards players at higher difficulties, while giving you the means to directly counter runaway AIs and becoming a runaway yourself. It's also a balanced way to play weak and supposedly pacifist civs, covering your weakness instead of putting all your eggs into a basket and risk being hard countered by the opponents so it works.

 

[CrazyG]

Corrected.

Its uniques don't railroad into any of the starting policies, you could say it's a versatile civ, while I suspect it's plain weak compared to most other ones. All this talking about the war chariots makes me wonder if I'm doing something wrong with them, because at 55 and only 1 CS (not even RCS) above the chariot archer it takes a while to pay for themselves in the early game, at 12 gained per brute killed, and it's very terrain dependant.

I'm not sure I agree. 12 per brute is a lot, it's a free war chariot every 4 kills.

I think he's a good authority skirmisher civ, with meaningful advantages over someone like Mongolia. The burial tomb is really nice in authority cities, who have plenty of production to build it, and the tech is on the path to heavy skirmishers. That boost to your yields leading up to getting trebuchets, cannons, and frigates earlier can be important. I don't especially enjoy playing with skirmisher militaries since it can lead to a lot tedious grinding, but it's a very effective strategy.

 

[randomnub]

I'm not sure I agree. 12 per brute is a lot, it's a free war chariot every 4 kills.

More like every 5 kills, and axemen/archers give less. The thing is it's not even that quick to farm barbarians with chariots, a camp in the jungle might take 10+ hits in between healing while hoplites/immortals/jaguars or just plain warriors are better at that. Once you reach a critical mass of chariots it works better, but I feel a critical mass of everything else is better at conquering your neighbour.

I think he's a good authority skirmisher civ, with meaningful advantages over someone like Mongolia. The burial tomb is really nice in authority cities, who have plenty of production to build it, and the tech is on the path to heavy skirmishers. That boost to your yields leading up to getting trebuchets, cannons, and frigates earlier can be important. I don't especially enjoy playing with skirmisher militaries since it can lead to a lot tedious grinding, but it's a very effective strategy.

My thought is that authority is a better way to hide Egypt kit overall weakness. Once you're into (heavy) skirmishers that have the same cs/rcs than other civs you're also playing with less horses for knights when mounted are at their prime time though. That being said, I guess I've got the idea for the next game.

 

[tothePAIN]

I'm not sure I agree. 12 per brute is a lot, it's a free war chariot every 4 kills.

I think he's a good authority skirmisher civ, with meaningful advantages over someone like Mongolia. The burial tomb is really nice in authority cities, who have plenty of production to build it, and the tech is on the path to heavy skirmishers. That boost to your yields leading up to getting trebuchets, cannons, and frigates earlier can be important. I don't especially enjoy playing with skirmisher militaries since it can lead to a lot tedious grinding, but it's a very effective strategy.

Good authority skirmished civs = relatively bad authority civs in my opinion.

The skirmisher doctrine made skirmishers effective only on open ground. Skirmishers need parthian tactics to stay effective.

I hadn't considered how weak Egypt's UA is for wonder building. I'm guessing Authority/ Artistey on flat ground is the ideal situation.