English civ / civs in general question

[Pod]

i've read a lot of stuff saying the the english is one of the weaker civilisations to play with, but ive used them my last 3 games, which were on Chieftan , Warlord and Regent, and won those games. Is there a special way to use them and im doing it without knowing?

Which civs do you play wih most often, and why?

 

[Hawkster]

Well done on winning with the English - a lot of players don't like their combination of attributes and the relatively weak UU (compared to other UU's in the game).

Personally I usually play as Babylon - the religous / scientific combination is great for culture and switching govs, although now I have PTW I like the look of the Celts - which I may try soon.

 

[rilnator]

I reckon you should stay loyal to one civilisation- despite the benefits of any other. Ever since I started playing civ 1 about 10 years ago I was the Russians and only once or twice I've switched. That was only find out what playing against the Russians was like.
To me playing a different nation would be like backing the All Blacks against Australia in a test match. NEVER!!!

 

[Padma]

Well, back when Civ3 first came out, Expansionist and Commercial were considered two of the weakest traits. So a Civ that combined those two just *had* to suck. And when it's UU is a Naval Unit, to boot?

Of course, now people have played, and experimented, with all the different civs, and the conclusion: the traits are pretty well-balanced, after all!

Expansionist can be great for the early game, especially on Pangea maps. Safe popping of goody huts, lots of free techs, etc., can give you a solid early-game lead.

Commercial doesn't seem as strong early, but by the mid to late game, the added gold it generates is a powerful boost! More gold for buying techs/Luxes/Resources. More gold for upgrades. More gold for Science/Lux sliders.

Of course, the Man-O-War is still a pretty poor UU.

For myself, I usually play as the Americans. I love the Industrious trait, and combined with Expansionist, I can build up a solid game pretty early. (Yeah, the F-15 is not exactly the best UU either. ) But I do try to play the other civs, at least occasionally, just to understand how everything works.

 

[[GoD]Toxic]

The English can be great in the right players hand but in general i think that most players cant deal with them (no offense).

Expand fast and keep your cities (can be hard with a large empire). Look out for the Germans if they are nearby. Go to war with another civ to get more cities. Thats it, not that hard just get more cities than anyone else.

I usually play as Babylon, greece or Japan but i can play with em all

Playing varius civ can be good because you get to now their good AND their bad sides.

 

[wilbill]

Originally posted by Pod
Is there a special way to use them and im doing it without knowing?

Which civs do you play wih most often, and why?

Pod, if you've won with them at Monarch, maybe you're just good , lol.
When I play an expansionist civ, I always try to get the most out of the initial Scout as possible - sometimes build a second one early on. You can lever the scout(s) into an early boost in science from the goody huts which is really nice, especially playing above Regent. Commercial is a little-appreciated, but IMO, valuable trait. It's benefits are probably most pronounced later in the game, though.
In my last 3 or 4 games at Monarch level, the AI English were pretty strong at least into the late Industrial Era. If the AI can do that well with the English, a decent human player should be able to win regularly.

 

[metalhead]

Build a second, third, fourth.... all the way to 9 or 10 scouts, if you want to get their full benefit. I myself think the English are pretty powerful, and I always do well with them. But then again, Commercial and Expansionist are my favorite traits.

 

[Karlisna]

I usually play as Egypt or Spain. Gotta love the cheap culture buildings and 1 turn revolutions..

 

[Konquest02]

Originally posted by metalhead
Build a second, third, fourth.... all the way to 9 or 10 scouts, if you want to get their full benefit.

It all depends on the map size... I usually play standard and pump 3-4 scouts with whom I can clean up my continent...

The English are not that bad... if you forget their UU..! They tend to really be map dependant...

--Kon--

 

[Bismarck]

I only have patience for medium maps, where Expansionist is not much of an advantage. Commercial isn't bad (reduced corruption is nice), but the Man-O-War is a dismal UU -- even worse than the F-15.

So, overall, I find England to be a weak civ. Which map sizes do you play?

Also, have you tried levels higher than Regent? I can easily win Monarch with any civ. But on Emperor, I struggle badly unless I play a powerful civ (e.g. Persia, China, Japan, etc.).

 

[Sirp]

English is a relatively weak civilization, however it is relative to the difference that a civilization's unique traits make. The difference between the most powerful and least powerful civilization is never *that* great.

There are many other factors to consider: The starting position for instance can make far more difference than civilization traits. What's more, winning the game with the best civilization on level n is probably easier than winning with the worst civilization on level n+1.

In fact, there's a succession game going on now called 'The Naked Vikings', where they players are using a 'naked' civilization (i.e. a civilization stripped of all its civilization traits!) against other civilizations with full civilization traits, on Deity level, and it looks like they're going to win.

Man-o-wars are definitely useless. But then, so are F15s, Musketeers, and lots of other units are marginal, or simply don't turn out to be useful in a given game. (Panzers are good, but not if the game doesn't make it to the Industrial Age).

The expansionist trait is probably the poorest trait, but it is not useless; it is a useful trait, just not as useful as the others. The commercial trait is a middle-tier trait these days, much improved after one of the patches.

Personally, I wouldn't even say the English are the worst civilization. In my mind, that dubious distinction goes to the Mongols. They are just so bad, because I can see no reason why someone would want to play them. If you want to be commercial and expansionist, you'd be the English. If you want to be militaristic and expansionist you'd go for hmm....lesseee, do I want the Beserk, Impi, or Keshik? Tough choice there!

-Sirp.

 

[Park Ranger]

Note that English start only 2 techs away from Map Making. They are ideally suited for playing on archipelago maps, though this calls for a different scouting strategy. But think about it: you can always send a settler to an island and pop any goody huts without fear of barbs.

Not my favourite civ but prefer them to aztecs, zulus, russians and romans.

 

[Rheinmetall]

Man-O-War is lousy but you can get the golden age started just before industrial age with it. Perfect timing.

 

[Rheinmetall]

- Oops double. Got more than I asked -