Expert advice only: I need a win!

moevilla

Chieftain
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
2
Have played on and off for years. Getting beck in to it. Have a game that's about to be set up. Don't know which civ would work out the best. Please help!

The parameters are:


  1. Online multiplayer game against 2 humans and 2-3 AI (random).
  2. Playing at noble setting.
  3. The human players are playing Elizabeth (tendency to build wonders) and Boudica (tendency to be aggressive and attack).
  4. Starting from ancient time with large terra map, everything else are default settings.
  5. Victory parameters: none chosen, open (probably late game conquest to win).
  6. Agreement: everyone starts off separate teams, however all humans will play as an alliance until some yet to be determined point in the future (probably well into AD).

What civ would work the best considering the above listed factors?
 
Okay Mr. Civ doesn't matter. What Civ would you play? If you have a preference I'm sure you have valid reasons why you would pick that one over others. I would like to know why the civ doesn't matter? It doesn't make sense to me if all parameters are equal and assuming skill level also being relatively equal. Please enlighten me.
 
Play whatever civ you are comfortable with. I play with Churchill myself. He really shines if you get a good nationhood/draft setup for rifles and charismatic+protective means archers-longbow-crossbow-musket-rifle(redcoat)-infantry-mech. inf will be second to none. In addition redcoats means fights at tech parity (if things unfortunately come to that) will also go your way. + Charisma is extra cushioning for WW during the struggles.
 
Go with whatever leader you feel best with.

If you will play as an alliance for some time, the value of Toku seems to increase a lot, since you could fight the AI and leech tech off your friends.

If the alliance will be done sooner than gunpowder, his value goes down, and a philosophical leader starts going up, since earlier grewat people means better tech edge when you have to start fighting real opponets.

Earlier than that, charmasmatic looks better to me, since it gives you a slight edge in happiness when you need it the most, which means faster military production. Actually, Boudica would seem to be perfecthere, since aggressive is great too.

Industrious has a lot of potential, too, since you and your human friends will be able to be way ahead of AI in tech, and, again, leeching those wonder techs will give you a huge chance of getting the ones you want.

However, in the end, you need to play with a leader you feel good with.

Going with Toku doesn't mean anything if you can't grab land early, since the Boudica human won't care about your good gunpowder units if she can produce 3 times as many and get lots of upgrades on a few of them. And going with Joao doesn't do much good if you can't use your land well without financial later (Joao gets the new world settled first on terra, making him a strong choice, too, just so you know).
 
Well, it seems useless, but DaveMcW's answer is actually pretty close to the mark. It doesn't matter so much which civ you pick, it matters more how well you leverage their strengths.

Since you are apparently enjoying the advantage of foreknowledge of your opponent's choices, I would take that into consideration when making my choice. Boudica especially can be a real problem for you in the hands of a capable player. If that player has any success at all in wars against the AI, then that player is going to have a veteran army FULL of city raider promotions that can chew right through you unless you're really ready for them.

My advice is to backstab Boudica while she's off fighting somewhere else, thats your best bet!
 
I'm not a multiplayer-player, but since you won't be attacking eachother untill somewhere in AD i would definetly pick a leader with an economical trait (financial/organised). Sure that extra promotion on your rifleman will give better odds against other rifleman, but earlier rifleman will have much greater odds against, say, musketman. Mix them with any trait you like, just know that aggresive and protective aren't as strong as they may appear (in my humble opinion of course).
 
Play the Dutch. You get two solid traits for early land grab and economy building, and then when it comes time to start smacking around the human players, you have a pretty good UU which will come in handy when settling the new world and a ridiculously powerful UB.

Also an option, play as Portugal, beeline Optics, spam the new world with settlers.
 
A: Consider a sneaky religious victory. (Bulb Theology with prophet and build AP for Christianity and spread for your win)

B: Bulb scientists to Liberalism, Nationalism mass draft from Globe Theater and conquer everything. (State of the art high level strategy)

C: Brute Force conquest, Warrior Rush, Immortals, war chariot, Pretorian, Vultures, Early dog warrior, early chariots, Horsearcher Rush, Aztec slavery "exploit", plain Axes+Spear, Elephants+ Catapults, .....+cannons

D: WE/SSE a la obsolete, to satisfy the builder inside. Makes for nice techpace as well. But you should be familiar with specialist economy and this particular approach.

E: As mentioned above Joao gets first shot at new continent.
 
Okay first off personal skill is a a lot more important than leader, you should be comfortable on any difficulty level/against any opponent with any leader, using a different leader doesn't make you a better player, that being said if you have an early game alliance you will want to expand fast/grab some early great people if you will have early peace as this will put you in a very strong position for later game, so Pericles/Fredrick/Peter/Gandhi would all be good for that, however you could be fine with any leader if you are a better player than your opponents.
 
Well if you're not gonna attack each other until a certain point, then I would try to make sure that you're in SECOND place at that point, and get whoever's last to ally with you against the leader.
 
To me it seems like it's all going to come down to who decides to gang up on who.

Three rules of Wargame Diplomacy:

1. Convince others that someone else is a bigger threat
2. Show others how helping you is in their own best intrest
3. Don't play erratically. Someone who seems to employ a strategy that seems to adhere to neither rhyme nor reason is not someone who can be trusted or relied upon.
 
Agreement: everyone starts off separate teams, however all humans will play as an alliance until some yet to be determined point in the future (probably well into AD).

"May the peace last a thousand years, or at least until there's no land left".

Or whatever the AI says. :lol:

What's the thinking behind the setup where you team up against the AIs even though you know you'll have to fight each other later? Why not scrap the AIs altogether and fight each other from the start, or each custom-pick one AI teammate from the start. You could declare a no-DOW-by-humans treaty till 1AD or something if the idea was to avoid fighting till then. Or play on custom continents, one continent per player/team, although you'd have to wait till astronomy to fight then.

FWIW re. the original question if you start trying to pick a civ well-tailored to the game setup I would imagine the other players would see you as an obvious threat. How about just picking one with 2 different traits to the 4 already chosen. Then whoever loses can blame it on the traits they chose. :p

The whole thing sounds fun anyway - good luck and I hope you still have 2 friends at the end!
 
Agreement: everyone starts off separate teams, however all humans will play as an alliance until some yet to be determined point in the future

What civ would work the best considering the above listed factors?

You start off in separate teams, but have an alliance? What do you mean with that? That you will just not attack each other? Are you forced to tech-trade or open borders? I am assuming you will not get automatic contact with one another from the start, so you just expand as in a normal game.

I go with Dave, pick random (or whom ever you play good). If tech trades are forced(/shared) I would go philo just for the fun of stacking up great persons to be used in multiple golden ages and bulbing techs just as you break free of the alliance...
 
"I go with Dave, pick random (or whom ever you play good). "

lol- in essence- "do this or the exact opposite"

horrid advice. If you have an ally have one take a ship civ and build a navy (america- vikings ect) and one take a good land army unique unit civ like the mongols or Rome.

this is the superior
 
Top Bottom