1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Favorite Civs?

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Strategy & Tips' started by modernalextg, Mar 31, 2007.

  1. Snarkhunter

    Snarkhunter Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Messages:
    485
    Location:
    Annapolis

    It isn't for nothing that the navy is the senior service in Britain, not the army. The army was always small & secondary to the navy, and British planners recognized that from the time of the Dutch wars on (about when leaders could no longer be both generals and admirals simultaneously due to specialization). And they proved it by what they spent their shields on for 3 centuries. Naval projection of power around Europe and the rest of the war was *enormously* influential, far more so than the few professional soldiers Britain ever bothered to field; it constrained completely the ability of the other powers to move and act as they saw fit & made sure that Britain could never really lose a war until the 20th century. (It might not win, but it could never suffer a catastrophic defeat, either.) The navy was the hand that gripped Europe by the throat, not to be disgorged unless it suited the British to do so. If you can manage it, ask the shade of Napoleon which he would rather have removed: the British redcoats, or the British navy. The latter, beyond all doubt. Why did the Kaiser enter into the arms race that figured so heavily in igniting WWI? Certainly not because he feared the "Old Contemptibles." Why did Germany lose that same war? Primarily because its seas were controlled by the British navy, and not vice versa.

    Finally, it is worth noting that the British army that won India was primarily a *native* army led by a few Brits--*not* an army of redcoats by any stretch of the imagination.

    Of course, this all don't have much to do with UU's, except as historically apt or no. For the US, you could make a case for 18th century Rangers/Kentucky riflemen, carrier groups, or air assault divisions; nothing else is really that unique to the US--well, maybe the B17. Or possibly artillery; US fire control systems are & have been since WWII the best in the world. Nothing spoils a baddie's breakfast like a perfect TOT salvo from every tube in the division :crazyeye:
     
  2. anaxagoras

    anaxagoras Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Messages:
    961
    Location:
    Durham, NC
    Sure, but they were only called "redcoats" by the American colonists. That term wasn't used consistently in India, the East, or on the Continent, not even in translation.

    Well, I don't pretend to be a history expert, but you had mentioned the Napoleonic Wars as an time of great victory for the redcoats. But Waterloo was preceeded by Trafalgar (perhaps the best known naval engagement of all time), and the entire War of 1812 was fought over the right of the Brits to blockade Continental Europe.

    WWI was strongly influenced by a largely British blockade of Germany (something Woodrow Wilson and isolationist Americans fought hard to prevent). German troops and civilian population were essentially starved into submission. Certainly no land engagements conclusively decided that conflict. (Granted, that is post-redcoat and post-MoW.)

    I certainly agree that the Brits would be easier to play if they had a land unit UU, but that would just make them seem less "British". I like having them as a clearly naval power.

    As for F-15's, well, you can argue about which jet model would be better, but I don't think number of raw kills is necessarily the best measure. The essence of modern American power is the airstrike, often delivered off the deck of an aircraft carrier. Perhaps call it a Hornet, make it more effective as a bomber, and have it count as just half a unit against carrier stacking (i.e. carriers could carry 8). On the other hand, I liked my Shermans, too. :D
     
  3. modernalextg

    modernalextg Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    53
    You know it's really probably a shame that I don't play as the English or Americans that often, but it's BECAUSE of the UUs. I never build a strong navy, and I just use my ships fro transport if my enemy is on another continent. I also never really build that many air units either. I'm pretty strictly a land attacker. I just build up an army of swordsmen/knights/cavalry/tanks and just go blow away the enemy. That's part of the reason I really dont like the English and American UUs, because I really dont play as them often. I dont think I have ever built a M-o-W or an F-15, because as the English I had no need (or money) to support a navy, and as the Americans, I had won way before Flight and the F-15.

    Those civs never really appealed to me because I didn't like the UU, same thing with Korea (those of you that have the Play the World Expansion) the H'wacha doesn't play into my strategy, as I just wipe 'em all out with brute force, instead of picking away at their cities with Artillery.

    (For those of you who don't know, the H'wacha is the Korean UU, and it is a more powerful artillery unit that replaces the cannon, and the H'wacha can kill other units, instead of simply reducing their health)

    For me, the UU is a big factor when I'm choosing what civ to play as, and if I don't like the UU, I wont play as that nation. I know that may be stupid, but hey, we've all got our own ways to play right?
     
  4. anaxagoras

    anaxagoras Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Messages:
    961
    Location:
    Durham, NC
    Personally, I always let the computer decide who I am. That keeps me from getting locked into a single style of play, and it can be very challenging if you end up as, say, England on a pangea map or the Zulu on archipelago. But to each. It's a game, after all. Do whatever makes it fun for you.
     
  5. Jokeslayer

    Jokeslayer Dedicated

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    Messages:
    481
    Location:
    Haxxing Meisen's combats
    I love this line. Very funny:)

    I'll take your word for that, as I've no idea. But the word is well known now, which is probably more important.

    True, but it was also preceded by a long series of land battles (well, not waterloo directly, but Napoleon's first fall in 1814), especially those in Spain which featured the redcoats quite heavily.

    That's fair enough. I guess we can just disagree on this (probably the rest of the world disagrees with me on the history)
     
  6. Doomsday Jesus

    Doomsday Jesus Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    10
    Location:
    o.o
    Greece and China. Can't figure out why.
     
  7. shinsei

    shinsei Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    108
    Definitely Egypt for me.Good traits(although poor UU)
     
  8. Taras Bulba

    Taras Bulba gone

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    1,442
    well... i would disagree. It may be that i just like the way it looks, and i get very defensive, but i like the War Chariot for several reasons...

    1.-i dislike horseman, and you don't need to build them if you have WC!
    2.-a 1 tech buy of a 2/1/2 unit, that is great!!! *meaning you only have to research one tech and you have it (theoretically)*
    3.-you can build it as long as you like... idk about anyone else, but i like UUs that don't upgrade, or at least you can make alot of... that means UUs that i like for that reason are:
    -Cossack
    -Sipahi
    -F-15
    -Man-O-War
    -Immortal
    -Conquistador
    -any replacement of the Knight, because you don't have to research Military Tradition
     
  9. shinsei

    shinsei Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    108
    War Chariot could upgrade to knights,thats what i did to all my War Chariot after i had chivalry
     
  10. MAS

    MAS Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,080
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    The fact that the war chariot is only 20 shields, as opposed to 30, has an other advantage. You can pop-rush an army the size of your empire (counted in towns pop 2+) in just 2 turns. It doesn't matter how corrupt the towns are.
    Just let it accumulate 1 shield, then whip the rest.

    For units that cost 30 shields, you'd first have to collect 10 before you can whip. That gives much more oversight and planning problems.
     
  11. Jazzmail

    Jazzmail Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    710
    Location:
    Gelderland
    If the Iroquois didn't have such a damn fine UU, the War chariot would be #1 instead IMO.
    The war chariot is unique:
    1. if you choose, you can trigger a golden age very early (great for tiny pangea wins), OR
    2. if you want, you can postpone an early golden age (good when you want to get out of despotism), without giving up military strength, because you can build horseman and war chariots at the same time (perfect especially when you do got horses, but no iron yet) and
    3. the war chariot is a good attacker for the ancient age in it's own right, at an absolute bargain price.

    Also the civ that comes with this UU has a perfect set of traits (especially in PtW and vanilla). Egypt is brilliant.
     
  12. Tone

    Tone Chieftain Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    4,548
    Location:
    Singapore
    Firstly I'd just like to add my support for the War Chariot. I've swarmed over Deity opponants defending with pikes using this unit. (I avoid Chivalry unless the AI gets muskets!!!) 20 shields is a bargain as long as you don't hit large mountain ranges or massive tracts of jungle. Then again those industrious workers can road through it pretty quickly if you do! Cheap temples plus an awesome AA UU make Egypt a great civ for early domination attempts.

    Back to the original post; my favorite civ? I've really not got just one (variety is the spice of life...) but if pushed I'd vote for the Iroquois. AGR and COM is a great combination and the MW is a top class UU that can help you carve out a massive empire in the AA that no AI is going to stand a chance of competing with.
     
  13. Optional

    Optional Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,935
    Location:
    It Dockumer Lokaeltsje
    How much you value the War Chariot will partly depend on your playing style. Like Tone says, the unit probably shines best if you want to blitz your opponants early.
    In the Ancient Age, I tend to concentrate on peaceful expansion and building early up contacts. I find this can sometimes get bugged by barbarians, threatening my settlers and early settlements. I can't think of a unit better to deal with this early barbarian threat than the Egyptian War Chariot.

    When Shinsei says the War Chariot is a poor unit, what probably is meant is that it's a vulnerable unit - attack 2, defense 1, wheeled status - a single War Chariot is not a symbol of strength indeed. But I recall someone once made a comparison between fast units with an attack of 2 and slow units with an attack of 3. Say comparing Horses to Swords.
    It went something like this: A Sword, with its attack of 3, will win about half the occasions attacking a Spear. A Horse, attack 2, will win only a third of the time.
    But what happens to the units that don't win their battle? Well, all the Swords that don't win die, simple. Of the Horses that don't win, half of them retreat. So the full picture then looks like this:
    Swords: 1/2 win, 1/2 die.
    Horses: 1/3 win, 1/3 die, 1/3 retreat.
    So more Horses than Swords survive. What a Horse misses in pure attack strength, it makes up for by it's retreating ability.
    In Civ, we pay for speed. In the Middle Ages a knight costs us 70 shields. There are other units units available at the same time with similar attack strength that are much cheaper. A Medieval Infantry or Longbowman both also have an attack value of 4, yet cost us only 40 shields. I know that these units also have a lower defense value than Knights, but if we are happy to fork out 70 shields for a Knight, I believe we mainly do that because of its speed.
    Egypt offers a 2 attack, 2 speed unit in the Ancient Age for only 20 shields. That's really nice. There is the drawback of the wheeled status. Somehow, you can never quite manoeuvre the way you want to with Chariots. You can't park it on a mountain to bolster its defence for instance. And there are Unique Units that will keep their value for longer. In the Middle Ages, the War Chariot is really past its prime.
    So the War Chariot has its limitations, and requires some skill from the player, but I would still say Egypt is a nice civ with a strong, if a bit particular, Unique Unit.
     
  14. shinsei

    shinsei Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    108
    I think War Chariot do has his value for an early attack,but egyptians traits are for builders,thats pretty incompatible.

    anyways about speed/attack balance,the in middle age probably its balanced,but when it gets to later stage,for example TOW compare to Mech?same price but totally different value,(don't even want to try to compare to modern armor which had the same shields as well)the unit is definatly unbalanced in later games.
     
  15. Lord Templar

    Lord Templar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2007
    Messages:
    97
    Location:
    Athens, Wisconsin
    Maya- Good traits, better than average UU. Agri-Indu makes them either a industry superpower , sceintists , or massive cites. Or all three. Or a horrible corrupt empire never a cite without disorder.
    Carhtage- Great UU. Indu-Sea good traits.
    Portugal-Just cool. Ive had massive 55+ empires with this guy. UU is cool but im not to naval.
    Greece-What can i say? Great UU!!!
    Iriquois-Great UU.Good traits.
    Byzantines- Traits make it very scentific. My brother loves that civ.
    Persia-AWSOME!!!
    Inca- Best Civilization I ever made with this dude. Chasqis are cool. Agri is sweet.

    Suck Civs-
    America- Traits are ok. UU is like-Fart!!!
    Zulu- Stupid traits. Lame UU. Horrible economy.
    Mongols- Keshik is poo. Traits suck. Horrible economy.

    Good Civs I never play-
    France- I dont know why though...
    Germany- Dont appeal to me. UU isnt so great.
    Russia- Expansionist dont help me ever.
    Babylon- Nope. Just wont do it. Bowmen good though.
     
  16. Lord Templar

    Lord Templar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2007
    Messages:
    97
    Location:
    Athens, Wisconsin
    I'd have to disagree. If i ever want to have a good game with chariots I'd have the Hittites.
    They are not as vulnerable as the War Chariot , Though they cost more(I think:D ).
    Ive had good games as the hittites and Even though the traits are good i never play as them cause of the lame UU. But Yes Iroquois are great. 3-1-2 is realy nice and can carve out LARGE empires early on. One of my faves.
     
  17. Lord Templar

    Lord Templar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2007
    Messages:
    97
    Location:
    Athens, Wisconsin

    You Got a point there.
     
  18. Lord Templar

    Lord Templar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2007
    Messages:
    97
    Location:
    Athens, Wisconsin
    Never mind.
     

Share This Page