Fun Civilization Speculation Time!

[Calouste]

Regardless of the civ, worker first seems the way to go.

Not necessarily. Resource tiles aren't as strong as they were in Civ4, providing fewer benefits (building a farm on a Wheat resource makes it go from 3 food to 4 food for example, not from 3 food to 6 food as a Corn did in Civ4), so you don't lose out on that much if you go for a few scouts or warriors first.

The first social policy should be the one providing extra food for the capital.

For some civs and playstyles, but other will ignore that policy all together and go for the one that gives bonusses against barbs. Keep in mind that, unlike with the tech tree where you will get most techs, in a lot of games you won't even get half the Social Policies available, so you have to be careful with which ones you choose.

 

[JonoLith]

Alrighty, three things that seem fun to talk about!

1) The Greeks

An excellent point has been raised about how powerful the Greek early game is. I entirely agree! The early advantage is clear, and they will certainly be able to carve a piece of land out for themselves very early.

However, they do have a very impressive bonus to city states that simply cannot be ignored. It is possible that they can use surrounding city states the gather an impressive amount of culture to win that victory, and it is certainly true they can use the city states to build a military to crush the planet with. But what cannot be ignored is that they are always using the resource they have available to them to win the game.

What I mean by this is that if a bunch of cultured City States spawn, then the culture victory is more open, but if those cities are Militaristic, then the domination victory is more attractive. However, the one victory condition that the greeks will always have a leg up in is the Diplomatic Victory. It is a door that will always be open for them, no matter what else is going on around them.

Ultimately, the successful greek player will be one that uses the City States that appear around him. It is true that he could win any kind of victory, but likely that he will be angling for the Diplomatic.

2) The French

I think it's possible that any civilization will be able to win any kind of victory. I think it's possible that the Aztecs will win a diplomatic victory. I think it's possible that the Indians will win a Domination Victory. All of that is certainly possible.

However, when we are talking about each Civilization, we should pay strong attention to where it's actual strengths lie. The French lose their cultural bonus around the same time as they recieve some fairly impressive units. While it is true that you could use their culture boost to go into other Social Policies, and win any other kind of victory, the most effective way to go about playing the French seems to be a buildup of Military Social policies with a heavy Military Expansion when their Unique Unit appears.

I don't deny that the French are capable of winning a cultural victory, but it would be a waste to let their obvious military moment pass them by. I would be hard pressed to ever play the French and not capitalize.

3) The Russian Unique Ability.

There's been some talk about this, and I figure that I might as well chime in.

My understanding, which is mainly conceptual to be fair, is that if a Russian has access to 1 unit of Iron, it will give him 2 iron to do with what he will. If he trades away 1 Iron, he will still have access to 1 Iron. It is important to remember that if the tile that provides that 1 iron is pillaged then the Russian player will lose both of his iron.

There's this idea that the double iron should be for the Russian Player alone. I would argue that it is, even if he trades it away, because he is recieving a benefit from his special ability by doing that.

Some might argue that this would make their Special Ability too strong. I would argue that Double Iron and Double Horses is really all they have going for them. Yes that makes them quite powerful through the early and mid-game, but once those resources becomes outdate, then that's the end of that. (Until double Uranium.)

Two things to remember about this;

A) The Russians ability is intrinsically tied to the land. This means that they could play a game where they only have a single node of Iron. It also means that anyone who wants to hamstring the Russians knows exactly how to do it; pillage those tiles. A Russian without resources is not even playing the game.

B) If the Russian Ability works in such a way that by trading away a single iron will actually make them lose access to two, it will be rare to see a Russian player ever engage in trading horses or iron. It makes no sense that they would choose to lose access to two iron to recieve a single resources value. This is what the trade conversation would look like. (For the sake of arguement, let's just assume that 1 Banana is Equal value to one Iron. If this disintigrates into a ridiculous conversation about how Bananas around equal to Iron, then I will simply call you a stupid person.)

Russia: I would like to recieve 1 Banana.

Other: I would like to recieve 1 Iron.

Russia: I will trade you 1 Iron for 2 Bananas.

Other: You are a crazy person. I iron is worth 1 Banana, and I will only make that trade for 1 Banana.

Russia: But if I make that trade I actually lose 2 Iron.

Other: That's on you. I only recieve 1 iron, so I will only make that trade for 1 Banana.

In short, other civs will not care if Russia is losing 2 iron for 1 iron's worth of value, and so Russia will simply be knocked right out of trading away anything, making their Special Ability significantly worse.

And before this devolves into a conversation about how Over Powered the Russian Ability is; I, for one, believe that it is fine. Other Civs get benefits that last throughout the game, and have much stronger economic benefits. The Russian ability appears powerful, because it plays right into our raw understanding of how things function. We understand that more iron means more swords which means more destruction. The actual gameplay, however, will show that while the Russian will certainly have more Iron, which will certainly lead to more swords, they will still have to contend with other Civilizations who have more subtle sounding abilities.

There's a reason why the Russians don't have an Iron Based Unique Unit.

 

[Babri]

Well, if Russia sells 2 Horses, they'd lose 4 points, but the other Civ would gain 2 points, so the other civ would get the equivalent of the resource had they been harvesting it themselves and Russia would lose the equivalent of having it taken away from them. Makes sense to me.

And if resources provide more than one point, then it makes much sense to seperate it. Otherwise you mine one Iron and get 3 points, you can turn around and trade single points of Iron up between 2 civs and keep one for yourself. Then the other civ has 1/3 an Iron resource? That doesn't really make sense.

The simple point is that you get double resources as Russia. For example a pasture of 4 horses is actually 8 for you. Now when in diplomacy those 8 are counted as 8 otherwise it would become too complicated. And if Firaxis wanted Russia to only get double resources when building units/buildings then the statement would be 'Units & Buildings consume half the amount of strategic resources' instead of using double word because double gives an impression of universal effect i.e on diplomacy as well.

 

[Babri]

Russia: I would like to recieve 1 Banana.

Other: I would like to recieve 1 Iron.

Russia: I will trade you 1 Iron for 2 Bananas.

Other: You are a crazy person. I iron is worth 1 Banana, and I will only make that trade for 1 Banana.

Russia: But if I make that trade I actually lose 2 Iron.

Other: That's on you. I only recieve 1 iron, so I will only make that trade for 1 Banana.

And before this devolves into a conversation about how Over Powered the Russian Ability is; I, for one, believe that it is fine. Other Civs get benefits that last throughout the game, and have much stronger economic benefits. The Russian ability appears powerful, because it plays right into our raw understanding of how things function. We understand that more iron means more swords which means more destruction. The actual gameplay, however, will show that while the Russian will certainly have more Iron, which will certainly lead to more swords, they will still have to contend with other Civilizations who have more subtle sounding abilities.
There's a reason why the Russians don't have an Iron Based Unique Unit.

I totally agree with you. 2x iron & horses doesn't mean that you'll have 2x swordmen & cavalry units. Unit maintenance & your economy counts a lot. Maybe you can have 1.5x units or you've to worry less about strategic resources & grab luxury ones when expanding which will open a new route of strategy.
Double uranium will however allow you to nuke your enemy a lot (again you need high production) because nukes consume uranium permanently.

 

[Centurio]

This is really well written, and makes me want to try out more Civilizations than I originally planned, specifically the Persians. Thanks for writing this up!

 

[Lyoncet]

One thing to remember regarding Ancien Regime – that 2 culture/turn/city will get you your first few SPs extremely quickly, but it loses its steam well before… steam. It looks like SPs end up costing multiple thousands of culture points later in the game, and while we don't know exactly how that curve works (apparently it depends on # policies bought and # cities owned), we can assume that it's a little less linear than 15-30-45-60-2000, which would make AR less useful for culture wins than for getting your first few SPs in place very quickly.

 

[Calouste]

One thing to remember regarding Ancien Regime – that 2 culture/turn/city will get you your first few SPs extremely quickly, but it loses its steam well before… steam. It looks like SPs end up costing multiple thousands of culture points later in the game, and while we don't know exactly how that curve works (apparently it depends on # policies bought and # cities owned), we can assume that it's a little less linear than 15-30-45-60-2000, which would make AR less useful for culture wins than for getting your first few SPs in place very quickly.

I see as the main advantage of AR that you can get the Liberty and its policies quicker so all the new cities you found immediately have all the effects that come with it (amongst them Representation: + 1 culture in each city, talk about a snowballing effect). Just need to get happiness from somewhere.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well because SPs cost more for a number of cities, I think most civs will essentially stop getting new social policies when they expand.. until those cities are built up.

France will be able to avoid that, since their new cities also produce culture, so they will do very well with the Liberty Branch... which favors rapid expansion.

 

[Lyoncet]

Well because SPs cost more for a number of cities, I think most civs will essentially stop getting new social policies when they expand.. until those cities are built up.

France will be able to avoid that, since their new cities also produce culture, so they will do very well with the Liberty Branch... which favors rapid expansion.

If the per-city inflation is so big that most civs stop getting them when they start expanding, 2 culture per turn per city isn't going to make much of a difference at all.

 

[jagdtigerciv]

Fantastic post and very interesting perspective. It would be interesting to see how accurate these predictions are. I plan on giving the Ottomans a good run, it seems that that early naval advantage combined with a Janissary/Sapahi boom suits my typical play style of the previous civs.

 

[Venereus]

If Songhai gets triple commerce benefit from razing cities, then it could be in strategic interest for Songhai players to befriend City-States and maybe even work for diplomatic victories b/c they can work to eliminate opposing voters and you can't raze City-States.

They get triple gold from *pillaging* cities, not razing them. You pillage cities when you capture them.

 

[dodobird]

wont local culture still play a role on borders still? So France can get more resources faster as well as lock down territory faster in the early game.

 

[Twahn]

B) If the Russian Ability works in such a way that by trading away a single iron will actually make them lose access to two, it will be rare to see a Russian player ever engage in trading horses or iron. It makes no sense that they would choose to lose access to two iron to recieve a single resources value. This is what the trade conversation would look like. (For the sake of arguement, let's just assume that 1 Banana is Equal value to one Iron. If this disintigrates into a ridiculous conversation about how Bananas around equal to Iron, then I will simply call you a stupid person.)

Russia: I would like to recieve 1 Banana.

Other: I would like to recieve 1 Iron.

Russia: I will trade you 1 Iron for 2 Bananas.

Other: You are a crazy person. I iron is worth 1 Banana, and I will only make that trade for 1 Banana.

Russia: But if I make that trade I actually lose 2 Iron.

Other: That's on you. I only recieve 1 iron, so I will only make that trade for 1 Banana.

In short, other civs will not care if Russia is losing 2 iron for 1 iron's worth of value, and so Russia will simply be knocked right out of trading away anything, making their Special Ability significantly worse.

The flaw in this argument though, is that iron is actually worth less than other resources (besides horse) to the Russian player.

If trading iron and horses away is meant to be part of the Russian's special ability, then all power to them.

But if it's like I imagined it to be initially, then it is not as you say that they will lost the power to trade it at all because they will always be trading 2 for 1. They will just as readily trade 2 for 1 where horses and iron are concerned because they are also receiving 2 for 1. Their willingness and ability to trade should be no different to anyone else out there. If they truly believe they are losing out in the deal every time they trade off one of their irons for a banana then they are not looking at it logically.

Here's an example for you, to make it clearer...

Greece has 4 iron resources and trades off 2 of them to get a banana and a gold. They end their round of trading with 2 iron, 1 banana and 1 gold.

Russia has the same resources, 4 iron acting as 8 because of their UA. They trade 2 of them for a banana and a gold and they end their round of trading with 4 iron, a banana and a gold.

Russia still has double iron here, so their iron advantage is just as intact as it always was. Both parties have paid a price in iron to get the sugary golden goodness that they were after and both parties have come off just as fairly as the other.

If it works the other way and Russia ends this trade with 6 iron, a banana and a gold then their UA is actually providing them with a much greater advantage than an edge in access to strategic resources. It is giving them a massive trade advantage that will enable them to easily amass all manner of resources through bartering iron and horses while losing comparatively little themselves, as they will always be trading away something that they have in abundance.

Personally I think this dilutes the intent of the UA, which is provide them with horse and iron NOT to provide them with excessive trade resources with which to amass all manner of luxury goods...

 

[nishant1911]

here are mine

1. all civs will seem very balanced till first few months. it will take atleast a 6 months before any exploits of civ comes out.

2. defensive war setup will be more profitable than aggressive.

 

[Lyoncet]

Greece has 4 iron resources and trades off 2 of them to get a banana and a gold. They end their round of trading with 2 iron, 1 banana and 1 gold.

Russia has the same resources, 4 iron acting as 8 because of their UA. They trade 2 of them for a banana and a gold and they end their round of trading with 4 iron, a banana and a gold.

No, Russia ends the turn with 6 iron, a banana and a gold. Each node of iron gives 2-6, and Russia's ability gives you double amount. So if you have an iron tally of 0, and you find a node that has a normal yield of 4 iron, you'll have 8 iron. Trading one iron away, you'll have 7 iron.

 

[Polobo]

Personally I think this dilutes the intent of the UA, which is provide them with horse and iron NOT to provide them with excessive trade resources with which to amass all manner of luxury goods...

The "intent" of the UA is to give them a somewhat historical ability that makes playing them fun and allows them to compete (after considering UU/UB) with the other civilizations in the game.

Since NOT having their UA be applicable to trade would take quite a bit of additional effort that would ONLY be applicable in this particular instance I cannot fathom why they would restrict the benefits only to military/construction consumption. They are supposed to have an advantage when it comes to their UA. Also, why would you want to force Russia into a military game in order to take advantage of their UA? More power to them if they can grow a large and prosperous cultural mecca - and thus only need a modest defense force and they can use the spare resources to supplies allies or buy-off potential enemies.

And, without playing the game, it is really hard to say whether the UA+UB+UU combination is significantly overpowered (OP) compared to the other civilizations. And even if the UA is strong it is much easier to either nerf the UB/UU/UA instead of modifying an entire game mechanic for a single Civ. I would probably guess that Russia was initially planned to have ALL resouces doubled but instead they were limited since that was too OP (and maybe ahistorical).

One last thought. As Russia's trading partner I'd be risking quite a bit relying on their iron/horses to supply my army. As such the demand for those resources is going to be somewhat lessened; and it is likely whomever is relying upon Russia will not readily bite the hand that is feeding them.

 

[JonoLith]

The flaw in this argument though, is that iron is actually worth less than other resources (besides horse) to the Russian player.

I fundamentally disagree with you here.

Iron creates Swordsmen as well as other buildings, presumably the Russian Krepost will require Iron. More Iron will always equal more swordsmen. More horses will always equal more horsemen. Seeing as these are the strongest units during the Classical Era, more of these will always be better.

The only way your argument makes sense is in a trade vacuum where resources are not actually used for anything.

But if it's like I imagined it to be initially, then it is not as you say that they will lost the power to trade it at all because they will always be trading 2 for 1. They will just as readily trade 2 for 1 where horses and iron are concerned because they are also receiving 2 for 1. Their willingness and ability to trade should be no different to anyone else out there. If they truly believe they are losing out in the deal every time they trade off one of their irons for a banana then they are not looking at it logically.

The crux of your argument, as I see it, is thus; "Russia should be willing to trade away two Iron for any other one resource as they will have an abundance of Iron." There are a few problems with this line of thinking.

1) There is no guarantee that Russia will have an abundance of Iron. We've all played those games where the resources just don't land right. It is entirely possible that Iron will be a scarce commodity and every single scrap of it will matter intrinsically. Simply stating "Oh they have alot of it so that makes it ok" is not adequate.

2) You fail to create a distinction between Special Abilities and Resources. This is incredibly important because you attempt to paint the picture that Russia gets the leg up in the game as a whole because they have an abundance of Iron to trade for other resources.

However, you fail to recognize that the Greeks still have their Special Ability in tact. Let me try and be as clear as possible.

Let's say that the Russians have 2 iron nodes, giving them a total of 4 iron because of their special ability. Let's also say that the Greeks have 2 iron nodes, giving them a total of 2 iron.

This means that the Russians are receiving 2 iron as a benefit from their Special Ability. In this vacuum, it appears as though the Russian ability is unbalanced and scary. However, you fail to add in that the Greeks have a special ability that allows them to lose City State influence much slower. Yes, the Russians do have a trade advantage with Iron and Horses. That is absolutely true. They also do not have a bonus to city state trade. You must factor that in if you are going to be talking about trade as it is effected by Special Abilities.

The Russians will trade away 1 iron to receive an equal value, not some ridiculous 2 for 1 situation. This is because it is their Special Ability. It will give them a small trade advantage because it is their Special Ability. It is supposed to seem better then normal trading because it is their Special Ability.

It's all they have, and if you insist on comparing their Special Ability to someone who does not have a Special Ability that affects trade this way, of course it will look unbalanced. If I were to say, for example, "The Greek Special Ability is unbalanced because the Russians have to spend twice as much to keep the same amount of influence with city states." I would be simply wrong, and people on these boards would most likely call me a fool, as they should. This is because anyone can see that if you compare a Special Ability to a Non-Special Ability, it's supposed to look more powerful. That's the reason it's Special.

The only appropriate place to begin the conversation is by saying that if the Russians have two Iron, and the Greeks have two Iron, the Russians will have a total of four Iron because of their Special Ability, and the Greeks will have a total of two Iron, as well as a 50% influence boost to City States.

It is only from here that one can truly begin to talk about whether or not something is appropriately balanced, or fair, because it is only from here that you can begin to ask the simple questions. Is 2 more iron equal to the Greek Boost to City States? At what point does it become unbalanced? 4 more iron? 8 more Iron? A 50% boost to City State influence is an extremely potent boost, and it would require an INTENSE amount of resources to begin to rival it.

This is what I mean when I say that people need to stop and think about the Russian Special Ability and realize that it isn't unbalanced. People have this gut reaction to "More Iron Equals More Swords!" and they picture this situation in which a massive army of swordsmen simply marches unimpeded across the field. What no one who is arguing against the Russians ever factors in is that every other civ will also have special abilities.

You cannot, you must not have the conversation without factoring that in, or else your entire thesis is flawed.

 

[Lyoncet]

This is what I mean when I say that people need to stop and think about the Russian Special Ability and realize that it isn't unbalanced. People have this gut reaction to "More Iron Equals More Swords!" and they picture this situation in which a massive army of swordsmen simply marches unimpeded across the field. What no one who is arguing against the Russians ever factors in is that every other civ will also have special abilities.

You cannot, you must not have the conversation without factoring that in, or else your entire thesis is flawed.

True. Further, the common conception of "Russia will have massive armies!" is patently false; they'll have roughly the same size of armies as everybody else, just with more resource-requiring units (although I think there may be a building that boost troop production and requires iron).

 

[bjbrains]

Yea. Russia's armies won't be much bigger, if at all bigger than those of other civs. They will be more flexible in their unit composition though. All the people saying that "Russia can have twice as many swordsmen/horsemen" are using flawed logic since a bigger barrier is production, with units being much more expensive in Civ 5.

 

[JonoLith]

A bit off topic from above, but it's my thread and I'd like to bump it for fun!

Doing this writeup has really got me a bit fired up to play some of the Civilizations that I had previously thought I wouldn't be interested in playing. I'm quite curious to see the Ottomans in action and Songhai and Siam could be very fun indeed. Germany also might fit right in with my desire for early game shinnannigans, and Persia's ability could have some extremely interesting tactical implications.

It also really made me realize that there's just a few civilizations that I'm just not that excited about. The Americans and Romans really leap into my brain as Civs that I'm sort of 'meh' about. It could be because I tend to gravitate very strongly towards the elusive, slippery, and marauding style of play, and these two civs really seem to represent the opposite of that.

In the end though, writing this up was a pleasure, and it really helped me get a better handling on where I'm going to start with the game.