How do you combat someone who goes Poland or Babylon in MultiPlayer?

[Sharples]

Pretty much a general question. I'm getting sick of people picking these two overpowered Civs and I literally don't know how to combat against them (Emperor player here).

In early game, I may have a slight chance for Poland. But once they get four cities and go traidition/liberty, I just don't know what to do.

For Babylon it's really hard to do anything with them. Unless I steal their GS at the start (which almost always involves me being kicked or them leaving) then I can't do much. They get to Machinery turn 49 and upgrades their units to Crossbows. It's ridiculous.

 

[Foffaren]

A general question demands a general awnser. Pick Poland or Babylon for yourself.

It's hard to say how to beat a civ. Everything depends on the map and how you play your own game. If you are at equal skill then those civs have an advantage. If you are better than them it wont matter what civ they are.

 

[klaskeren]

What type of game are you playing? if you are talking about 1v1 then the answer is easy, go kill them early with better production, and chariots/composites

 

[Tabarnak]

which almost always involves me being kicked

Don't play public games. At worse, host them.

About your question:

Many form of strategies exist. The most important part is to make sure that you will stay on top or near the top for hammer/gold production with average or better science. All civs can do that.

In competitive games it's not rare to see 2 civs unified for some turns to take down the strongest civ.

for specific strategies check mp videos on youtube it worth a thousand of millions of words.

 

[CraigMak]

The simplest answer is to be a strong civ yourself and rush them. Be Attila and horse archer rush, be Egypt and chariot rush them, be Shoshone or Russia and gain a production advantage to rush them, Hit them with longbows or chukonu or a Greek hoplite companion rush. Mainly you have to be aggressive against these civs and prevent them from snowballing out of control.

If you get kicked for being aggressive against a civ like this then the host is a complete scumbag. If you can't kill those civs then they are free win mode.

Watch out for Korea as well, they can really get out of hand just like Babylon.

 

[tschukki]

"Overpowered" is an overused term. Camels are overpowered. Petra with a dozen desert hills is. Or Lionel Messi on a good day. Not much else comes to mind, considering that overpowered does not just mean "very strong and difficult to counter".

Each civ has its strengths, some of them amazing, some just ok to have. Be aware how and when they shine, study their lands for weak spots, make them feel safe and build a counterstrategy if you think they need to die. Arabia next door? Kill them immediately, find allys. They may have another neighbour who also doesnt want to have camels around. In general, finding allys who see the same threat as you do is a good way to go versus strong civs.

Babylon and Poland are tough cookies, but neither of them has a certain ability that will just crush you within a few turns. Babylon ist extremely strong very early and almost inrushable with the extra beakers, the walls and the bowmen, and it is extremely nasty very late with all the extra bulbing. In between it is just a regular civ with with a slight science edge, so dont go for them very early, but also not too late. Poland is just a very good allrounder all game long, there isnt a part of the game where they are particularly strong or weak. If they seem to be too strong map composition and diplomacy will help finding ways to take them out or at least slow them down.

 

[CraigMak]

"Overpowered" is an overused term. Camels are overpowered. Petra with a dozen desert hills is. Or Lionel Messi on a good day. Not much else comes to mind, considering that overpowered does not just mean "very strong and difficult to counter".

Each civ has its strengths, some of them amazing, some just ok to have. Be aware how and when they shine, study their lands for weak spots, make them feel safe and build a counterstrategy if you think they need to die. Arabia next door? Kill them immediately, find allys. They may have another neighbour who also doesnt want to have camels around. In general, finding allys who see the same threat as you do is a good way to go versus strong civs.

Babylon and Poland are tough cookies, but neither of them has a certain ability that will just crush you within a few turns. Babylon ist extremely strong very early and almost inrushable with the extra beakers, the walls and the bowmen, and it is extremely nasty very late with all the extra bulbing. In between it is just a regular civ with with a slight science edge, so dont go for them very early, but also not too late. Poland is just a very good allrounder all game long, there isnt a part of the game where they are particularly strong or weak. If they seem to be too strong map composition and diplomacy will help finding ways to take them out or at least slow them down.

While I agree with pretty much everything you wrote here I don't think that overpowered is overused at all. On the contrary, there are way too many people out there who think that the civs are all fair and balanced. Some civs are clearly far better and should not be used by skilled players. This game is not balanced and was not created with balance in mind.

 

[tschukki]

Balance/imbalance is not what i was talking about. While i am happy that you agree with almost everything i have to insist that it is overused.

First of all by definition "overpowered" describes something that is extrordinary powerful, a one in a million thing. Like Messi, he could be called overpowered because he can always kill any defense, no matter how good they are. Or like camels. Against a unit like that there is often no defense, no matter how skilled the defender is. If now most teams had a messi or most civs had a camel unit they would no longer be overpowered and instead be one amongst many. Like Poland, one of the very strong civs, but not overpowered as op claims.

Second i find it overused because it is so often just regurgitaded (Wow, i just had to look up "nachplappern" and was surprised to find an english word for that ) People pick it up, like the expert sound of it and then cant stop using it. Uncountable games have been lost because the other guys' civ was "overpowered". But also experts are guilty of overusing it imo. Watch a random multiplayer video by one of the big guys and i guarantee there will be overpowered stuff left and right.

I dont know how the public sees the game. I always thought it was intentionally created in an unbalanced matter to reflect some specific strengths certain civilizations had. When 2000 years ago the roman legions marched through the known world and set up their ballistas, man, these guys were indeed overpowered compared to everything else out there. In the game, btw, they are not, just two very strong early units.

The imbalance seems to be a big topic in the community since more and more players wanna ban/draft before the game starts. Im usually "-" to that because i like the imbalance. Its nice to be england once in while, and also the challenge to have to deal with them is enjoyable.

While i am at it, but this is more and more getting offtopic, in a concrete game it may often be a significant disadvantage to play one of the truly overpowered civs, because you immediately become the target.

 

[CraigMak]

Balance/imbalance is not what i was talking about. While i am happy that you agree with almost everything i have to insist that it is overused.

First of all by definition "overpowered" describes something that is extrordinary powerful, a one in a million thing. Like Messi, he could be called overpowered because he can always kill any defense, no matter how good they are. Or like camels. Against a unit like that there is often no defense, no matter how skilled the defender is. If now most teams had a messi or most civs had a camel unit they would no longer be overpowered and instead be one amongst many. Like Poland, one of the very strong civs, but not overpowered as op claims.

Second i find it overused because it is so often just regurgitaded (Wow, i just had to look up "nachplappern" and was surprised to find an english word for that ) People pick it up, like the expert sound of it and then cant stop using it. Uncountable games have been lost because the other guys' civ was "overpowered". But also experts are guilty of overusing it imo. Watch a random multiplayer video by one of the big guys and i guarantee there will be overpowered stuff left and right.

I dont know how the public sees the game. I always thought it was intentionally created in an unbalanced matter to reflect some specific strengths certain civilizations had. When 2000 years ago the roman legions marched through the known world and set up their ballistas, man, these guys were indeed overpowered compared to everything else out there. In the game, btw, they are not, just two very strong early units.

The imbalance seems to be a big topic in the community since more and more players wanna ban/draft before the game starts. Im usually "-" to that because i like the imbalance. Its nice to be england once in while, and also the challenge to have to deal with them is enjoyable.

While i am at it, but this is more and more getting offtopic, in a concrete game it may often be a significant disadvantage to play one of the truly overpowered civs, because you immediately become the target.

I would say that there are several civs that are definitely over powered. As in if two people of equal skill play each other the person with X civ will almost always win. For example if you play against some one who's Attila you will lose to horse archers pretty much every time. If you can beat them then that player was just way less skilled.

Too many people think that X civ is not overpowered because they have beat that civ before. No, that logic is failure. They beat the civ because the player was horrible, not because the civ wasn't OP.

If you play with people who are less skilled than you then you will certainly think that you can overcome any civ's abilities. If you play with people that are equally skilled then you will quickly realize that many civs provide an extremely unfair advantage.

For example: Spain, Attila, Babylon are pretty much always banned in legitimate games. Other civs that are too strong are China, England, Arabia, Mongolia, Poland, Shoshone, Korea, Inca and I'm probably missing some.