I only play one civ:

[Justus II]

Originally posted by FenrysWulf


I agree the Romans were builders, but I think industrious means manufacturing, like producing trade goods and machines and so on. The Egyptians built pyramids and temples and monuments aplenty too, but I wouldn't call them industrious. I guess it depends how you define Industrious.

I agree with Xen here, the Romans definitely should have been industrious. If you look at what Industrious means in game turns, faster road building, faster mining, more shields in larger cities (which you need aquaducts for ) so you can build your improvments faster (like colosseums, etc.). I think Romans are the quintessential industrious civ, and had they been around with the work ethic of the days of the Republic when the Industrial age hit, they would certainly have been leading the Revolution.

Also, I agree with the Egyptians, for the reasons you said, they built massive works projects. I guess I look at what traits define the civ during their historical "golden age" what were they best known for then. Overall, I am pretty happy with them, and willing to give some leeway here and there, but still think the Romans not being industrious is the one glaring error in the whole process.

 

[xIcemanx]

Well, you have to realize historical traits don't really matter. I mean, the Chinese should have been industrial and scientific, and the Persians should have been industrial and militaristic, but what are you going to do?

 

[Mercade]

Although the Ottomans are a good Civ to play, I think that if you limit yourself to only one Civ, then you're missing out on a significant portion of the depth and versatility of the game. Of course, that is your own choice, but I like to play many different civs, if no other reason to have more diversity among the games I play.

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

they should be Industrious/Militaristic

It's all humbug. Any civilization that was around long enough to be remembered must have had periods when any number of the attributes were applicable. They have been distributed on someone's (fairly arbitrary) perception of a reasonable fit but with the primary objective of creating a well mixed set of combinations to make sure the games have plenty of variety.

By the way, how many intend "best civ to play" to mean the hardest; how many the easiest; how many the most fun; how many the most like their own ideal????

how many more meanings of "best civ" can be conjured up by the end of the year?

 

[meltone1]

Originally posted by ipris
I can say though that i have never played as the Egyptians or the English. I just really dont like the chariot or the man o' war. however i;ve only played c3c a few times so mabey they have been improved.

You should try the Man o' War in conquests. It is insanely powerful, IMO one of the most powerful in the game. It attack alone lets it rule the seas, not to mention the enslave ability! If you are going against it, you might as well not even try to compete. Although the benefits of the egypt UU is subtle, it is nice to be able to have the horseman stats without having to upgrade to horseback riding, (which is actually 2 techs away from wheel) so I think this is quite significant.

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife

It's all humbug. Any civilization that was around long enough to be remembered must have had periods when any number of the attributes were applicable. They have been distributed on someone's (fairly arbitrary) perception of a reasonable fit but with the primary objective of creating a well mixed set of combinations to make sure the games have plenty of variety.

but in Romes case, they wer eby far more militaristic, andd industrious then anything else

 

[Maestro]

The Egyptian unique unit can give you a pretty big edge in the beginning of the game.

I'm using them in a game right now actually .

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

I think the worst choice of traits is Japan. I change them to Militaristic and Seafaring. Religious just doesn't fit very well at all IMO.

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

Xen:

but in Rome's case, they were by far more militaristic, andd industrious than anything else

How many temples did they have? How many gods?

How did they start grow so big without being agriculturalists? (To quote the game on this: "aqueduct, for instance")

How did they acquire such an empire without being expansionist?

How did they develop all there engineering feets without being scientific?

how did they maintain a stable empire without being commercially minded?

I seem to have missed out seafaring, but they must have known something about that subject to dominate the Med.

In the beginning they were just another tribe/village /community but by a combination of luck, location and, perhaps, some particular attribute(s) they emerged as a larger and stronger society than their immediate neighbours. There was nothing magical or predestined about it and the strengths that led to there further success were honed by the circumstances and demands of their earliest days.

One of their major attributes as a successful imperial power has to have been administrative skills and that is not even recognized in the game. Militaristic and industrious do not lead to empire of any substance without an organizational backbone that retains effective central control.

You can do this kind of analysis for any society.


As for Japan:
Enkidu Warrior:

Religious just doesn't fit very well at all IMO.

If it is not enough to have a god-emperor then how does any society get characterized as religious?

The Japanese can be considered as extremely industrious and they do an awful lot of scientific work..... etc.etc. etc....

You pays your money and you takes your pick.

 

[Masquerouge]

I don't know why, but I'm stuck with the babylonians... I can't stand more than 1-turn anarchy (even if I only switch govs twice in a game ), and I justs love the scientific trait... Especially now since there is the SGL...
Babs are THE civ to play for my building style.
BUt now I try to use the random civ...

 

[JonathanValjean]

I also think the Ottomans are great and they are my tribe of choice. However, you may want to try using another Civ in order to spice things up a bit. Of course, it is your gaming pleasure; do what makes you happy!

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife
Xen:


How many temples did they have? How many gods?

many, but that dosent mean they were obessesed with religion like the Egyptian, or Aztexs

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife

How did they start grow so big without being agriculturalists? (To quote the game on this: "aqueduct, for instance")

Trade

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife

How did they acquire such an empire without being expansionist?

By SLOWLLY adding new teritories to the Empire- when you look at the expansionist civs in the game, they all filled a lage amount of territory QUICKLLY, ROme did not, but slowlly advanced through the Med. basin, and beyong slowlly and surelly reling on a combination of of diplomatic skill, and military feats

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife

How did they develop all there engineering feets without being scientific?

by being INDUSTRIOUS

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife

how did they maintain a stable empire without being commercially minded?

by being sensible about goverment, and administroial policies- and having a good military to crush rebellions when the former two things fall under a bad choice for the job

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife

I seem to have missed out seafaring, but they must have known something about that subject to dominate the Med.

the Roman were infamous for having a crap navy, but again, it was there INGENUITY, which allowed for the devising of the Corvus, which turend sea battles into land battles by having a briges connect Roman, and enemy ship

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife

In the beginning they were just another tribe/village /community but by a combination of luck, location and, perhaps, some particular attribute(s) they emerged as a larger and stronger society than their immediate neighbours. There was nothing magical or predestined about it and the strengths that led to there further success were honed by the circumstances and demands of their earliest days.

your right, but those circumstances happend to hone in the skils of of being militaristic, and industrious more then any other in the game

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife

One of their major attributes as a successful imperial power has to have been administrative skills and that is not even recognized in the game. Militaristic and industrious do not lead to empire of any substance without an organizational backbone that retains effective central control.

but that fact is, its not represented int he game the administrative skills which the romans are so famous for-your point is therefore mute- the traits Militaristic and Industrious fit Rome

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife

If it is not enough to have a god-emperor then how does any society get characterized as religious?

when you consider that most, if not all ancient , and middle ages civilizations said that there ruler was either a living god, or ruleing with the mandate of a god, it becomes a VERY silly reason to say so

 

[meltone1]

Japan should really get pottery first since they were the pioneers.. although the expansionist trait doesn't go too well for them..

 

[Hygro]

Originally posted by FenrysWulf


I agree the Romans were builders, but I think industrious means manufacturing, like producing trade goods and machines and so on. The Egyptians built pyramids and temples and monuments aplenty too, but I wouldn't call them industrious. I guess it depends how you define Industrious.

I think you are mistaking Industrious with Industrial

industrious - characterized by hard work and perseverance

industrial - of or relating to or resulting from industry; "industrial output"

 

[chameleon]

Industrious means "hard-working" not technologically advanced.

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

Xen,

The game designers do attribute quicker aqueduct building to the agriculturalist trait.

I'm not wholly convinced that the silence of the administation/organizational skills as a trait doesn't in fact make my point rather strongly; It sems to me so much the essence of their particular success as to suggest they used it to play up the various benefits and foci of the included traits. It would be harder to argue against than any of the others.

However, in general, I bow to to your superior certainty. My own, well documented, preference is for the traits to be applied randomly to the AI civs at the start of play so that you don't know what you are up against. That was an option available in Civilization, but not, as far as I recollect, in civ 2 or civ 3.

 

[Xen]

no bowing is needed, you are my equal sir, and I am proud to call you it, though, at least in my own opinion, I have stronger(more passionate)-and perhaps more well founded veiws on how the Roman civilization should be portrayed in this game (and most others as well )

 

[rabies]

Why not try Persia? They have the same traits and a nice UU to boot. Maybe not as nice as the Sipahi, and certainly earlier in the game. However, I agree with warpstorm..my favorite civ is 'Random'. Don't you find yourself following the same strategy over and over when you constantly pick the Ottomans?

 

[Naval Power]

Originally posted by Maestro
Is it a very big advantage to "rule the seas"?

I'm not a great player yet, but I usually don't build very many ships, especially in the beginning when they can't attack cities.

You did not just say that. MELT DONW IN 3....2.....1..... KABOOOOM.

 

[CyberChrist]

Rome not being being Industrious was one of the reasons I started working on suggestions for a semi-official minimod where all civs have 3 traits.

Check out my 3 traits thread and leave a comment