The problem is that you can't pick the same type of GP twice from the Mayan UA. This means that over the course of the game, you end up forced to squander UA choices on junk like a GM, while the GPs that you actually want (like GE and GS) are that much more expensive to earn in your own cities as a result.
Is Maya overpowered, or are people just really good?
- Thread starter GreekIrish
- Start date
HelloGoodbye123
Warlord
after you get all great ppl on the list, they all become available, and you dont have to pick 1 of each until the list finishes.
so, if your good enough, you can get a bunch of whatever great people you want at the end..
and great merchants are pretty good, its almost instant ally with city state.
And the major culprit of ICS is religion not Maya because it provides a lot of happiness boosts + religion spread mechanics favour ICS.
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
You're playing the game wrong if a GM is ever junk. Even if you don't want one late, you can turn one into a Customs House early and rake in huge GPT in the late Classical era. GM bonuses with city-states are smaller than they were (only 30 influence), but still significant. Even if for some reason you genuinely don't want a GM, that's only one 'wasted' GP. You'll often get GMs you may not want the normal way too, if you're using banks/markets etc. for the specialist gold bonus (or playing a civ/selecting policies that have maximum effect when you use as many specialists as possible).
i guess i'd answer this to say
1. you're letting them do it. beat the piss out of them in their early wonder-whoring
2. your build plan is meandering. learn the different civs/leaders and make a plan.
3. points aren't everything.. in fact high points mid game means a veritable treasure trove to loot.
i can't count how many times I've rocked techie/wonder whores because of a focused plan. i've said it before about spain and their early money: if people would just act "thusly" (building an intent toward modicum above-average) they totally gain an edge. they never do.
use your civ's benefits and hit them. they cry about being attacked in 1500bc? wth am i supposed to do about it if that's where my civ's strengths lie? should i play carebear and let them build forever? so my civ's strengths expire and what? no. kill them. kill them with malice.
1. you're letting them do it. beat the piss out of them in their early wonder-whoring
2. your build plan is meandering. learn the different civs/leaders and make a plan.
3. points aren't everything.. in fact high points mid game means a veritable treasure trove to loot.
i can't count how many times I've rocked techie/wonder whores because of a focused plan. i've said it before about spain and their early money: if people would just act "thusly" (building an intent toward modicum above-average) they totally gain an edge. they never do.
use your civ's benefits and hit them. they cry about being attacked in 1500bc? wth am i supposed to do about it if that's where my civ's strengths lie? should i play carebear and let them build forever? so my civ's strengths expire and what? no. kill them. kill them with malice.
A free GM would obviously not be junk. A GM that comes at the cost of delaying the GS I actually want is not a bonus at all.
I never pop a GM in "normal play", because I carefully manage my great people generation so that I produce the GPs I actually want: that's situational, but mostly it's GS with some GE thrown in, unless I need e.g. a GA for culture.
I never pop a GM in "normal play", because I carefully manage my great people generation so that I produce the GPs I actually want: that's situational, but mostly it's GS with some GE thrown in, unless I need e.g. a GA for culture.
HelloGoodbye123
Warlord
so you dont build machu, lighthouse and collusses? :0
I've played economic games like this and all i did was delay the inevitable. popping a great merchant from specialists is an avoidable mistake or the death-throes of a civ that's-doomed-and-doesn't-realize-it. the math is bad and i'm not surprised to see the same people arguing it that argue liberty/tradition cross policies.
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
Depends on context and priorities. I've had many games where a new GS is a so-so bonus since my tech lead is already well-established, especially in the late game where most of them tend to pop anyway. GMs can always be ploughed into CS influence and money - they're not an especially efficient way to do either, it's true, but that's because you get both. In my current Immortal game as Harald my key consideration at this game stage is to buy units to take down Thebes, a giant Wonder-filled city that, when I control it, will essentially win me the game, and research agreements with my two friends. My Egyptian rivals are exhibiting extreme inflexibility in their own tech progression, and even when being hammered (and saved only by control of the sea around the capital), they aren't changing tech or production priorities to militarise but are still happily culturing up. Tech leader Genghis is my friend, and in any event I may well not shoot for science victory. My cities are all in woodland and hills, very good production cities but aside from Copenhagen with the Colossus and truffles, not very good for gold production. With Egypt having essentially no surviving land army and my having no navy, I'm not killing units at a rate to farm the Honor gold bonus efficiently.
That means specialists in markets and banks are a priority, and engineers aren't - at this stage Egypt's doing my Wonder-whoring for me, and most Wonders I need I can build quickly enough with my production advantage to have no need or particular use for a GE to rush them. Getting GMs occasionally is incidental, but amounts to largely free cash. I'm level-pegging with the rest of the world (except Mongolia, and they're only a couple of techs ahead) without putting any particular effort into specialising science; GSes will be valuable to get me ahead in the long run, but more than two or three will be overkill.
To be honest, it's probably the sign of a doomed civ if you are really so reliant on the timing of a single GP to win you the game that you'd eschew a merchant because it delays a late-game GS by three or four more turns.
I don't really see a prob with that either. It works when you have Happiness religion, mercantile CS, decent amounts of land and lux... which is to say, not always. And it's a gamble - look at MadDjinn's latest LP for how ICS can go horribly wrong
It didn't go horribly wrong. It just got delayed a bit.
And it is lame. ICS ignores fundamental game mechanics, such as finding optimal locations to place cities and making decisions about whether another city would even be beneficial.
Traditional ICS is also not very good in multiplayer either.
Maya are not OP, the only OP Civ in Multiplayer is Spain. A tier-List would look like this:
Tier 0: Spain
Tier 1: France,Maya,Ethiopia,Huns
Tier2 : Rome,China,Persia,Egypt
Rest is more or less hit and miss or situational. Obviously Spain doesnt work 100% of the time, but if it does its so overpowered that the whole game becomes a farce. and Great Merchants are total junk, dont even give 40 Influence and that is the best use for them. If Customs House gave 6 Gold right from the start it might be worth considering getting one (still probably not).
Maya are not OP, the only OP Civ in Multiplayer is Spain. A tier-List would look like this:
Tier 0: Spain
Tier 1: France,Maya,Ethiopia,Huns
Tier2 : Rome,China,Persia,Egypt
Rest is more or less hit and miss or situational. Obviously Spain doesnt work 100% of the time, but if it does its so overpowered that the whole game becomes a farce. and Great Merchants are total junk, dont even give 40 Influence and that is the best use for them. If Customs House gave 6 Gold right from the start it might be worth considering getting one (still probably not).
+52 science at T100+ on standard speed, being in negative gpt for so many turns, cultural policies taking over dozens of turns... the great thing about it was that there was enough luxes in the area to expand more without relying solely on happiness buildings, and that the Mongols didn't crash in with Keshiks. And of course, that religion combo of Interfaith Dialogue with Happiness stuff.
So a strategy that only works at certain conditions, and can backfire horribly is lame? Really?
Its really more of a gamble, one that can really pay off big time if you manage it successfully, and I've no doubt MD is going to do that because he is that good, but not every game gives you optimal conditions eh.
What? You're contradicting yourself, here.
First, you say that MadDjinn's game is a disaster. Then, you say that he's going to win anyway. Which is it? Was the ICS successful or wasn't it? He certainly isn't abandoning the plan as of the end of the fifth video.
I don't buy the idea that MadDjinn is some super deity with skills that we can only dream of. I've watched his G&K videos. He makes mistakes all the time. He even says so! He forgets about units, he miscalculates on techs and social policies, etc. If he can make these mistakes, deal with all the harsh conditions imposed by the map (early war with Spain, Ethiopia's crazy religion, aggressive neighbors), and still pull off a victory with ICS, then I think that ICS needs to be nerfed.
It's too good and it removes too much strategy from the game. Thus, I find it lame.
Txurce
Deity
After playing on Emperor against the Maya a few times, they have yet to be competitive in my games. They haven't expanded the way they should, but even with that handicap, I've been surprised at their subpar performance. As various people have pointed out, they are easy to play. I can't figure out how the AI mismanages them. It may be that I've had too small a sampling.
I guess I really should have said "look at MadDjinn's latest LP for how ICS could go horribly wrong" because I didn't really say his game was bad, just that there were quite a number of moments (like if Mongolia decided to go Keshiks on him with Spain) where it could go wrong and that itself is an interesting set of insights. So no, I'm not contradicting myself here, just engaging in hypothesis you couldn't even pick up.
As it is, ICS is dependent on getting right Happiness religion, having happiness UA/UBs and the ever useful City-States. Doesn't happen every game now does it?
And I don't think that was harsh lol - Ethiopia was practically in Gandhi mode, and Spain had to worry about not just the Mayans eh.
PhilBowles
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2011
- Messages
- 5,333
For some reason, I have yet to encounter either Pacal or Haille Selassie as an AI, although the other G&K civs aren't noticeably more or less common than any of the others. Although there are a couple of pre-G&K civs I have yet to see in a post-G&K game as an AI - Denmark and Japan, at least, I think also Montezuma.
The sad thing about Haile Selassie as an AI is that the times I've encountered him on Emperor (2), he usually starts off on some other continent, and get tag-teamed DOWed and conquered way before I get the chance to meet him.
On Immortal, he went scoreboard runaway, built the Great Wall (in between Suleiman, Darius and Wu Zetian) and spammed wonders like no tomorrow.
Similar threads
