Leaders and Civs picking thread


Dec 12, 2006
Athens, Greece
We will use this thread to discuss our picks.

The process is called reverse pick. We will pick the first Civ, our opponents will then pick another civ, we will pick another etc until all 10 civ are picked. Then the person to pick a civ last will pick leader first and the order will be reversed.

So since we will pick first we can strat discussing our first pick.

From experience it should be either Mali or Zulu.

Mali would be my first thought, but denying Zulu from our opponents might be more important. Impis travel with war chariots and imortals and having the otion to do that in your team instead of giving it to the other team might be more important than having Mali.
Zulu is a must and it is critical we take if we are playing settings where only 1 team can have a civ.
For taking zulu: We get a 2 move spear than can travel with chariots and we deny that from our opponents.

Against Zulu: You need metal which is not guarandeed. SInce it is the first pick it will be the last to get a leader so chances of getting a good aggressive leader for them are not big

For taking mali: Resourceles early unit that is cheap and can choke very effectively, it also gives you the chance to protect your cities with less units. Also does not need aggressiv eleader and is good unit for taking an industrious civ for example.

Against Mali: You give up Zulu and the ability to combine chariots with impis
Just thinking:
Skirmishers (Mali) seem safer; they came first; they can be aggressive for barracks or protective for
In a civ specialization, they can with a little luck to protect two or three of our civs.
Anyone who thinks you can play safe and just defend and tech for a while needs to forget that. These games are about fighting and choking from the start. After the first 20-30 turns even a player protected by allies on both side can be vulnerable to a determined player who got lucky with horses in their city radius. If you are not you need to be streaming units to the ally most in need. The other team will try to attack one civ as soon as feasible to get 2 of their cities and knock them out of the game. 2v1 and even 3v1 assaults on 1 civ are common.

Don't be worried about not getting metal. You generally have copper or iron close. If not, the nearest ally can trade to you. Zulu getting Impis are are MUCH more important then another player getting spears/axes.
Just throwing this out there, but what about the Aztecs? UB is good for slaving, and UU is a little cheaper.
Just throwing this out there, but what about the Aztecs? UB is good for slaving, and UU is a little cheaper.

UB is at CoL, a bit far for MP games to get enough effect (Oracle it?). Slave unhappy gets fixed with Monarchy anyway.

The UU seems to be a good idea if there is a lot of jungle, otherwise not really.

Good thoughts though, keep them coming.
eh. The 2 move ability of the Jag isn't that useful since players are quick to chop their woods near their cities. at that point it is just an inferior sword.
I'm casting my vote for the Zulu as first pick as well. It shouldn't be too hard to acquire copper, considering that will have hopefully at least one other civ nearby to help them out. Maybe Boudica as the leader if we can.
While the Aztec should be considered for super whipping, the Zulu are much more important.

Also, if possible, I would think we'd want a nice variety of starting techs.
Well we need to have a balance where we have some civs that are purely for warmongering purposes and one or two for commerce capabilities, so that we can have the latest and greatest techs and thus weapons. We also need a good spread of UUs and UBs for the game.

I am thinking that Zulu and Egypt will go together well since we have a a fast impi with a better chariot. Persia would be a sound second choice to go with Zulus. So now we need to have a gunpowder duo civ and I think that having both England and Russia, since we have a Redcoat and the Cossack for our units, making them formidable in that area. So we need another civ that will compliment these four civs.
Gunpowder? 80-90% chance this game doesn't go that long. Not even worth looking at non-ancient era UU's. If one team does not concede by the middle ages due to being down players the game will likely be over soon anyways as one team will certainly gain a tech advantage. Even being 10-15 turns behind in tech in the medieval era or later can be decisive.

I agree on Egypt being a good second pick if it is not taken.
Hi :hatsoff:

Some civilizations we discussed about on msn worth thinking about:

-> Mali, Zulu, Rome, Egypt, Persia for the game breaking UUs
-> Native America, Mayans, Incans for the resource less UUs (Aztec being less interesting because IW takes longer for a not so usefull UU against humans)
-> Sumeria, Babylone, Celtia, Korea might also be usefull.
-> India for fast worker
-> Carthage and Mongolia for HA units.

I would pick Zulus first, to escort our WC or immortals (whichever we are left as second civ). :)
If we go with Mali, I'll try get Rome as second to make up for missing the impi combo.

I guess most leaders will be expensive for fast granaries/workers. Not sure of who still as we must match the civs we get... Having one of Peter or Bismarck could be usefull however.


edit: @Classical Hero: I guess we can forget english and russians... our forces must be usefull sooner!
edit2: OK now I am reading the little guide made by Indiansmoke and everything is in it allready! :goodjob:
Lets take it step by step. We need to pick the first civ soon. So first question is what that civ will be. It is either Mali or Zulu IMO.

Most of you propably underestimate the chocking power of Mali. Skirmishers come before all trees are choped in the BFC, get a skirmisher on a forest hill and it stays there...very difficult to get it off. The only 2 units that can prevent chocking are Imortals and quenchas (both will be in the game propably maybe on our team).

Usually when you tech archery you have your first skirmisher in 1 turn (slave or chop). That is a very early skirmisher in enemy lands which can be a huge pain.

Impis are obviously great but they are so much better in real time games than they will be on sequencial pitboss. The element of surprise that 2 movers can give will be less here as fast moves and double moves will not happen.

I am not certain myself which unit to pick, but reason says Mali I think. Impis have too many ifs and they will propably lose a big ammount of their value in this format.
Every civ needs to be able to stand on it's own. There is no guarantee you won't start 7 tiles away from the nearest enemy.

Protective skrimishers are the most cost effective units in combat. They don't have the same offensive capabilities as the zulu's but they don't require metal. If we aim to get as many resourceless as possible it could be possible to totally deny zulu. Of course Rome + Mali together also improves together.

Skirms/holkans/dogs/quechas can all choke if they don't start with the appropriate resource in the BFC.
Who we pick for our other civs depends on what picks the other teams do of course. If they pick Zulu we can't pick it, if they don't pick it, we will probably get it.
But, choosing the Zulu/Mali may make other choices better/worse. So we should preferably have a general idea of how we want to compile our civ choices.
How would picking Mali or Zulu make other choices worst?

99% if we pick mali they will pick Zulu and vice versa. Then It will be a choice between picking Rome and one of the chariot UU. If we pick Rome they will pick one of the chariots and then we will pick the other chariot and then they will pick propably inca or natives.

SO we will end up with Mali, Rome & persia and they will have Zulu, Egypt & Inca for the first 3 choices

The only way this is changing is if they decide to get Rome instead of Zulu but I dought it.
Top Bottom