Leaders and Civs picking thread

[CiverDan1]

Indiansmoke is correct that due to sequential turns 2 move units will be somewhat less effective because the "move at timer=0 trick" doesn't work. However in team games with good players even if a move at the end of a turn occurs, the 8 second window when the just moved units cannot move is enough time for most people to move units into a city, so the difference isn't that great.

Back to the civ picks. I think we must pick zulu, true skirms can be a pain but they are less valuable overall IMHO.

 

[Lord Civius]

If I was to make a draft for a game that concentrated on early war this would be the list.

Mali
Zulu
Egypt
Persia
Inca
Rome
Native American
Aztecs
Babylon
Korea

 

[Indiansmoke]

Indiansmoke is correct that due to sequential turns 2 move units will be somewhat less effective because the "move at timer=0 trick" doesn't work. However in team games with good players even if a move at the end of a turn occurs, the 8 second window when the just moved units cannot move is enough time for most people to move units into a city, so the difference isn't that great.

Back to the civ picks. I think we must pick zulu, true skirms can be a pain but they are less valuable overall IMHO.

There is a BIG difference, because this will be turn based. Moving at 0 and allowing 8seconds for opponent to move units in city means he can move units he already has. With turn based you get your units after presing enter, so you can move units you already have AND slave/build another defender or even walls.

Generally it is a matter of luck which civ works out for you better, as alot of things determine that. But only the fact that about 50% of the people will not get copper in capital I think increases mali's chances of being more usefull.

 

[CiverDan1]

ah..gotta adjust my mind a bit away from "normal" MP play..lol. You are right about slaving stuff. Am beginning to warm up to Mali, but still would not take over Zulu. Even if Zulu doesn't get copper in capital the ally next to you may, or you may have iron in your capital. This is still quick enough to get the Impis out for resource denial, pillaging, etc. It is rare to see an MP game where impis are NOT a major factor.

 

[oyzar]

Unless the zulu player get copper in their BFC, choking them away from hooking up metal with Skirms/quechas/dog soldiers/holkans or just plain archers is not only possible but likely. Impis will be better than skirms if the zulu player get copper in the BFC, but even so nothing can beat skirms at city defense nor at cost effectiveness (they do cost 10 less hammers, though since 2 pop slaving impis/axes is possible this might not be as good as a 30% cost reduction otherwise would be).

Lord Civius: you have forgotten india in the list. -25% time spent on chopping is rather big. Also mongolia should be considered as HA's are pretty good to start with.

Impis combine better with war chariots but skirmishers combine better with praets. Of course Quechas are better if the opponent have mali and dog soldiers are better if the opponent have rome (but they are still amazing against zulu).

 

[Lord Civius]

Lord Civius: you have forgotten india in the list. -25% time spent on chopping is rather big. Also mongolia should be considered as HA's are pretty good to start with..

I think Keshiks are overrated IMHO and I considered india in my list. However I don't think -1 turn chopping is equivalent to a strong military UU. Korean Hwachas' with War Elephants are a powerhouse post-construction and made it just above India in my list.

 

[Indiansmoke]

Mali will be our first choice, all we need now is turn players!

 

[Indiansmoke]

Pick process has began you can follow it in this thread http://league.civplayers.com/forum/index.php?topic=3847.0

We picked Mali

Civplayers picked Egypt

Now we face the dilema...Zulu, Rome or Persia?

I think it must be zulu, but have a feeling the will go for Persia then taking both chariot UU's..but at least we will get rome then.

 

[Lord Civius]

Yes Zulu! They will take Persia and our Impis can counter both. Then we can take Romeor Inca is a better choice IMO. The winner may be decided before a Praetorian stack can be built. BTW, by decided I don't mean over.

 

[azzaman333]

Zulu.

 

[Indiansmoke]

We picked Zulu they took Rome

So Persia next I think?

 

[CiverDan1]

Inca works ago. Since we have Mali might not be too bad an idea for denial purposes.

 

[Indiansmoke]

Imortals have 50% against archers so are more effective than quenchas against skirmishers.

 

[Lord Civius]

They took Rome . Persia is a must then.

Mali, Zulu and Persia we couldn't asked for a better start!

 

[Irgy]

I don't disagree about Persia as a good next pick, but for forth and fifth picks if nothing else it's worth considering the fact that they have Rome, making things which counter praets more valuable. Cutting iron won't be easy with trading from their allies, and choking won't deny the technology, although it could affect production.

Hwacha come to mind, and they're good for taking out SODs in the field in general. Dog soldiers are also slightly better than axemen against praets. Bowmen would help a little as well. Chokonu would rip them to shreds of course, but probably come too late to be worth considering.

Although there's a risk that these counters will start nowhere near Rome anyway. It just puts these up the prioirity order a bit. Axemen also do the job almost as well as anything else anyway.

It also impacts starting techs. Without Rome the only reasonable options for picking up fishing are native america and greece. Otherwise, the only other starting tech missing from the first two picks is Mysticism, which could be picked up from Aztecs, Celts, India, Inca or Korea.

 

[oyzar]

Imortals have 50% against archers so are more effective than quenchas against skirmishers.

Not in cost, you get 2 quechas for the price of one immortal, and skirms might be able to choke the persian away from horses, but it is impossible to choke away from quechas.

Only problem with taking inca is that then we don't really have any civ with units specialized to take cities with (mali, inca, zulu, native america are all choker civs), but that might not actually be a problem.

Inca also have the best UB in the game.

 

[Indiansmoke]

We will go Persia next, it makes the most sense as it is an early 2 move unit that can take cities.

@ Oyzar...first quenchas are much worst than Imortals even against archers. Second you are thinking hammers for hammers, but you don't calculate the fact that you are chopping and slaving. Chopping and slaving warriors means losing hammers. After your first 2 workers you can chop/slave 4-5 imortals in 5-6 turns and go for an attack...obviously no point doing that with quenchas.
Third, there is still babylon, natives and maya to be taken (let alone aztec). All those 3 have resourcelss UU that beat the quencha, but only 1 beats immortals.

 

[classical_hero]

Why not go for NA, since we can get Dog Sodiers and we can get more powerful archery units? We will need some protection from the Praets.

 

[Indiansmoke]

Why not go for NA, since we can get Dog Sodiers and we can get more powerful archery units? We will need some protection from the Praets.

There are 2 more civs to pick Classical, we could go NA next if it is not taken. But aztecs might be more usefull as they are the best at chocking and occupying sentry points.

There is no hiding from aggressive rome unfortunatelly, our best chance are chocking units to leave them behind in development. Dogs are good against them but they will bring chariots as well...

 

[CiverDan1]

Aggressive Rome is tough until elephants show up. Agg Axes are the best option until then.