Now that we've gone through the game for over a month, let's look back at the question of qhich is the best civ. Take in to consideration how everything works togather(IE. You may think militaristic sucks but military & commercial, which the romans have, is the optimal configuration for taking over the world)
Poll: Best Civilization
- Thread starter Excilus
- Start date
Well, if you enjoy conquest like I do, you can't chose anybody else except Romans/Greeks/Persians. They make a great start which as everybody knows has a snowball effect for the rest of the game. I had to chose the Greeks because of the longevity of the Hoplite. The Persians come in second. And I don't think I've gotten a GA when defending with the Hoplite.
What I don't really like is an attacking UU that has a point added to it's defence value or vice versa... Like the Legion, the Bowman, or the Samurai. The Bowman especially sucks. It's the same price as an archer and as a spearman. Specialization and combined arms are the key to success.
What I don't really like is an attacking UU that has a point added to it's defence value or vice versa... Like the Legion, the Bowman, or the Samurai. The Bowman especially sucks. It's the same price as an archer and as a spearman. Specialization and combined arms are the key to success.
While combined arms have thier merits, I do think that the value of a versatile force is very large.
In times of war, it is always best to make at least 2 defenders per town. Now, if your best defender is, for example, a samuri, then you have 2 samuri for each town. When you are winning, or that town just isn't in danger, then take one off defence and you have a 4/4/2 unit, seemingly out of thin air.
It means that, while often early on you need a much larger defense then offense, because of expansion, you have a much larger defensive AND offensive army. Try it. As babylonians/romans/japanese sometime instead of making spearmen/pikemen/musketeers just make your uu, and use it for offense aswell of defense. You'll find you can go from building to all out war very easily, and quite effectively.
In times of war, it is always best to make at least 2 defenders per town. Now, if your best defender is, for example, a samuri, then you have 2 samuri for each town. When you are winning, or that town just isn't in danger, then take one off defence and you have a 4/4/2 unit, seemingly out of thin air.
It means that, while often early on you need a much larger defense then offense, because of expansion, you have a much larger defensive AND offensive army. Try it. As babylonians/romans/japanese sometime instead of making spearmen/pikemen/musketeers just make your uu, and use it for offense aswell of defense. You'll find you can go from building to all out war very easily, and quite effectively.
Venge
Chieftain
I have tried quite a few, and found the units that each civ gets is not as important to me as the unique attributes of the civ. I love any civ with "industrious' and I have lately been tending towards 'religious' to go with it. It is pretty awesome being able to build temples for less cost than graneries. And the savings goes right on through most of the culture/happiness city improvements.
loduke
Chieftain
I find the they allow for a more flexible start to the game. If their scout can locate lots of gooy huts and find a bunch of techs, it's a great way to kickstart you civ and helps avoid the necessity of warfare for expanding your empire.
However, in case you don't have a lot of luck from the huts, or if you have a particularly violent neighbor
: cough:: Aztecs), you can build an excellent army early on with either iron (Swordsmen) or horses (Mounted Warrior). If you get both horses and Iron, then you have the possiblity of a juggernaut of an army.
Also, I like the culture aspect of the game, and I like that the religious attribute decreases the cost of religous buildings and really helps me build a strong culture early on. I also love not decending into Anarchy for 4-6 turns every time I switch goverments.
My 2 cents.
However, in case you don't have a lot of luck from the huts, or if you have a particularly violent neighbor
: cough:: Aztecs), you can build an excellent army early on with either iron (Swordsmen) or horses (Mounted Warrior). If you get both horses and Iron, then you have the possiblity of a juggernaut of an army. Also, I like the culture aspect of the game, and I like that the religious attribute decreases the cost of religous buildings and really helps me build a strong culture early on. I also love not decending into Anarchy for 4-6 turns every time I switch goverments.
My 2 cents.
I went with the Aztecs.
Along with the Iroquois, they seem to be the only two civs capable of winning 8 player Deity maps before the end of BC. That's usually a good sign
The Iroquois UU is much better than Jaggies, but militaristic gets you half priced barracks and a better shot at great leaders. Both are religious which is the best specialty IMO.
Along with the Iroquois, they seem to be the only two civs capable of winning 8 player Deity maps before the end of BC. That's usually a good sign
The Iroquois UU is much better than Jaggies, but militaristic gets you half priced barracks and a better shot at great leaders. Both are religious which is the best specialty IMO.
On diety, it is a must to attack early. I can overlook the Roman unit because you get the 3 defence so early, but the other two are not as forgiving. You can emulate a bowman army by building archers with a few spearmen. With the japanese you said,
But is it not more practical to built two pikemen and one samurai than two samurai? My point is that civs that give an extra point to their UUs strength have the advantage. Your strongest defender gets the hits in a group, so I always send some defensive units when attacking.
This is true. In the long run, certain traits win out, although with pop-rushing, I find that a 60-shield temple is easier to build than an 80-shield library, so I prefer a scientific civ. But I get killed by Anarchy with all the gov't switching I do during wars.
"On diety, it is a must to attack early."
It is not! One of the main problems is that people tend to take one good look at thier score very early on, decide it's hopeless and then quit. First off, it's much more efficent to only produce settlers once you already have a granary and have about 5-6 pop. You can expand much faster that way. Second, because of the god awful corruption, the only real reason to control territory beyond about 20 squares from your home is for resources, and if you try for a ssc you can trade techs for them, if you try for a culture civ you can make the enemy cities revolt.
Deity level players will expand faster then you, but it's of limited benefit.
"I can overlook the Roman unit because you get the 3 defence so early, but the other two are not as forgiving. You can emulate a bowman army by building archers with a few spearmen."
Not really. For example, lets say you have 12 cities. You need a defense, so 2 bowmen a city. You need an offense, that's another 10 bowmen. This is 34 Bowmen, nearly Equivalent to 34 Archers and 34 Spearmen. One half the cost. Granted, it isn't quite 34 spear and archersmen, but you wouldn't waste spearmen on offense or archers on defense would you? The problem is that when you lose 1 bowman, you lose the equivalent of one archer and one spearman, but they get to see more action, and get thus get upgraded more.
"But is it not more practical to built two pikemen and one samurai than two samurai? My point is that civs that give an extra point to their UUs strength have the advantage. Your strongest defender gets the hits in a group, so I always send some defensive units when attacking. "
Having a 4/4/2 defender is awesome. While a spearman has roughly a 0.21 chance of not losing vs a knight, and barely any chance at all of actually killing the knight, a samurai has almost a 0.76 chance of KILLING the knight, when fortified, and a 0.84 chance when foritfied in a city. Samurai cost 50 shields, 2 spearmen cost 40 shields, and the samurai will see more action, stay alive much longer, and can instanly go on attack when there is no more danger to the city.
"This is true. In the long run, certain traits win out, although with pop-rushing, I find that a 60-shield temple is easier to build than an 80-shield library, so I prefer a scientific civ. But I get killed by Anarchy with all the gov't switching I do during wars. "
There are, in particular, a couple incredible unique units. One is the Mounted Warrior, the other the immortal, and finally, the panzer. Each of them, during thier period, can be used to such effect that I almost consider it imbalanced.
It is not! One of the main problems is that people tend to take one good look at thier score very early on, decide it's hopeless and then quit. First off, it's much more efficent to only produce settlers once you already have a granary and have about 5-6 pop. You can expand much faster that way. Second, because of the god awful corruption, the only real reason to control territory beyond about 20 squares from your home is for resources, and if you try for a ssc you can trade techs for them, if you try for a culture civ you can make the enemy cities revolt.
Deity level players will expand faster then you, but it's of limited benefit.
"I can overlook the Roman unit because you get the 3 defence so early, but the other two are not as forgiving. You can emulate a bowman army by building archers with a few spearmen."
Not really. For example, lets say you have 12 cities. You need a defense, so 2 bowmen a city. You need an offense, that's another 10 bowmen. This is 34 Bowmen, nearly Equivalent to 34 Archers and 34 Spearmen. One half the cost. Granted, it isn't quite 34 spear and archersmen, but you wouldn't waste spearmen on offense or archers on defense would you? The problem is that when you lose 1 bowman, you lose the equivalent of one archer and one spearman, but they get to see more action, and get thus get upgraded more.
"But is it not more practical to built two pikemen and one samurai than two samurai? My point is that civs that give an extra point to their UUs strength have the advantage. Your strongest defender gets the hits in a group, so I always send some defensive units when attacking. "
Having a 4/4/2 defender is awesome. While a spearman has roughly a 0.21 chance of not losing vs a knight, and barely any chance at all of actually killing the knight, a samurai has almost a 0.76 chance of KILLING the knight, when fortified, and a 0.84 chance when foritfied in a city. Samurai cost 50 shields, 2 spearmen cost 40 shields, and the samurai will see more action, stay alive much longer, and can instanly go on attack when there is no more danger to the city.
"This is true. In the long run, certain traits win out, although with pop-rushing, I find that a 60-shield temple is easier to build than an 80-shield library, so I prefer a scientific civ. But I get killed by Anarchy with all the gov't switching I do during wars. "
There are, in particular, a couple incredible unique units. One is the Mounted Warrior, the other the immortal, and finally, the panzer. Each of them, during thier period, can be used to such effect that I almost consider it imbalanced.
Hmm, for me it's a toss between Egypt and Persia. I'm a fan of any industrious civ. The main reason I like Persia is because their UU comes early and their UU cuts it up like a veteran butcher. They're useful even through the early middle ages (stack w/ a pikeman helps though). Egypt is has the Religous attribute which is great since you can go from Big Money Democracy to War Machine Communism in no time (why deal w/ b****y citizens when you don't have to?)
I really like the babylonians as they are religious and scientific.
This is really useful if you are trying to win with culture as scientific and religious buildings are cheeper. Also religion reducing anarchy between governments to one turn is invaliable.
This is really useful if you are trying to win with culture as scientific and religious buildings are cheeper. Also religion reducing anarchy between governments to one turn is invaliable.
Sam_Catchem
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2001
- Messages
- 350
Babylonians for a number of reasons.
The bonus of the religous Civs is too huge to ignore. 1 turn of anarchy between governments. Cheap Temples, Cathedrals.
Scientific Bonus--cheap libraries, universities. Too sweet to win the tech race.
The UU, the Bowman, is pretty sweet in the ancient times. You go on the offense take a city and keep it. Attack of 2 Defense of 2..pretty nice and cheap. You can stream these dudes at our enemies. Perfect if you are trapped in a corner.
The bonus of the religous Civs is too huge to ignore. 1 turn of anarchy between governments. Cheap Temples, Cathedrals.
Scientific Bonus--cheap libraries, universities. Too sweet to win the tech race.
The UU, the Bowman, is pretty sweet in the ancient times. You go on the offense take a city and keep it. Attack of 2 Defense of 2..pretty nice and cheap. You can stream these dudes at our enemies. Perfect if you are trapped in a corner.
The good thing about the samurai is that it is the BEST defender before infantry if you are in a multiplayer game, heh. (Yes, it is because enemy units can't run away. Fortified in a size 6 city it is 7 defense and the attacker needs a marine or tank to have a higher attack rating. It would perform much better against cavalry than riflemen do).
But a 5/3 samurai would be much nicer than a 4/4 IMO. I'd probably prefer the chinese rider to samurai, but that is pretty close.
Eliezar
But a 5/3 samurai would be much nicer than a 4/4 IMO. I'd probably prefer the chinese rider to samurai, but that is pretty close.
Eliezar
It is a tie for me between babs and persians. Babs for religion and science and the bowman. Persians for science, industry and immortals. The only minor hit is the early golden age. On the other hand, it could help you get that leg up on some early wonders. Is it just me or do early UUs pretty much rock compared to the later ones?
I personally think that the Babylonians are the best civilization to go with in the early game, for their Religious advantage and for Bowmen. However, the best long-term civ is the Chinese, b/c of their Scientific and Industrious aspects, not to mention their powerful Riders.
Fayadi
Technocrat
Excuse me how bout the musketeer/musketman how much are their defences?Musketman are cheaper to get for a defensive unitThe main purpose of Samurai is for offensive....Offensive units needs faster movement!Japan special unit is not much different from normal knight
Fayadi
Technocrat
are u playing the beta version of CivIII because beta version of Civ III Chinese is scientific and Industrious.In "full" version Chinese is Militaristic and Industrious.Militaristic is better than Scientific,u can feel the diff,to get tech i always prefer trading .Scientific dont have much impact.
Fayadi, against the computer you don't even need defenders, but if there ever is multiplayer civ III then samurai will outdefend musketmen. Why? The opposing knights cannot run away from the Samurai. If you are using 3 musketmen to defend a town I might lose 1 or 2 units trying to take it. If you are using 3 samurai to defend a town I'll probably lose 4 to 6 units trying to take it. Now, I've never yet had to actually defend against a computer as I always stay on the offensive, but it isn't like they could figure out how to defeat a city guarded by 5 warriors if they had 10 tanks.
Eliezar
Eliezar
Fayadi
Technocrat
Dont even need defenders??Computer never have an offensive against u?what level u playing?I have experience a damn galley come suddenly and unload all the freaking units(luckily Beijing still got musketmen and swordsmen but destroys my improvement damn),u cant afford to lose ur metro with great wonders,well that depends if ur city is far from sea thats good...Musketman and Rider got same defence,knights canot run away from rider????what are u talking about if a knight fails to attack xxx city with samurai guarded that knight will have 1 health and run away,It is his "turn" this is not rts wake up!Do u know how to use musketmen?if i captured a city using an offensive unit,i stay there for few turns to quell the resister and build a cheap musket.....after that i could use this offensive unit to leave the city and attack again?do u understand what am i saying?
what the hell musket 1 or 2 units?for samurai 4 or 6 units??Are u dreaming?They HAVE SAME DEFENCES!
what the hell musket 1 or 2 units?for samurai 4 or 6 units??Are u dreaming?They HAVE SAME DEFENCES!
Fayadi I have now won 5 games on deity from tiny to normal maps and play the game of the month as well.
Let me explain to you how combat works since you seem to have misunderstood my first two posts.
Musketman defender 7 defense (4 * 1.75 for fortified in city) against a Knight (4 offense more than 1 move)
Knight takes 3 damage and retreats while Musketman01 takes 1 damage
Next Knight takes 3 damage and retreats while Musketman02 takes 1 damage
Next Knight takes 3 damage and retreats while Musketman03 takes 2 damage
Next Knight takes 4 damage and dies while Musketman01 takes 2 damage
Next Knight takes 2 damage and does 3 damage to Musketman02 defeating it.
Next Knight takes 3 damage and retreats while Musketman03 takes 0 damage
Next Knight takes 3 damage and retreats while Musketman03 takes 1 damage
Next Knight takes 2 damage and does 2 damage to Musketman03 defeating it.
Next Knight takes 1 damage and does 1 damage to Musketman01 defeating it.
That is a pretty standard way fighting goes with knights against Musketmen. If it had been Samurais instead of losing 1 Knight out of 9 the knights would have lost 6. Every time a knight is losing to a samurai he has to stay and finish the fight because samurai have more than 1 movement and you can't retreat against a unit with more than 1 movement when losing, unlike against Musketmen.
Eliezar
Let me explain to you how combat works since you seem to have misunderstood my first two posts.
Musketman defender 7 defense (4 * 1.75 for fortified in city) against a Knight (4 offense more than 1 move)
Knight takes 3 damage and retreats while Musketman01 takes 1 damage
Next Knight takes 3 damage and retreats while Musketman02 takes 1 damage
Next Knight takes 3 damage and retreats while Musketman03 takes 2 damage
Next Knight takes 4 damage and dies while Musketman01 takes 2 damage
Next Knight takes 2 damage and does 3 damage to Musketman02 defeating it.
Next Knight takes 3 damage and retreats while Musketman03 takes 0 damage
Next Knight takes 3 damage and retreats while Musketman03 takes 1 damage
Next Knight takes 2 damage and does 2 damage to Musketman03 defeating it.
Next Knight takes 1 damage and does 1 damage to Musketman01 defeating it.
That is a pretty standard way fighting goes with knights against Musketmen. If it had been Samurais instead of losing 1 Knight out of 9 the knights would have lost 6. Every time a knight is losing to a samurai he has to stay and finish the fight because samurai have more than 1 movement and you can't retreat against a unit with more than 1 movement when losing, unlike against Musketmen.
Eliezar
Fayadi
Technocrat
fine !fine!it works!so the main idea is u cant retreat if u attacking unit with more than 1 defense!Never experience that because normally the com defends with 1 movement units if they defend with horsemen or elephant normally i wont the battle so never really experience!it may happens once or 2 but i forgot.Samurai is a good defender?Well RIder is better still i think!
Similar threads
