Rating the c3c Civs by DocT

[Pfeffersack]

IIRC, the Spanish were Commercial in PTW (before the introduction of the seafaring trait).

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

One thing that really bothers me about DocT's system is that it seems to me that Commercial is SO heavily weighted compared to anything else. Commercial is virtually an automatic +5 - the Indians and Spanish are the only Commercial civs that don't get +5 from that alone, since Religious is the ONLY thing it's NOT considered synergistic with! Plus Alphabet is an other +1, for a total of 5 points just for being Commercial.

Even Agricultural doesn't perform that well, being worth only 4 points on average (synergy with 1/2 the traits +1).

And then when half the COM civs end up being granted trait/UU synergy as well, all but one of the original COM civs (India) get a total of +7 from their traits. Seems VERY excessive to me.

Commercial is certainly a nice trait. It's not that nice, though.

See it that way:
All but one strategy article authors are excessive when it's about Growth/Expansion (which is insanely powerful - but only if there is land to grab), and I'm the one who is excessive about Commerce.
Points taken, but that is just my personnal taste - and, I never tried to hide that.

 

[Beamup]

See it that way:
All but one strategy article authors are excessive when it's about Growth/Expansion (which is insanely powerful - but only if there is land to grab), and I'm the one who is excessive about Commerce.
Points taken, but that is just my personnal taste - and, I never tried to hide that.

Personal taste is certainly important, but when you say:

(Hard to agree on the runner-ups, but AGR is hands down the strongest trait)

And then COM ends up being typically worth more points than AGR, it seems inconsistent. This made me think that maybe you hadn't really considered it from that perspective, since what you say about the traits and how the results come out don't quite match up.

But, if you really intended it to come out that way and I was misinterpreting the above quote in the context of your system, that's fine. I'll just register disagreement with that relative weighting.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

The AGR trait is way better than the COM trait.
A Civ doesn't have to be COM to start with Alphabet. There is no UU-trait synergy for either of the traits. The builder-type defender gives a bonus for the Dutch as well, not only for the Greeks and French. So, the Dutch end as top-tier Civ without being COM, so do the Celts. It is pure coincidence that many UUs from COM Civs fit well with their other trait, or are 1st tier UUs.
As a result, in the revised list only 2 COM Civs end as 1st tier (plus the AGR/COM Iros), but 5 more AGR Civs...since the benefits you consider to be linked to COM Civs affect those as well.

 

[onedreamer]

I beg to differ on the No Trait Sinergy between Religious and Militaristic.
It is very good to be able to switch fastly among govs. when at war and when not. Also, since when you play Mil. you're generally going for a conquests victory, you won't bother to be a builder and build up a lot of culture. Hence you will have to raze cities like crazy. I think razing cities is too much in fashion in this community and I can only see it as a negative thing. It is actually a) an extreme action and b) a waste, and nothing good, hence in my simple and practical vision of life, it's something to avoid as much as one can. It's a waste not only of a possibly already nicely developed city, but a waste of your own resources, wasting time and population to make settlers to replace the razed cities. Not to mention religious buildings are there for keeping your citizens happy... and the major reason why they get unhappy is guess what, war. The religious trait helps you a lot in increasing your cultural value and in quickly build culture in conquered cities. So I find it hard to see no sinergy between them. Or at least I find hard to see a sinergy between IND and MIL but not between REL and MIL.

 

[Beamup]

The AGR trait is way better than the COM trait.
A Civ doesn't have to be COM to start with Alphabet.

True, but if they are COM they do get Alphabet so that +1 is automatic.

There is no UU-trait synergy for either of the traits. The builder-type defender gives a bonus for the Dutch as well, not only for the Greeks and French. So, the Dutch end as top-tier Civ without being COM, so do the Celts. It is pure coincidence that many UUs from COM Civs fit well with their other trait, or are 1st tier UUs.

I can half-understand what you mean here. I suppose I'd like more explanation of where synergies are coming from and exactly what is synergistic with what. As-is, I can only see "UU+trait synergy" rather than what trait is synergistic and why... so it looks like COM is considered synergistic with most UUs, even if it's just a coincidence.

since the benefits you consider to be linked to COM Civs affect those as well.

I think I need to explain a bit more what I mean. COM is virtually guaranteed to be worth a lot of points. In straight trait synergy and special bonuses, it is worth substantially more than AGR (+1 special bonus each, and synergy with 6 of 7 other traits rather than only 4). Since these are the dominant points where traits get points, COM ends up being, as a general rule, worth substantially more points than AGR (or indeed anything else). So AGR being the best trait doesn't come through in the points, with COM in general being worth more points.

It's not that benefits are linked to COM directly, it's that the way things are set up means COM necessarily implies a lot of points several layers down - even though those points can be gotten other ways, being COM guarantees them in a way no other trait does. More points than AGR or anything else imply.

Or, put another way, if you weight trait synergy as the dominant factor in the rankings, and then COM has the most synergy of any trait, COM gets treated as the "best" trait in terms of rankings... particularly since starting with Alphabet due to being COM compensates for the +1 bonus for being AGR. The measure you have implemented for valuing traits does NOT reflect the qualitative conclusions it's supposed to, i.e. AGR being most valuable.

One way to see the effect I'm talking about is to take away traits, one by one, and see how many points this deducts (e.g. if all civs that used to be X/MIL were simply X, with only one trait). Obviously it takes away all points from trait synergy for civs with that trait, and it takes points from special bonuses (and maybe UU+trait synergy). If you do this exercise for all traits, removing COM deducts the most points by a significant margin.

Or another way: Ask yourself, "If I were going to build a civ, and I could pick one trait and everything else was random, what should I pick in order to expect to get the most points?" The correct answer would be COM, not AGR, with points granted as they are. When if the system really reflected AGR being the most valuable trait, the answer would be AGR.

 

[punkbass2000]

If I could pick any traits and UU to put together I'd probably end up with the Iroquois and maybe the Dutch.
Or possibly Dutch traits + MW or Iroquois traits + SM. Depends on landmass, world size and whether I want a defensive, MA UU or offensive AA UU.

 

[shnjavi]

Your system is really work. That is my opinion. People just have different point of view on different civilizations, but I think that is your list OK.

 

[Empiremaker]

NM Second Tier?? It should be with the F-15. A Legion, for iron and a tech you get 50% more attack. 30 shields is alot in the AA, I would in most cases, rather build spears and upgrade to pikes when 30 shields is more affordable. I also rarely war in the early AA. Plus who would attack with a 30 shield, 2 attack unit. Use an archer. I don't get it.

Note: I usually win on Emp, tried demi, was getting crushed around 1000 BC.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

NuMers are basically resource-free Pikes with +1 attack. The later is pretty useless, and compared to Hoplites, they're not that great.
However, if you don't have Iron, they are definetely a life-saver. Or on island maps, with lots of Sea/Ocean seperating your holdings. And, they are almost deadly in multiplayer.
But I agree - they are about the worst UU for the AI; that's why AI Carthage does so badly; they can't get up Settler escorts.

 

[Ansar]

AI Carthage sucks at expanding, they try to get NM to escort.

Why NumMerc for MP? Wait, is MP=Military Police or MultiPlayer?

 

[Spoonwood]

Best choices for 20k Cultural Victory: (+1)
Babylon, Spain, Arabs

Not that I expect a response from any of the old timers here, but I disagree with this.

On upper level where you can select the map type, I do agree that Spain makes for one of the better choices for a 20k. But, a tribe without Alphabet isn't all that desire-able. And at Sid, or even Deity, snagging easy wonders isn't easy, but it does come as possible to hand-build The Pyramids early on. Consequently, Carthage and France make for strong 20k candidates. Additionally, there exist a whole slew of HoF games that use the Byzantines, Persia, and the Ottomans for a 20k.

Additionally, the agricultural trait is NOT weak for a 20k game. The agricultural trait implies faster growth for more shields and commerce earlier. On top of that, your 20k city can potentially get an extra shield because of the agricultural trait in a 20k game.

 

[CKS]

I love 20k, but Babylon, Spain, and Arabia would never be in my top choices. Babylon seems like it would be a good choice, but it never works out for me - neither fast nor fun. I like the Byzantines for the early Colossus. Plus, at monarch/emperor where my 20k city is the capital, I like having the coastal wonders available for when cascades happen - ending up with Magellan's is a lot better than ending up with a 350 shield marketplace.

I also like Korea - scientific plus commercial means fast research, so I can get to the wonders I want quickly. (Korea is more fun than the Greeks - I don't know why.)

I ought to try some games with agricultural civs, because I stink at expanding. Maybe when I finish my current 100k game.

 

[Zardnaar]

Not that I expect a response from any of the old timers here, but I disagree with this.

On upper level where you can select the map type, I do agree that Spain makes for one of the better choices for a 20k. But, a tribe without Alphabet isn't all that desire-able. And at Sid, or even Deity, snagging easy wonders isn't easy, but it does come as possible to hand-build The Pyramids early on. Consequently, Carthage and France make for strong 20k candidates. Additionally, there exist a whole slew of HoF games that use the Byzantines, Persia, and the Ottomans for a 20k.

Additionally, the agricultural trait is NOT weak for a 20k game. The agricultural trait implies faster growth for more shields and commerce earlier. On top of that, your 20k city can potentially get an extra shield because of the agricultural trait in a 20k game.

I'm an old timer, Byzantines are good for 20k.

Back then several of us were writing articles and guides. On the higher difficulty levels SEA was great along with starting with alphabet. That includes COM. AGR is also great so the best civs tend to be any nation's with 2/3 of those traits and a good UU.

 

[Civinator]

I'm an old timer

It´s always great, to see 'old timers' be back to post in the Civ 3 forums.

 

[Zardnaar]

It´s always great, to see 'old timers' be back to post in the Civ 3 forums.

Gonna do another civ review even.

Some links are broken so gonna fix and link up the old threads. My guides date from 2004 lol.