The Arabs

ision - i've just read all of your civ reviews and they're great-very helpful! I do have a question though, In several reviews you state that the industrious trait (and maybe others also) was changed in Conquests. I've looked through the manual I got with Conquests and it dosen't list any such changes. My question is what changes were made to what traits and if its not too much to tell me where did you get your information? Thank you

thanks to zardnaar too of course :)
 
Industrious used to half the time taken for all worker tasks. Now it is only lowered by a factor of 3/4, still a great trait though :)
None of the other traits were changed, but others had things added to them.

Edit: My mistake. Read Punkbass' post \/
 
the arab uu is good, what about the Chinese rider, they have same attack and move but a higher defence, but it cost more. don't you think that is worth it. what if itis under attack and it can't run because it's defending a city, it will be kill. over all it is still good, low cost so you can mass produce especialy with my new found rush unit method. i think i will try arab the next game
 
Zardnaar and Ision,

Just wanted to add my voice -- as a relative beginner reading your articles not only teaches us about game play, but also gives a much greater appreciation of the subtleties that strong players can understand to get the most out of their gameplay. Indeed, understanding how you come to your conclusions, and the thought process involved, is more important to me than the conclusions themselves. I would like to say that they are great, but it just isn't enough! Its really tremendous!

On a historical note -- Crecy lists Tours (Poiters) as one of the 15 most decisive battles in history, and that Martel's defeat of Arabs led to the creation of the Carolingian empire.

Nonetheless, I think Crecy picked the wrong battle! In my opinion, it wasn't the Arab advance from its center in Arabia, across Africa, through Spain and into France that was the decisive defeat -- the MAIN thrust came through the Byzantine empire. The growth of the Arab Empire came after the Arab's defeated the Byzantine's in the 7th century, using superior military ability and the aided by the weakening of the Byzantines in long wars with the Persians. I always felt that the critical battle was the seige of Constantinople, 717-718 AD. It was a very near run seige, but the Arabs lost close to 200,000 men (of course, all such figures are unreliable). The Byzantines somewhat revived and stuck around for a long time -- had the Arabs had defeated them, the Byzantine empire would have fallen 700 more than years earlier!

Anyway, despite Crecy, I always thought the defeat of the center thrust was the critical one. (The Dupuy's make this argument in the Encyclopedia of Military History).

Thanks again!
 
I try and throw in some history on civs I review if I know enough about that civ.

General Ming. The Riders a excellent UU as well. 4/2/3 for 60 shields or 4/3/3 for 70. Personal preference for whatevers one is better. Chinas traits are better for war, Arabia for building.
 
Gainy bo said:
Industrious used to half the time taken for all worker tasks. Now it is only lowered by a factor of 3/4, still a great trait though :)
None of the other traits were changed, but others had things added to them.

Actually, Religious was changed as well. Two turn anarchy instead of one.
 
Arabs are never, ever 1st tier civ. Traits are not good for higher difficulty levels (demigod+) and while Arabs are easy civ to play for not so good players (chieftain-monarch) those players are not good enough to use Arab's great UU effectively. So, its ok civ to maybe emperor players in pangaea, but poor in islands and average in continents. Overall middle of the pack-civ and that because of great UU, but nowhere near 1st tier...
 
Gainy bo said:
Expansionist civs can not pop barbarians from huts :)
Regarding the chance of getting nothing: It has never happened to me. I play solely on Emperor, and in each game I always get a decent amount of goodies from huts. In my most recent game, I got 2 settlers in the first 20 turns -- among other things. You can not bash this trait :p

Edit: Too slow...

I have to agree. The Americans got big early in the game i'm playing now due to the expansionistic trait. China and I have finally turned the tables, but it's taking the two of us to do it.
 
Jopedamus I said:
Arabs are never, ever 1st tier civ. Traits are not good for higher difficulty levels (demigod+) and while Arabs are easy civ to play for not so good players (chieftain-monarch) those players are not good enough to use Arab's great UU effectively. So, its ok civ to maybe emperor players in pangaea, but poor in islands and average in continents. Overall middle of the pack-civ and that because of great UU, but nowhere near 1st tier...

I would agree about them not being 1st tier on the higher difficulty levels. The reviews are a guideline and assume the game is on monarch/emperor. I would have different civs in the tiers for low, mid, and high level play. I've had some very easy games with the Arabs and the UU is probably in the top 3 best UU in the game. That makes them a great warmonger civ and the religeous trait make them a decent builder civ as well. The main drawback is the expansionistic trait- which is better than most people think it is but is a bit more difficult to use.
 
It certainly makes a much difference which level game is played. And yes, Arabs are best for monarch-emperor level players who can use that great UU well enough. On those levels expansionist+religious-combo is still manageable. Overall very well written review but I still wouldn't put Arabs into 1st tier. There are 10+civs in any difficulty level better than Arabs but I have to admit its very close to 1st tier on monarch and emperor-level pangaea. And even more so if you can use Ansar correctly, because it truly is a gamebreaking UU.
 
Jopedamus I said:
It certainly makes a much difference which level game is played. And yes, Arabs are best for monarch-emperor level players who can use that great UU well enough. On those levels expansionist+religious-combo is still manageable. Overall very well written review but I still wouldn't put Arabs into 1st tier. There are 10+civs in any difficulty level better than Arabs but I have to admit its very close to 1st tier on monarch and emperor-level pangaea. And even more so if you can use Ansar correctly, because it truly is a gamebreaking UU.

Well to be fair theres a few 2nd tier civs that can easily be regarded as 1st tier based on playstyle and personal preference. The Arabs IMHO are the best expanistic civ and are excellent in general. Without the Ansar I would drop them down- it is a gamebreaking UU.
 
Scalefang said:
Overall, great review.

A few notes though, I just finished an Arab game on Monarch and my Ansar Warriors couldn't punch through Vet Pikes, I lost 20 of the things yet 2 Medieval Infantry do what they cannot... Anybody else have this problem or was I extremely unlucky?

I'm currently playing a similar game. I wiped out the Persians with my Ansar warriors and had no trouble punching through their pikes. Gotta love the 3 move offense.
 
Top Bottom