1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The Chinese

Discussion in 'Civ3 Strategy Articles' started by Ision, Feb 18, 2004.

  1. Ision

    Ision Master

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    452
    I have decided to do a review on each CIV. My intention is to encourage debate and hopefully to help others (and myself) in their game play.

    The Chinese

    Suppose you decided to go into the Civ editor and create the single most efficient warmongering Civ, how would you go about it? You would probably start by giving your Civ the militaristic trait; cheap military buildings, quicker promotions and more armies are essential. Then you would probably add the industrious trait; higher shields to more quickly produce military units from those cheap building, plus super workers to build the roads that move your units to the battlefield fast. Lastly, you would probably create a UU that is timed to arrive at the perfect moment, is hard-hitting, highly maneuverable and long lasting. Well you might as well close that editor, because that Civ already exist – its name is China.

    For warmongering, the synergy between industrious and militaristic is unequaled. The 2 traits continue to complement each other from the 1st turn to the last. The militaristic trait allows the warmonger to quickly build cheap barracks – the industrious trait speeds this up even further by producing cities with higher shield output, also industrious workers more quickly improve tiles, which in turn speeds barracks construction yet again. Once the barracks are up, that same ‘industrious trait’ process accelerates unit production. Then there’s the faster road laying ability of the industrious workers – this both improves commerce (which allows for a larger standing military) and facilitates the moving of troops to the battlefield. Once engaged in war China can get those reinforcements to the front faster than most Civs. This alone will decide more than one battle in China's favor. With militaristic and industrious, China can throw up a sizeable military infrastructure far faster than the vast majority of other Civs. The ultra-early archer rush has become a staple of many China players. Because of the militaristic trait China begins with ‘Warrior Code’ and immediate access to archers. China’s ability to quickly throw up a large force of veteran archers in the early game has become a routine strategy of many players – and few Civs can rival the efficiency of China in pulling it off. One downside of the Mil/Ind combo is that they do not lend themselves as well to quick settler production as other combos. For China early warfare is often a critical part of their expansion phase, an extension of their normal city expansion phase. Many China players favor the Monarchy government over Republic in the early game. The reasons for this are obvious, Monarchy supports large standing armies better and has zero war weariness. The later game often finds you favoring Fascism or Communism over Democracy for the same reasons.

    I suppose that at least some comment should be made on China as a ‘builder’ Civ. China can be an effective builder Civ, but this must be done in combination with military expansion. The power of China as a builder is in the sheer number of culture buildings it can produce by acquiring a large empire. A Chinese builder strat is viable – but one must be patient and understand that it will bear fruit in the later game when the numbers (of culture buildings) begins to surpass the power of the other Civs older buildings. That said, China is certainly not among the better builder Civs.

    Last but not least, is the Chinese UU – the ‘Rider’. The Rider is a 4-3-3 Knight class unit available with chivalry. The impact of this unit is enormous, and for many players the Rider is THE reason they love to play China as a warmonger. This UU arrives at one of the most critical points in the game (the early middle ages) and its power is often the game breaker. On the surface it is just a knight with 1 extra movement point. But in CIV – speed kills, and the Rider is one of only 2 pre-cavalry land UUs with 3 movement points. That speed combined with it’s solid attack and defense factors makes for a terrifying UU in a part of the game where most other units simply can not cope with the Riders speed advantages. The Rider arrives just in time for China to be out of Despotism and entering the Middle Age wonder rush period. The Golden Age timing of this unit is perfect. Those fat wonders will belong to China – and the Rider is the reason. If you manage to get 2 or 3 early Great Military Leaders – filling those armies with Riders makes for an irresistible force that may seal the outcome of the game incredibly early. The Rider along with the Persian Immortal has an impact on the game that is far more profound and long lasting than most UUs.

    Summary: As a warmonger Civ China is unquestionably one of the top Civs in the game. However, the toning down of the industrious trait has somewhat diminished the ‘king of the warmongers’ title that China holds for many players. As a builder Civ they are very average at best. Nevertheless, overall China is still a 1st tier Civ – a fearsome ‘warmongers’ Civ.

    Below is the link to my other Civ reviews:

    other CIV Reviews by Ision
     
  2. Longasc

    Longasc Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,763
    Hi Ision!

    Another great review!

    I know you do not like rankings too much, but how about listing your "tiers".

    How about three tables:

    Warmonger - Builder - Overall

    You could do a ranking based on Tiers 1,2,3 or 1. - 31. e.g.

    For every Tier. The Overall would be an average combined with a little personal bias.

    After you have done all civs, and still alive ;), it would be no problem to create such a table.

    The ISION-TABLE of Civilizations!
     
  3. Ision

    Ision Master

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    452
    "How about three tables: Warmonger - Builder - Overall"

    sounds like a good idea - thanks. remember that my 'tier' system is a simple breakdown into 3rds... 1st tier = top 3rd of the civs = best, 2nd tier = middle 3rd of civs = avergae, 3rd tier = poor.

    "For every Tier. The Overall would be an average combined with a little personal bias."

    sorry - bad idea. having a 'tier' system at all is enough bias. to actually rank the civs numerically is far too biased. besides my primary intent with these reviews is to help new players. a precise numerical ranking could lead newbies to avoid playing a civ simply on my word.

    Thanks for the suggestions and the positive comment.

    Ision
     
  4. WarLust

    WarLust Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    54
    I agree - one of my favorite civs to use since I am a warmonger ;)
     
  5. PRIMEMOVER

    PRIMEMOVER Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    109
    Location:
    Colorado
    I have long been a fan of China for the reasons Ision stated above. The combination of militaristic, industrious traits, GA timing and the Rider is unmatched among Civs in all of CivIII, PTW or C3C. The observations set forth regarding the Rider are dead-on!

    I play China almost exclusively, having dabbled with France and Persia on rare occasions. I've gained victories with every condition save culture and conquest at the Regent level (I avoided the last two because, frankly, I found the other victories to be relatively easy and am looking for a greater challenge now!)

    If you've never played with China, I highly recommend giving them a try. While it's ability to make war is evident, I take issue with them being termed an "average at best" builder civ simply based on the fact that the industrious trait allows workers to work quickly and efficiently and when used in the right way, China's industrious power can be used in any given manner.

    If you prefer to build and are only an occasional warmonger, simply organize your work force to develop cities appropriately. The same shields produced for military purposes en masse by Chinese industry can also be used for more peaceful purposes if one so chooses.

    I wasn't a natural warmonger when I began playing CivIII, but quickly learned how with China. It's easier to go to war when you're numericaly superior military-wise. I set my sights on Republic and it's all down-hill from there.

    With factories and hydro and coal plants in each of my cities, I'm churning out tanks and infantry every 2-3 turns in most cases. By stacking 20-30 units (tanks, mech inf.) I race for the capital under the guise of a RoP and pillage all roads leading to the internal collapse of a rival's ability to match me in production...it's simply a matter of time at that point. It's devastating and oh so fun!

    I look forward to putting this to the test at higher levels as I've mastered Regent level (with China anyway) and have moved up to Monarch.

    Thanks Ision...I had been looking forward with great anticipation to your assessment of China, being one of the few, it seems, big China fans out there.
     
  6. ybbor

    ybbor Will not change his avata

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    5,773
    Location:
    Chicago Suburbs
    :goodjob: nice one!

    i've said it before and i'll say it again

    i haven't heard from ision lately, i hope his next review comes soon, so who's next [i've said this before and i'll say it again, everyone asks you that, so just put it at the bottom of your guides]
     
  7. Commander Bello

    Commander Bello Say No 2 Net Validations

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,794
    Location:
    near Koblenz, Germany
    Ision,

    to some points of your revision I cannot agree.
    You mention the effect of the workers as being good for the military. Although they may build roads quicker than others, once those roads are layed, this particular benefit is gone.
    Even for China, a certain unit will move 3 tiles per mp. Period. No speed bonus anymore.
    The same stands true for your comment regarding the commerce generated by the roads.
    Then you mention the perfectly timed GA. Obviously, you see it triggered by the UU. To do so, means war. If you are at war, you have to spent a significant percentage of the benefits from the GA for your military. Even with the Chinese Rider you are expected to suffer losses, so have to build replacements for them. Those shields won't go into the many wonders, you see rising in the Chinese cities.
    Next, you mention the large empire the Chinese are supposed to be able to build. The reasons you give for that stand true for any other industrious civilisation as well.
    Personally, I would regard the combination of industrious and agricultural traits for that purpose much more important.
    The Chinese Rider for sure has some potential due to his speed. But as soon as he finally meets the wall-protected city with fortified Pikemen, maybe supported by Catapults and or Longbowmen, odds are against him.
    So, I have to state that according to my point of view a lot of your major points don't stand true.

    Perhaps you should check the potential of the Mayans against the potential of the Chinese, and then go over your revision once again....
     
  8. Kaboth

    Kaboth Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    454
    Location:
    Shellharbour, Australia
    Naturally this is true for any UU initiated golden age. Solution initiate the GA on some far flung civ that is unlikely to cause you to much problems. This is particularly useful on Pangia maps. If necessary obtain MA so closer civs won't become problematic. Also note that the riders 3 movement make it one of the best UU for attacking some far-flung civ. Just some ideas. CPU tends not to be good at transporting troops on archipeligo maps in my exp so GA can be initiated quite safely on those maps also.
     
  9. Commander Bello

    Commander Bello Say No 2 Net Validations

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,794
    Location:
    near Koblenz, Germany
    Kaboth,

    I agree to your points. All of them are valid.
    Nevertheless (and that stands true for any unit-triggered GA, of course) if I have to make certain provisions for my GA to come, then I limit myself in a certain way.
    How deeply those limitations will impact my game will be dependant on the situation of course. May almost not hinder me at all, or may restrict me severely.
    All I wanted to state is that a GA by means of war just will have some cons besides all the pros. For that, I for my person like the wonder-triggered GAs much more.
     
  10. downwithgravity

    downwithgravity Zen Rocker

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2003
    Messages:
    586
    Location:
    Lawrence, Kansas
    another stellar review. who's next, Ision?
     
  11. Ision

    Ision Master

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    452
    Commander Bello,

    With all due respect, based on your comments I do not believe you are familiar with standard Chinese play. I will take your objections point-by-point.

    "You mention the effect of the workers as being good for the military. Although they may build roads quicker than others, once those roads are layed, this particular benefit is gone. "

    Industrious workers are the perfect compliment to a military strat. Faster roads = better mobility and faster reinforcements, faster mines = more early shields, therefore more units faster. Warmongering is primarily a numbers game. Have more than them faster, and you will usually win out. There’s no magic here. Nothing helps getting more units faster than roads, shields and commerce - and all of these are created by workers.

    "Then you mention the perfectly timed GA. Obviously, you see it triggered by the UU. To do so, means war. If you are at war, you have to spent a significant percentage of the benefits from the GA for your military. Even with the Chinese Rider you are expected to suffer losses, so have to build replacements for them. Those shields won't go into the many wonders, you see rising in the Chinese cities. "

    The best GA for any warmonger is one that occurs during a major military campaign - it helps ensure his victory. This is just common sense. Also, your absolutely correct, those shields won't go to wonders - that is a complete waste of time - they will go into the military that will TAKE those wonders by force. While your neighbor spends 400 to 600 shields on wonders you will spend them on the military. The net result is that you expand your empire, expand your military, and get the wonders anyway. Simple.

    "Next, you mention the large empire the Chinese are supposed to be able to build. The reasons you give for that stand true for any other industrious civilisation as well. "

    Uh - no. Firstly, on average the better warmongering CIVs have the militaristic trait. Yes there are exceptions and you named one of them - the Mayans. I noticed you did not mention France, Egypt or Carthage - also Industrious CIVs - and also by FAR nowhere near the top 15 as warmongering CIVs. Industrious does compliment warmongering - no doubt - that being the case, it is obvious that combining it with Militaristic makes it stand out above the others. Lastly, large empires can be created with ANY civ - the question at hand is that some Civs can get that large empire faster and easier than others - that’s what makes them superior warmongers. Yes I can rule the world with Egypt or Carthage - but on average I will take that world far faster with China, the Mongols, the Celts, the Persians, the Japanese................

    "The Chinese Rider for sure has some potential due to his speed. But as soon as he finally meets the wall-protected city with fortified Pikemen, maybe supported by Catapults and or Longbowmen, odds are against him. "

    yes, and the german panzer will stand no chance against mech infantry- and the sipahi will be crushed by tanks - and the Immortal will lose to ................. ect..... Every UU meets its match sooner or later - that is obvious. Did you say the Rider has “some potential” – you must be joking, right? The Rider is dominant for a long time and at the perfect time. Hands down among the top 5 of the 31 UUs in this game.

    From reading your posts it appears that you are a little addicted to wonders - the link below may help you out with this problem.

    The 4 rules of wonder addiction

    Ision
     
  12. Kaboth

    Kaboth Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    454
    Location:
    Shellharbour, Australia
    To be fair Bellos comment was using units from a similiar/earlier time period than riders for effective defense rather than vastly superior and much later researched tanks vs siphaphi.

    Once you leave ancient age cities get larger populations which in turn makes higher % to defense ratios. I like to use early middle age GA's to mass tons of trebuchet for base bombardment just watch you don't destroy any wonders. Remember also riders are fast and so can run back most of the time if losing a battle. This limits losses; better than using medievil infantry at least.

    Did you decide whos next Ision?
     
  13. Longasc

    Longasc Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,763
    I do not think Bello is addicted to wonders, but perhaps he felt you generalized too much, Ision.

    But this was not a comparison between Civs, e.g. Mayans and Chinese, for warmongering, it was just pointing out the advantages of the combination militaristic + industrious.

    I think the Rider comes at the right time for a GA, this was a point that I did not understand.

    Sure, you can delay your GA everytime by not building your UU or wonders connected with it, but... the Rider is usually available at the ideal time, and it has a definitive advantage over other units of its time. It is not the only unit of course that has advantages in THEIR timeframe, e.g. the infamous Sipahi.

    Industrious being well suited for a large empire... that's true. I think Commander Bello wanted to say: "... and agricultural is even better!!!"

    I think you should know him from reading here, is advanced enough that is somewhat insulting to send him to the the Rules of Wonder addiction. :)

    I think Commander Bello got into comparing different civs what Ision did not - he just reviewed the Chinese traits and gave them a ranking in the end, the only relatively direct comparison.
     
  14. Ision

    Ision Master

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    452
    Kaboth,

    His comments cannot possibly come from actual hands on expierence with China as a pure warmonger. The impact of the Rider at the time in which it arrives is enormous (that extra movement point of the Rider is nearly as huge as that 1 extra attack factor is to the Immortal)- the pikemen and long-bows that it will face are completely outclassed. The higher % of defense ratios is inconsequential due to the speed of the unit - the units ability to 'run back' as you say means a far higher survivability ratio which mitigates against a higher defense ratio. The larger cities and higher defense ratios are met by offensive units that have higher attack ratios and/or greater mobility. More importantly, it can by-pass the front line and attack the softer interior of the enemy - or draw the enemy out of their cities and destroy them piecemeal. Remember - this is a Rider in the hands of a 'human player' against the same low intelligence AI.

    "Did you decide whos next Ision?"................... the French

    PS: you cannot destroy wonders by bombardment
     
  15. Longasc

    Longasc Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,763
    Ision, you love the pink color? I did not play the French ever because... they are pink, the Chinese mostly, too.... :(

    OK, that was my very intellectual statement. ;)
     
  16. Ision

    Ision Master

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    452
    lol.......
     
  17. jm chen

    jm chen power lurker

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    109
    Location:
    on the dotmap
    I have only recently discovered the power of the early archer rush, and after playing that strat with five or six civs, China is the hands-down winner. I can often wipe three civs off a tiny world by 1000 BC with China. Cities build archers while workers mine, then road... to the next victim's doorstep.
     
  18. Commander Bello

    Commander Bello Say No 2 Net Validations

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,794
    Location:
    near Koblenz, Germany
    Ision,

    please allow me to respond to your comments.

    First of all, I don't mean any personal offense when stating that I might share a different point of view.
    Second, I appreciate the work you put into your articles and regard it as very honourable that you try to help others - maybe less experienced ones - by sharing your own experiences.

    That said, I feel to have the inherent right to have experiences of my own, which might cause different opinions on my side.
    Discussing either point displays the various approaches to others and might be helpful for them to find a way which suits them. For that, I replied to your article.

    Now, to what you replied on me.

    You said:
    Civ is about producing shields and commerce. Without shields, no production. Without commerce, no new techs, no upkeep, no upgrade, no nothing.
    For that, industrious workers fit perfectly to any other trait.
    I'm pretty sure that we share the same understanding about the importance of being able to develop a given territory quickly.
    Nevertheless, since you gave the remark about the relevancy of numbers, I would like to add that this may be accomplished in two ways. One of course is the efficiency of a given worker. The second way is the addition of workers to contribute to a given task.
    As I tried to make clear in my initial response, I completely agree to your statement, that roads are making units faster and will give you more commerce. No doubt about this at all.
    Nevertheless, as soon as a given road has been layed, it supports any trait with the same features, that is it offeres the enhanced speed and the additional commerce per tile. With irrigation and mining, it is just the same.
    For that, any at least average player will have roads across his country as soon as possible. At least, they will be connecting his towns and cities. From there to a given point at the border of his empire will be just 2 or 3 tiles. So, regardless of the trait combination, any player may be expected to share the same speed bonus for dislocating his military units.

    Although I agree that it helps any military campaign to be performed during the time of enhanced production and increased commerce (the GA), the reverse - as you seem to indicate it - is not correct, meaning that a GA doesn't call for a military campaign.
    Second, your estimation that you will get "those wonders" by your campaign is just not true - you *MIGHT* get them.

    As I know from your article "The four rules of wonder addiction" - to which I responded as you may see here - you are not a fan of being "addicted" to wonders.
    Nor am I. In my epic games I am constantly outraced for the one wonder or the other and for that I am perfectly able to live without them. But some, I will get.
    Regardless of one's personal attitude to wonders, they are just part of the game and provide you with means you just wouldn't have without having the particular wonder - or you would have them at much higher costs. So, wonders are useful and will benefit your game. The one a little bit more, the other a little bit less. No wonder will make you win the game automatically, no wonder will make you loose the game automatically (the later with admitting that for the "UN" or the "Manhattan Project" it might be seen differently).

    However, if your strategy is to get a certain wonder, a military campaign is not automatically the best means to get it at the right time. The success of that assumed campaign is very much dependant on variables which differ from game to game. As their are the relative strengths of your opponents, the location of the wonder relative to your homeland and so on.

    I have made the main sentence of that article appear in italics, since I absolutely agree to that statement.
    I think, it's just a question of "actio et reactio" or "what is the hen, what is the egg" (translated a German saying, there may be better expressions in English).
    As we both seem to agree upon, the larger a given empire is the better are the chances for it to be a good warmonger. Still, the question is what makes that empire being a great one? Hmm.. might be the size. Size causes productivity (not considering now corruption/waste effects due to size of the empire), as we all know.
    Nevertheless, a warmongering civ has to put a significant effort in keeping conquered cities calm and fostering them again to or even beyond original size. All of that counts versus the military capacity, since you need units to quell the resistance, to constitue martial law and safeguarding supply lines. Furthermore, significant amount of the economic power will go to rushing certain improvements in those cities. If you are under a pop-rushing government, this would call for even more military police.

    As Kaboth already pointed out - thanks, btw, to you Kaboth, for that! - *I* was comparing the Rider to units which are expected to be in place at his time. *You* compare units with opponents of the future.
    To compare apples and oranges is a common rethoric means... as long as nobody notices it.

    Furthermore, the Rider just is not dominant for a long time. With the same effort of getting the necessary tech for the Rider (Chivalry), somebody else could have got Invention (which isn't a dead-end tech, btw). From Invention to Military Tradition it is just 4 steps, then the Cavalry (or the Sipahi or the Cossack) enters the battle theatre.
    But even the Musketman already is a match, since it puts a defense value of at least 4.4 against the attack of 4. Given, that there might be some Knights around, even the retreat capability will not make the Rider immortal.

    First of all, as I have stated above, I am not addicted to wonders.
    Second, being capable to do both, building wonders and a great empire at the same time by no way is a "problem". At least, not for me.
    Third, indicating it would be a good strategy to abstain from certain principles of the game to improve the overall performance is a little bit like saying: "Learn, how to run on just one leg and you'll be better at the 110m hurdle race."
    As I've indicated in my reply to that posting of yours, it would have served your aim of helping others better to indicate that there is just not the *Very Wonder*, instead of condemning them at all.

    At the bottom-line:
    The Chinese have a good UU. Nevertheless, I think that there are better ones - for example the Mongol Keshik which isn't blocked by mountains and hills (and uses less ressources). On the other hand, the Arab Ansar Warrior seems to be a weaker unit.
    The Chinese have good traits as well. But even for warmongering I could think of a better combination, as industrious and agricultural, since this will make for an early great empire.

    I will agree, that under certain circumstances - which I feel you have taken as granted - the Chinese are a good choice for the warmonger.
    As being militaristic, this attitude seems very much pre-defined. The industrious trait just offers nothing in regards to alter any civilisation's alignement, but of course it helps any other trait it is combined with.
    So, if I were to play with the Chinese, I would certainly go for warmongering as well - as long as the game doesn't dictate otherwise.
    And this is, what I miss in your articles... You don't show alternatives to your opinion, but take everything as granted, fixed and unchangeable.
    Personally, I feel you are highly focused on one target. Such an attitude makes for high discipline and early achievement of your goals, so this in no way is meant as an offense. But, sometimes it might help at least to accept that there might be alternatives or side roads.
     
  19. Kaboth

    Kaboth Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    454
    Location:
    Shellharbour, Australia
    Actually you can and I am not the only one who has experienced it in a recent English game I used trebuchets to destroy both the Great Wall and the Sistine chappel. Some other people have expeirenced destroying the great wall. I posted about it a few weeks ago. It was beta 1.15 also I believe.

    Do you ever build musketman personally I'd rather have 2 pikemen for the cost of making 1 musketman. I use money to upgrade to them however.

    Ision, how exactly does this whole retreat ability work. It's not 100% chance to work even if your unit is losing, is it? How does the riders extra movement impact this? If a post already exists please point me to it.

    French; Industrios/commercial I was hoping you'd do them those traits seem quite complementary.
     
  20. Ision

    Ision Master

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    452
    Commnader Bello,

    It is not my intention to have an argument with you. So this will be the last post I will make on the subject. Let me address your points once again.

    “Nevertheless, as soon as a given road has been layed, it supports any trait with the same features, that is it offeres the enhanced speed and the additional commerce per tile. With irrigation and mining, it is just the same.
    For that, any at least average player will have roads across his country as soon as possible. At least, they will be connecting his towns and cities. From there to a given point at the border of his empire will be just 2 or 3 tiles. So, regardless of the trait combination, any player may be expected to share the same speed bonus for dislocating his military units”

    Every player will have the same speed bonus – but only a player that also has the militaristic trait will be able to produce his barracks faster – and in consequence his combat units faster. So while both the Chinese and the Egyptians will build the roads and mines at the same speed – the Chinese will produce more units from that same effort. All things being equal (number of cities, starting location, ect..)– China will have a larger military for the same effort than 90% of the other Civs. That is the nature of the Ind-Mil synergy.

    “Although I agree that it helps any military campaign to be performed during the time of enhanced production and increased commerce (the GA), the reverse - as you seem to indicate it - is not correct, meaning that a GA doesn't call for a military campaign. Second, your estimation that you will get "those wonders" by your campaign is just not true - you *MIGHT* get them.”

    With all due respect, I do not know what difficulty level you are playing on but I can state from my own experience that on average at Emp/Demi/ and Deity – if you do not initiate your GA by means of the UU – you may never have a GA at all! Especially with Civs that have pre-industrial UUs. So the choice is not one or the other – the choice in my last Demi game was to have an early GA or not to have one. Also, I believe in playing to a CIVs strengths – so when I play the Babylonians I tend to pursue a more peaceful/culture/ and ‘wonder’ oriented strat, but since the review was on China – I focused on the military strength. That said, on average – at any difficulty level- a player of a militaristic CIV is ‘usually’ better off ‘taking’ wonders than trying to ‘build’ them.

    “However, if your strategy is to get a certain wonder, a military campaign is not automatically the best means to get it at the right time. “

    My strategy is never to ‘get’ a wonder. Building or not building a wonder is a tactical decision. The strategy should be determined by your CIVs primary strengths and playing to them. The ultimate goal is to win the game in the shortest possible time and with the most efficiency. Getting a wonder may or may not help towards that ultimate goal – but on average with a militaristic Civ – like China – the wonder effort is far less effective than a conquest effort.

    “Nevertheless, a warmongering civ has to put a significant effort in keeping conquered cities calm and fostering them again to or even beyond original size. All of that counts versus the military capacity, since you need units to quell the resistance, to constitue martial law and safeguarding supply lines. Furthermore, significant amount of the economic power will go to rushing certain improvements in those cities. If you are under a pop-rushing government, this would call for even more military police.”

    Yes, and a peaceful wonder building empire must deal with neighbors that have larger militaries and may invade, the problem of luxury resources and strategic resources, and attempting to out race others to the ‘wonders’. Every strat has its own inherent obstacles. My point is that playing to a CIVs strengths helps minimize those obstacles. In Chinas case – where the strength is – is fairly obvious.

    “From Invention to Military Tradition it is just 4 steps, then the Cavalry (or the Sipahi or the Cossack) enters the battle theatre.
    But even the Musketman already is a match, since it puts a defense value of at least 4.4 against the attack of 4. Given, that there might be some Knights around, even the retreat capability will not make the Rider immortal”

    Firstly, AIs almost never ever beeline to Military Tradition – beelining is almost exclusively a human tactic. So the just ‘4 steps away’ is misleading. Secondly, the AI Civs do not have your advantages in strats like the dogpile – the feint – the artillery SOD – ect…. The Riders impact is far more long lasting than you state, but more importantly – the question here is where does the Rider stand in comparison to the other units of its approximate time period – the answer to that is simple: clearly superior. Let me put this another way – If you are going to be at war in the early middles ages – then it IS an advantage to be at war WITH the Rider – and few other UUs would be as efficient. Also you ignore the single advantage that the Rider has over all other UUs of its approximate time period: the Rider can penetrate 2-deep culture barriers and then attack the city all in the same turn! – this is a huge advantage! - far greater than any other up this point in the game with the single exception of the extra attack factor of the Immortal in Ancient Age.

    “First of all, as I have stated above, I am not addicted to wonders.
    Second, being capable to do both, building wonders and a great empire at the same time by no way is a "problem". At least, not for me.

    Doing both successfully at the same time is clearly indicative of a person playing at a level in which they are totally dominant. I too can do both at Regent or Monarch level. But, when I first went from Regent to Monarch – I was unable to do both with GREAT success – you must be a far better player than any that I have come across. I salute you.

    “Third, indicating it would be a good strategy to abstain from certain principles of the game to improve the overall performance is a little bit like saying: "Learn, how to run on just one leg and you'll be better at the 110m hurdle race."

    There are no ‘principles’ in a game. Principles are the realm of men. What there is in games are ‘options’. A player with China as a CIV has 3 options ” build, war, or both. If the player then applied his own ‘strategic principles’ to these options – most players would find that ‘war’ would be the best one with this CIV. As to your race analogy – My race with any CIV is to the shortest route to victory – I believe that it is you that has tied ‘one of legs’ – you tied it to wonder building – just because it exist does not help one in the race. Using China to win a culture victory is far less efficient than using them to win a conq/dom victory. The same is true of the Babs – but in reverse.

    “The Chinese have a good UU. Nevertheless, I think that there are better ones – “

    no - they do not have a ‘good’ UU – they have a ‘great’ one! There are 31 UUs in the game, name 10 better?

    “The Chinese have good traits as well. But even for warmongering I could think of a better combination, as industrious and agricultural, since this will make for an early great empire.”

    Perhaps so – but then my review was not of the Mayans - but of China. So, two points; of the 31 CIVs, is China among the top 33% for warmongering? – the answer is obvious. Secondly, when I do my review of the Mayans and speak well of them as a warmonger – I expect to see you lavish praise on my ‘great review’!! lol

    “I will agree, that under certain circumstances - which I feel you have taken as granted - the Chinese are a good choice for the warmonger.”

    No – they are on average a ‘great’ warmonger CIV! The word ‘good; does not apply to them in this context.

    “So, if I were to play with the Chinese, I would certainly go for warmongering as well - as long as the game doesn't dictate otherwise.”

    Really!! – lol

    “Personally, I feel you are highly focused on one target. Such an attitude makes for high discipline and early achievement of your goals, so this in no way is meant as an offense. But, sometimes it might help at least to accept that there might be alternatives or side roads.”

    Yes I am focused on one goal – winning. Other alternatives? Of course there are! But unless my reviews are to be as long as ‘war and peace’ I better stick to the ‘best’ alternative with each CIV! My review of the Babs focused on culture – of the Mongols on war – on the Greeks on Commerce – ect….. the reviews are ‘overviews’ and generalizations – they have to be! Otherwise it would take 400 pages!

    This is my last post on the subject of ‘China’ – I will now move on to … France.

    Sincerely, Ision
     

Share This Page