The most powerful military in the game.

What are you talking about? Keshiks are better than camel archers in almost every respect. They move faster, they gain levels faster, they generate great generals faster, and they can move after attacking just like camel archers. The only advantage camel archers have over keshiks is that they have a slightly higher ranged attack value. From a strictly military perspective, there's no contest; Mongolia is way better.

Of course, that amazing unit is pretty much the only thing you get with Mongolia. (Well... that & the khan that travels along with them.) With Arabia you get all sorts of nifty economic advantages. Plus the desert start bias.

Now you say slightly higher ranged attack value.
Keshiks are 15 :c5strength:16 :c5rangedstrength:
Camels are 17 :c5strength:21 :c5rangedstrength:

Thats roughly 33% more ranged strength for the Camels, i wouldnt call that slightly... Its a bigger jump than say longswords to musketmen.

I´ll take the Camels any day over keshiks :)
 
I'm going to be controversial. After my recent game as Portugal, I'd say either Portugal or Venice is the most powerful (I've yet to try full domination as Venice, but still...). For 2 reasons;

1 You have far more money than everyone else, ergo bigger army support.
2 Amphibious invasions are damn near unstoppable, as most civs are a sizeable army as well as a navy, as Venice and Portugal you have the luxury of only needing to invest in a handful of ground forces, whilst your extremely fast and manoeuvrable naval bombardment ships (and later aircraft carriers) can attack and defend with ease.

On the other hand, if you want to seize a capital that is deep inland, the requires far more effort, but is still very doable (especially with landsknechts) as you should have to gold reserves to buy entire armies if you need them.

In my experience a smaller better army beats a larger one (vs the AI anyway)

I'm sure were talking about england?

Longbows do get a defense bonus but Keshiks move 5 (move into range then withdraw), against Arabia you do have an advantage but only when trying to just hold ground. So the advantage lies with a more mobile force, ranged mobile units can even all fire from the same tile by using shoot and scoot.
 
How does everyone feel about Denmark?

I understand that their units are situational, but I think an argument could be made for them. I've found the mobility of their units to be the determining factor a number of times; especially impressive when considering that these are non-mounted units. The period of time their army operates in is also quite lengthy. They can field an impressive force with great utility from the Renaissance to late Industrial.

I can totally understand why they haven't been brought up yet; but, I'm curious as to what everyone thinks.

Along the same lines, what about Rome? I know their units come quite early, but no one rules the Classical Era quite like the Romans. Their armies are a force to be reckoned with even into the Medieval Era as well. If played well, most cities will have great production value. A good Rome player can crank out an army like nobody's business, and that makes them a threat throughout the entire game. Of course, science isn't their strong suit, so there's always a good possibility that they will face armies that out tech them. But, again, as was the case with Denmark, I'm curious as to what everyone thinks.

Lastly, I wanted to bring up Spain. They have the best melee unit of the Renaissance era in the Tercio. I know it loses its bonus vs. mounted units once it is upgraded to a Rifleman, but during the Renaissance it's a one-two punch unit that is effective in almost any situation. The Conquistador is an intriguing unit, too... even once it loses its ability to settle cities on distant lands. Yes, it's more expensive to build and has the same movement and combat strength as a Knight, which it replaces, and gets no defensive terrain bonus. However, it gets no penalty when attacking cities, embarks with defense, and has extra sight. I have been caught unaware by a Spanish army a couple of times, and the defeats I've experienced at their hands have been among the most humiliating. They field a very versatile fighting force in the Renaissance era.

Sorry it was so long! Thoughts?
 
Along the same lines, what about Rome? I know their units come quite early, but no one rules the Classical Era quite like the Romans. Their armies are a force to be reckoned with even into the Medieval Era as well. If played well, most cities will have great production value. A good Rome player can crank out an army like nobody's business, and that makes them a threat throughout the entire game. Of course, science isn't their strong suit, so there's always a good possibility that they will face armies that out tech them. But, again, as was the case with Denmark, I'm curious as to what everyone thinks.

Rome is pretty cool.
Just playing game with them.

What I most like is civs that are capable for war, but only have good economy.

That's the Rome. Units for early war and very cool UA, which if used properly will boost production a lot. Plus legions are backup for workers to build roads in peace time, freeing workers for more important task.

Now, their tech path is a bit different them optional. You'll be going iron working, maybe even up to steel, so whole writing, national college, education path will suffer.

Still, if you play your cards well, you'll compensate this with more cities.

I've just obliterated Mongols, during classical era. They didn't hooked up horses, in time. :D

P.S.
Legion and Chariot Archer army is pretty potent in classical era.
Ballistas are also nice, when taking capitols.
 
I should include a good war CiV here, its the Incan.
-Powerful UI give you food, but its is food exchange for production when Terrace farms are built on hills => strong production for every city.
-No Impr maintainance on hills = free gold from road + impr, its even better than amount of gold produced by Paper Maker.
-Double movement on hill = free Kilimanjaro promotion.
-The last 1 is annoying WBM promotion of slinger, one of the most underestimated promotion in the game, but it is really strong and annoying when its kept with upgrade.
 
I think personally, the flat out most powerful armies is Mongols and Germans in the earlier era's, up to medevil.

For the former, it's simply because the Horse Archers hit in the era which archers see the heaviest use. The ability to achieve complete map control by having an army that moves twice as fast as anyone elses in all land speaks for itself. It's even useful defensively as you can double back on yourself twice as fast to defend. Basically there is isn't an army that is quicker then Attia's hordes at this stage in the game, something which only really changes after the medevil era.

Germans is simple, you can build up a horde by capturing encampments. I personally don't like chance based abilities as it forces you to change your expections due to factors outside my control. Though this role has likely decreased dramamtically due to the removal of the cheap pikemen.

Other civ however are situationally better. Inca as mentioned before move redicously fast in any hill intenstive landscape (no early game Civ can really rival them assuming all other things are equal, meaning that any defensive wars will be beated with little loss) and can gain a huge amount of scouting intel due to not being bogged down in the early game.They also come with strong economical advantages due to roads, meaning that they can easily build the best road network of any civ.

They don't really need any UU's to be effective, with the slinger filling that spot rather nicely to give a good evade advantage on all types of land (ironically more useful off the hills and barbs really, since most humans will only run the minimun of melee units). Basically the Incans are actually my favourate Civ for general play, though none of the abilities actually directly contribute to a win con.

Rome is a simliar boat where it can play hyper aggressively early on. The only issue I find is Roman domience is highly dependant on a ready supply of Iron and due to machanics it's difficult to make a balienced army because you will still go predominately archers. Though I like the Legions ability to build forts and roads, I've used that on a few occations during peacetime and to set up some quicker routes for war.


Once it hits the medevil era though, I think things become much more clouded. Chineese crossbows, Camel Archers and long bows are the golden standard, though the latter edges it out since the range is a huge deal and basically enables you to replace your entire ground army with them, since once they upgrade to machine guns they don't really care what they are doing in melee or ranged since they are good at both.

Though that being said, theres a lot of decent UU's that hit in this era and the one after that fills nice rolls. Just the formentioned can win battles considerably easier.


After that, UU's lose their advantages really and it's more about the Civ(s) with the greatest economical edge and largest millitry. Germany's UU really hits hard, but really the game moves towards huge scale combat rather individual units.


The true answer? Babylon. If you win in science, you win with everything. XD
 
The true answer? Babylon. If you win in science, you win with everything. XD



I am not so sure about that, my strategy with the Mongols is to prioritise Chivalry and secure at least 3 horses (more is better). Because I go for Education later this often can result in being up to 10% behind in Literacy, but it doesn't matter the Keshiks upgrade very quickly. This means they remain a force until GW Infantry appear, at this point they are very ineffective against cities but Artillery and GW Bombers should be on the horizon and controlling 33%-50% of the map should ensure you have the resources.

A fully upgraded Keshik (I fill the Honor tree early) has March (with healing boosted by the Khan - not that you get damaged often), Logistics for 2 ranged attacks, and a Range of 3 as well as Cover 2. Once I see Riflemen it is time to prioritise Artillery/GW Bombers and then mothball those Keshiks as garrison troops in your many cities. Prior to that I build siege units to fill that role.

I would say the Mongol UU is good until the Modern era, I get around 100+ turns of good use out of them at standard pace on Emperor
 
I'll throw in another vote for China. The UA, UU and UB all synchronize very well for constructing large armies and going for conquest. China is also not dependent on strategic resources, which makes it a ubiquitous warmonger.

Regarding the Keshik vs. Camel Archer debate, I prefer Keshiks for the extra point of movement but Arabia as a whole is a better economic civ.
 
My earliest...and easiest total war monger mode victories came from Assyria. I Found the "one path to victory" strategy boring however and have not chosen them in a while. I have found both the Mongols and Huns to be lacking in total domination on standard maps and above with added civs than the norm. England on the other hand I shall always lean to as I have always said ..."give me three longbows and a warrior or three Ships of the Line and a longsword and the world is mine.

Happiness goes hand in hand with conquest...I just tend to get those synergies better with England than say the Huns and Mongols. IMHO
 
Top Bottom