Viability of Morocco?

[LordBalkoth]

It's quite disadvantageous actually:

You completely missed his point -- you can ignore the fact the UA exists and it plays like every other civ. It doesn't actively cause problems like the other four civs mentioned.

 

[stormtrooper412]

by the same token, you can ignore the disadvantages of other mentioned civs and play them out just the same:

India: go tall like you're supposed to.
Byzantium: don't use dromons for conquest and/or never build them
Iroq: the longhouse is better than a workshop until a cutoff point around the industrial era
Venice: they're the crappiest civ because of their gimmicky UA anyway

 

[Delnar_Ersike]

Remember, none of Morocco's uniques are disadvantageous: even if they don't really add to the civ, they don't take anything away. Even if gold and culture from trade routes is pointless, it doesn't make any trade routes worse than usual. Even if Kasbahs are pointless to build, they don't stop your from building the improvements you actually want to build on your tiles (eg. farms). Even if their cavalry UU's bonuses are kind of pointless, you do not have to build cavalry UU's and even if you do, none of those bonuses can ever be bad for you (it'll be like having a non-UU cavalry as opposed to a worse cavalry).

India: go tall like you're supposed to.

The problem isn't just the fact that they cannot go wide, it's that plopping down a new city gives 7 unhappiness instead of 4, making early expansion to those 3-4 Tradition cities even more difficult. The effect diminishes in the long run, but it's still a disadvantage. The fact that you have slower Chariot Archers also means that Chariot Archer rushes are a lot more difficult for India.

Byzantium: don't use dromons for conquest and/or never build them

Dromons are actually great for conquest because they're essentially like Chariot Archers of the sea, it's just that you cannot use them for conquest alone, you'll need to at least bring a land capture unit along somehow (or just use Dromons as a support unit for your land force). It's really only a disadvantage on island maps in Medieval Era, since your opponents can use Galleases with a Trireme capture unit while you have to awkwardly bring an embarked land capture unit along.
Another possible disadvantage is that their Horseman UU has less movement, worsening its ability to act as a capture unit, but being able to receive defensive bonuses essentially turns it into a blocker, so the fact that it is a worse capture unit becomes sort of irrelevant.

Iroq: the longhouse is better than a workshop until a cutoff point around the industrial era

This isn't necessarily true: the cutoff point depends on the number of worked forests you have around the city. Since other civs can chop those forests for hammers but you cannot because you're relying on them to eventually make up the production difference between the Longhouse and the Workshop, there not only is a cutoff point to Longhouses, but you also cannot make use of flat production from chopped forests. This is the sole reason a few civ tier lists place Iroquois among the worst civs in the game.

Venice: they're the crappiest civ because of their gimmicky UA anyway

They're not crappy because their UA is gimmicky, they're crappy because their uniques are not well thought-out. Austria's and Spain's UAs are gimmicky too, but that doesn't make them crappy. I've got a few ways that their uniques can be changed to actually make them viable (more control over puppets, swap Great Galleas for a Monument replacement UB that lets you generate GM's early, free GM from Optics changed to free GM in Classical Era, map spawns extra CS if Venice is in the game, Venice's start location is treated as if it were a CS to let it spawn near groups of CS's), but that's for another thread.

I also thought of a few more disadvantageous uniques:

• Spain's knight UU costs 15 more for the same combat strength. Sure, it's to offset how you can found cities on other continents with it, but if you never use that ability, you're basically getting a Mandekalu Cavalry (no city attack penalty, embarkation defense matches Songhai's UA) that costs 25 more , and the increased cost arguably makes the UU worse than knights.
• Inca's UU retreats from attacks, so they cannot be used to guard a civilian units, removing one of the most useful abilities of archers.
• Shoshone Pathfinders cost 20 more than scouts. Granted, they're pretty incredible, but the increased does mean that Shoshone can't build additional scouting units as quickly as other civs, and when that's all you're looking for and don't need either the extra strength or the ruins choosing ability, Pathfinders are worse than Scouts.
• Hun's Battering Rams cost 19 more , can only attack cities, have 3 lower effective combat strength on defense, and do not receive defensive bonuses from terrain. This means that if you're looking to use spearmen as regular combat units, Battering Rams are strictly worse than spearmen... though you're doing something wrong if you're looking to use Battering Rams as spearmen replacements rather than better, melee catapults. Still, I thought I should mention this, for completeness' sake.
• Korea's Hwach'as have 16 less effective combat strength when attacking cities than Trebuchets. Granted, neither is actually that good at attacking cities, and Hwacha's are better at pretty much everything else, but I thought I'd mention this for completeness' sake.
• Korea's caravel UU cannot be used for scouting or capturing cities across oceans like a regular Caravel. Like the Dromon though, the UU's combat strength is so huge that it's effectively a different role entirely, so the disadvantage has more to do with not having a Caravel instead of Turtle Ships being worse than Caravels.
• Siam's knight UU has 1 less movement speed than knights. Granted, their other bonuses more than make up for it, but if you really need that knight movement speed, you won't get it when playing Siam.

 

[Peter Sagan]

[*]Shoshone Pathfinders cost 20 more than scouts. Granted, they're pretty incredible, but the increased does mean that Shoshone can't build additional scouting units as quickly as other civs, and when that's all you're looking for and don't really need either the extra strength or the ruins choosing ability, Pathfinders are worse than Scouts.

[/LIST]

You don't need the ruins choosing ability? I think that choosing your ruins is an incredible OP feature. Immediately growing to pop 2, culture ruin for early SP, or upgrading to CB is extremely powerful early game.

 

[Delnar_Ersike]

You don't need the ruins choosing ability? I think that choosing your ruins is an incredible OP feature. Immediately growing to pop 2, culture ruin for early SP, or upgrading to CB is extremely powerful early game.

The promotion's effect diminishes as the number of ruins on the map dwindles. If you just need a cheap unit to defend your civilian units from barbarians as Shoshone, then your best choice becomes a 40 Warrior or Archer instead of other civs' 25 Scout.

Remember though, the list isn't about uniques that are always disadvantageous, it's about uniques that can be disadvantageous. Having a Scout UU that costs more than a Warrior can be disadvantageous, even if the Scout UU has a couple bonuses that are incredibly useful.

 

[stormtrooper412]

I definitely disagree. When you start as Shoshone, you kick out a Pathfinder and then the pair can just sweep the ruins and get the capital in really great shape really fast by alternating between culture and free pop and throwing in the tree tech in between. On a really good run, you can grab two of each and that's HUGE

 

[Peter Sagan]

I definitely disagree. When you start as Shoshone, you kick out a Pathfinder and then the pair can just sweep the ruins and get the capital in really great shape really fast by alternating between culture and free pop and throwing in the tree tech in between. On a really good run, you can grab two of each and that's HUGE

This. I don't know if it's because I play large/huge maps only, but I can always snatch at least 6 ruins. 2 free pops while building settlers, guaranteed early policy from t6, 2 CB's and a free tech, that's the beginning of really good game.

Also if you're lucky enough to find a ruin after t20, you've got a free pantheon..

 

[Delnar_Ersike]

I definitely disagree. When you start as Shoshone, you kick out a Pathfinder and then the pair can just sweep the ruins and get the capital in really great shape really fast by alternating between culture and free pop and throwing in the tree tech in between. On a really good run, you can grab two of each and that's HUGE

This. I don't know if it's because I play large/huge maps only, but I can always snatch at least 6 ruins. 2 free pops while building settlers, guaranteed early policy from t6, 2 CB's and a free tech, that's the beginning of really good game.

Also if you're lucky enough to find a ruin after t20, you've got a free pantheon..

Guys, you're missing the point: there exists at least one scenario where having Pathfinder replace Scout is a disadvantage. It doesn't matter if there are 1 million scenarios where having Pathfinders is better than having Scouts, so long as there is at least 1 scenarios in which it is worse, I added it onto the list for completeness' sake. For a unique to be disadvantageous, there must be at least one case where it is a detriment. If there is none, a unique can be irrelevant at worst, ie. it's like having no unique. In addition, a possibly disadvantageous unique can still be one that is not actually bad, since cases where it is disadvantageous are less significant and/or less frequent than cases where it is advantageous (Pathfinders and Battering Rams are the two obvious examples).

To put it in programming terms:

boolean function(Can Unique be Disadvantageous?)
{
    for (all possible cases)
    {
        if (case is disadvantageous)
            return true;
    }
    return false;
}

boolean function(Is Unique Disadvantageous Overall?)
{
    integer GoodCaseScore = 0;
    integer BadCaseScore = 0;
    for (all possible cases)
    {
        integer CaseScore = (calculate the relevancy and severity of the case)
        if (case is disadvantageous)
            BadCaseScore = BadCaseScore + CaseScore;
        else
            GoodCaseScore = GoodCaseScore + CaseScore;
    }
    if (BadCaseScore > GoodCaseScore)
        return true;
    else
        return false;
}

Remember, my argument is that none of Morocco's uniques are disadvantageous: none of them ever generate cases where having the unique is worse than not having it. As such, Morocco's uniques can be irrelevant at worst, so playing Morocco would be like playing a civ with no uniques.

 

[stormtrooper412]

That's a lot of wordy talky about what apparently is semantics on topics that we generally all agree on anyway, so I'm still unsure if I understand you.

I mostly play obviously a Tall Tradition game. It involves internal food caravans. If I send caravans out rather than in, I can't grow fast. So I'm playing a civ with such an UA that using it gimps me rather than buffs me. Therefore, I shouldn't want to use it. I call it disadvantage.

 

[Delnar_Ersike]

That's a lot of wordy talky about what apparently is semantics on topics that we generally all agree on anyway, so I'm still unsure if I understand you.

I mostly play obviously a Tall Tradition game. It involves internal food caravans. If I send caravans out rather than in, I can't grow fast. So I'm playing a civ with such an UA that using it gimps me rather than buffs me. Therefore, I shouldn't want to use it. I call it disadvantage.

... but having such a UA doesn't force you to use gold trade routes. That's kind of the point I'm getting at with my whole disadvantageous vs. irrelevant "semantics" (it's not semantics). Morocco's UA gives a bonus to something you wouldn't really use anyway. You can still not use the thing regardless of the bonus: getting culture from international trade routes does not force you to stop using internal trade routes. Having a cavalry UU does not force you to use cavalry units, you can still just go about your usual Tall Tradition game, using the rare Cavalry UU in the same way you would a regular Cavalry unit to the same effect. The uniques are irrelevant: they have no effect on the games you end up playing. A Tall Tradition game with Morocco would not be different from a Tall Tradition game with Polynesia on a map without oceans.
Polynesia on a landlocked map is the perfect example of irrelevant uniques: their UA has no effect when there are no units to embark, their UI cannot be built on a map without coast tiles, and their UU is about as useful as Morocco's UU. None of these uniques make the game harder though, so they are just irrelevant, not disadvantageous.

By contrast, the lack of +10% hammers on Longhouses is a disadvantage: if you don't have any forest tiles, it is worse than a non-unique workshop. Similarly, India's double unhappiness from number of cities makes their early game harder than that of a civ without uniques: while you can definitely offset it later once your cities start growing, you must work around the fact that settling a new city creates 7 unhappiness instead of 4. These uniques can be disadvantageous: they make the game harder by being there instead of just not affecting your game.

If you cannot tell the difference between an irrelevant unique and a disadvantageous unique, just compare a situation where the unique's bonuses do not apply to a situation without the unique. If the two are identical, then the unique is irrelevant. If the unique is worse than the non-unique, the unique is disadvantageous.
Morocco's uniques may not be relevant, but they certainly are not disadvantageous.

 

[reddishrecue]

The kasbah is ok but what is think ccould make Morocco a potential power are its cavalries that are unique and benefit within your borders. If a user has a good lead in science with tradition or liberty even, defending with these cavalries could be unique.

 

[Athenaeum]

Surprised so many people are knocking the Kasbah. The Kasbah is the only way to make flat, non-freshwater desert tiles worth crap, even with the Petra.

Also what some people probably forget, is that Morocco is also meant to be a defensive civ. The Berber Cavalry get a defense bonus in desert, and the Kasbah also gives defense bonus. And their UA gives other civs more incentive to leave you alone, to keep their trade routes with you. And people are more likely to send trade routes your way than other people, since they yield more.

Of course a lot of people on here trust their combat skills to be so godly that any defense bonus is negligible to them. But it's nice to have and better than nothing.



P.S. One thing a lot of people forget about trade routes is that they're competitive, just like the economy is in real life. If someone can get more yield sending a trade route to someone else than they can with you, they'll go elsewhere.

Morocco's UA (like the East India Company) gives people more reason to send their trade routes to you and not to other people instead.

In this way their UA might end up giving you more gold and culture than you immediately realize.

 

[Delnar_Ersike]

Surprised so many people are knocking the Kasbah. The Kasbah is the only way to make flat, non-freshwater desert tiles worth crap, even with the Petra.

Flat, non-freshwater desert tiles are still worse than most other tiles even with Kasbahs: it's more worth it to work a specialist slot than a flat Desert with a Kasbah. The only time this isn't the case is if you have Petra and Kasbahs, but otherwise those desert tiles are still about as useful as flat, non-forest tundra tiles.

Also what some people probably forget, is that Morocco is also meant to be a defensive civ. The Berber Cavalry get a defense bonus in desert, and the Kasbah also gives defense bonus. And their UA gives other civs more incentive to leave you alone, to keep their trade routes with you. And people are more likely to send trade routes your way than other people, since they yield more.

The defense bonus to their cavalry UU is not enough to make cavalry actually useful for defense. Cavalry's location in the tech tree makes it useful primarily for people looking to attack other players. If you're following a tech path that makes you need defense, you'll probably unlock Great War Bombers and Infantry before Cavalry.
The UA might increase the AI's chances to send trade routes to your city, but it doesn't really have much of a tangible benefit otherwise.

Of course a lot of people on here trust their combat skills to be so godly that any defense bonus is negligible to them. But it's nice to have and better than nothing.

The defense bonus isn't only why people aren't rating Berber Cavalry highly, it's the fact that it's a Cavalry UU instead of, say, a Knight UU. Cavalry have such a niche use that certain bonuses are just not useful for them (all the other Cavalry UU's are fine), and both friendly territory bonuses and desert defense bonuses belong to this category.

P.S. One thing a lot of people forget about trade routes is that they're competitive, just like the economy is in real life. If someone can get more yield sending a trade route to someone else than they can with you, they'll go elsewhere.

Morocco's UA (like the East India Company) gives people more reason to send their trade routes to you and not to other people instead.

In this way their UA might end up giving you more gold and culture than you immediately realize.

This is the case for the AI in singleplayer, but does not apply to human player trade routes. Food and production trade routes are just so much more useful unless you have negative gold, and the only reason the AI does not use them as much because 1) it's hardcoded to only ever have 1 food and 1 production trade route, and 2) it does not weigh the value of gold yields compared to food/production yields properly.

 

[Athenaeum]

Fair enough, I should have distinguished between single player and multiplayer. But on single player their UA does have non-negligible value, more than people give it credit for IMO.

 

[LordBalkoth]

That's a lot of wordy talky about what apparently is semantics on topics that we generally all agree on anyway, so I'm still unsure if I understand you.

I mostly play obviously a Tall Tradition game. It involves internal food caravans. If I send caravans out rather than in, I can't grow fast. So I'm playing a civ with such an UA that using it gimps me rather than buffs me. Therefore, I shouldn't want to use it. I call it disadvantage.

I've been disagreeing a *lot* with Delnar_Ersike lately about what tends to be pretty objective fact based stuff (not all of it, just saying this to mention that I think he's flat out very much wrong on several things).

But he's definitely correct in this case and it's not just semantics.

There's a significant difference between "a unit/ability/building doesn't have a relevant or significant bonus" and "a unit/ability/building has an effect that is actually flat off worse than a neutral Civ in some cases."

It's the difference between being able to simply ignore the bonus and having to work around the bonus (to avoid it screwing you up).

 

[stormtrooper412]

Fair enough. To me it's a disadvantage either way, working around a UA and flat out not fully utilizing the UA.

It doesn't change my point though, I find Morocco a fairly crap civ

 

[Kullervo]

Honestly, Morocco seems like one of those civilizations which sounds good on paper but just doesn't cut it in the actual game. The UA feels like it's supposed to provide a small early boost that you then develop into a mid/late-game advantage even when the boost itself becomes irrelevant. But unlike most such civs (that give an advantage that is small in the grand scale of things, but comes early enough to be crucial, such as the Shoshone; their bonuses really aren't THAT huge, but they just come so incredibly early that they amount to a very strong start) Morocco just has too high an opportunity cost. Even not factoring in internal trade routes... I've had very good games where I had barely any internal trade... just building enough caravans to make the bonuses relevant is such a high cost. As for the UI... it's not bad, it's just surprisingly lackluster for what it does. Don't get me wrong, it can make desert tiles not just bearable but beneficial. It's just that it's not quite enough unless you get a good amount of decent land.

TL : DR, it feels like you have to go out of your way to make Morocco's uniques work. They're not bad, but every advantage you get from them can basically be replicated better by someone else.

 

[CraigMak]

The Kasbah is a great tile improvement and fun to use. If you get petra the Kasbah is epic. Their UU can be very strong as well and not ever worse than normal. Their UA I find to be completely irrelevant because anyone who isn't completely noob sends trade routes only to themself for food or hammers.

 

[Navelgazer]

Morocco has been one of the strongest civs to play with, in my experience, actually. At higher difficulties, it would seem, the real difficulty is in getting it built up to its rising age. You want your first caravans to help build up your early cities, and the berber cavalry come too late to defend until those trade routes can open to others and make use of the UA. The UI is solid, but only if you've got a lot of desert to play with and then you still really want Petra, which is tough on higher difficulties. So yeah, on Immortal and above, that's tough, but if you can manage it, they're a monster.

Let's look at the Economic Civs:

Venice: The most purely economic, and the most vulnerable and tricky to use.
Portugal: Very rich if played right, with a great (if sometimes maddening) UI, but no actual military UU.
Netherlands: Decent-ish UA if you can manage to use it right at all, cool UI but dependent on the rarest land-type, good UU but dependent on naval warfare with a civ not otherwise at all built for war.
Inca: Saving money is making money, and they save tons of money from very early on until the very end. Possibly the best UI, and a UU that, while nothing to write home about, still helps out in the early stsges.
Arabia: Oh, well, you know, we just thought it'd be cool if one civ was clearly best, you know? I mean, aside from Poland.
Morocco:Get land, hold land. Get money, use it diplomatically. Get more money than everyone else because other civs want you around. In theory.

 

[Navelgazer]

This isn't necessarily true: the cutoff point depends on the number of worked forests you have around the city. Since other civs can chop those forests for hammers but you cannot because you're relying on them to eventually make up the production difference between the Longhouse and the Workshop, there not only is a cutoff point to Longhouses, but you also cannot make use of flat production from chopped forests. This is the sole reason a few civ tier lists place Iroquois among the worst civs in the game.

Not the sole reason: Hiawatha's UA also depends upon unchopped forests. So does Boudicca's, obviously, but she gets her sizable advantage (guaranteed first pantheon and probably a guaranteed religion as a result) before those forests would be chopped anyway). Iroqouis is seen as the worst for many reasons.

But yeah, a unit can be powerful, even OP, and still have a drawback. This is, in fact, built into the game as balance in most cases. The Dromon, for instance, is easily the best thing about Byzantium, but it still has a drawback. And the Kris is one of the single best UUs in the game, but a good many people still can't look past the small possibility of a negative promotion.