What civilization do you think will be the most powerful?

[Tarkhan]

Start area and map type also factor in, and you dont know them until game start.

If your UU is naval, well playing a map with no seas will disadvantage, while playing an archipelago would give you an advantage.

 

[LegioCorvus]

Math is Fun!

Since EACH happiness building will provide a bonus empire wide, we can assume that Rome's ability will be powerful. Besides, can you say library spam?

We already know that libraries give +1 for every 2 citizens. However, recent screenshots have shown that forest tiles produce 2 . (The current assumption is that this is the default, though it may be building enabled, as jungle gets 2 with the University). So, with buildings having maintenance costs, you have to judge whether it is worth 1 per turn in that city for the return on investment.

2 citizens? 1 for 1 per turn. Meh.
4 citizens? 2 for 1 per turn. Better.
And so on.

Obviously, it will probably be worth it to build a Library in the capital (Rome) and the 25% bonus will help all cities if/when you decide to build a Library, but it doesn't seem to be the "A++ building spam" ability people think it will be.

Take Courthouses, another example people have been using. Courthouses now reduce unhappiness in occupied cities. If you don't have any occupied cities, or don't plan to occupy any anytime soon, then they probably aren't worth the X per turn to keep them running. Happiness is also an empire wide modifier now, rather than unique to each city. (This is because excess goes toward golden ages and other reasons).

So, once again, building a Courthouse in the capital first will help when you decide to start building a bunch of them (before a war or something), but you're going to shoot yourself in the foot financially if you just start spamming buildings.

 

[Lyoncet]

However, recent screenshots have shown that forest tiles produce 2 .

Assuming you're talking about this screenshot, it was pretty well established that those are actually jungles, which give +2 with a University. Between providing research, a little food, and a production increase with a lumbermill, forests would be way too good.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[12agnar0k]

Factual data like…

Most of that data is already known by everyone willing to look for it, I know enough data to make calculations, and my brain does not need me to write down 1+1 to know it equals 2, similarily, I don't need to write other stuff down either to work things out. You don't have to believe me when I say that Russia has the most powerful UA, I do wish you would stop randomly throwing insulting text my way however.

 

[bjbrains]

Most of that data is already known by everyone willing to look for it, I know enough data to make calculations, and my brain does not need me to write down 1+1 to know it equals 2, similarily, I don't need to write other stuff down either to work things out. You don't have to believe me when I say that Russia has the most powerful UA, I do wish you would stop randomly throwing insulting text my way however.

Ha ha ha. What, you're being serious? He's not insulting you, he's pointing out the flaws in what you are saying. The entire idea that you can judge what is most powerful without ever having touched the game or even seen all the UUs/UBs (since the relevant balance question is about all 3 of civs uniques) is laughable.

 

[12agnar0k]

Actually I said Russia's UA (Unique Ability) was the strongest, I dont know what all the UU's are so I can't pretend to know what will be best.

He was being insulting, he was insuitating that I thought I was a messiah. While although true was still used with malice rather than as a compliment.

 

[bjbrains]

Actually I said Russia's UA (Unique Ability) was the strongest, I dont know what all the UU's are so I can't pretend to know what will be best.

He was being insulting, he was insuitating that I thought I was a messiah. While although true was still used with malice rather than as a compliment.

The way you talk is what is provoking his response - You're approaching arrogance in the level of un-justified self-assured responses like "I know it is the best".

I can say "I think the Greek UA is the best, and my math proves it". But if that's all I say, then it's meaningless.

 

[Set]

calm please before moderators close this nice thread because of trolling

 

[12agnar0k]

No, not meaningless, it just means your maths is incorrect if thats the conclusion you came to as we are discussing what is the best militaristic power and not what power would be best for diplomatic UA's. Thus Greek with a diplomatic city-state trait would not win the "most militaristically powerful ability" contest. Russia would win it, but thats is just my personal conclusion.

I wasn't provoking him, he asked a question and I told him the correct answer.
I can't help it he didn't think the answer was sufficient.

I agree with Set, theirs no need to discuss this issue further, I reported the post for being insulting and the moderators will decide whether or not it was, no need to debate it.

To go back to the threads subject matter.

Russia has the most powerful Civ Ability because its 2x the number of Horses & Iron will allow it to build more strategic units than any other Civ. This will give them flexibility, where another Civ would only have 5 Iron and have to choose between 5 longswords or 5 trebuchets or a mix of both, Russia with 10 Iron from the same number of sources can bolster 5 of each. This will give it the edge in combat/army size & make up, all the way till the industrial era, Where it will be bested in the previously mentioned features by Arabia, till Uranium comes about and then again Russia will have dominance with nukes or GDR's which will lead to ultimate victory.

 

[Lyoncet]

He was being insulting, he was insuitating that I thought I was a messiah. While although true was still used with malice rather than as a compliment.

No, I was implying that being able to judge that Russia's UA was the best without having most (or all) of the information I listed was akin to turning water into wine (a miracle). Which it would be.

It seems like you're not interested in defending your statements since you haven't provided any links to this information you claim to have, but I'm sure you'd be the new AriochIV if you could find hard numbers on even half of what I mentioned since nobody else on these forums seems to know either. So have at it!

I mean, you gave us this,

Russia has the most powerful Civ Ability because its 2x the number of Horses & Iron will allow it to build more strategic units than any other Civ. This will give them flexibility, where another Civ would only have 5 Iron and have to choose between 5 longswords or 5 trebuchets or a mix of both, Russia with 10 Iron from the same number of sources can bolster 5 of each. This will give it the edge in combat/army size & make up, all the way till the industrial era, Where it will be bested in the previously mentioned features by Arabia, till Uranium comes about and then again Russia will have dominance with nukes or GDR's which will lead to ultimate victory.

Which is a fair analysis, but I don't see any calculations other than 5x2=10 or any of the wild cards that I brought up and you said are out there for people who are willing to look. If you want to back up your argument with "I think it's the best because of these anecdotes" (like above) that's cool, but don't claim to back it up with hard numbers and then provide that as your substantiation.

 

[12agnar0k]

Oh I wasn't providing my calculations there, just a random sum up of why Russia will be better, if you wish to learn all the in's and out's of the games mechanics their is plenty of information to be anaylised from screenshots and videos. Most of your list however would not actually change whether or not Russia's ability would be better than another Civ's, your list contained information that would be useful to know in building and maintaining an army, upgrading and improving it, healing and distributing it, however none of this actually has an affect on will Russia's ability be better than say Japans or Greeks. With the one exception of "maintenance" whereby can a player support all the extra units you will be able to build with Russia's ability, which is key in it being powerful, no point having 100 Iron units if you can only maintain an army of 20. But thats more about developing your economy correctly, i.e more trading posts = more gold = more maintenance support than it is about how effective Russia will be. Suffice to say, if you can manage an economy better than another player, it doesn't much matter what your Civ is, you have an advantage because your a better player. But what we are here to find out is which Ability is better in terms of power, and I have concluded this is Russia, and really all I need for proof on this respect is that "Russia will have 10 longswords where another Civ will have 5 longswords, Their is no ability where "Civ X's 5 Longswords will be better than Russia's 10", Japan's ability comes close, but alas Russia is the most powerful. Atleast in... The Ancient through to Industrial Era, where Arabia will become the most powerful (IF it wasn't crushed in its infancy) and then Russia will either overtake or catch back up (if it was even overtaken in the first place, the power dominance in the first stages can lead to a massive economic lead negating Arabia's Oil power,) In the late modern era when nukes/gdr's will be Russia's strong point.

 

[The_J]

calm please before moderators close this nice thread because of trolling

Moderator Action: Follow this advice!

 

[Venereus]

You're thinking too small. Civ power is defined by much more than it's army size. Of course, if you have a strong economy that allows you to field the larger army your extra resources provides, you'll have an advantage. But then, how is Russia different from a civ that, despite having half of Russia's strategic resources, has a UA that improves economy and/or city-states relations? In the end, they could both end up fielding an army of the same size, because the allies of the non-russian civ will make up for Russia's extra resources. And then we can just call Diplo into the equation, and all calculations can go to hell.

 

[StStutter]

... Agnar, let's walk through this step by step. Do you believe quantity of strategic resources will always be what limits the size of your army?

 

[PinkHammurabi]

So uh, I voted the Aztecs...

bj and Lyconet.. how have you not learned from my mistakes?

 

[rah]

depending how you look at it.
Assume one side has only 2 irons While the other side has 8
So one side has two longswordsman and the other side has 8
The number of OTHER troops the one side needs to counteract the additional 6 more powerful units could be quite large. More than the amount you could comfortably support.
So in a way you might say it limits the size of your army.,

 

[Venereus]

So uh, I voted the Aztecs...

bj and Lyconet.. how have you not learned from my mistakes?

All I know about the Aztecs is that I'll be very, very afraid of them when I realize, as expected, that Monty's AI plans to take full advantage of their UA.

 

[Thormodr]

Yes, it is simplistic to think that just because a nation has the potential to field an army that is twice the size of a certain opponent means they will always dominate. A smaller empire with a good defensive position will be able to hold off Russia and tech faster (thereby getting to more advanced units quicker) and more or less negate this bonus. Especially if that small nation has a few city state allies. Fielding a huge army could crash your economy as well. Not to say that Russia won't do very well sometimes of course but there should be a reasonable balance.

In my opinion, Greece will be the most powerful Civ because it is extremely flexible. City States will be the big wild card and Greece is best able to exploit them.

 

[Lyoncet]

Most of your list however would not actually change whether or not Russia's ability would be better than another Civ's, your list contained information that would be useful to know in building and maintaining an army, upgrading and improving it, healing and distributing it, however none of this actually has an affect on will Russia's ability be better than say Japans or Greeks.

I'm not bringing this up to continue the same argument (well, sorta, but not entirely), but to bring up a point I think a lot of people miss. How much of an influence resource-consuming UUs will have on the game is hugely dependent on the proportion of reasonable CiV army size to availability of strategic resources. To make the relation very clear, the strength of the Ballista as a UU will be very different depending on whether classical-era armies are made up of 10 units as opposed to 200 (I know that's way inflated, but just for the sake of the argument). 5 ballistae supported by 5 legions will be a terror if at that point armies are made up of around 15 units; 5 ballistae and 5 legions will be a pittance of a UU if each side has fielded 50 troops by that point. Same goes for how much iron you can expect to have; if you can expect to 5 iron deposits (it's 5 iron per node, right?) at that point, you'll be godly; if you'll probably only have 1, not so much.

That's why it's so hard to gauge the power of resource-dependent UUs (and UUs that eliminate a resource dependence and special abilities that bolster strategic resources). Incidentally, that's why all of the army-building and army-size variables are completely relevant in how good Siberian Riches is going to be as an ability.

Not holding out much hope for those calculations though. Still, I don't really care that much other than for the sake of not having to think you were pulling stuff out of thin air to bolster your argument.

 

[12agnar0k]

... Agnar, let's walk through this step by step. Do you believe quantity of strategic resources will always be what limits the size of your army?

I didn't say that, The quantity of strategic resources will always be what limits the size of your strategic forces inside your army. (Not the army as a whole)
Though this has further implications, (ignoring "free" UU's which can be as powerful as a Strategic Unit for a minute, because we don't know all the UU's yet so it's hard to factor them in,) The Strategic Unit's are stronger than the "free" ones, so even if the enemy has 5 strategic units and 5 free units, your 10 strategic units still bolster superior strengths, take for example, medieval longswordsman (1 Iron) compared to rennisance Musketmen ("free"). So having more Strategic Assets is still a good bonus even if the other Civ maches you for economic support of troops.

bj and Lyconet.. how have you not learned from my mistakes?

Incidentally, that's why all of the army-building and army-size variables are completely relevant in how good Siberian Riches is going to be as an ability.

Yes to a point, If you can't economically support the same number of troops as an enemy, or in Russia's case you will want to be able to support more troops to make full use of strategic resources, then you will struggle to win fights. Also it depends just how many resources you are lucky enough to get, having just 1 source of Iron won't be much good (btw the units of resource from a source vary from 2 to 6 I believe), although if an enemy civ has the same bad luck, your bad luck still leaves you with twice his number of resources. I'm quite confident you will be able to fully utilise your strategic resources available to you for the most part, unless you have a garganteoun empire. But yes, their are factors that limit Siberian Riches effectiveness, but I still think it will be very powerful if not the most powerful most of the time.
Again I will state, it's hard to gauge which Civ is truely the most "powerful" as we don't even have all the UU's statistics. Which will be key in this testament of their power. But for now we can only decide what UA is the most "powerful" which I will just assume we all agree we are talking about military power, otherwise say Greece would be the most "powerful" for a diplo victory e.t.c, but yes as for UA, in my opinion the most "militaristically powerful" will be Russia.