What civilization do you think will be the most powerful?

[Lyoncet]

I'm really, really looking forward to Greece, even if they kept up with the lamentable leader choice. Not quite the early rush power of Rome, military expansionist power of Songhai, or totally crazy Bushido Code ability, but between being able to get a firm lead with Phalanx and Companion Cavalry love: for finally putting those guys in there!) and an utterly abusive special ability, it seems like it would be tough to knock them off their early lead, which could easily end up with a diplo victory. I suppose the various city-state bonuses could be used for any win in theory, but since they carry as much weight as any civ in the UN, that seems like the easiest way to leverage the trait. However, it seems like against human players the Hellenistic League SA won't be as good since a savvy player could just go around sniping the more influential city-states.

And actually, on top of that let's not forget that Phalanx only fall short of Swordsmen by 2 strength and don't require a resource in addition to countering cavalry. That could really bolster a resource-strapped army. And while we don't know the hammer cost for the two, it's even possible that a Greek army could forgo swords all together (which, I guess, would make sense from a historical perspective).

Other than that, Rome and Russia do seem like powerhouses and I've got to say that while I was hoping for a more modern industrial/military powerhouse Germany, I'm liking how Furor Teutonicus is shaping up with the likely increased prevalence and power of barbarians late into the game.

As for an entirely different set of strengths, Arabia looks like it could be an absolute monster depending on how much that trade bonus amounts to. Plus, it looks like while their UU has slightly lower strength than that it replaces, it may be the only in the game that can attack from a range and retreat (may be wrong on that one though, but pretty certain it's the only one in that era), which could be really, really exploitable along with the fact that the speed and range essentially nullify the unit's one hard counter. And if it ends up not requiring resources… *shudder*

(Plus, it would be nice to see an Arabia that's actually good.)

 

[craig123]

I voted England, mainly out of hope that navies will dominate. And also out of patriotism - I felt sad seeing England with just one vote and France with four. "Vote for England. Together we can beat the French!"

 

[Dragonflow]

I find it interesting that two UA require barbs to function, this probably means that we will have to deal with a large amount of barbarian invasions. I really hope that there will be a decent amount of barbs throughout the, otherwise the German and Ottoman UA would be pretty useless.

Edit:
Looking at the poll, it seems that Rome and Russia are really loved by the community.
Poor Persia, nobody understands how Darius is going to conquer everybody during his golden ages.

 

[rah]

I voted Egypt because of the game mechanics.
Faster wonders. There are no maint costs for wonders so they will be more desirable.

Three concepts dominate the game.
Happiness
Culture
Economy.
Their UB provides Happiness and culture with no maint. WIN WIN WIN.

And an Early mobile ranged UU that doesn't require a resource. WIN.

 

[cccv]

However, it seems like against human players the Hellenistic League SA won't be as good since a savvy player could just go around sniping the more influential city-states.

I wouldn't worry about that. A human player isn't going to try to kill a city state that is highly friendly with Greece unless he wants to go to war with Greece (and possibly another civ or two who is also friendly with the city state). So really, it'd be no different than any other "try to kill them before they build a ship/build Utopia" strategy, aside from the fact that you'd probably be getting into several wars at once (we saw a screenshot where attacking a city state basically triggered a world war), so just attacking Greece themselves would probably be smarter.

 

[VainApocalypse]

Rome all the way! It's not enough to simply have a giant military or a little extra gold. The other civs are each going to be strong in single areas, but Rome is set to have an advantage in every aspect of the game!

 

[Celevin]

Against the Iroquois, I would just stick my own units in the forests on defense. It's not like they get an attack bonus in there, they'd have to defeat my (+50% defense) units to get to use their special ability. I don't think their bonus is so hot.

I wish I could change my vote to Persia now. Getting bum rushed by Immortals will probably hurt. Activating a golden age and getting bum rushed by movement 3 Immortals with +10% strength is just going to be painful. Then, later in the game, you need to put up with movement *5* Lancers.

 

[Lyoncet]

I wish I could change my vote to Persia now. Getting bum rushed by Immortals will probably hurt.

Does anyone know what the "3xadvantages" means for Immortals? It seems like it would mean they get three times the bonus against cavalry, or perhaps three times the terrain bonus, but both of those seem waaaaaaay too good to be true, especially with their +1 strength over normal spears.

Also, where are folks getting the info on UBs? well-of-souls doesn't have much on them.

 

[JonoLith]

Against the Iroquois, I would just stick my own units in the forests on defense. It's not like they get an attack bonus in there, they'd have to defeat my (+50% defense) units to get to use their special ability. I don't think their bonus is so hot

This assumes their Unique Unit doesn't get some kind of bonus to fighting in forests, or that there aren't upgrades that you can give units to fight better within forests, such as Woodsmen from Civilization 5.

Also, it's already working nicely, because it's forcing you to play your game differently to react to them.

I am hopeful.

 

[Calouste]

Does anyone know what the "3xadvantages" means for Immortals? It seems like it would mean they get three times the bonus against cavalry, or perhaps three times the terrain bonus, but both of those seem waaaaaaay too good to be true, especially with their +1 strength over normal spears.

Also, where are folks getting the info on UBs? well-of-souls doesn't have much on them.

I think it means they have three advantages (as deducted from the yellow point up triangles in a screenshot). One of them is most likely the general bonus against mounted that the normal Spearman has.

 

[Lyoncet]

I think it means they have three advantages (as deducted from the yellow point up triangles in a screenshot). One of them is most likely the general bonus against mounted that the normal Spearman has.

Ah, got it got it. Well that's pretty damn nifty in addition to the extra strength and strength/move bonus from your extra-long GAs. Perhaps I'll wind up with Persia to fill the hole in my heart that it looks like the Ottomans may leave.

 

[Geek113377]

It's warring, btw. and how much power a civ has really depends on the style of the person playing that civ.

 

[Sonereal]

Against the Iroquois, I would just stick my own units in the forests on defense. It's not like they get an attack bonus in there, they'd have to defeat my (+50% defense) units to get to use their special ability. I don't think their bonus is so hot.

But you're underestimating how powerful the ability is to a player and competent AI. The secret advantage to forests in Civ5 extends beyond just defensive boni (and possible concealment) but the fact that forests slow down units greatly crossing them. So, an enemy entrenched in a forest would not only be hard to hit head on, but hard to encircle.

But the Iroquois don't have this problem. In forests, they can get behind your troops much faster leaving the window of a counterattack small. So, unless you station a large force in the forest (which greatly ties down your military), forests are still pretty dangerous to fight in.

 

[Schuesseled]

I voted for russia, because i think its ability will be more generally useful, applying to lots of tactics. As to which is the most powerful?, bit hard to tell.

 

[Dragonflow]

But you're underestimating how powerful the ability is to a player and competent AI. The secret advantage to forests in Civ5 extends beyond just defensive boni (and possible concealment) but the fact that forests slow down units greatly crossing them. So, an enemy entrenched in a forest would not only be hard to hit head on, but hard to encircle.

But the Iroquois don't have this problem. In forests, they can get behind your troops much faster leaving the window of a counterattack small. So, unless you station a large force in the forest (which greatly ties down your military), forests are still pretty dangerous to fight in.

Wouldn't it actually be smarter to wait for the Iroquois to leave the Forests and meet them in the open field?
And if they don't leave bombard the forests with your artillery.

 

[Sonereal]

Wouldn't it actually be smarter to wait for the Iroquois to leave the Forests and meet them in the open field?

You lose your defensive boni doing that.

 

[Dragonflow]

You lose your defensive boni doing that.

You could still station your troops on a hill or behind a river.
But it seems the best way to defend against the Iroquois is simply to attack their homeland and not wait for them to reach you.

 

[Sonereal]

You could still station your troops on a hill or behind a river.
But it seems the best way to defend against the Iroquois is simply to attack their homeland and not wait for them to reach you.

That's the best way to defend against anyone.

Rivers aren't always reliable but hills+forts probably equal 75% compared to the 50% of forests so yeah.

You run into a problem though if forest is all you have on the border. Do you let them come into the interior or fight them in the forests? Any Iroquois unit+....any woodsman equilivant in Civ5 would be insanely powerful in that situation.

 

[Lyoncet]

I suppose a lot of this comes down to the Mohawk Warrior's traits. If they come with some sort of woodsman-like ability or other forest bonuses, they could be terrifying. Like keshik terrifying.

 

[Celevin]

I didn't say the Iroquois ability was useless, but does it really compare to many others? It's not "stronger in forests", it's "better forest move". And from what I've seen from the various promotions, it's much easier to make a unit *defensibly* strong in forests VS *offensively* in them due to how obscene the +50% defense bonus is.

If I want an almost only military ability, I'll take Bushido, or the Russian's better army. The Iroquois pales in comparision.