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

What do you think of... the Arabs?

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Strategy & Tips' started by Longasc, Jul 16, 2004.

  1. Longasc

    Longasc Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,763
    Besides their interesting harems, how about the C3C Arabs?

    Their Ansar Warrior is not rated without reason as a top tier UU, and Expansionist and Religious are strong traits, perhaps not the best combination of the two, but well...

    right now I am playing the Arabs. :)

    I will not talk more, just tell me, why do you think they are superb, mediocre, bad...


    Ision still has not told us the truth about them, so tell me, what do you think about them? :)
     
  2. Nad

    Nad Known Troublemaker

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,718
    Location:
    London, UK
    I like them. I think they're a good civ, but not brilliant.

    The Ansar is an excellent UU, no doubt. Religious is always a good trait, can be very useful to have cheap temples at all difficulty levels. Expansionist is dubious, it's a cliche to say it depends on the map. The Arabs are definitely fast starters with those traits, and then just when the advantages begin to fade at the end of the ancient age, when contacts have been made and government changed, they get their UU and a GA. I think the Arabs would be a very good civ for a fast conquest attempt.
     
  3. dze27

    dze27 Monarch

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    159
    Location:
    Ottawa
    I would probably rank them slightly above average, in the top half of the "second tier". Definitely the UU is very good and I like Expansionist. Religious is OK but I think it pairs better with Scientific, Commercial or Agricultural if you want to play for a Builder type victory. Religious does have a nice synergy with Expansionist in that you can fill in all your extra territory even faster with the cheap Temples. I don't think it stacks up with the Agr powerhouse civs like Maya, Inca, Celts and Iroquois but it's a solid civ.
     
  4. Longasc

    Longasc Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,763
    I agree, they get more or less of a headstart with Expansionist, cheap temples are handy, but agricultural and other traits are better partners.

    A good strategy with the Arabs would be to get a headstart in the Ancient Age, quickly get Monarchy/Republic and then get to Chivalry ASAP, before Pikemen are Standard and get replaced by Musketmen.

    Just rolled over the Celts, not even Musketmen defence could stop a combo of Ancient Cav (defensive Cannon fodder due to extra HP) and Ansars who were really good for defeating Knights on the battlefield when on the offense.

    I would say they are very good for defeating one or perhaps two civs at the beginning of the Middle Ages. Later you can build the libraries and cathedrals and improve your now gained vast amounts of land.

    I am just thinking of attacking the French, my mil power is "average" according to my Military Advisor. There is also a bottleneck continent so I would have an easy time defending whenthings get wrong. Conquered Knights Templar and the Sistine Chapel from the Celts, I also have Ancient Cav. I am tempted to go for total hegemony on the continent. Before the French get Cavalry earlier than me. :)

    IMO a nice builder civ for culture, but this is where Babylon rules. It's UU really cries for Jihad in the early MA.
     
  5. Gainy

    Gainy Guest

    ...By Ision. He isn't God ya know :p
    The Arabs are the best civ for the way I play. I usually go for 60% pangaea's on Emperor level, so expansionist is great. Free settlers/city/techs etc. The extra movement point for the UU is also rather nice, along with it costing 10 sheilds less (cheaper upgrades :))
    Religious basically gives you a 5 turn advantage over non-religious, at a crucial point in the game. Along with the cheap temples, you can't go wrong :)

    The Arabs are the best overall civ IMO.
     
  6. Longasc

    Longasc Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,763
    Ision is not God? :(

    Who was the heretic that said this, Gainy bo? You think Ision is not God?
    Who else then??? ;)

    I think you like playing the Arabs because you like the pinkish color, hehe...

    I like them, too, but I played them for the first time right now. There are many Civs that are and were more popular, Carthage e.g. has not the best traits and UU, yet people like Hannibal perhaps and it is really popular, not so much as Persia and Babylon, but certainly more than the Arabs. I somehow got the impression that the Arabs belong to the less popular Civs - they did not get a review up to now, too.
     
  7. Uncle Sam

    Uncle Sam Educated Redneck

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2004
    Messages:
    305
    Location:
    California
    The Arabs are pretty good. I love teh expansionist trait, and it pairs surprisingly well with the Religious trait. You know, grab a lot of land and then expand your culteral borders with temples and cathedrals and whatnots.

    The Ansar is a good UU, i actually won a domination victory with the Arabs by kicking off my Golden Age with Ansar Warriors and then going nuts producing them. That extra movement point counts for quite a bit before Industrial Times. :eek:
     
  8. Baalzebul

    Baalzebul Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    173
    Location:
    Turkey
    I never played The Arabs but I know one thing. When AI plays they suck. They always demand money and techs, when i don' t give what they want, they declare war on me and got killed at the end. :)
     
  9. dgfred

    dgfred Sports Freak

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,256
    Location:
    N.C., USA
    This has also been my experience with them :crazyeye: . Demanding stuff
    from "ME"- time for an Arab :spank: . ;)
     
  10. Mad2rix

    Mad2rix Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    287
    Location:
    Japan
    Some people would think that Arabs' UU (Ansar Warrior) is far much better than Mongol UU's (Keshik). Surely there are some flaws between these two units such as the Keshik able to ignore movements of hills, and mountains, and not requiring iron in which Ansar Warrior must have them. Yeah, these units might be cheap and trigger GA at the right time however they lack defense in which it's harder for Pikemen and Musketmen to escort along with them for protection, no offense but they must have actual benefial use of these UUs.
     
  11. troytheface

    troytheface Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,262
    the knight UU base is loaded, which is to say that even tho u may have a decent uu, it has to compete with a gazillion other UU's some of which surpass the ol Ansar (Samarii and Rider come to mind) . Not a bad Civ but i think the Mongols are more fun to play.
     
  12. Longasc

    Longasc Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,763
    I think you underestimate the fact that a speed of three is way to go. They can cross the border of a civ, attack a city, attack, retreat in one move/turn. Of course you want them to retreat to hills or forest or mountains, and well, they are cheaper than normal knights, too. A great companion for the Ansar is Ancient Cav - it can follow them much better than slow Pikemen or Musketeers, those are good for fortifying conquered cities but not to protect the Ansars. You could use them as protection for a Mountain retreat perhaps. My personal experience, this one extra speed is really good. The Riders are even better of course.

    If you use them head-on, their low defense is really a problem. But they can even retreat if fighting Knights, the trade of 1 point of defense for 1 point of speed strengthens the Ansar.
     
  13. yankees

    yankees Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    48
    ansar speed make them much better than keshik. ansar and rider about same in value. then come war elephant, then samarai and keshik about same maybe samarai little bit better but not much.

    Y
     
  14. HamaticBabylon

    HamaticBabylon Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    2,540
    Location:
    United Earth
    The Mongol Keshik is much better than the Ansar, simple fact it can move over Mountains and that means it has better ability to get to mountainous regions with out wasting a move. The Arabs are a level 3 civ, they have little influences in my games even though I once dared played Demigod level!
     
  15. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    5,660
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    The Arabs are alot better than 3rd tier. The Keshik isn't better than the Ansar. The Arabs are a very nasty warmonger civ and Ok at building. The Ansar is a 1st rate UU- 3 movement, 10 shield cheaper and who really cares about its defense? It has a 50% chance of retreating vs slow units anyway.
     
  16. Arathorn

    Arathorn Catan player

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2002
    Messages:
    3,778
    Location:
    Illinois
    I have very mixed feelings about the Arabs. I *LOVE* the Ansar Warrior -- it is my favorite UU of all. 3 speed, 4 attack, 60 shields? Sign me up. A single point of defense is a tiny cost -- my offensive units are rarely attacked anyway. It's easy enough to leave the slow-movers outside the borders and move them in 3 squares (on roads) once I've captured/razed the city. They can mostly keep up, if you're patient and you need them to (ansars can blitz large numbers of cities in very short order, too, when properly set up and used). No worries there. Given my choice of all UUs, I would pick ansars on nearly any map with nearly any conditions.

    That said, religious and expansionist are my two least favorite traits individually and they have no real synergy together at all. As a builder, the Arabs are so-so, with cheap temples and good maps early, but there's not a lot of staying power to their traits. As a warmonger, they have a fantastic UU but the traits don't really complement it well. They're miscast in either role, exclusively. With a mixed approached, they're fine but they don't really shine. Overall, without thinking too much on it, I'd probably rate them lower 2nd tier. Oh, but I LOVE that UU. It's just not enough on its own, at levels above demigod, to conquer the world.

    Arathorn
     
  17. HalfBadger

    HalfBadger The Great Whackyness

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Messages:
    356
    Location:
    Winnipeg, MB
    Don't they have 2 points of defense?

    Anyways, Arabs are one of my favorites Civs, the Ansar is an amazing UU, and Religious and Expansionist are some of my favorite traits, which work well together with my game style.
     
  18. JoeCivFan

    JoeCivFan Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2004
    Messages:
    137
    Location:
    Beaufort, South Carolina, USA
    I also am playing a game as the Arabs now. I think that they are a very good nation to be, but playing against them is different. When the AI plays them, they are cocky to me, and I usually end up destroying them.
     
  19. Samson

    Samson Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Messages:
    4,536
    Location:
    Cambridge
    Just a little point about the value of a move 3 unit. I have been told, and it makes sence to me from looking at the game, that the AI considers only 2 squares around a tile to wether it is "at risk". If there is a unit 2 squares from a worker, it will run away. If 2 squares from a city, it will fortify it. This means that if you can attack from 3 squares away, you are likely to have fewer units to attack.

    I could easily be wrong with this however.
     
  20. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    5,660
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    The speed 3 is very important. A big enough stack of Ansars can blitz several cities on the 1st turn of a war. You can penetrate an AI civ in depth very rapidly which is usually fatal for them.
     

Share This Page