What is the toughest civ to play on Emperor?

[SVPM]

Each player choose the way they like to play the game and this won't fit with any civ. If you don't rush in the early game, indians are better than zulu. Surely if everybody would play the same way than you could say that this civ is always better than an other one, but as each player play a different type of game some civs are better for a player even if it's not a good one for a top player.
As example, I never player zulu in MP because I don't like to rush so even if it is the best civ for some player I wouldn't be good with them. Still I can beat a zulu, arab, chinesse or roman player 90% of the time without using these particular civilisation. So I think the best civ is really relative to the type of play you like and decide to adopt and this is good because this mean that it's not everybody that play the same civs the same way in all MP's games.

 

[Hertsh]

Dorpsgek uses indians and arabs, or maybe it was M Proto, but I never lost to them. When I was playing to M Proto, I dominated him with chinese in a game converted to 1v3, and against Dorpgsek never had problems. Indians are a lucky civ, you need luck to win with them and you know..

So we actually start getting on discussing terms... I'm glad.

I think that we are discussing from different points-of-view and thus the arguments about the best or worst civ. In MP it is much more about early rushes and strenght at the beginning of the game. If you are strong after medieval you are set to go for a victory. In SP it is more balanced for the player to go for a quick rush game or a long tech game where a civ that is strong early in the game suits for some strats and a civ that is strong in the later part of the game suits for other strats. In MP, there is no use in playing a civ that is strong later in the game because you will not be able to hold off and grow strong in the early parts. Thus your point (from an MP perspective) that Indians and Russia are weak, and my point (from an SP perspective) that Indians and Russia are fun and strong.

Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to play a full MP game too often and thus I cannot gain ranks and prove anything different. I play often but usually short games since my daughter requires attention.

 

[MKElderGod]

Each player choose the way they like to play the game and this won't fit with any civ. If you don't rush in the early game, indians are better than zulu. Surely if everybody would play the same way than you could say that this civ is always better than an other one, but as each player play a different type of game some civs are better for a player even if it's not a good one for a top player.
As example, I never player zulu in MP because I don't like to rush so even if it is the best civ for some player I wouldn't be good with them. Still I can beat a zulu, arab, chinesse or roman player 90% of the time without using these particular civilisation. So I think the best civ is really relative to the type of play you like and decide to adopt and this is good because this mean that it's not everybody that play the same civs the same way in all MP's games.

I belieave in finding a civ that fits your play style because you would most likely do your best with that civ BUT even if you dont like to rush, ZULUS are still way to easy to rush with. Also if you have a success rate of 90% against those civs than they dont know how to rush or use there free ai caps.

 

[MKElderGod]

So we actually start getting on discussing terms... I'm glad.

I think that we are discussing from different points-of-view and thus the arguments about the best or worst civ. In MP it is much more about early rushes and strenght at the beginning of the game. If you are strong after medieval you are set to go for a victory. In SP it is more balanced for the player to go for a quick rush game or a long tech game where a civ that is strong early in the game suits for some strats and a civ that is strong in the later part of the game suits for other strats. In MP, there is no use in playing a civ that is strong later in the game because you will not be able to hold off and grow strong in the early parts. Thus your point (from an MP perspective) that Indians and Russia are weak, and my point (from an SP perspective) that Indians and Russia are fun and strong.

Unfortunately, I don't have enough time to play a full MP game too often and thus I cannot gain ranks and prove anything different. I play often but usually short games since my daughter requires attention.

You dont always need to rush to win. If your playing free for all or Teams than theres only one cpu, which isnt too significant. But head to head rushes are important. Ive taken out all the AI and 2 secondary cities with ONE arab horsemen army (kind of pathetic). THATS 6 free cities plus free settler. Ive come to the conclusion that a player should always rush a horsemen army this way you can grab a cap and even defeat the opposition horsemen army.