Which Aggressive Civ is the best?

[Thalassicus]

Romans.

Just imagine if they did have the Aggressive trait...

 

[petey]

I'd say it's a toss-up between Inca and Japan. The Quecha rush is great to cripple nearby civs and give you some breathing room and probably an extra capital or two and then Financial kicks in when you're ready to expand further. Also, Organized is the best for conquering lots of cities, especially on the higher levels with the increased maintenance costs and Samurai are probably the best city attackers out there.

 

[Gyspsysmoke]

never underestimate the power of a short man's infeirority complex...though I do beleive it led to his demise...Waterloo if the malted hops and bong resin hasn't completly destroyed my brain

cryus is a great early warmonger (albeit not agressive), but if you use chop rush and get lucky on resources, so is everyone else

 

[Nightravn]

France has won wars! France totally won the french revolution.

Actually I think they Lost that war.....

 

[UnspokenRequest]

Enough with jokes about France and France bashing. It's childish and stupid. And it shows how misinformed some people are about other countries' history.

A few facts:
- Napoleon is considered one of the greatest military genius ever. And he was very aggressive
- France dominated Europe during the 17th and most of the 18th century. Other european countries had to make alliances to defeat her. England started to get the upper hand with the production effects of the industrial revolution (Mostly in the 19th century).
- Louis XIV fought against broad alliances that comprised England, Spain, Holland (which was quite powerful at the time) the Austrian Empire (which comprised Italy, parts of Germany, Austria, Hungary, parts of former Yougoslavia), other German States. Sometimes he won, and sometime he lost. The lesson is that France was the feared power of the time, that most other states were trying to contain
- France won the 100 years war against England in the 15th century.
- One other fact: USA came at the end of Word war 1 (1917) and Germany was already, albeit slowly, losing. France and England did most of the job. According to many historians, USA's intervention only accelerated the already inevitable outcome.

I'll remind you that a great part of this last war (WW1) was fought on French soils. Same with WW2.
People in the USA (a minority I agree), constantly boast about their military. Yet, no war has been fought on their soils since the 1860s... What do they know about the realities and impacts of modern warfare for their citizens? France knows.

BTW, I'm not French.

As of the best aggressive leader. It's Huayna Capac. With the financial trait, it has more flexibility than Tokugawa. If, for some reason, a domination or conquest victory becomes impossible. Huayna Capac, can more easily use it's economic power to other uses (scientific or diplomatic).

 

[Alcatraz]

I vote Aztecs. Why? Playing as Monty means never having to play AGAINST Monty.

 

[Alcatraz]

People in the USA (a minority I agree), constantly boast about their military. Yet, no war has been fought on their soils since the 1860s... What do they know about the realities and impacts of modern warfare for their citizens? France knows.

A common misperception due to the fact that most people forget that Hawaii and Alaska were owned by America during WW2. Hawaii was, of course, attacked by naval air while the Aleutian islands (part of Alaska) were invaded as a diversion from the ill fated attack on the Midway Islands.

Additionaly, the coast of Southern California (near Santa Barbra) was shelled by a single submarine which has to date never been located. There is some speculation that this was an American sub used to justify the anti-Japanese sentiments that led to the internment camps. One argument for this is that the submarine appeared to be firing on oil refineries but missed terribly.

German subs hunted just off the coast of the Atlantic Seaboard, close enough to see the lights of New York.

That said, it's true that Americans in general tend to overvalue our contributions to both world wars. The tide may have been turned by our entry into WW2, but it was only due to heroic efforts of the the European allies that there was still a tide to be turned.

 

[EverNoob]

Yeah, I think not having Hitler as their next door neighbour breathing down their necks eventually gave the USA the upper hand.

I think people aren't giving the Greeks proper credit. I find Alex very effective in the long run for getting early gunpowder+nationalism for a musketman rush while other civs are still using macemen and longbowmen. Maybe most people are turned off by him cuz he's not a great early game warmonger, as the phalanx is a defensive unit. The trick is to build your border cities on hills and garrison them with phalanxes and archers.

 

[Vonreuter]

Hmm, interesting. Now Alex's traits don't seem so random anymore. Perhaps he has the Phalanx to keep him safe until he gets the tech advantage you mentioned, when his Aggressive trait really kicks in?

 

[EverNoob]

Hmm, interesting. Now Alex's traits don't seem so random anymore. Perhaps he has the Phalanx to keep him safe until he gets the tech advantage you mentioned, when his Aggressive trait really kicks in?

That's what I'm thinking the phalanx is for. It completely shuts down the traditional Mongolian Keshik rush, at a strength of 5+100% = 10 it still beats the War Elephant, and even fights a Knight at even odds. When attacking, give the medic promotion to the phalanx in the stack. In the early game Alex should be played with strategic minor warfare, to solitidfy your border and to keep neighbouring civs from getting ahead.

 

[rickmc]

Dont forget the french and indian war.
the french couldnt even beat the indians.......

 

[Vonreuter]

Take the French discussion somewhere else. It doesn't even look like a discussion, just a bunch of people making their prejudices against the French public.

The French have had a long and glorious history all the way to the Middle Ages and beyond. One lost war can't eradicate the memory of the gallantry of the French knights, the zeal of the Franks on the crusades or the dread raised by Napoleon and what appeared a nigh invincible nation. Try to get a wider perspective than that offered by your own limited history.

And I'm not French. I'm Finnish.

 

[Alcatraz]

Dont forget the french and indian war.
the french couldnt even beat the indians.......

Just so you know... the French and Indian war was the French along with their native American allies against the British. Of all the new world settlers, the French had by far the best relationship with the Indian tribes.

 

[rickmc]

Just so you know... the French and Indian war was the French along with their native American allies against the British. Of all the new world settlers, the French had by far the best relationship with the Indian tribes.

and hence my joke......

 

[UnspokenRequest]

Never underestimate people's ignorance! Joke can be hard to spot on the Internet

 

[rickmc]

Ignorance or Joke. That is the question!

c'mon!

that is one of my favorite you're an idiot history questions: "who won (or lost) the french and indian war".

 

[budweiser]

- One other fact: USA came at the end of Word war 1 (1917) and Germany was already, albeit slowly, losing. France and England did most of the job. According to many historians, USA's intervention only accelerated the already inevitable outcome.

I agree with most facts except this one. After having driven Russia out of th ewar, Germany had only the western front to deal with in 1917 and was in the process of transfering a million soldiers from east to west. The USA was sorely needed to shore up the exhausted western allies agaisnt a reinforced germany.

 

[opticaljim]

I'm a Inca kind of guy myself.

First, the best time to attack is when the opponent is the most vulnerable and that would be at or near the beginning of the game. The Inca comes right out with the Que-Cha. When you add to that the fact that they are especially dangerous against the archer, the primary early city defender, they can make things really miserable for an opponent.

Secondly, what is the use of conquering other cities if you lack the finances to hold them and still compete technologically? This is where the Inca financial trait comes in.

As a bonus, they start out with mysticsm so you should be able to acquire an early religion and, thus, be able to culturally compete as well.

 

[TCGTRF]

I agree with most facts except this one. After having driven Russia out of th ewar, Germany had only the western front to deal with in 1917 and was in the process of transfering a million soldiers from east to west. The USA was sorely needed to shore up the exhausted western allies agaisnt a reinforced germany.

Actually, both the Allies and the Central Powers were poised to end the four year stalemate during the Summer of 1918. The Allies had developed the Tank and had the American Expeditionary Force coming over to Europe. The Germans were transferring about 30 Corps from the Eastern Front *and* had developed Infiltration Tactics (in which their troops bypassed fortified areas to wreak havoc behind the lines--a tactic that they used in their Blitzkriegs in the Second World War.)

It was a very close thing. Two things tipped the scales in favor of the Allies by the Fall, however. The German economy finally hit its limit as far as war production went and tanked, vastly reducing the amount of food available on the home front. At the same time, the Great Influenza Plague of 1918 hit, making both sides rapidly too exhausted to fight.

The two sides agreed on an Armistice, and Germany basically collapsed. The Allies lept at the chance to punish Germany and set the stage for a return engagement in 20 years.

Tom

 

[TCGTRF]

A common misperception due to the fact that most people forget that Hawaii and Alaska were owned by America during WW2. Hawaii was, of course, attacked by naval air while the Aleutian islands (part of Alaska) were invaded as a diversion from the ill fated attack on the Midway Islands.

Additionaly, the coast of Southern California (near Santa Barbra) was shelled by a single submarine which has to date never been located. There is some speculation that this was an American sub used to justify the anti-Japanese sentiments that led to the internment camps. One argument for this is that the submarine appeared to be firing on oil refineries but missed terribly.

German subs hunted just off the coast of the Atlantic Seaboard, close enough to see the lights of New York.

That said, it's true that Americans in general tend to overvalue our contributions to both world wars. The tide may have been turned by our entry into WW2, but it was only due to heroic efforts of the the European allies that there was still a tide to be turned.

In Europe, the Soviets did most of the fighting by anyone's standards. Hell, they lost more CIVILIANS in Leningrad during the siege than the US lost soldiers in the entire war. One of the Army Group sectors on the Eastern Front (and there were four) was larger than the entire Western Theatre of Operations. The two major ways that the West helped in Europe were supplying the Soviet Army through Murmansk (Ford trucks were a lot more useful than the mules and horses that the Soviets were using for their supply lines and they were everywhere in the USSR by 1945) and the distraction of the Western Front beginning in late 1942, which drew off some of the second-tier German units while American and British bombers eliminated the German war production capability (to give you an idea of how effective the bombing campaign was, until 1942, the German economy was actually devoting a majority of their production to CIVILIAN goods--their production facilities were actually that efficient.)

Where the American contribution was really notable was in the Pacific War, where they soundly trounced the Japanese in some of the most brutal fighting ever seen in any war. The Chinese held most of the Japanese army in a stalemate while the Americans with the help of the British and Australians strangled them with the destruction of the supply lines providing their strategic resources.

Tom