spoc148
hunter of rabbits
I just got the game and its great, but I was wondering if there are any dominant civs to start out with, or are they all the same?
Spoc148
Spoc148
Which civ is the best to start with?
- Thread starter spoc148
- Start date
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Congratulations on a wise purchase. I recommend patching it with the new patch as well.
Greece is good to start, by far, because it's abilities are ok (the scientific bonus helps you go for the Great Library once you have a few cities, which is a good thing to do for a first time player). But best of all, build hoplites instead of warriors first - the hoplite is a great defensive unit at a time when you're vulnerable to attack, and if you're attacked, you'll be in a Golden Age real quick.
If not, then I find the Aztecs ok, although some would disagree. The benefit there is the early Unique Unit gets you into a Golden Age quickly, and the religious ability allows you to quickly change governments.
Greece is good to start, by far, because it's abilities are ok (the scientific bonus helps you go for the Great Library once you have a few cities, which is a good thing to do for a first time player). But best of all, build hoplites instead of warriors first - the hoplite is a great defensive unit at a time when you're vulnerable to attack, and if you're attacked, you'll be in a Golden Age real quick.
If not, then I find the Aztecs ok, although some would disagree. The benefit there is the early Unique Unit gets you into a Golden Age quickly, and the religious ability allows you to quickly change governments.
dojoboy
Tsalagi
Originally posted by spoc148
I just got the game and its great, but I was wondering if there are any dominant civs to start out with, or are they all the same?
Spoc148
After playng many games, this is actually a tough question. Play style is a big factor, but for a newbie there is much to discover. My first civ was the Iroquois because I wanted the cheap cultural improvements. Also, their UU is cool and effective early. Enjoy.
There is much debate about which is the best civ. It really depends on your playing style (are you a peaceful builder or a warmonger) and your desired way to win. My recommendation for a first time player would be the Greeks for the very early strong defensive unit, but I'm sure many would disagree. Personally, I have the civ randomly selected. I think getting hung up on playing one of the "power civs" all the time limits the fun and replayibility of the game. I like to make as many factors as possible random. Winning with any civ under any conditions is personally more gratifying than playing a game pre-set to my advantage.
I think the Egyptians stand head and shoulders above the other civs. The combo of religous and industrious means most important items are cheaper then normal, and my workers improve land to the maximum productivity more quickly then most other civs. Also, changing governments is quick/painless. I can switch to communism to do some spying, then switch back to democracy to milk my economy. 
IronicWarrior19
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2001
- Messages
- 151
Iroquois iz best by a long wayz d00d. They iz 733t.
allhailIndia
Deity
I would suggest any civ with a religious ability or military ability as they provide some very important improvements cheap early on.
dojoboy
Tsalagi
Originally posted by graeme
I can switch to communism to do some spying, then switch back to democracy to milk my economy.
Damn. I've never thought of doing this. Tonight, I will.
I really like russia cos they have an explorer at the beginning and their scientific advantage helps to get the lead in science. Also they have a very good unit : Cossack that you can get approximatively in the middle of the game and this unit is really awesome! Getting in golden age when you have a good number of cities but not to late can really improve your overgoing business.
PS : ok there's nothing common to what i said before but i don't understand why england is in EVERY game i play, i'm fed up with elizabeth grrr
PS : ok there's nothing common to what i said before but i don't understand why england is in EVERY game i play, i'm fed up with elizabeth grrr
I would definitely say that the civ you play with depends on what your style is. I would advise playing with all of them to get a feel for your style (you don't have to play the whole game). But if you just want to play and don't care about your style, it would be safe to stick with Greece or Babylon.
D. Boon's Ghost
Failed Moralist
No doubt about it.
For someone just starting off, Babylon or Egypt are the two I would recommend. You must have a civ with a religious trait, think about how a new person would benefit from the one turn anarchy into a government change. Both Babylon and Egypt have this.
Egypt has industriousness tacked on to it - faster workers for those improvements.
Babylon has the scientific attribute, so that free technology every new age can be key to a person new to the game.
Whatever your choice, have fun.
For someone just starting off, Babylon or Egypt are the two I would recommend. You must have a civ with a religious trait, think about how a new person would benefit from the one turn anarchy into a government change. Both Babylon and Egypt have this.
Egypt has industriousness tacked on to it - faster workers for those improvements.
Babylon has the scientific attribute, so that free technology every new age can be key to a person new to the game.
Whatever your choice, have fun.
Tweedledum
Prince
Obviously, it depends on how you want to approach the game...
Personally, I think the Persians are the easiest to play. It is hard to beat Scientific & Industrious as a combination (Religious is nice, but not necessarily essential). And attacking your neighbours with a horde of Immortals makes for very pleasant viewing...
Personally, I think the Persians are the easiest to play. It is hard to beat Scientific & Industrious as a combination (Religious is nice, but not necessarily essential). And attacking your neighbours with a horde of Immortals makes for very pleasant viewing...
FrosTi
Indépendantiste Québécois
Babylonians are easier... I'm a newbie and I'm winning for the first time with them 
But their specific unit is so useless lol
But their specific unit is so useless lol allhailIndia
Deity
Originally posted by FrosTi
Babylonians are easier... I'm a newbie and I'm winning for the first time with them
The Babylonians really crap out on the UU and on the war front. For the right balance, I suggest the Persians or if you prefer a middle game rush, the Indians or Chinese
I only recently started, and I found the Iroquois especially simpatico. Strange as it may sound, the favorable reactions from the minor tribes can add up a great deal in those early stages. Quite often I'll have a lead of ten or more tech levels on everyone else, in contrast to the times when I've started with scientific civilizations and found myself falling further and further behind.
Julius Bonapart
Chieftain
YEah I very mcuh agree with you. For me well, if your a warmoger i like the Romans becouse u have a military advantage/golden age at a time when other civs have enough cities to be worth taking and not that much defense to be so hard to take. Ofcourse the other "advantages" are not as good as other vis but i like them. Hey now that were talking bout civs is noone bothered that u HAVE to play with women leaders if you want to play with Egypt or Russia or France? I for one dont like to have a women icon for me so i dont play with those civs and i miss out on a lot of cool civing experiences just couse i dont like to play with women icons. And i guess that some women might feel the same way but vice-versa. I liked the Civ2 way of playing. I know it would be hard to make 2 face icons for each civ but i would appreciate it. I mean instead of saying Milord they would call me Milady and that just doesnt sound right.
God
God
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2001
- Messages
- 1,354
For newbies I think that expansionist civs are bit more difficult to take advantage of. You need to build alot of scouts and then ends up in you getting side tracked from building an empire. For myself when I first played an expansionist civ I just used my original scout. later I realized you need 10+ scouts to truely benifit from it.
Also you don't need to get techs so quickly on the lower levels.
I suggest taking civs with religious, industrial or scientific traits. Egypt, Babylon, Persia,
Also you don't need to get techs so quickly on the lower levels.
I suggest taking civs with religious, industrial or scientific traits. Egypt, Babylon, Persia,
Stenchilada
Chieftain
I read this post by Jolly Roger and gave this method of play a shot. I must say that I have been having an infinitely better time playing this game!
The surprise of a randomly selected civ really adds to the game playing experience.Far be it from me to dispute God.
However, though I had some bad luck with the Iroquois (I kept ending up in the middle of an early turf war or stuck on a tiny island), my first victory was with the Zulu. My second, admittedly, was with the Babylonians, but then I came heartbreakingly close to a space-race victory with the Iroquois (the Americans beat me to the UN). Maybe it's just my particular style of play that makes expansionist civs easier for me than average.
However, though I had some bad luck with the Iroquois (I kept ending up in the middle of an early turf war or stuck on a tiny island), my first victory was with the Zulu. My second, admittedly, was with the Babylonians, but then I came heartbreakingly close to a space-race victory with the Iroquois (the Americans beat me to the UN). Maybe it's just my particular style of play that makes expansionist civs easier for me than average.
