Picking the right Civ!

[Arrian]

Japan, China. China, Japan. Eenee, meenee, miney, mo. Catch a Rider by the toe. If he hollers, chop him in half with a Samurai.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

After commercial has been improved, India and France have become an excellent choice for the "builder with short decisive wars" type of players. Commercial is a cash machine now, and combined with either religious or industrious (the best traits hands down) it results in wealthy and advanced empires. Ah yes, both have UUs, albeit crappy by stats, but perfectly timed. In case of India, it's at least the best looking one.

[aaglo]

I have just recently started playing civ3.

And I found an interesting combo of traits. Religious&Scientific. You get cheap temples, cathedrals, libraries, universities and research labs(?).

Cultural victory, here I come!

[punkbass2000]

I gotta say, I like the Babs. I wouldn't say they're my favourite builder civ, but you really miss having cheap temples AND libraries every time you play another civ. Hell, if I went straight from the Babs to some one like the English or Romans (or anyone without rel or sci), I imagine I would suffer something not unlike the withdrawal of a heroin addict . 'You want thirty turns to build a temple?!?! You're fired!' *selects 'Abandon city'*. And, oddly enough, the UU's greatest asset is its uselessness. You don't feel the least bit bad about not using the Bowmen and keeping them for a well-timed GA.

[Arrian]

I've always liked the Babs too. The withdrawl you mentioned, though, is similar to industrious worker withdrawl: "you want four turns to irrigate that square? That's it, I'm selling you to the Aztecs for sacrifice!"

-Arrian

[mrmitchell]

Attributes:

1. Industrious-This is THE attribute. Hopefully in civ4, Firaxis will make the attributes more even, as this one annihlates any other attribute.
2. Commercial-Exactly what Sava said, less corruption/extra commerce.
3. Scientific-Man, it's just me-I like science! Besides, it does give that enticing free advance per age.
4. Militaristic-About a third of the people reading will scratch their head why militaristic is fourth. I just usally don't go for an annihlation game.
5. Religious-I don't change gov't that often.
6. Expansionist-This attrib sucks. I'm not kidding. By the time I've got up to map making, I've already got enough loot from needing less science(scientific), having more commerce(commercial), and supporting less workers(industrious) to just buy the maps from the poor sap Expansionist civs. What losers.

I'm sorry if that affected you personally about the Expansionistic, it's just it really is a bad attribute (at least for how I play) and I'm not alone.

As far as civ goes, I usually play Persia and this game I'm playing Germany...I'm going through ultra-heck for it, too-no industrious! Argh! (I'll bet they kick @$$ when you get to Panzers, though.)

[nbarclay]

China and Japan can get exceptionally good use out of the militaristic trait due to the timing and attacking power of their UUs. Build a few riders or samurai, start a war, use the GA to build a whole bunch more of them, get great leaders, and use the leaders to rush a few medieval wonders. Rome might be able to get a similar advantage with ancient warfare and wonders using legionaries, but I've never tried that (although now that I think of it...). The thing is, you've got to be willing to go through a major warmongering phase to get full advantage out of the militaristic trait.

Now that I know Persia is really scientific and industrious, I need to try them more (if I ever have time between AU games and CivFanatics GOTMs). I love the industrious trait for its reduced worker micromanagement even aside from the gameplay benefits of faster workers. Cheap libraries and universities fit wonderfully into my "outresearch the AI and then blow it away with technologically superior forces" strategies. And the free techs can more or less make up for the research time (but not the production time) lost to longer periods of anarchy - at least for someone who doesn't like switching governments all the time. Also, the UU can be used either for heavy ancient warfare if you start so cramped for space that it's worth triggering a GA early to grab land from an AI or for timing a GA right after switching to Republic or Monarchy in order to speed up library, marketplace, aqueduct, etc. production. (Of course slow-moving UUs are at their best on a standard or smaller map.)

Nathan

[Dis]

I do know America sucks .

At least for early wars. I got a hurtin' put on me today in an Ancient age war.

Expansionist just isn't for me. I did get 1 tech from a hut, but all the others were crap.

[vmxa1]

I have never been fond it expansion either and since I try to avoid huge maps or even large maps, it does not cost me much. Besides the only times I ever got settlers out of a hut was without that trait.

[Chemical Ollie]

I tried the Aztect for a change and found out I did not like them. Even if you can pump out jags every 2nd or 3rd turn in your core cities and 1 per turn during GA, you need at least ten of them to take out a fortified spearman. Building immortals, legions, or mounted warriors every 5-10th turn seems cheaper in the long run, as they have much higher chance of survival. And war chariots are almost as cheap as jags, especially for an industrious civ.

[Arrian]

I love how people still have wildly divergent rankings of the civ traits:

1. Industrious-This is THE attribute. Hopefully in civ4, Firaxis will make the attributes more even, as this one annihlates any other attribute.
2. Commercial-Exactly what Sava said, less corruption/extra commerce.
3. Scientific-Man, it's just me-I like science! Besides, it does give that enticing free advance per age.
4. Militaristic-About a third of the people reading will scratch their head why militaristic is fourth. I just usally don't go for an annihlation game.
5. Religious-I don't change gov't that often.
6. Expansionist-This attrib sucks. I'm not kidding.

It's all about how you play the game. My ranking is quite different:

1. Religious
2. Industrious
3. Militaristic
4. Scientific
5. Commerical
6. Expansiontist

I play on standard maps, Monarch & Emperor levels, and I do warmonger. Accordingly, my rankings are geared toward that sort of game.

Nathan,

Try out Rome. I played them on Monarch right after 1.29 came out and had a lot of fun. I'm still not a big Legionary fan (I'd trade it for the immortal in a heartbeat), but they do have their uses. Plus, it just cool being Roman.

-Arrian

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Arrian
It's all about how you play the game. My ranking is quite different:

1. Religious
2. Industrious
3. Militaristic
4. Scientific
5. Commerical
6. Expansiontist

I play on standard maps, Monarch & Emperor levels, and I do warmonger. Accordingly, my rankings are geared toward that sort of game.

I agree it is what works for how you like to play. I have not used 3-6 that often, so I am not appreciative of their uses.

1.Ind
2-3 Rel & Mil
4-5 Comm & Sci
6. Expan

I like std maps on Monarch or higer. I have had enough of the huge for a while.

[Theseus]

Following this week's musical theme:

"It's in the way that you use it..."

I'm in general agreement about Rel, Ind, and Mil.

BUT, I maintain that each can be used to great effect, even Exp.

Comm - Big empire anyone?
Sci - Nationalism Slingshot. Also, cheap Libraries are great for fast culture.
Exp - Not that I'm very good with it, but remember Aeson and Vel with Aztecs or Zulus?

[nbarclay]

Scientific is at its best if you're in a situation where you can try to out-tech the AIs starting in the ancient era. If you're not trying to do serious research yourself, libraries are useful only for their culture. But if you're trying to get out in front in tech, being able to build libraries in half the time after discovering Literature can be a major advantage. Similarly, half-price universities can be a huge advantage trying to build a tech lead in the medieval era.

Of course the great irony of the Scientific trait is that it's at its most powerful in games you could win easily anyhow. If you're in a strong research position, Scientific makes it stronger. But if you're in a weak position, chances are that the Scientific trait won't tip the balance into making it viable to do a lot of your own research. That may have a lot to do with why Scientific isn't rated more highly than it is. It's a powerful trait on average, but other traits do a better job of giving a boost where it's needed most.

Nathan

[vmxa1]

Yes getting cheap structures for research and free techs is inviting, but you can do without it. I would much rather have industrious.

[Theseus]

From a tech research persspective,

Strong position: Irrelevant.

Weak position: Not enough.

Near parity: Potential cycle breaker.

There are environments where I find Sci valuable... usually combined with the top three traits, and with a good UU.

[vmxa1]

The one good thing is that most of the traits are useful for some situations and all can be used to win.

[MPatton]

the manual says the barbarians are more lucrative what in game terms does that mean. I like being france having both commercial and industrious

[nbarclay]

When you destroy a barbarian camp, you get 25 gold. (I've seen 50 at times later in the game.) I don't know whether that's what you're referring to or not.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by MPatton
the manual says the barbarians are more lucrative what in game terms does that mean. I like being france having both commercial and industrious

It actually means that goody huts have a greater chance of giving you something beneficial like gold, techs and settlers.

[Sava]

Wow, an OLD thread of mine got resurrected.

I haven't played the game in a while, and the most recent game I'm playing now, I edited the Germans so that I have all the traits

[Wycoff]

I think that Germany is a very good civ to use. The fact hat you sart with both archer and spearmen allow for early expansion, scientific allows for cheaper culture producing buildings and help to keep pace in research, millitaristic is very useful to help win wars, with the cheap barracks and quick promotions, coupled with the fact that you get more elites than others, increasing the chances for a great leader. The Panzer is a dominant UU, and is very useful in that last push for dominance. The Golden Age can be triggered by Leo's Workshop, giving you a nice boost for building up the infrastructure of your civ. Overall, I find Germany to be a great civ that seems to be a bit underrated.

[Verto]

I've found Germany and Persia to be (for me) the best civs, although after reading this thread I may have to experiment with the other civs again.

[Louis XXIV]

Originally posted by Sava


The unique units of the ancient era are retarded. The hoplite is useless after Feudalism, and pretty useless before then. The computer almost never attacks my cities because I wipe them out before they get the chance. So the hoplite is only useful in defense. Thus, it sucks. When attacking the Greeks, I just have to overwhelm the hoplites with horsemen, and I win. Every single time. I win. If there are 3 hoplites defending a city, I'll pillage all your resources, then attack your city with as many horsemen as it takes. Even if you win most of the combats, my horsemen will retreat. It might take me 9 horsemen to wipe out 3 hoplites. But I won't lose any horsemen, and then I'll move on to your next city.

I basically did this in my first game of Civ3 ever.

I declared war on Greece because I was board with how slowly I was progressing. I swarmed him with Horsemen. I didn't really acheive any victories, so I pillaged his roads, instead. I no time at all, his capitol whent into dissorder. The target city was still tough to breech, but I managed to seige it, until it had little population left, then I raised the city to the ground.

The only decent UU's are the Rider and the Cossack. Mobile units are so much more valuable than other units. And in my conquest campaigns, they get used the most.

You don't like Mounted Warriors?

Here are the most retarded UU's:

Hoplite
Impi
Jaguar Warrior
Legion
Musketeer
Samuri
Immortal
F-15 (I always beat the game before flight anyways)
Man 'O War

Sammurai and Impi are mobile, so I'm guessing you don't like mobile defenders.

I happen to like Legionaries becuase I can walk up to a city and seige it, until I attack. 3 defense does influence the game in the Ancient era.

I love Immortals

I'm sure if you cater your gameplay towards a specific Civ, they could be somewhat uselful. But the most effective way to conquer the world is to use combined arms. I only attack with mobile units because they have the greatest chance for survival. If I get reamed, the guy retreats and I can pull back and then counter-attack with more force. It is impossible to have an invincible defensive force. If there is a city that is fortified with a good defensive unit, I bring in 9-12 artillery units and get all the garissoned forces down to 1, then attack with 2x as many mobile units. If the Greeks have 3 hoplites in city, I bring in 9 catapults, at least 6 horsemen, and 2 spearmen (cover the catapults), and I win. In this game, its definetly quantity over quality. The extra defensive or attack rating does little when I overwhelm you.

That's what I did for that game or Just about

The other problem with UU's is that you can't upgrade older units to become UU's. If I have 30 horsemen, and I want to build Riders, I have to disband all my horsemen to do so.

That is annoying

UU's are irrelevant when speaking in terms of the overall game. Do you think I use France because of the musketeer? NO. The Musketeer sucks ass. I use France because the industrious and commercial bonuses allow me to support a monstrous empire and mass produce more units than you. Sure, a religious Civ might be able to build temples faster, and you might get 10 cities from your expansionistic bonus, but it in the end, you'll die when I conquer you.

Now my favorites

Industrious: the kind of trait that fits everybody's playing style. This is just a great trait, especially in MP.

Religeous: I just happen to like cheap Temples, but the other trait can be considered unbalanced (but it is highly undervalued)

Now too bad the only R,I civ is Egypt

Commercial: Can be highly useful. I saw an analysis of this once. It said its possible to bring in 200 something gold per turn late in the game.

Expansionist: Useless late in the game. I would put this last if it wasn't for MP. In a PBEM game, while everyone else has nothing to do, you get to explore what's around you. It would be nice if scouts had a Defense of 1, and "treated all squares as roads" (maybe only had a 1 movement)

Scientific: I would rather have cheap temples than libraries. It would be nice if they got a free tech in Each era, but they don't get an Ancient one.

Militaristic: Although a warmonger in Civ2, and still one at heart. I think Militaristic is weak. It's the warmonger's Industrious, reducing the chance of promotions (although I think they should have halved it, from 1 in 16 to 1 in 8, instead of 1 in 12).

Just my oppinion.

[Verto]

I agree with your opinions on the traits. I've also found Militaristic to be a little weak - any ideas on what could be done to strengthen it? Maybe having your production level increase when at war?

[Arrian]

I don't find Militaristic weak at all. Why do you find it so?

The 1/2 cost barracks allow a quicker military buildup at the outset of the game.

Quicker promotions give you more elite units, and thus more Great Leaders.

The 1/2 cost of harbors helps a bit in the mid-game

The 1/2 cost of airports helps a little bit at the end, if you need them.

Louis,

The upgrade problem (horsemen to Riders for instance) is no longer a problem. It was patched loooooong ago.

Sava's original comments are very much outdated.

-Arrian

[Verto]

Perhaps I should rephrase my comment to be, I don't think Militaristic is as strong as it should be.

The reduced cost of barracks is very advantageous, and the promotion bonus can give you the upper hand in war, but is this really enough ?

I'm not sure why they chose to make the 1/2 cost of harbor part of it - surely that would be better suited for Commercial?

The airport is understandable, although by the time I can build them, they aren't all that essential, or useful. This is probably due to the fact that I tend to play on a map w/ Continents; if my empire was spread across many islands, or if I had overseas possessions, this would be handy.

I imagine a Militaristic civilization to not have the population unrest during a war that effects other civs. Perhaps random bonus/extra units appearing, to show voluntary enlistment, or the production increase during wartime that I mentioned above?

Perhaps I am biased toward Militaristic and what I want for it would give it an unfair advantage, I don't know.

[Arrian]

I suggested a long time ago (when I thought militaristic was underpowered) that Mil civs should have reduced war weariness.

Having turned into a raging warmonger, I no longer think it needs a boost.

Re: harbors, well, harbors are required for vet ships and ship upgrades, so in that sense they are like barracks for naval units.

-Arrian

[minke19104]

Militaristic -> Cheaper Barracks -> More Vets -> Faster promotions -> More Elites -> More GL -> More Wonders

What else do you want??

[Wycoff]

I like the idea of a slightly reduced war weariness for Militaristic civs. It makes sense.