Worst Civilzation

[tsizzle]

Sure, It depends on the circumstances, who's playing you, your location, your KNOWLEDGE.

I think that it is the mongols because they have nothing really going for them.

Getting communism isn't that great for me because I luv culture, and considering that almost all of the time it is constant war, having democracy while you are defending is what I think is the best bet.

There aren't usually any mountains that I can use for the production bonus.

Barb huts joining you isn't always my favorite because they are in **** locations, not usually around forsests for production.

I don't know what the other bonus is.

I think that the indians are pretty bad too, unless there are a lot of good resources. The half cost settlers come too late.

Love,
tsizzle:cool:

[MadDjinn]

if you ever learn how to play the game you would know better.

(especially on the Indian thing)

but well, this is just another topic that didn't need creating since there's many many threads that discuss this stuff already.

[danthechan]

french and russia are the 2 i wouldn't want to play although i am capable of losing with any civ. the 2nd bonus for mongols is + 1 movement for horse and knights. this can be awesome for using the first bonus (+ 50% from captured cities). sneak around and use your lightning speed to steal new cities. madD is the resident mongol expert but i think if you survive to medieval you have a good chance with them.

[MadDjinn]

french and russia are the 2 i wouldn't want to play although i am capable of losing with any civ. the 2nd bonus for mongols is + 1 movement for horse and knights. this can be awesome for using the first bonus (+ 50% from captured cities). sneak around and use your lightning speed to steal new cities. madD is the resident mongol expert but i think if you survive to medieval you have a good chance with them.

shouldn't that be win :p

lol
...

I really hope I'm not the only one that can figure out the mongols. there's got to be at least 1 more person. :confused:

they are very hard to play well, but if you do, then their boni are very powerful (better on average than other civs).


(the 1/2 cost settlers for India is very timely. there's only a few turns between ancient and medieval if you plan it right)

[SVPM]

I think that the indians are pretty bad too, unless there are a lot of good resources. The half cost settlers come too late.

:

Not true. The use of ressources is really good. The knowledge of fundamentalism in medieval is really powerful if you plan it right. You can go in and out of fundamentalism because they don't suffer from anarchy. So you can be in fundamentalism and still use your library. Surely it's not a top 5 civ, but they can easily keep in the races and beat good players with good civs.
If the map is full of good ressources then they can be a top civs.

For the topics, I think that France, Russia and (sorry Mad) mongols are the worst civ. France can be ok if they get the right GP and mongols if they survive long enough but they are so easy to rush compare to other civs due to the lack of early gold.

[_Mr_Sausage__]

It's got to be the French. Pottery, then 1/2 price roads?? Pfffttt!! 2 completely underwhelming bonuses. Any other civ has at least 1 semi-decent bonus in the first 2 eras..but not the French. Sacre-bleau!!

[elthrasher]

It's got to be the French. Pottery, then 1/2 price roads?? Pfffttt!! 2 completely underwhelming bonuses. Any other civ has at least 1 semi-decent bonus in the first 2 eras..but not the French. Sacre-bleau!!

Agreed the French are the worst. Starting with a Cathedral is a decent bonus, but the French get nothing else of note. The problem is that while culture is nice, technology, expansion and military might are all more useful and the French have no real advantages there.

Russia doesn't have much, but the area map isn't terrible and half-price riflemen with Loyalty is ok. +1 food from plains is also nice. The problem is none of these things lead to a quick advantage or early dominance. Playing as a turtle can really backfire if your opponent claims the map.

I like the Mongols and the Indians a lot, but they are sort of advanced civs, not that easy to play.

If you go back to posts from late 2008, you can still find people saying the Americans and Spanish are poor civs, but now most regard them as very good. Maybe there's hope for the French!

[MadDjinn]

I doubt it ;)

unless you can pull of some amusing scenarios like I posted elsewhere (getting the Great Wall and the Arc to yourself), so that you have time to do things.

[elthrasher]

I doubt it ;)

unless you can pull of some amusing scenarios like I posted elsewhere (getting the Great Wall and the Arc to yourself), so that you have time to do things.

Yeah, I doubt it too. I've beaten the Chinese with the French, but I had a lot of luck. I had a large peninsula with lots of resources and only the AI as a close neighbor, got Angor Wat for Republic early, GBs for the Colossus and EITC, etc. In general they are awful, but any civ can have a good game.

[dio3d]

I think that the indians are pretty bad too, unless there are a lot of good resources. The half cost settlers come too late.


As an avowed fan of the Indian civ, I have to disagree with this one. You can have fun with the Indians even if "good" resources are lacking on the map. Again, that depends on what you consider "good" resources, since I'd say almost any resource can be used to your advantage, if done properly.

You should try playing with them more, because I think you may grow to like them. I'll say this, I've been playing this game since it came out last year and I've played lots of games using all of the civs. The Indians (moreso even than the Aztecs nowadays) are my favorite civ to play because they make the game very unpredictable, which in turn makes them more enjoyable as far as I'm concerned. If you have a lot of oak/rubber/mountains, you're going to be a production powerhouse. If you have a lot of dye/spice, you're going to be a tech powerhouse (with large cities if there's also a lot of fish/whale/wheat).

Of course, all this assumes that the game (or other players) survive past your early horse/legion rush (pre- or post- Fundamentalism, depending on your access to oak/rubber/dye).

Back to the OP, the worst civ, for my playing style, is the French. While I like to increment culture more than most other players, a well-used opponent's spy can level the playing field pretty quickly/easily. Also, I rarely use cannons and hardly ever build roads unless there's a strategic reason to move units quickly, so those bonii are relatively useless to me.

[tsizzle]

As an avowed fan of the Indian civ, I have to disagree with this one. You can have fun with the Indians even if "good" resources are lacking on the map. Again, that depends on what you consider "good" resources, since I'd say almost any resource can be used to your advantage, if done properly.

You should try playing with them more, because I think you may grow to like them. I'll say this, I've been playing this game since it came out last year and I've played lots of games using all of the civs. The Indians (moreso even than the Aztecs nowadays) are my favorite civ to play because they make the game very unpredictable, which in turn makes them more enjoyable as far as I'm concerned. If you have a lot of oak/rubber/mountains, you're going to be a production powerhouse. If you have a lot of dye/spice, you're going to be a tech powerhouse (with large cities if there's also a lot of fish/whale/wheat).

Of course, all this assumes that the game (or other players) survive past your early horse/legion rush (pre- or post- Fundamentalism, depending on your access to oak/rubber/dye).

Back to the OP, the worst civ, for my playing style, is the French. While I like to increment culture more than most other players, a well-used opponent's spy can level the playing field pretty quickly/easily. Also, I rarely use cannons and hardly ever build roads unless there's a strategic reason to move units quickly, so those bonii are relatively useless to me.

I am going to completely agree with you all and I think that it is safe to say that the Frenchies are the worst civilization.

As for the Indians, I tried them out on the Single PLayer Scenario "Beta Centauri" where basically all techs are given to you except futures and you are in the modern era, so all bonuses are given to you.

I had the fortune of a great starting spot with plentiful (yes, plentiful) resources so I pumped out about from two cities two settlers per turn.

I got a bunch of crusier fleets and explored around the Island I was on.

Got more cities, one oak, one rubber, one gold mountain and some coal on a mountain. So, I was a "production powerhouse" for a length of the game, protecting my cities enourmously.

Hit Atlantis, boom, three future techs, (plus one hammer per production square, then the second gave me plus one food per food square, then the third one gave me plus one trade per trade square) and I was dominating.

In conclusion:

The Indians were very useful with the resources,
the half cost settlers were very helpful,
and my opinion has changed.

They are a six on the best civ meter, ten being best.

It wasn't the best civ I could have used on that scenario though, so I tried americans and they were amazin of course.

Love,
tsizzle:cool:

[Pedal2Metal]

I am going to completely agree with you all and I think that it is safe to say that the Frenchies are the worst civilization.



French are the worst IMO. Mongols are very difficult to play with but MadDjinn has convinced me that it's possible. They are a fun civ to play IMO.
The French aren't much fun to play either IMO.

Russians appear weak on surface but once you get the hang of them, they can be quite powerful. I've changed my stance on Russia now after having won with them several times in a row after my initial foray of getting slaughtered.

Indians are a very good civ but require time to develop your skills. They are a blast to play with & one of my favorite civs.

I'm suprised HelloGoodBye hasn't stepped in to defend the honor of the French. :)

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

As for the Indians, I tried them out on the Single PLayer Scenario "Beta Centauri" where basically all techs are given to you except futures and you are in the modern era, so all bonuses are given to you.



Ironically, the Beta Centauri scenario is easiest with only 1 city. Just build up your culture so you get GP more than other civs which gives you Future Tech w/GS & it's over. You can win in 15-20 minutes w/any civ w/1 city in Beta Centauri doing this via either eco, culture, or domination victory conditions.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[MadDjinn]

I find that I like starting beside rubber (instead of oak) as the resource. 5 prod for a pop 2 city right away means archer defense is pretty quick (not quite 3 water/desert tiles quick, but close enough).

it also makes for fast legion creation by medieval times. :)

[Hellogoodbye123]

France is better than the Mongols, i could show you guys, but.... its that i dont have a ps3 anymore

[MadDjinn]

France is better than the Mongols, i could show you guys, but.... its that i dont have a ps3 anymore

no, the french are definitely worse than the mongols.

I can show you any time.

[tsizzle]

France is better than the Mongols, i could show you guys, but.... its that i dont have a ps3 anymore

Yeah!!!
there he is.

We knew you'd come along.:D

They can be better than the mongols if they survive long enough.

Love,
tsizzle:cool:

[tsizzle]

Russians appear weak on surface but once you get the hang of them, they can be quite powerful. I've changed my stance on Russia now after having won with them several times in a row after my initial foray of getting slaughtered.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

Yeah, what was great is I got a plain square (+2 food) on a river (plus 1 food = 3 food) then wheat on top of it (+2 food = 5 food) then a granary (+ 2 food = 7 food) and enough future techs to get eight food on that square.

Imagine that happening in medieval, you'd have the biggest city after a few turns.

Russians I think are a expand cautiously with lots of armies mainly defending not attacking that much and just getting lots of buildings, techs, and then attack the people doing well in that particular game.

I've only played a few games as the bullshaviks though.

Love,
tsizzle

[SVPM]

They can be better than the mongols if they survive long enough.

Love,
tsizzle:cool:

I think it's the opposite, mongol are better if they survive long enough. France has their only good bonus at the start of the game and as GP became harder to get by culture as the game go on this bonus become weaker.

[Kadazzle]

The only thing France has going for them is a quicker GP, and 20 beakers ahead on the race to Irrigation, after that, it's a null.

I like Mongolia, and they are good if you know how to use them. You essentially have to War and Expand quick and a lot, so you can get the extra trade going, while also have many cities.

[Grayson]

I really think it's splitting hairs between France Mongols and Russians. But the Mongols and French have more possibilities to be strong than the Russians. France is usually bad, but certain games everything can go for you in the GP department and you can end up beating power civs.

Mongols take a lot of player skill to use, but it's hard to even use the greatest skill sometimes to create scenarios where you can win powerfully and not by luck that you don't get rushed or you don't have enough barbs. But the Mongols still have games where they can survive the initial rush unscathed and start using city specialization powerfully. They can also be powerful at the start, I've had games where I've taken over 3 human players with just warriors off a rediculously lucky start, but it's not rare to be able to get an early cap, or pull off some surprising advantages.

The Russians, they are the epitome of average. The local area map is ok, and is basically all you got to be powerful. If you can find a hut with them, and then a quick cap or fast gold, then you have a shot. But after that, you've gotta work a lot. +1 food from plains is the only other decent bonus they have, and it's usually not a game changer. A granary makes it ok, but I don't really build many granaries with other civs, basically it just give you a nice settler pump a little too late (unless you luck into a lot of gold early). Their bonuses keep you alive, but don't really help you win a game. It's just a slow painful death to mediocrity, and wasting three hours while others are receiving more and more bonuses that actually help acheive a victory path, while you just keep getting more to stay alive.

At least when I'm playing with the Mongols or French, I can say, "oh well that was not that great, but they suck, and that map sucked for that civ." With the Russians, it's just "man, if I don't get rushed early, this game could last a long time while I'm trying everything in the book to make up for the fact that I'll have no swing of momentum coming my way... Man, if I win this game, this guy is awful at the game."

I talk to myself a lot.

[MadDjinn]

lol...

the mongol boni get better as you go, and I can have knights by 0AD easy.

the thing is... cities are more powerful than 100 g. I get 3-4 barb huts, you get 120g, I'm doing better than you are. I can convert those 4-5 cities into 9-10 cities if I hit COL and expand.

or I can use those 4-5 cities to push out a nice army while you're still expanding. yeah, the barb huts start at 1 pop. but my 'expansion' phase turns into 'how fast can I grow the pop'... which is only 5-10 turns across the whole empire, while your expansion phase is 20 or more turns to catch up to my city number.

Mongols take a city and get +50% trade. that gives them a massive boost to tech or gold.

the later boni help punch out whatever I need at that point.

the french.. if you're a smart player, you can use the cannons pretty early. vet cannons from a hill is 48 attack. that's gonna hurt. the rest of the boni are ok in the first 25 turns or so, but then it slows down unless you are building your culture.

[Hellogoodbye123]

Yeah!!!
there he is.

We knew you'd come along.:D

They can be better than the mongols if they survive long enough.

Love,
tsizzle:cool:

lol, you were waiting for me to defend the french, well here i am :D

its true that both have really bad bonuses, but i prefer great people over whatever the mongols have, production?:D

[MadDjinn]

production wins games. culture just prolongs it...

(ok, maybe tech then gold then production then culture...)

but even on that order - mongols have better trade related boni (barb cities and +50% when taking over an enemy city).

[Hellogoodbye123]

production wins games. culture just prolongs it...

(ok, maybe tech then gold then production then culture...)

but even on that order - mongols have better trade related boni (barb cities and +50% when taking over an enemy city).

maybe i just dont like them, because i dont like to play the "War fanatic" in these games, and... i dont like waiting to build stuff, i rush rush rush, everything!!!!!!!

plus +1 horsemen and 50% extra isnt useful to me, i dont like the war part of this game a lot, mm, i dont like mountains that much, and communism doesnt seem that good either....

[MadDjinn]

well sure, if you never attack anyone then 2 of the boni are kinda useless to you (though I think the +50% trade may be one of the more powerful boni in the whole game, top 3 anyways).

communism itself is good for the non-dom wins since you have to hammer out those end-game wonders (for tech victory just buy the parts). but the underlying better part of the mongols getting communism in modern is that you will get it first, which means the 33% discount on the factories. and wonder builders will have cities by mountains so the cheap factory (maybe even hammered due to being in communism) and the +2 hammers for the mountains (workshops bah) on top of the Iron mine means some pretty sweet production is happening.

you don't need to be in war mode the whole game with the mongols though. just pick up a few cities once in awhile (this is the mongol 'expansion phase') and get some nice cities from other people. it's like farming, but better. let the chinese player put in 1/2 cost libraries for you, it's makes the cost of taking the city a little less.

I will say that french cannons are more useful than some ppl think. it takes a big tech base to GS combustion if you don't have metallurgy already (which means they likely didn't do university either). it's pretty quick to hit that tech and there's a few good boni on the way if you can get them. a saved GS means that you can likely get it right after you have democracy and engineering on your way to university.

(fast tech path:

BW, Alpha->writing-> Lit/COL (depending on potential boni gains) -> Democracy -> masonry (if not back filled) -> Math -> (IW/Construction likely backfilled) -> Engineering -> University -> Metallurgy

granted, without a GS that can take a bit, but while everyone else is fighting over how to get the Knights moving, you've got cannons pretty close with a pike escort. galleon drop them all over the place (or just attack from the galleon fleet in most cases) and their Knights dream will be slowly psuhed away. Gun powder is an option path after this point.

[Hellogoodbye123]

well i just like the americans for the economical victory, the facotires, the 2% income, the fast rushing, the starting gp makes it all possible

[TyShine]

I play as every civ, and I can't remember a time that I won with the Russians. I've gotten lucky with the French and Mongols before, but never with the Russians. I actually quit doing random because of these three civs.

[Hellogoodbye123]

I actually quit doing random because of these three civs.

lol................

[MadDjinn]

random is more fun than always picking the same civ all the time.

[Woolgatherer]

Be nice if you could choose civs to exclude from a list when picking random.

[Hellogoodbye123]

random is more fun than always picking the same civ all the time.

we should make a poll, whats better "Random" or "Picking" :D ;) :rolleyes: :D

[Pedal2Metal]

Be nice if you could choose civs to exclude from a list when picking random.

Agreed.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

I really think it's splitting hairs between France Mongols and Russians. But the Mongols and French have more possibilities to be strong than the Russians. France is usually bad, but certain games everything can go for you in the GP department and you can end up beating power civs.

Mongols take a lot of player skill to use, but it's hard to even use the greatest skill sometimes to create scenarios where you can win powerfully and not by luck that you don't get rushed or you don't have enough barbs. But the Mongols still have games where they can survive the initial rush unscathed and start using city specialization powerfully. They can also be powerful at the start, I've had games where I've taken over 3 human players with just warriors off a rediculously lucky start, but it's not rare to be able to get an early cap, or pull off some surprising advantages.

The Russians, they are the epitome of average. The local area map is ok, and is basically all you got to be powerful. If you can find a hut with them, and then a quick cap or fast gold, then you have a shot. But after that, you've gotta work a lot. +1 food from plains is the only other decent bonus they have, and it's usually not a game changer. A granary makes it ok, but I don't really build many granaries with other civs, basically it just give you a nice settler pump a little too late (unless you luck into a lot of gold early). Their bonuses keep you alive, but don't really help you win a game. It's just a slow painful death to mediocrity, and wasting three hours while others are receiving more and more bonuses that actually help acheive a victory path, while you just keep getting more to stay alive.

At least when I'm playing with the Mongols or French, I can say, "oh well that was not that great, but they suck, and that map sucked for that civ." With the Russians, it's just "man, if I don't get rushed early, this game could last a long time while I'm trying everything in the book to make up for the fact that I'll have no swing of momentum coming my way... Man, if I win this game, this guy is awful at the game."

I talk to myself a lot.

The Russians may have average boni but they are easier to play with than the Mongols. Granaries w/plains are like whales for Spanish so it's a bit suprising you don't like them a bit more. ;) If Russians can build multiple "4-whale" cities that are "safe" for a while, you are going to be in serious trouble. In fact, at some point, it's impossible to uproot a Russian city as they build a veteran spy ring, loyal Modern Infantry army, w/walls & battleship fleet & have 31 pop. They can just build whatever they want without even worrying about whatever you're doing. My son has actually won a culture victory w/Russians as he was getting pummelled w/units every turn: artillery, tanks, spies, battleships, cruisers, etc.... It was simply too late to stop them. Why? He had build tons of rifleman armies & then used Leonardo's to Modern Infantry. That's the only civ he's gotten a culture victory with. I like the Russians because you can play a more passive-style & still win if you can survive to a certain point. There is a point where it's simply too late & now you'll just have beat them to some non-dom victory condition. If you weren't planning all along to do this, it's probably over. Usually 6-10 4-plains cities is enough. They'll all be 20+ pop cities doing crazy tech/prod/food every turn. I've seen my son win w/Russians w/6 cities against Americans & the American player wasn't bad. The problem? Russia started on on a large island. He built 3 cities w/4+ plains squares in each city & rushed granaries in all 3 cities. America didn't find the cities until they were like 13-15 pop at which point, they had multiple loyalty armies & were producing every wonder in the game already. Game over.

The Mongols can be very strong but you've got to survive the early rush which isn't as easy is MadDjinn makes it sound (who is one of the only players in the world to actually win w/Mongols :). If they do survive, you are in real trouble because they have great tech + prod bonuses. Although I've yet to see a Mongol player survive the early rush myself.

If the French lose their Cathedral, say goodbye to early GP, you're just like every other civ. This happens in every game I've played w/French. They don't get any other boni worth a darn until cannons & probably they are late to the party by then. Ultimately, I don't see how the French could ever win reliably without a ton of luck.

So I'll go with average & playable in the Russians although the Mongols are on my list to improve with. For the moment, the French can just stay in Europe as far as I'm concerned. :)

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Kadazzle]

It's actually fairly simple to defend as Mongolia, you just have to sort of prioritize it over exploration. With Mongolia, you really have to get a Fish city going early, so that you can work on getting Bronze Working (Which also gives your fish city food), then so you can get Horseback Riding. Defending isn't as important as chock points with Mongolia, as with choke points you can see the enemy coming before they actually arrive, giving you time to fortify and prepare.

[MadDjinn]

heh.. bronze working...

the barracks is nice, the rest isn't needed. (though an archer does help prevent galley drops).

[Kadazzle]

The rest isn't needed? So when a Horseman Rush comes at your door, or a Zulu Warrior Army is infront of your new acquired choke-point barbarian city at 3400 BC, you just magically defend with a warrior?

Nice.

[MadDjinn]

my own horse armies take care of the problems.

and warrior armies do well for killing rushes while you're getting the Keshik's out.

I only fall back to archers first if I can't get enough good huts/cash or if I started so close to the Zulu/chinese/arabs/americans/aztecs that they get lucky enough to put up a rush before I get 3 or more huts. (the zulu are the worst bc you may not even get the huts). even still, all early rushes are better countered with well placed warrior armies (vets are better) than holing up with archers in a few cities that will just get surrounded and any useful tile camped.

[Kadazzle]

my own horse armies take care of the problems.

and warrior armies do well for killing rushes while you're getting the Keshik's out.

I only fall back to archers first if I can't get enough good huts/cash or if I started so close to the Zulu/chinese/arabs/americans/aztecs that they get lucky enough to put up a rush before I get 3 or more huts. (the zulu are the worst bc you may not even get the huts). even still, all early rushes are better countered with well placed warrior armies (vets are better) than holing up with archers in a few cities that will just get surrounded and any useful tile camped.

My point is, is that a good Zulu player will be able to find you before you get even your first horseman out (even with rushing), so the fact that you're just giving them Horseback Riding for free doesn't help anyone else in the game.

You can try again if you please.

[MadDjinn]

you could just read my starting strat thread, (soon to be threads), and most anyone here will tell you I win with the mongols more often than not.

I know what I'm doing and I beat 'good' Zulu players all the time.

[Kadazzle]

you could just read my starting strat thread, (soon to be threads), and most anyone here will tell you I win with the mongols more often than not.

I know what I'm doing and I beat 'good' Zulu players all the time.

First off, you may be able to beat "good" Zulu players, but I doubt you can beat good Zulu players with your Mongolia Strategy.

Secondly, you said you should get Bronze Working in the Starting Startegy - Mongolia thread. Quit acting like a hypocrit.

Lastly, I read your strategy, and there is no way you can defend against a good rush using it. An American Horseman rush (Will only take around 10 turns to get the horseman army, for a good player), or a Zulu Warrior Rush (Should only take 5 turns for a good Zulu player) will be able to defeat you easily, as they will be at your capital before you even get out your second warrior (as you say in your thread, it will take you 4 turns to find a capital spot).

You may try again if you please.

[danthechan]

tell me how a good player gets a warrior army to your door in 5 turns when they can't get 1 until third turn?

[ShowtekGER]

Lastly, I read your strategy, and there is no way you can defend against a good rush using it. An American Horseman rush (Will only take around 10 turns to get the horseman army, for a good player), or a Zulu Warrior Rush (Should only take 5 turns for a good Zulu player) will be able to defeat you easily, as they will be at your capital before you even get out your second warrior (as you say in your thread, it will take you 4 turns to find a capital spot).


it's starting to bother me a little that this is all ppl have to say about strats. an american player that manages to bring up a horsemen army at someone's cap at 3000BC doesn't only have to be (quite) skilled but also to be very lucky. there's definitely more luck than competence required. then it's a 1/4 chance that he finds mongolia before another player. the same with the zulu and 5 turns. and if such an american or zulu player was that lucky, pretty much every player, regardless of which civ he picked, would be screwed.

[MadDjinn]

I said not to spend much time looking for the starting spot and that 40% of the time (or something like that) the start spot is the best.

read the map around you and you can generally decide which is best.

it takes good players to play the game, not just follow a basic strat. I'll be adding more to it soon especially about the early rush defense. at that point you can complain about the discussion on early rushes.

and err, can you quote the spot that I say get BW in the intial tech strat?

archers are ok for some static defences once you've gotten things settled, but for the mongols, warriors and Keshiks go further.

I win with the mongols. more often than not, and there are people on this board that have lost to me when I've used them. they aren't noobs.

[_Mr_Sausage__]

it's starting to bother me a little that this is all ppl have to say about strats. an american player that manages to bring up a horsemen army at someone's cap at 3000BC doesn't only have to be (quite) skilled but also to be very lucky. there's definitely more luck than competence required. then it's a 1/4 chance that he finds mongolia before another player. the same with the zulu and 5 turns. and if such an american or zulu player was that lucky, pretty much every player, regardless of which civ he picked, would be screwed.

And the only way the American player gets a horseman army that early is if he gets a GS as the first great person. More luck involved. And just like you said, ANY civ will lose given those circumstances that were detailed above.

[MadDjinn]

and hmm... a zulu player with 3 warriors at 5 turns? try again.

even if they don't move their settler, push out a warrior on turn 3 and are super lucky to find a goodie hut on turn 5 (no goodie huts within 2 tiles or barb huts) they will only have that army no more than 2 tiles from their city. since the closest another player will be is 6 more tiles away (worst case) that's long enough for another player to get a barb but and make their own warrior army in their city (even if they have to bring the first one back). that first zulu warrior army will generally lose to the defender due to the palace bonus (if not more defense if the move is expected.

no horse rush will be at you before you can ensure a defense is made, let alone have your own warrior army for counter attack. if you happen to have a vet warrior army vs a non vet horse army, you win most of the time if you attack. if the warrior army is fully fortified the non vet horses lose again.

if the person takes the time to make 2 horse armies then you've got more than enough time to be ready for it.

again, just by paying attention to some basic things (does someone have a tech early? are they normally expected to want to rush? etc) will tell you hat you need to do.

[ShowtekGER]

the zulu scenario should be possible if the zulus' opponent moves his settler in closeness to them. besides, barb huts can be placed only two tiles away from your initial starting spot (aslope). and if you manage to get to a hut in i think 5 or 6 turns you will capture it with only one attack which of course gives you more than 25 gold. but it's easy to see that this would be something fantastic to happen. if the opponent actually moved so accidentally, he would probably be catched by one of the impis before he even reached his city spot.

[MadDjinn]

5 turns is still impossible to have an impi army (very unlikely the barb hut is 2 tiles away, but even if it is...) at your opponents city.

as a zulu you'd be very lucky if someone walked their settler straight to you...

besides, as I've commented many times, the mongols get screwed by the map more often than not by being in horrible start positions (when tend to be very far from anyone else)

[Pedal2Metal]

tell me how a good player gets a warrior army to your door in 5 turns when they can't get 1 until third turn?

I can come up a few possibilities.
You run around w/settlers & pick up exploration tiles + village huts. Settle near barb hut which may be near another civ due to each civ usually having 2-3 barb huts nearby. Take barb hut, enough $$ to rush others & move to nearby civ as the barb hut will likely reveal the location of the nearby civ.

Americans & Aztecs can do this even easier.

Zulu can usually take a barb hut by 3600 BC. If you get at least 28 gold, you'll have a warrior army by 3500 BC & they'll be 4 squares away from their own capital.

Anyhow, I think moving settlers around is risky myself so I don't do it as you need 20 gold to make it worthwhile unless you are the Aztecs or Americans. So I don't consider these tactics of a "good" player. Just an overly aggressive player who operates based on luck vs. skill.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[_Mr_Sausage__]

He might mean 5 turns , as in right at the start, settling first turn and getting a warrior army by 3500BC. Obviously walking around with settlers, finding exploration tiles, huts, etc can do it. It sounds like you're talking about 5 turns after settling. Your scenerio means about 10 turns if your lucky but 5 turns after you settle and after you find the goodies. You guys might be talking about different things

[Pedal2Metal]

He might mean 5 turns , as in right at the start, settling first turn and getting a warrior army by 3500BC. Obviously walking around with settlers, finding exploration tiles, huts, etc can do it. It sounds like you're talking about 5 turns after settling. Your scenerio means about 10 turns if your lucky but 5 turns after you settle and after you find the goodies. You guys might be talking about different things

No I'm talking 5 turns absolutely, 4000 BC->3500 BC. Example:
4000 BC: Move settlers 2 squares, find exploration tile: 10 gold.
3900 BC: Move settlers 2 squares, find village hut: 25 gold.
3800 BC: Move 1 square, settle next to barb hut, rush warrior (20 gold, 15 gold left), the barb hut has 1 flag still, take it with warrior, get 30 gold. Now you have 45 gold. Put city on 2 trees.
3700 BC: Rush warrior for 12 gold. 33 gold left.
3600 BC: Rush warrior for 12 gold. 21 gold left. Make army. Army is now 2 squares away from initial city tile but 7 squares away from initial starting location.
3500 BC: Move warrior army another tile, now it has moved 8 squares from initial starting spot in 5 turns w/warrior army.

I've seen this exact type of thing done although it's a luck-based approach, it's probably no worse than starting w/warriors as settlers have 2 movement. Certain people have played so many games they know the maps & can do this thing better than someone who doesn't know the maps. I have to admit, I'm starting to recognize maps now myself. In any case, it's definitely doable. If you are the Zulu, you can get 11 tiles of movement in 5 turns w/army doing this type of thing which is huge & usually puts you near another civ. That civ is toast most likely if you find another barb hut after that as that will provide the veteran upgrade & veteran Zulu army 95% of the time beats single warrior in capital (4.5 vs. 2.5 but Zulu warriors are "special" so they rarely lose in this scenario). I'll take 95% odds anytime. Now 3.0 vs. 2.5 is often lost so that's not good enough, you must get veteran. An infiltration Zulu Army (6.0) will usually even beat a single archer unit in capital, often even when it's fortified (due to Zulu warriors being "special"). If you find Ankwar Wat & get religion, it's ridiculuous as you're now like a veteran horseman army. In that case, I'll go after the Greeks even as now they are like Arabians w/2 movement.

Anyhow, that's the details.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[_Mr_Sausage__]

Hmm. Thanks for the clarification. Albeit, that is extremely lucky circumstances, but possible nontheless.

[MadDjinn]

it's always lucky ;)

though:
4000 BC: Move settlers 2 squares, find exploration tile: 10 gold.

-- I think this is impossible. we know it is in GoTW, and I'm assuming it is in MP. (repeatable testing for the maps in GoTW, not so much for MP)

but yes, a bunch of gold will help. even as the mongols I've gotten 60+ g by then end of 3600 BC just using the settler.

as per the maps... yeah early recognition is important. though you will need to be playing a lot of games with a lot of civs to see enough of the common starting area to know where everyone else is.

[elthrasher]

4.5 vs. 2.5 but Zulu warriors are "special" so they rarely lose in this scenario

What is this based on? Zulu have the overrun advantage, but 4.5 to 2.5 isn't enough to overrun. I would assume Zulu have no better or worse chance to win that fight than anyone else.

[Pedal2Metal]

What is this based on? Zulu have the overrun advantage, but 4.5 to 2.5 isn't enough to overrun. I would assume Zulu have no better or worse chance to win that fight than anyone else.

While I don't have conclusive proof, it appears that the "special" units that each civ has like Spanish Conquistadors, Japanese Pikeman, Zulu Warriors, etc... get some small "unseen" advantage. It's slight but if you try a 4.5 vs. 2.5 attack with other civ's warriors, you'll find you lose statistically more often than with Zulu (or Aztecs). I used to think the "special" units had no advantage. After playing it a lot more, I'm not so sure. Zulu & Aztec warriors definitely do better than other civ's warriors in my experience.

The combat determination in this game appears to be quite complex. I've seen that the tech delta between units matters as well (discussed in other threads). If it's 2+, the better tech unit gets some kind of "unseen" advantage even if the attack/defense ratios are 1:1 or even a little bit against the higher tech unit. For example: a bomber w/18 attack attacking an 18 archer army usually wins, & definitely it's measurably more than 50%.

thanks & best regards,
eric

[elthrasher]

While I don't have conclusive proof, it appears that the "special" units that each civ has like Spanish Conquistadors, Japanese Pikeman, Zulu Warriors, etc... get some small "unseen" advantage. It's slight but if you try a 4.5 vs. 2.5 attack with other civ's warriors, you'll find you lose statistically more often than with Zulu (or Aztecs). I used to think the "special" units had no advantage. After playing it a lot more, I'm not so sure. Zulu & Aztec warriors definitely do better than other civ's warriors in my experience.

The combat determination in this game appears to be quite complex. I've seen that the tech delta between units matters as well (discussed in other threads). If it's 2+, the better tech unit gets some kind of "unseen" advantage even if the attack/defense ratios are 1:1 or even a little bit against the higher tech unit. For example: a bomber w/18 attack attacking an 18 archer army usually wins, & definitely it's measurably more than 50%.

thanks & best regards,
eric

Hmm...call me a skeptic. I've seen some odd things that might make me think one thing or another. Like the warriors of a certain civ doing really well for a while or Pikemen beating tanks or something. Then in the next game, I get opposite, wildly different or plain random results. I think it's all just random.

Last night playing the Greeks, I switched out of democracy to try to warrior rush the AI. Twice my veteran army got two wounds against a single warrior and the third time my army was destroyed. Another time as the Greeks I took a cap with non-vet warriors. Either of these experiences could make me think Greeks were especially good or especially bad at warrior rushes.

[ShowtekGER]

While I don't have conclusive proof, it appears that the "special" units that each civ has like Spanish Conquistadors, Japanese Pikeman, Zulu Warriors, etc... get some small "unseen" advantage. It's slight but if you try a 4.5 vs. 2.5 attack with other civ's warriors, you'll find you lose statistically more often than with Zulu (or Aztecs). I used to think the "special" units had no advantage. After playing it a lot more, I'm not so sure. Zulu & Aztec warriors definitely do better than other civ's warriors in my experience.

The combat determination in this game appears to be quite complex. I've seen that the tech delta between units matters as well (discussed in other threads). If it's 2+, the better tech unit gets some kind of "unseen" advantage even if the attack/defense ratios are 1:1 or even a little bit against the higher tech unit. For example: a bomber w/18 attack attacking an 18 archer army usually wins, & definitely it's measurably more than 50%.

thanks & best regards,
eric


i really, really doubt that. first because it is very likely chestiness just like the egyptian wonder or the power of different barbs. the game features a machine of coincidences and i think these make it all randomly. secondly, it would just be totally dumb.

[MadDjinn]

if there's a delta based upon tech, it doesn't count for the Templar units.

even if I wait til industrial and get the vet tank, it (90%) will lose to an archer army (almost always on the first go). granted, I don't think I've ever managed to keep one of the templar units more than 2 battles. even if they are statistically supposed to win all of them.

[Pedal2Metal]

if there's a delta based upon tech, it doesn't count for the Templar units.



I agree. Artifact units & actually researched/built units seem to behave differently in my experience. I will theorize this is for balance issues primarily as you can get artifact units much much earlier than you can research them.

I stand by my convictions on the special units & the tech delta although the tech delta I feel more confident about. I've got no conclusive proof so it's all just my own experiences & inferrance. My son & I together have probably played 300-400 MP games & similar SP games but so has everyone else on these boards. I've just seen the tech delta thing enough that for me this is almost a foregone conclusion. The special units thing is more subtle although I'll add that from a common-sense perspective, why would the game designers mention the special units in each Civilization's lobby screen if they were completely & totally irrelevant. I suppose it's possible but every piece of information in that lobby screen relates to gameplay so I'm skeptical of the belief that the designers just threw that info in there "just because". Coupled with what I've seen (or think I've seen at least) w/special units, I think there is some kind of subtle impact. But it's definitely not a huge impact & not enough to imbalance the game.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

i really, really doubt that. first because it is very likely chestiness just like the egyptian wonder or the power of different barbs. the game features a machine of coincidences and i think these make it all randomly. secondly, it would just be totally dumb.

That's ok, this is an area of "faith" so to speak so we each have to decide for ourselves as there is no conclusive evidence.

I've played Zulu probably 50 times. I've never lost a 4.5 vs. 2.5 battle, ever. With other civs, I have. In fact, it happens often w/other civs. So it is perhaps still random but the data suggests differently when coupled with the lobby screen civ info which I believe is all gameplay related. Otherwise, you have to believe that some of that info is completely useless which I think is equally dumb to believe given the clear evidence that the rest of it is 100% gameplay related & the information is to be used by the player to pick the civ of interest while in the lobby.

Anyhow, that's my $.02. :)

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[elthrasher]

That's ok, this is an area of "faith" so to speak so we each have to decide for ourselves as there is no conclusive evidence.

I've played Zulu probably 50 times. I've never lost a 4.5 vs. 2.5 battle, ever. With other civs, I have. In fact, it happens often w/other civs. So it is perhaps still random but the data suggests differently when coupled with the lobby screen civ info which I believe is all gameplay related. Otherwise, you have to believe that some of that info is completely useless which I think is equally dumb to believe given the clear evidence that the rest of it is 100% gameplay related & the information is to be used by the player to pick the civ of interest while in the lobby.

Anyhow, that's my $.02. :)

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

I've lost a 4.5 to 2.5 battle with the Zulu. I think your findings simply show that there is variance in a random system.

[Pedal2Metal]

I've lost a 4.5 to 2.5 battle with the Zulu. I think your findings simply show that there is variance in a random system.

Fair enough. However, neither of us have probably kept a record of wins/losses in this scenario for all civs so it's equally possible that it isn't random but slightly statistically different (like a 65% w/l ratio for Zulu/Aztecs while only 60% for other civs) while still appearing random. That's all I'm suggesting. I'm not suggesting it's a major impact so you losing such a battle doesn't imply my theory is incorrect. If we did this 1000 times for each civ, that would be statistically significant (overkill) & could absolutely answer the question. I doubt any of us are that anal-retentive & if we are, we probably need a padded cell. ;)

However, the "faith" aspect of this discussion is the more interesting aspect.
What purpose do you think the "special" units being mentioned in the lobby have?

I think suggesting this has no purpose & is just arbitrary info is less plausible than believing it does have some purpose given the overwhelming body of evidence that is CivRev where everything & each thing matters. Additionally, the lobby screen is an intentional sharing of information by the designers w/players, many of whom will never read the manual and/or Civilopedia thus given the lobby screen even greater importance, to help the player make the first & most important decision of the game: Which Civ to play with. I find it more difficult to swallow they all of a sudden injected purpose-less information in that screen vs. believing the information does have purpose within the game. I will acknowledge the possibility that perhaps the information's purpose is to indicate which units have a unique aesthetic appearance so while it isn't gameplay functional information, it's still purposeful within the overall game experience. However, this seems odd as each Civ's units are already unique in appearance.

I'm open to the idea of fully random but my experience doesn't jive with that & when combined with my conviction the lobby info is all functionally-purposeful, I've drawn different conclusions. However, both thesis are actually verifiable. If there is no statistical difference in combat results over a statistically significant sample, then it's non-functional information. Otherwise, it's functional information.

It does make for interesting discussion however. :)

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[elthrasher]

However, the "faith" aspect of this discussion is the more interesting aspect.
What purpose do you think the "special" units being mentioned in the lobby have?


I actually think the game has a bit of an unfinished quality when it comes to some units, like maybe there were plans to do different things with them, but it never happened.

The submarine is a prime example. You can't tell me they tested it out and said "yup, everybody's gonna want to have one of these!" I'll bet it was supposed to be stealthy, like invisible to other players and you'd only find it by moving into it or something. Then it could be kind of cool. But maybe development fell behind schedule a bit and that was cut.

Another kind of related thing is how naval and air units can't gain promotions. They can't even become veteran unless built that way. Seems unfinished to me.

Some of the special units do have very obvious bonuses. Impi warriors get an extra movement, as do Keshik (eventually). It could be that the special units were all meant to have different advantages, but it just didn't happen. It could be they were just included for flavor. How is a hoplite superior to a pikeman? I've never seen any difference. Don't tell me they defend better. I've had enough bad games as the Greeks where I lose cities to knight armies to know that's not true.

[Pedal2Metal]

I actually think the game has a bit of an unfinished quality when it comes to some units, like maybe there were plans to do different things with them, but it never happened.

The submarine is a prime example. You can't tell me they tested it out and said "yup, everybody's gonna want to have one of these!" I'll bet it was supposed to be stealthy, like invisible to other players and you'd only find it by moving into it or something. Then it could be kind of cool. But maybe development fell behind schedule a bit and that was cut.

Another kind of related thing is how naval and air units can't gain promotions. They can't even become veteran unless built that way. Seems unfinished to me.

Some of the special units do have very obvious bonuses. Impi warriors get an extra movement, as do Keshik (eventually). It could be that the special units were all meant to have different advantages, but it just didn't happen. It could be they were just included for flavor. How is a hoplite superior to a pikeman? I've never seen any difference. Don't tell me they defend better. I've had enough bad games as the Greeks where I lose cities to knight armies to know that's not true.

Excellent points. Yep, I agree it's a bit of a mystery overall. I've had the same questions. Incompleteness is a possible explanation for things & definitely some units have more obvious bonuses than others.

For naval/air units, I think that was intentional & was done primarily for balance reasons but also makes a certain kind of sense militarily. Only land-based units can get upgrades such as infiltration, blitz, march which makes some kind of sense. I can't come up with a rationale description of what infiltration or blitz or march would mean for a aerial or naval unit. Can you imagine bombers w/infiltration/blitz & actually being able to continue to attack when they overrun? EVERYONE, & I mean EVERYONE, would start using Oxford University as it would be a virtual guaranteed victory path. Get bombers, kill everyone else. It's already like that as it is so it would be completely unbalanced if they allowed bombers to get elite upgrades.

So in that specific case, I think it's an intentional decision. The rest are good examples. I guess that's one thing that makes the game so addictive. It's just got so many details & unanswered questions, it's fun to talk about & explore the possibilities.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Kadazzle]

it's always lucky ;)

though:
4000 BC: Move settlers 2 squares, find exploration tile: 10 gold.

-- I think this is impossible. we know it is in GoTW, and I'm assuming it is in MP. (repeatable testing for the maps in GoTW, not so much for MP)

but yes, a bunch of gold will help. even as the mongols I've gotten 60+ g by then end of 3600 BC just using the settler.

as per the maps... yeah early recognition is important. though you will need to be playing a lot of games with a lot of civs to see enough of the common starting area to know where everyone else is.

It is possible to have an exploration tile right next to a city in single player, and I do recall it happening in multiplayer.

Pedal2Metal pretty much summed up what I was going to say about the Zulu warrior rush.

Now, for what you asked for, MadDjinn;


Now that the AI question is dealt with, you’re next problem is other players. if they are close to you, choke them off as best you can. get BW and make a few archers

Straight out of your Mongol strategy.

[elthrasher]

It is possible to have an exploration tile right next to a city in single player, and I do recall it happening in multiplayer.


Correct. I've seen it a few times. It's always humiliating for someone when an attacking army comes up, hits a tile that guy hasn't touched yet and gets 10-15 gold. It happened to me last night, I think. I really could've used that gold for another archer....

However, at least in GotW, if you move your settlers to an exploration square in 4000 BC, you don't name it and don't get the gold. I don't know if this is true or not in other games, because I hardly ever move my settlers, but it's verifyably true in GotW.

[tsizzle]

I actually think the game has a bit of an unfinished quality when it comes to some units, like maybe there were plans to do different things with them, but it never happened.

The submarine is a prime example. You can't tell me they tested it out and said "yup, everybody's gonna want to have one of these!" I'll bet it was supposed to be stealthy, like invisible to other players and you'd only find it by moving into it or something. Then it could be kind of cool. But maybe development fell behind schedule a bit and that was cut.

Another kind of related thing is how naval and air units can't gain promotions. They can't even become veteran unless built that way. Seems unfinished to me.



I couldn't agree more, I always had that same feeling myself.

Love,
tsizzle:cool:

[MadDjinn]

It is possible to have an exploration tile right next to a city in single player, and I do recall it happening in multiplayer.

Pedal2Metal pretty much summed up what I was going to say about the Zulu warrior rush.

Now, for what you asked for, MadDjinn;



Straight out of your Mongol strategy.

sigh, at least quote the whole bit:

get BW and make a few archers if they are being very aggressive.

......

granted, it's a matter of degree for what's "very" aggressive, but I generally mean they've got more warriors than brains.

and the next para gives more details:

Lock down the area to prevent them from rushing you. if they are rushing you get warrior armies in the closest cities and counter attack where you can. Tech HBR and switch 3-4 cities to producing horses. Counter attack and keep them away from you. Archers are cheaper, and are needed in the close cities, but your Keshik armies will move faster than they will and can do hit and run raids on their armies. It’s better to fight them in the field than in your cities.


so the focus is on warriors and Keshiks for counter assaults, not go for BW and hole up.

anywhom...

as per the exploration tile, sure... haven't really seen it in MP much, but it could be that GotW is the only bugged one.

...

just won another match as the mongols against someone I know uses the Aztecs constantly. they got all artifacts but the Arc and I got the Knight rush in the BC's. helped that the Arc ended up giving me 2 GP's - one GE (waited til industrial to use it) and one GB (Samurai Castle ftw). also had my cap storing prod for a number of turns, so got 2 vet Knight armies out the turn I hit Knights. he quit.

he did rush me too.. lost his non vet Jag army to my vet army as well as his vet Knights from the templars. he eventually GA flipped my best tech city (I settled 1 city of 4 pop just before it and forgot to switch to Monarchy once I had Knights... ah well. it was close enough to retake right away.

[Pedal2Metal]

I've lost a 4.5 to 2.5 battle with the Zulu. I think your findings simply show that there is variance in a random system.

Well, it turns out Morte said that Elizabeth 2K stated the special units ARE better than non-special units. So there, na-na-na-boo-boo... you have to imagine me singing that in my "kindergarten" voice while twirling my fingers w/my thumb on my nose & sticking my tongue out... :)

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Pedal2Metal]

as per the exploration tile, sure... haven't really seen it in MP much, but it could be that GotW is the only bugged one.
.

Let me answer this one:
Having an exploration tile right next to your city happens all the time in MP. In fact, with my food testing for the civs which was all done in MP H2H, I found it happens A LOT. In fact, it happens so often, you might try taking a useless unit & walking it around your city to get some easy cash. I tested 10 games this way & got money 4 times. That's a 40% hit rate over 10 MP games! Not bad at all. I don't have a standard deviation but it's not a 0-probability event. It definitely occurs.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[Think_Before_You_Speak]

Let me answer this one:
Having an exploration tile right next to your city happens all the time in MP. In fact, with my food testing for the civs which was all done in MP H2H, I found it happens A LOT.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

MD means he doesn't think it is possible to find an exploration tile in 4000BC during multiplayer because it has been proven that you can't in GOTW. There was a Mongol GOTW a while back and I was the first to notice that if you skipped a turn, then moved your settler, you would get 10 gold and set the seed so that your 4.5 attack warrior army from hill would kill 8 def Zulu archer. If you didn't skip the turn - no 10 gold, warrior army would die..

So the question is - Is it possible to discover an exploration tile in 4000BC? You tell me as I don't move my settler or play Aztec.

[Pedal2Metal]

MD means he doesn't think it is possible to find an exploration tile in 4000BC during multiplayer because it has been proven that you can't in GOTW. There was a Mongol GOTW a while back and I was the first to notice that if you skipped a turn, then moved your settler, you would get 10 gold and set the seed so that your 4.5 attack warrior army from hill would kill 8 def Zulu archer. If you didn't skip the turn - no 10 gold, warrior army would die..

So the question is - Is it possible to discover an exploration tile in 4000BC? You tell me as I don't move my settler or play Aztec.

Oopps, my mistake. GOTW, no exploration tile in 4000 BC is fact as you say. In MP, I don't know as I almost never move my settlers unless I'm the Greeks.
While there are some slight differences in gameplay mechanics between SP & MP, in most cases these appear more like bugs than real differences (excepting Teams play of course) such as Blitz/March upgrade & immediately attack differences. I'd have to side w/MadDjinn on this one & assume it's not possible.

best regards,
Pedal2Metal

[MadDjinn]

yeah, it's not the fact that the tile exists, it's more the fact that you can't hit it with your settler on 4000 BC.

granted, someone who plays the Aztecs may be able to get it. I don't know the extent of the bug.