View Poll Results: Arabs vs English... who is really more powerful
- 28. You may not vote on this poll
Both are equal
Arabs vs English... who is really more powerful?
Start with Fundy and can almost dang near be 50% of the attack they generating regularly so early. But is offense of that nature unstoppable? Legions on countless times stopped a HA attack. It takes longer to build a HA than a AA anyway and AA or just an A stops dang near anything... I know you all seen the power of AA regardless their defense. Also under Fundy Arabs cannot resort to use of libraries. Don't forget their non-valuable 50% caravan bonus that does nothing for them. Arabs then gets catapults but don't receive a free one though. Takes time to build a CA and let alone it be veteran. Plus CA's are not that reliable attacking an AA.
Arabs next bonus allows horsmen and knights the ability to attack 1+ to their regular attack. I admit that is a monster bonus as if your HA stay alive, veteran, infil., fundy with any type of naval support and they beating pikemen. Knights even more dangerous but still it can be defended against most times, not so hard. Last bonus is plus 2% on gold... Is this bonus really threatening or really matter???
They start with knowledge of Monarchy and longbows that are as strong as pikemen but cheaper??? That type of defense that can obtained easily by researching BW is ridiculous. That defense stands the tests of time until late game. English can do pretty much whatever they want. Not to mention the early gp they get from culture and the culture = rarely flipping them. The bonus of having Monarchy then allows English to utilize dye whenever and wherever! Thats not powerful??? To happen upon dye with your starting settler and next get a 100g to get another settler to post up near some more dye... potentially two... monstrous! Thats not even adding a library they still can out tech anyone.
Next bonus they rule the seas and majority of the time will kill anything in their wake trying to reach there precious dye island cities. That bonus lasts the rest of the game and make anyone but Spanish with the same unit of naval run in fear of dying. Next bonus is the hill production that can come in handy. Is it anything to make someone shiver... no because no English (really nobody) really wants a hill next to their city for someone to camp and then attack with a 50% bonus. Unless you talking about the construction city that bonus is a hinder but a plus to the English. Last bonus is truly the outshiner of all modern era bonuses. DOUBLE NAVY SUPPORT! What can you do? Build all cities inland to avoid them? But oh you won't be getting much science then would you? I have witnessed the horrors of this bonus and the very first warrior you can build can defeat with assistance from BSF MI armies. Sick bonus that I don't even need to reiterate on.
YOU DECIDE WHO IS THE MORE POWERFUL CIV AND VOTE!
Last edited by MultiPlayaBeast; 03-06-2012 at 07:56 AM.
Reason: Add more info
In H2H, definitely Arabs because Fundy makes them consistently stronger, and most games don't last to Modern. And they have decent post-ancient bonuses.
England has the potential for early knights thanks to Monarchy, but that's not a reliable or consistent strat. I think they have to get to modern with the double naval support to potentially overtake the Arabs. This is more likely in FFA.
I guess to summarize:
religion>>Monarchy+strong archers (remember Arabs get the culture bonus too)
Mathematics> +1 naval (remember math is a prereq for navigation, Arabs will likely get galleons before the English)
+1 horses/knights> +1 hill production
2% interest<<<double naval support
Strange as I don't see Arab players doing much of nothing with those bonuses. Fundy only can do so much but longbow last way longer. The culture output of Arabs can't compare to English. Let's even say I get galleons first... What does that matter when their regular galley can beat a galleon? And just because Arabs get cats don't mean that Navi is coming soon. It takes 110 science to reach Navi and at the most an Arab player will be pulling is 1p science per turn before getting it. A English player will more than likely have a ton of science (20 or 30 per turn) easy going for Navi and just skip Catapults to get it. It has happened plenty of times to me. Naval support +1 is like having 1+ knights/horses you bring a galleon along to attack a city.
I wish there was away to have concrete proof of what Arabs and a English game would be h2h but most people will lie and say that they couldn't beat Arabs!!! It's perposterous to believe they not in a bracket of the same caliber as Arabs. English destroys all the other civs Majority of the time besides the obvious power civs. I should have put Aztecs vs English if the post medieval bonuses really matter as Aztecs don't have anything later of use that makes them so strong... English would always handle them... But Aztecs are still considered better. Whatever man!
Last edited by MultiPlayaBeast; 03-06-2012 at 09:10 AM.
Reason: Additional information
Based on my experience Arabs are stronger than the English.
Fundamentalism is just too good. You can apply pressure with warriors right away. I often don't build horses with them, since 2 warrior armies on a galley can do enough damage. A vet WA is the same as a regular vet HA. And 2 of them take down any single longbow archer. Even one army can suffice if you want to risk it. Fundy cat armies beat longbow armies. Fundy KA with the extra attack bonus beat longbow armies. Fundy legions are strong and cheap and can overwhelm longbows.
England is no joke either, but the longbows often just make them turtle to much. Early knights are nice, but you often lack production to build these expensive units along with barracks. And the double naval support is just a monster bonus! But many games do not go to modern. If you let the British get that far, then bombers are your only hope.
Dye spots are nice, but if you build you cap on dye, you are most likely sacrificing either production or growth. And if you start teching w/o taking AI caps, it will take time to pump out extra settlers for more dye. One dye city is not going to make a huge difference. If you rush libraries you need a lot of gold.
Yes, England can survive the early rush easily with archers, but you are already making the wrong commitment by going for archers rather than your own horse army. Even with nice dye spots, it is very hard to compete against an Arab player with 2-3 AI caps. And you will have to build longbow armies in each of your precious dye cities, since otherwise they will be taken by your opponent. And building that many archer armies is not very cost effective.
I would pick Arabs over England any day. That being said, I enjoy playing England very much. But Arabs are just stronger.
In my experience Arabs usually win and it doesnt make it very long....England definitely has the late advantages but do they ever really make it that far.....a noob wastes too much time trying to get early knights so Im prepared with fundy cats for counters or something....good players rarely build and AA unless they know your HA is close so many times you will catch them off.....basically...REM0s logic is sound....England is good.....and late in the game they Are better.....but there is a reason Englad is allowed in forum tourneys and Arabs are not......
1. I would guess many Arab players only know how to play the early game, much like a lot of Aztec and another civ-that-won't be named
Originally Posted by MultiPlayaBeast
But I thnk post-ancient Arab bonuses are pretty decent.
2. I think the archer bonus is mainly useful for wounding and a non-vet legion rush. A decent knight or catapault rush will still take them down.
3. culture: not really, once the Arabs get going. Monarchy means double palace bonus. that means a max of 5 extra culture for a total of 10. And that assumes you stay in Monarchy the whole time. It goes away if you switch to republic.
Getting the +1 per city bonus for religion stays the whole game. Get an early cap, plus 100g city, and you are at 8 culture pretty easily. That's pretty close.
4. Getting math means the Arab player doesn't have to spend 70 beakers researching one of navigations prereqs.
You have to have a lot of dye around for the English to get that far ahead in science. It often doesn't happen, which is why I say England isn't always consistent.
I usually just go for knights if I have that much dye and not waste time with navigation (provided I have a decent production city and some gold)
I would have to say typically Arabs, but against me and knowing how you play I would take English over Arabs.
Good arguments I see, I mean I normally can handle most with Arabs but it just seems having English in Tourneys compared to the other civs is out right blandish. It's unfair to go against them to me with other civs but then that goes back to who is using a civ against who. I still think that in a overall battle of Arab vs English forum members using them that English will overwhelm as the forum member using English will anticipate how Arabs will attack and then throw counter offenses.
the arabs are more powerful, only because their bonuses can outright win many games before they get started.
i would like to see an alternative bracket with 8 players, using all civs except china and america. have the top 4 players move on to the next level, best of 3. then a best of 3 or 5 for the championship. it could be a stand alone championship with the 1 bracket.
Set up the thread and I'm in. Bet everyone who gets English wins there game. I really can't wait to use Zulu. It will be a definite winner.
should we allow oxford, or keep it out?
I say go for it and let's see what happens. To the thread, I can't believe so many people think Arabs more powerful. I should be flattered but I can't use them in tourneys. This poll was to convince the leaders of the tourneys to allow Arabs into the tourney!
i think arabs are stronger 2
Arabs. Its not even that close. If your depending on archer armies in all your cities to win your probably lost anyway. Arabs can pressure the whole game. English are very map dependent. Many maps, dye is not readily available.
Arabs>English in H2H. English>Arabs in FFA against competent players. IMO...
Arabs are stronger. No argument.
i will do this for sure beast, but i'm going to wait until we get thru the 6 brackets.
Originally Posted by MultiPlayaBeast
I'm in as well after the brackets of course
Originally Posted by danthechan
Arabs by far...those vet WA can be mighty powerful
lol. I would cut out the Zulu before China—they're just too good in the early game.
Originally Posted by danthechan
And I think Arabs just top the English because of their early game. They're like Zulu lite.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! I can't believe all these votes for freaking Arabs! People are only voting like this because they know I like Arabs ALOT! Do it so I can't play them in the tourneys or any other type of play that excludes "Semi-Power" civs. This is just simply ludacris and ridiculous because every dang time in the tournament it comes to using the last civ or civ against someone that may beat them with almost anyone... ENGLISH IS FREAKING CHOSEN! This by far the most outrageous mess voted for! You guys are wrong and there is no real way to prove it because people that are voting are constantly being beat by Arabs when they use English. By far the worse type of corruption made in voting history!
X.... let me find out!
Originally Posted by DA Xcutionerz
I think India would be the civ of choice above England if available.
Originally Posted by MultiPlayaBeast
Anyway, I feel a new 'Best Civ' challenge is needed to prove once and for all - England vs Arabs.
I would agree to a "Best Civ" challenge but people would put their pride and conviction to the side to allow their choosing English to be a upset and so forth, Arabs victor. The integrity in people nowadays...
Originally Posted by JackHall2003
Last edited by MultiPlayaBeast; 03-08-2012 at 02:07 AM.
Reason: Sentence revision
I think it would be funny to see an FFA dual match. 2 Arabs against 2 English. Bet I know who wins that 1... I'll take English!
Hahaha... You think people would throw games just to prove you wrong? I think you underestimate 'forum bragging rights'!
Originally Posted by MultiPlayaBeast
ITz your English didn't hold up well last night against my mighty Japan!?? AND I let you get to 24 techs... ;-)
I don't know Jack, people be suspect nowadays.
I had 4 cities and 1 you converted. If you saw my expansion room, even including islands it looked very bleak...
Originally Posted by Liam_Sutty
Let's put it like this: England has a better passive game whereas the Arabs can dominate a LOT easier.
-> A knight rush for England is costly, but highly effective yet countered by fundy units which can kill the knights.
-> English longbows have to be armied up in all cities to be effective... costly!
->Arab fundy units can be spread out and used both offensively as for defending
->England gets +1 naval attack when reaching Medieval Era, which isn't bad, but I'd rather have fundy catapults which have 22.5 attack when vet, are cheaper than knights which the English might have and can be put on hills which we all know add another 7.5 attack to the fundy cat army (some AI tend to have caps next to hills, and some players like putting cities near hills for productional purposes for which I refer to Englands Industrial bonus).
->Industrial bonus for England = +1 production from hills if I remember correctly. Not that bad, but compare it to +1 attack for horse-units and you'll see the fundy knights from Arabia tear through all. (6 attack, 9 when vet, so 27 for a vet army... try stopping it). Also the Arab horsemen from early rushes get boosted to the rank of old knights (which England might be using), so it goes to show that the Arabs can dominate all game long.
-> SHOULD England make it to end-game they need to have the resourses to produce their ships in order to evade doom, but if they succeed it means game for them
->The Arabs end the game with extra gold/turn, which can help the war-economy or boost other wins by rushing stuff: a decent bonus.
So if you ask me, the Arabs have the game in their pocket and there is a LOT of luck needed for England in order to sustain.
It seems that English is only a civ that can't get any luck the way you put it Sn1p3r. They rarely will walk around and find dye in 3 turns or less,, not get 100g to build either library or more archers, not have a barracks any time soon, get a scientist to rush knights, be able to expand in COL to get to more dye, massively tech past Arabs, keep pressure on Arabs from teching to their Knights and have legions near their cities to counter attack cat armies. Let's not forget them still being able to get Navi before Arabs because they will have a more science output and use it to put their own cats on to attack Arabs along with an archer. They need so much luck to get a scenario like this... Mmmmm.
I am torn about whether finding dye with your English settler is good or not. Often enough people settle for a crappy spot with dye and one forest and no growth. Dye plus forest is 0.5 hammers more than two forests, which is nice, but not such a big deal. You can tech HBR or BW in one turn less while banking 8 hammers - that is very nice. But other than that, you are sacrificing a lot just to settle on dye. Of course, if there is a walk in possible, then it is better than settling on just 2 forests, but people often settle on dye, just because there is dye. And that is not always a good call.
I kinda feel bad using a dye city for expansion, since it seems like that dye is not being used properly when the workers are on grass or trees (in medival).
In my experience it often pays off to settle your cap and 100g on balanced spots and use them as settler pumps later and build 3 pop cities on dye that are purely meant for trade. Otherwise I often end up with only 3 or 4 cities in questionable spots and that won't cut it, even with dye access.
Solid take REM and well put. I too like saving dye for later cities unless I happen upon a really great spot with my settler.
MultiPlayer- I've repeated some of these, but this is the problem:
1. Most of the forum members (myself included) play H2H. If England is in good shape in a game that gets to Modern, they have an edge. But most H2H games don't go to Modern.
2. England can be very strong early, but it's not a reliable because it's very map dependent.
Do I fear English Knights at 2500BC moreso than Arabs Warriors at 3000BC? You bet. But it takes quite a few breaks to get knights that early. An early WA for the arabs (and everyone else) is standard.
3. Same with the science output. To get that much science, you're needing to find lots of dye and have resources for a library that you can build safely.
You mentioned Arabs doing a max for 10 beakers/turn. That would be their cap building something, a 3-pop AI cap all on science, and a 2-pop 100g city on science.
With that empire setup, England would need 3 dye spots to get near 19 beakers without a library. Keep in mind that the AI cap probably won't have dye.
You're best case scenario is likely somehow getting you're cap in a dye spot (and still in position to walkin on the AI), and you're 100g city on a double dye island (got to build a galley now).
You can get 27 beakers/turn building a library in the double dye and working science in your cap (with dye), but again, that is not a reliable map setup, and you need a lot of gold and to be left alone to pull it off.
Again, not a consistently reliable scenario. What is more reliable is the Arab player getting an AI cap (fundy warriors allow a greater margin for error in getting one), and having more gold (overrunning barbs).
That's why, IMO, most of us consider them much stronger. They are more conistent.
Good points... I do see where everyone is coming from but any civ can get a cap from AI. English do that and get a 100g which will almost always happen they can have build a settler out of AI capital to put near dye. Dye is on every map and with time and care they will get what they need to be effective against Arabs. Arabs got to depend on battle luck because even a archer at 5 defense beats 13.5 attack and it is not that rare even. Even worse is if that archer is from English... 7.5 defense. Arabs got to have a map dependent on there movement as well. I use often and have to move settler to get near something to give them the boost needed to reach 100g plus get my horses out. Overall maybe again... a battle between English lovers and Arab lover should commence to bring this argument to a end.
Originally Posted by Legatus
agreed arabs, aztecs and zulu are early advts. Never seen anyone except pfd(huge jerk) who can play a game after 0bc with these civs
You haven't played me then because you wouldn't be able to handle it after 0bc.
Originally Posted by the_mexican
Arabs are definetly better
1) Religion and caravan Gold vs Monarchy and longbowman.
Religion is leaps and bounds better than Monarchy. The cultural bonus of +1 in all cities is definetly better than the possible +5 while in Monarchy. With Monarchy you can't change to a better government and keep the bonus, with religion you get the bonus no matter what. The dye bonus is nice, but you're not guaranteed good early dye spots, plus if you lose an early city to attack your opponent could get monarchy for free. With Fundamentalism the +1 bonus makes warriors as good as legions, legions and horsemen 50% more powerful and gives a +1 attack to archers. You could argue that the added attack to the archer (allowing you to use them like legions) is actually better than longbows. Plus longbow armies can be beat by catapults armies without too much trouble. Even though caravans are useless Religion is far better than both monarchy and logbowmen.
Advantage: Arabs by a wide margin
2) Math vs +1 naval attack.
Getting catapults without having to tech them is actually better than the +1 naval attack, because this game is rarely won on the seas, but the cats can be used both to attack offensively or for counters, plus it aids in the path to navigation.
Advantage: Close but Arabs
3) +1 Cavalry attack, increased hill production.
Fundy arab knight armies now attack at 18, 27 if vet and 36 if from a hill. I doubt longbowman will hold up to that pressure. The English Bonus is ok, but it also makes it morelikely the arabs will have a hill to attack from
Advantage: Arabs by a wide margin
4) Full naval support vs 2% interest on gold
The English naval support is a far better bonus here, but the game would most likely be over by this point, plus you would need the ability to build an expensive fleet to take advantage of this bonus.
Advantage: English by a wide margin.
As you can see it is only if the English can get to the modern in fairly good shape they can get the advantage, but the arabs would usually have beaten them by that point.
That's why I believe something contesting the two will do. Perhaps Arabs are technically better but why most people dont use them? I swear I know over 60% people will say they face Arabs almost every other game which I know is false. I play FFA more than anyone in these forums and see far more people using English than Arabs. I encounter almost every two or three games a English player. Why the heck people using English so dang much if there isn't something about them that seems to them players that they would win? No matter the argument English is not stronger than Arabs but they preferred for peoples civ leader on leaderboards more commonly than Arabs.