Civs where you need luck
I think that part of the reason some Civs are good or bad depends on how big the role of luck is in their success. China, US etc. can almost always do well, no matter what their starting position is. By contrast the Mongols are very heavily dependent on where they find themselves. As an example: normally I find playing them the hardest civ, but recently achieved my fastest victory ever with them. It was totally because, for once the first three barbs were located at great growth sites. So I was able to develop a veteran warrior army very early and knock off two civs and then found a perfect block point against the other two. this allowed to me to build cities tech up fast without expending effort on defense.
One advantage of Mongols. If you lose; you can blame them for being such a bad civ, and if you win it was clearly your superior play. But, if you lose as the Chinese, there aren't too many excuses.
nice thread. i cogitate about that quite often cause i don't like luck based civs. that doesn't mean i only like power civs, but it means that i like civs that are controlled by me and not by the map.
the civ which is the most luck dependent is egypt imo. ironically maybe 50% of the games i lost were against them. as everyone knows they can be insanly powerful with col.+4deserts+river+maybe a good resource. but they are simply a weak civ with henge and often with the oracle. they usually walk around with the first settler to find deserts which also requires luck.
yes i dislike this civ. and i hate to lose against egypt colossus players.
i disagree on that because you equalize both civs. yes america and china are the two most powerful civs and yes america CAN pull off the best compared to all other civs. but america needs gold to do that and it can happen to you that you haven't gold around you. china doesn't need anything, their bonus is enough. i know it's unlikely for america not to get much gold but it happens. thus, china is more balanced = less luck dependent.
Originally Posted by Cymru
i also don't really like the spanish because of whale hunting, especially if it's whale hunting for the cap. in the last case you need a whole alp of luck imo and you could be easily screwed. the 'normal' whale hunting is just not my taste. you can have an awesome game when you find many whales and fast, your game can suck if you find no whales. and that happens.
in comparison i love the indians. you can say you have to be lucky to find the right resources. but usually you can use nearly all resources. the difference to luck based civs is that you don't rely on a special resource but instead you have to be flexible and engage yourself in regard to the specific resource.
and here comes the anti-mongol threads again..
geez, I thought I got rid of these long ago...
mongols are not luck-based to win. they take skill. period. either you have it and can fully utilize their era boni, or you don't and think it just takes luck.
I've won from islands and from peninsulas with no barb huts. it sucks, but if you're good you'll get past that. just like if you were any other civ in that position.
and Spain is by far not a luck based civ. just stop whale hunting for your cap. same goes for the english with dye.
if you think you need to do any of the above 'lucky' things to win with those civs, then you aren't that good and it shows.
Originally Posted by MadDjinn
I have no doubt that good players win consistently with all civs: that is not the point. The polls I have seen on this forum place the Mongols right at the bottom almost every time. So, for most players, they are the hardest to work with and the one people like the least. I actually don't mind playing with some of the lesser civs, it is their unpredictable nature that makes them more interesting than the powerhouses
see. you missed the point in your own post.
Originally Posted by Cymru
I bolded it for you so you can see... just bc they're harder to play correctly, doesn't mean they are worse than other civs. and the fact that 'polls' are oh so accurate to reality.
It doesn't matter if 'people don't like them'. what matters is that for the most part, those same people don't have the skill to use them properly.
it's the old "I suck, but I find playing the americans/chinese/zulu very easy, therefore they must be the best and I'll just call anything I fail at as bad or 'lucky' or 'lesser' "
well i don't think spain is a luck based civ and i also didn't write that. (however whale hunting for the cap is.) you'll prolly find some whales, in other cases you'll find plenty of them, in other cases you'll find none or few. i personally don't like that. it's arguable if it's luck or not.
Originally Posted by MadDjinn
How could you say that the mongols are not luck based? Seriously... Mongols ancient game is dependent on finding a good amount of barb huts. Even if you get a decent amount of barb huts doesnt mean there placed near good land. IMO any rush with the mongols are hail marys especially if there already better rushing civs. That extra keshik movement BLOWS.
Originally Posted by MadDjinn
The argument is that while yes you need 2-4 barbs to be competative, this is true of all civs. Mongols without barb villages = teh suck. Other civs without gold = same.
Originally Posted by GhOsTSidRev
I do think there's some merit to the placement of barbs adding an additional layer of luck. The last time I played the Mongols, I got three barbs, which is just fine, but two had no food at all and one only had plains. That's pretty bad, actually.
yeah, sure. location of the barb huts are sometimes questionable, and maybe luck based to get 3 decent barb huts.
the extra keshik movement... hmm. I have a knight with the march upgrade. that's 4 movement/turn. which means I'm moving twice as fast through your cities as any other civ with knights. that gives you less turns to rush defenders /counter units everywhere.
keshiks with no upgrades still move 3. so you want to expand? guess you're going at 1 tile/turn to keep that archer army on your settler. that slows your development just by me being there. even still, unless you stick to forests/hills the archer army will bite it.
Want to horse rush me? your horses go 2, I go 3. you'll never catch me and I'll always have that 1 extra move/turn to attack you if you are chasing.
it's likely the worst of the mongol boni, but it's still more useful than say, 1/2 price riflemen or +1 move riflemen.
I find with the mongols that it's only ~40% of the time where I'll have the conditions to keshik rush early enough (Ie, read my supplementary strat for them for the 2 conditions). the rest of the time, I'll either do a different strat, or use the keshiks to harrass opponents and control the mainland.
Mongols don't need luck, but it is tough for them to overcome bad luck. Bad luck for an civ= no huts, barbs, or anyway to get gold. Most people find at least 2 or 3 barbs on the map, and should have a decent shot at getting 100 gold. Mongols don't need the 100 gold, and if they get 4 or more barbs, then they are pretty strong, as long as they don't get rushed early on. But losing 1 or 2 1 pop cities isn't the end of the world, as long as you can get something out of them.
Bad luck is starting right next to the Americans or Zulu, and having nothing possible to stop their rush.
There are some civs that become more powerful on random events, so they are a little more luck based. France needs the luck of the GPs to work well, or a lot of gold. Russians need a favorable map, or they are just average.
But, when you're talking about luck in gereneral in this game, there are a lot of ways to think about it. Sometimes it's about getting lucky in early rushing, sometimes it's about gathering a lot of gold, sometimes it's about who finds the artifacts or gets the right GPs at the right time, or it can be the map and how favorable the terrain is for you. China can still be hard to play with on the wrong map, but have a better chance than most civs if they were starting in a similiar spot.
But the most important factor when you consider luck is how skilled the player is that gets the luck vs. the skill of the other players. I don't lose often to the Egyptians w/ Collosus, and it's usually because a lot of players just don't play it well. I also don't lose to it because I still don't think Collosus is a game-decider, just a nice early boost, and it's not to hard to counter it or put up a good fight.
If a noob finds 7 cities, he's probably just gonna rush a library, or spend it horribly. If a good player finds it, he's gonna leverage it into an advantage and make it a sustainable one. If I get 4 or 5 barb huts with the Mongols, I'll probably do ok, be able to find some ok moves to win, but if MadDjinn, who has a lot more experience w/ them gets that same start, he'll probably convert it into something way more powerful than I can. By the same token, he may not be able to take advantage of the Spanish the way I can, but that's just comparing two decent players...
I think good players can turn luck into way more than bad players can, and can play themselves out of bad luck better than others. It still comes down to skill, and yes, you may be at a disadvantage, and there may be nothing you can do to win some games because luck has been on your side, but you can still give ppl a hell of a run even if they do get the greatest of starts.
I really don't see many of the civs being exclusively luck based, except for the French, and they need luck just to be ok. The Russians need some luck to be good, but they are ok. All the other civs don't really require too much luck. That's just my opinion.