Civilizations

Alex 14 · August 11, 2001, 22:12

I'm not going to post a poll, but considering the civ-specific units & abilities, which civilization do you think you'll choose first when you start a new game?

Personally, i'll choose the Russians because i like scouting around and getting huts early in the game, a free scout will be perfect for this. Also because bronze working becomes avalible staight away, allowing construction of defencive units at the beggining of the game, oppose to waiting to discover bronze. Thirdly its hard to resist getting a free tech at the begining of each era, expecially if your behind in science. And finally because of the MiG unit, air attacks are very effective.

marcuspeddle · August 11, 2001, 22:30

I think I'll go for the Babylonians because of their scientific and religious bonuses. I like peaceful games more than military games. Also, I've always been interested in the Babylonian civilisation so it's a natural choice for me.
Of course, since all the civilisations have different units and characteristics I'll most likely try all the different civs to see how they play.

Juggernaut · August 11, 2001, 22:42

Definitely Russians. Good starting location with lots of ICS-abilities, scientific and expansionist abilities - a demand for a succesful game on the upper levels.

Aztecs also have a good location, having South America for themselves.

Inverse Icarus · August 11, 2001, 22:47

i'll start a world map game as the americans, and throw in the Aztecs, and then a bunch of other races off the western hemisphere.

that'll let me expand a bit and **HOPEFULLY** trade with the aztecs, while keeping me distant from perhaps stronger AIs.

it will also allow the AIs to intertwine or destroy eachother. it'll let me see how good they are without me destroying them

Pythagoras · August 11, 2001, 22:49

I ussually play Babylonian... on a random world map.

connorkimbro · August 11, 2001, 23:07

i'm more of a science oriented guy, and i love the occ/early city challenges. . while my first several games won't be early landing attempts, that nature will still influence my choice to be either greeks (commercial, science) or the chinese (science, industrious) . .

August 12, 2001, 00:08

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
i'll start a world map game as the americans, and throw in the Aztecs, and then a bunch of other races off the western hemisphere.

I to will play the first game as an American. The second game as someone other than American. I will play all of them by the 20s game.

TechWins · August 12, 2001, 00:19

Quote:

**HOPEFULLY** trade with the aztecs, while keeping me distant from perhaps stronger AIs.

Well you better hope a lot because the Aztecs are militariastic. Good luck with that one.

I'll play as my fav. civ the Americans. Sooner or later I'll wind up playing with all the civs but mainly I'll play with the Americans. I guess it's just that stupid nationalism thing.

Quote:

air attacks are very effective.

I sure hope so because in Civ2 they were almost useless. Sometimes I would only have about 1 or 2 air attacks in a game because when I was taking over AI cities by the time I actually needed to use my air force they were too far away for them to be used. Something needs to be done here, does everyone agree?

Inverse Icarus · August 12, 2001, 01:04

well, in theory a stealth bomber can take off from Nevada and bomb the middle east and come back without a refuel, but that seems way too cheap in civ - terms.

i recommend fighters on a carrier be able to "scramble" as if they were in a city. makes carriers more defensive and harder to kill.

Apocalypse · August 12, 2001, 01:15

I'll play the Americans first. Second will depend on my mood, though I might restart before I finish the first and then play as the Americans again.

tniem · August 12, 2001, 01:22

From what I know now, I am intrigued by four civs:

The Babylonians, the Japanese (Militaristic and Religious), the Chinese (Scientific and Industrious), and the Greeks (Scientific and Commercial).

When the game ships though that may all change. Certainly the expansionist's extra scout is going to be a huge advantage early. But the way I look at it at this time the religious no anarchy could be a slight advantage throughout the game and science's extra tech per age is also a slight advantage through the game. Should be fun then with the Babylonians...

Tventano · August 12, 2001, 07:21

In Civ1 I fairly often played on a world map. In the beginning often as Babylonian, Roman, Greek or Egyptian, because I still have the feeling that our civilization started in that areas. Later with all european powers, and the last year of Civ1 several times with england on a world map.

Civ2 I mainly played on random maps, because the world maps were not as nice made as in Civ1.

Now when random maps really will look better, it will give a larger element of surprise what and who you will meet.

Starting with a scout, sounds good, that means expansionistic.
The first few games I will try out all civilizations.

The very first game should not be too difficult

, so probably Zulu on a random map at prince level. When I have the feeling I understand all new mechanisms this can be made more challenging.

Footie Mad · August 12, 2001, 07:26

Whichever has the coolest theme-music

But i'll probably play with a miltaristic civ the first game in ordet to explore all the new units.

Provost Harrison · August 12, 2001, 07:33

Looking at the stats and my method of play, I would generally choose something scientific/economic/industrious to suit my gameplay needs. Actually it is a dilemma because I quite like the look of the expansionist bonuses as well. So Chinese, French or Greeks would be ideal for me. I will have to see how large these bonuses are though first...

splangy · August 12, 2001, 07:57

first, romans (militaristic, industrius) ill pump out good units at a rate that will astonish most.

then ill be off playing the rooskies (russians

)(expansionist, science) and find all other civs and make a killing off technology and trade.

third time will be the babylonians to try a peaceful victory

after that ill play japs, aztecs and all real powerful millitarys

( i am a very violent player, i somtimes bomb ememy settlers deep into enemy teritory just to watch them die

)

Buck Birdseed · August 12, 2001, 08:17

Well, purely objectively it ought to be the Egyptians, who have my two favourite attributes. However, it might be the Zulus, who have the coolest-looking special unit, or the Russians, who have my favourite historical leader.

Actually, I might try the Babs first. They seem to be the best Civ to explore the new concepts with- they'll produce culture most easily, plus their special unit comes relatively early in the game.

Footie Mad · August 12, 2001, 09:03

Come to think of it i'l probably use a civ with an early unique unit in order to get an early golden age.

skalman · August 12, 2001, 12:17

Chinese or Greeks depending on who got the best special unit. But it might be the Americans or some other civ that have there special unit late in the game, that way it will be much esier to have my golden era around the 20th century where i like to have it.

Footie Mad · August 12, 2001, 12:22

skalman - svensk eller?

connorkimbro · August 12, 2001, 12:39

Quote:

But the way I look at it at this time the religious no anarchy could be a slight advantage throughout the game

if civ3 doesn't have odeo years, yes, this would be an advantage . .

Alex · August 12, 2001, 13:18

I'm going for the greeks. Partially because I'm a builder player, and partially because the greeks are the only civ where I'm a natural leader (Alexander

).

I know that is not historically accurate (after all, Alexander was Macedonian, and his father Philip conquered the greeks, despite Demosthenes' warnings...), but I'm fond of the greek civilisation, anyway...

Inverse Icarus · August 12, 2001, 14:24

i'll never forget the multiplayer game with my 9 turn anarchy going into republic.

tniem · August 13, 2001, 02:02

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
i'll never forget the multiplayer game with my 9 turn anarchy going into republic.

I am sure we have all had experiences like that. That is why the Religion bonus may be the most underrated. I think the lack of anarchy could be a huge advantage in multiplayer games. Even one or two turns could give you that slight advantage to take a city or build that wonder. And that effect could just then snowball.

Warm Beer · August 13, 2001, 02:22

Commercial seems to be underrated as well. Extra trade and reduced corruption, these look like great advantages in the early game, as increased trade makes for more money (no?! really?!!?!) and science. That is if the old way of research is still in, science=% of trade + improvements.

Combine that with the religious bonues and the Indians may be the suprise sleeper civ

As for my first game, I am leaning toward Japanese and Amercan... stronger toward American - those expansionist benefits look too cool...