Picking the right Civ!

[Sava]

I'm sure many players are starting to find what kind of Civs are best for their own type of play. Here are my thoughts. I listed the Civ bonuses in their order of importance.

1. Industrious - The most important bonus. You can build stuff faster. Workers work faster also.

I would strongly recommend picking any civ with this bonus. It also makes it easier to IFE http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=33292 .

2. Commercial - Less corruption overall (very helpful). Extra commerce in city squares.

A must for players who like to expand. The distance from the palace where corruption reaches 100% is longer for commercial Civ's. Courthouses also are more effective in these cities.

For players looking to expand and dominate the world, be France. They are the only Civ with those two characteristics. It might be tempting to pick a Militaristic or Scientific Civ for conquering the world, but in the long run, the extra commerce and less corruption are more helpful than the other bonuses.

If you hate being France, pick a Civ with Industrious and one of these other attributes.

3 (tie). Militaristic - Promotions are more frequent, military buildings cost less.

The promotion thing is the best part of this. Armies are unstoppable at full strength against single units. The reason I think that the Commerical attribute is better is because once you build a barracks, your units are already veterans, they only can be promoted to elite and then to leader. And the heroic epic gives enough of a bonus for non-militaristic Civs. If you use IFE http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=33292 then the bonus for military buildings is moot. Plus, using IFE is a great way to build armies (after you build Military Academy).

3 (tie). Religious - Religous improvements cost less. One turn of anarchy during revolutions.

This attribute is better for players going for the cultural victory. But the bonuses are nice. I suppose if you change governments a lot, this would be good. Overall, its a weak attribute.

4. Scientific - Free tech at beginning of era, science buildings cost less.

At first I thought this was a good attribute, but I realized that the bonuses from Commercial Civs made up for the science bonus. The free tech is nice, but I don't have any problems waiting an extra 6 or 7 turns for an advance at the beginning of an era. This attribute provides no advantage until you can build libraries. Don't pick this attribute, it's a waste.

5. Expansionistic. - Begins game with a scout, barbarians villages give more booty.

This is the most pathetic attribute. Again, I thought this would be a good one for me because I expand like crazy, but it doesn't provide any advantages in terms of building settlers. Also, the scout unit sucks ass. After about 20 turns, I just trade maps. I haven't been able to get more than 4 or 5 barbarian villages anyways. They usually give tech advances more often with Expansionistic Civs, but you are much better off with the Commercial attribute. Avoid this attribute at all costs.

Again, this is just my opinion on the importance of the Civ abilities, feel free to post your experiences and opinions. I'd like to hear other players' take on my strategies. If you are an expansionistic war monger like me, pick France. The combination of Industrious and Commercial abilities makes conquering the world a lot easier.

[Sikander]

In general I agree with your rankings, though I rank religious and scientific higher than industrious. I think commercial is definitely the most valuable of the traits. Who doesn't like that extra commerce, and how many people need extra help combatting corruption?

I have been playing India recently, and I like the religious attribute. Temples are dirt cheap, which means I can crank them out of new towns while I am waiting to grow to 3 population in the early game. This allows my towns to start spreading their borders very quickly, which is a great benefit in the land rush phase of the game. Later on, you get cathedrals which cost less than libraries. Getting these unhappiness alleviating buildings up is especially important at higher difficulty levels. Finally, the ability to switch governments without suffering prolonged periods of anarchy saves me 2-8 turns a game, which is substantial, and realisticly allows me the option to switch governments (say from Democracy to Communism for that big war) throughout the game.

Scientific is a similar benefit, in that it allows you a (later) advantage in building your science type buildings. This helps both science and culture, which is not a bad deal. Additionally you get an advance at the beginning of each epoch, which again is pretty sweet.

The only useful advantage to industrious is the faster workers, which is pretty good. The bonus shields come too late (cities and metropolis) to have a large impact. The rest are crap more or less in my builder's opinion.

[Diety]

Apparently Soul Assasin and I came to the same conclusion : France is the way to go in CIV III.
Too bad I don't like the French in real life (I'm flemish), but the picture of Jean d'Arc makes up for that.

BTW Anyone seen the movie "The Messenger" about the life of Jean d'Arc with the gorgeous Milla Jovovich in the title rol ? Once you've seen that movie all your real life reasons not to play the French disappear
But I'm getting off topic here

Anyway : industrial is important, both for the faster buildings AND the faster workers. These are the two best bonuses in the game and you get them both with one characteristic.
So industrial is way ahead of all the other bonuses.

For the second, there are two options.
- Commercial is very good for the corruption, although this is misunderstood by many players. Apparently it only affects the corruption made by the distance to the palace, not the corruption for alot of cities. The one extra commerce in the city square is usefull, but not that much.

- Religious is the one and only option for the cultural victory, although I highly doubt that this kind of victory is possible on higher difficulty levels.
Seal the borders with culture in the land-rush phase ? Sorry, but by the time your border towns have 10 turn temples, the damn AI has already planted a new city between them...
This make people happier in a cheaper way, that's true. But what good are happy people when they're corrupt ? Who needs a 12-size city without production or scince ? It looks nice, but it doesn't add anything useful. Except culture ofcours.
If you wanne go for culture, this is the way. Else stay away from this.

The others are sdimply not as good as these two, IMHO.

- Militaristic : more promotions ??? Who needs promotions with barracks ? The one or two extra leaders you're gonne get are cool ofcours, but not that great...
- Scientific : science buildings cost a less ? And how many science buildings you're gonne use in the entire game ? 50 ? And you're giving less corruption away for that ? Forget about this thing...

The rest is not even worth the time to type about it

Anyway : the French are the way to go on higher difficulty levels. See the cute Jean d'Arc as a bonus

[Kissinger]

Yeah the french are good but I just can't bring myself to be them

I like the romans. The legionary really allows you to dominate an early war and you get commercial bonuses.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Sikander
In general I agree with your rankings, though I rank religious and scientific higher than industrious. I think commercial is definitely the most valuable of the traits. Who doesn't like that extra commerce, and how many people need extra help combatting corruption?

I have been playing India recently, and I like the religious attribute. Temples are dirt cheap, which means I can crank them out of new towns while I am waiting to grow to 3 population in the early game. This allows my towns to start spreading their borders very quickly, which is a great benefit in the land rush phase of the game. Later on, you get cathedrals which cost less than libraries. Getting these unhappiness alleviating buildings up is especially important at higher difficulty levels. Finally, the ability to switch governments without suffering prolonged periods of anarchy saves me 2-8 turns a game, which is substantial, and realisticly allows me the option to switch governments (say from Democracy to Communism for that big war) throughout the game.

Scientific is a similar benefit, in that it allows you a (later) advantage in building your science type buildings. This helps both science and culture, which is not a bad deal. Additionally you get an advance at the beginning of each epoch, which again is pretty sweet.

The only useful advantage to industrious is the faster workers, which is pretty good. The bonus shields come too late (cities and metropolis) to have a large impact. The rest are crap more or less in my builder's opinion.

I agree that if you are going for a cultural victory, religious would be better, but for the sake of massing military units (conquering the world), industrious is better. Read my thread on IFE. The faster workers really help out with that. http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=33292

IFE basically adds 10-20 shields per turn to any city. And it isn't affected by corruption.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

5. Expansionistic. - Begins game with a scout, barbarians villages give more booty.

This is the most pathetic attribute. Again, I thought this would be a good one for me because I expand like crazy, but it doesn't provide any advantages in terms of building settlers. Also, the scout unit sucks ass. After about 20 turns, I just trade maps. I haven't been able to get more than 4 or 5 barbarian villages anyways. They usually give tech advances more often with Expansionistic Civs, but you are much better off with the Commercial attribute. Avoid this attribute at all costs.

In the long run, Expansionist sux. But in the short run, I think that it is excellent. When REX-ing, the scout lets you scout out future city sites, so your worker can immediatly build a road there to speed up your settler. RES-ing requires the knoweldge of future city sites and the ability to speed your settlers there early.

I don't like to exchange maps with other civs, becuase then they are more likely to send in settlers and settle in some crappy spot 2 tiles away from your capital. I wait till all my ciites have a radius or 2 borders, and then trade, so I can boot out the trespassers.

For me, Industrious/Expansionist is the way to go.

[HalfLotus]

I really like religious. Seems that in the industrial/moderns ages, I swicth to and from demo. when I fight wars.
The free scientific tech always ends up being a tech from the previous age that I didnt want anyway (amphibious warfare anyone?)
As far as starting with scouts, I feel like my first couple of warriors do plenty of scouting for me, and they can take out barbarians. I'm not going to scout for cities VERY far from my capitol because of corruption.

[monkspider]

Expansionist isn't bad at all IMHO, it gives you a huge advantage during those crucial first few turns. An advantage that will pay great dividends for the rest of the game.

[cavebear]

So far, I really appreciate having an industrious people, though I haven't decided which other characteristic I prefer with industriousness. The Chinese seem a good choice, and I like the Romans, too. Haven't tried Americans or French yet.

"Industrious" should not be overlooked. Those Workers can really irrigate and build roads quickly, and the return for connecting your cities and developing the city-squares is considerable!

So far, getting a city to size 5 using the best resource squares, then keeping the city turning out a settler every out settlers each time it gets to 5 again, is working well.

I have a suspicion that in a month or two, there are only going to be 3 or 4 generally-prefferred civs.

[Master Marcus]

I definitely agree the 2 most important attributes are Industrious and Commercial - so aside the French , you are O.K. also if picking any other civ having one of those 2. The less important is Expansionist; but as for the others: Religious, Scientific, Militaristic they are equally good depending of your gameplay style. A warmonger should consider Militaristic of course - but is this really useful at bringing more Leaders ?? I liked playing the Scientific Greeks - that extra free tech you earn gives you an edge at trading some techs for a fair amount of gold enough to rushbuild, thus compensating for the attributes you don't have. I like Religious even if I don't want a cultural victory: no extended anarchy. ( despotism to Monarchy, Monarchy to Republic, Republic to Democracy: let's suppose you make "only" 3 Gov changes in the game, that means you save at least 15-20 turns of productivity - enough difference at a higher difficulty level for building an additional wonder, etc...).

Overall, the civs attributes doesn't really change the gameplay - the map size+ number of civs have much more impact.

[Sava]

Originally posted by monkspider
Expansionist isn't bad at all IMHO, it gives you a huge advantage during those crucial first few turns. An advantage that will pay great dividends for the rest of the game.

All Expansionist does is give the scout unit and give bonuses for barbarian villages. A free tech in the beginning of the game isn't as good as having extra commerce and less corruption. And the scout unit isn't a huge advantage. Sure, its nice to explore quickly, but it doesn't effect how fast my next city is built.

[Growler]

For players looking to expand and dominate the world, be France. They are the only Civ with those two characteristics. It might be tempting to pick a Militaristic or Scientific Civ for conquering the world, but in the long run, the extra commerce and less corruption are more helpful than the other bonuses.

I prefer to be the Germans (Militaristic, Scientific), and then conquer France. I keep the captured French workers segregated from the rest of my population, and make good use of them.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin


All Expansionist does is give the scout unit and give bonuses for barbarian villages. A free tech in the beginning of the game isn't as good as having extra commerce and less corruption. And the scout unit isn't a huge advantage. Sure, its nice to explore quickly, but it doesn't effect how fast my next city is built.

Actually you'd be surprised how many free Cities you get with Expansionist civs and their enhanced goodie huts.

[aziyan]

Hi
I think expansionalist is very good in huge map. I played in huge map at the level below deity (i guess emperor bu tnot sure) and use four scouts to find out the huts. At around 1600 BC, I finish all the possible sciences in ancient era without trading any with other civs. Also by this way, I can able to build nearly all the important wonders in the ancient era for me (great library, pyamids, hanging garden, sun tzu's academy) since the time other civs can find the advance I already started the wonders.
I prefer playing with Iroquis(religious, expansionalist) because of the cheaper temples and no lost during the change of goverments. Since I only build 25-30 cities, palace and forbidden city can solve my corruption problems. I expand like an elipse and have my capital and forbidden place in the centers which solve all the corruption problems. I think militaristic and industrious civs are the worst. Worker bonus is very useful but since I build workers in every city in the beginning it is not useful for me at all. Also The cities with 12 population cannot grow anymore ( Finding hospital takes hell lot of time) so I built a lot of workers to do all the jobs.

[Xin Yu]

Some math:

Scientific civ: starts with Bronze working, value = 3, can build Colossus. Greek can build Hoplite at start.
Industrious civ: starts with Masonry(walls, palace), value = 4, can build Pyramids.
Commercial civ: starts with Alphabet, value=5.
Expansionest civ: starts with Pottery (grannary), value=2.
Militaristic civ type 1 (Japan only): starts with Wheel (special resource horse), value=4.
Militaristic civ type II: starts with Warrior code, value=3.
Religious civ: starts with Ceremonial burial (temple), value=2.

Value = research cost and negotiating value when trading techs.

Obviously the civ with industrious+commecial has the highest starting value (4+5). Furthermore, Industrious allows building a wonder as well. However, since you almost always use the first 32 turns for your first tech, a 3+4 or 3+5 is not that bad, either. For example, a scientific+industrious civ can build both wonders at the beginning, and can set alphabet to be the first tech to research so it won't be bad.

Expansionist, although only has a starting value of 2, can research Map making as its first tech, thus grab a value=12 tech in 32 turns. If your expansionist civ can contact other civs quickly, then your value 12 tech is going to worth a lot in trading. (Edit: I was wrong. Map making requires other prerequisites. Thus, expansionist was not good).

Religious seems to be the worst.

[Matthew]

Xin where do you get these numbers?

We are forgetting a very important aspect of the game: golden ages. For example, there may be a few disadvantages to religious expansionist (ie Iroquois), but if you like the Collossus anyway for example, it's pretty much an automatic GA for the Iroquois. What's more, it's one of the less expensive wonders, and the AI's don't seem to have much interrest in it, so it's fairly easy to get. Also the religious attribute seems to show up in quite a few important wonders.

[Xin Yu]

Matthew: I opened the editor and found 'cost' for each advance.

[Travathian]

I think civ choice should be based on the type of map, and the type of victory you prefer.

On pangea or continents with large lands masses, expansionistic is a definite plus. With all the goodie huts I'll be able to get to first, I'll be in the middle ages by the time you learn to write. Plus I'll have plenty of cash to spend to rush build city improvements, since I'll be in a Republic.

I'm playing the Zulus right now, 20 cities, with forbidden temple and I have almost no curruption under Democracy. So commercial would have been useless. And with the heroes I generate, I rush build key wonders. Really pisses of the industrious type who spent all that time and shields into a wonder I complete in one turn.

Lastly, lumberjacking, IFE, whatever the hip new name for it is this week, is a joke. I'm not going to spend an extra 20 minutes a turn micromanaging a hundred workers just for some extra production. I want to play civilization not Joe Lumberjack. Now for far out cities, who need a quick temple, one turn of this is fine, but a long term strategy? Nah.

[nato]

I have also been thinking France is the best ... all of my games have been with them (except my culture game, for which I think Babylonian is best). Seeing others make the same conclusion makes me think we may all be correct.

However I am considering expansionistic. When I first saw expansionistic I laughed and thought it was worthless since neither of its bonuses last. "its nice to explore quickly, but it doesn't effect how fast my next city is built" was my exact same thought.

But a key thing is that first target civ you conquer, the guy unlucky enough to share your continent. In my successful games I have found him very early and built forward cities right next to him. This has strangled him and made that first crucial conquest so much easier (in my culture game I did this but didn't conquer him ... he stayed near dead the whole game.)

Expansionist would make doing this much easier ... also a lucky free settler early is hugely valuable. Even though these two things don't last the whole game, they give you such a big early edge it has an effect the whole game.

I am torn ... I want to stay France, but I want expasionistic too. Is it worth switching? If so, is commercial the better trait to drop?

I am thinking maybe I will stay France, but simply march my first Settler in a likely direction and found a city only when I find someone.

Thanks for reading, sorry it's so long.

[Dev]

Japan!

Religious and militaristic traits simply rocks my wordl

Cheap temples/walls/baracks means you get full radius/defendable cities faster than anyone else and the samurai special unit is the best of it's age and it comes at the perfect time for waging war after the initial expansion rush is over.

I know walls become obsolete rather fast but telll that to the 2 spearmen defending my newly founded LOW growth size 2 town guarding the only only iron resource within 3 screens of my capital which also happens to be halfway inside the zulu empire....

I say thankee for cheap walls and barracks.

/dev

[Libertarian]

Good analysis, SoulAssassin! Thanks!

I agree with you. And the Libertarian government type that I made is based on the French model with tweaks to reward noncoercion and suppress fraud. How much more industrious and commercial could you get than a bunch of raving free-marketers!?

[nato]

I have started a game as Americans to give expansionistic a try. I am on Monarch level. I built two Scouts immediately then went to Settlers.

I have explored lots of land and met 4 other civs, 3 who are far off. I'm hoping to get an advantage in the trading game by knowing others first.

I have a city founded to cut off the near civ, and a Settler en route to cut off the second closest. I hope to fill in the middle like usual. So far so good.

It is 1950 BC. This is what I have gotten from huts:
2 Maps of Region
3 Warriors
25 Gold
10 Techs (!)

I think knowing right where to send Settlers and TEN techs is worth considering over commercial or industrious. I would have gotten some of this without expansionistic ... I wonder how much?

One thing I don't like: I think going expansionistic is relying a lot on luck. Will you get a lot of huts, will you get good stuff, are there nearby civs that make quick exploration more valuable??

All this is luck. If you are on an island by yourself with 5 or so huts, expansionistic is worthless and puts you at a disadvantage vs civs who get two useful traits. However, if you are lucky, it gets you a big advantage like free Settlers or, in my case, 10 free techs.

So if you don't like luck and want strategy only, I don't think it is good. If you like luck, you can get a huge lead ... maybe.

[SanPellegrino]

I think on smaller maps the aztecs got an overwhelming advantage, they are military and religious, but they can build their fast special unit immediately, which gives you nearly the expansionist advantage, too. I try to build a lot of jaguar warriors early, explore the map and finish the poor civ that's next to me.

Of course Jaguars got only A/D 1/1 but their retreatment capability is very cool. So i can trigger a golden age early (which i consider best) and i even got an early chance for a leader with these guys.

With these points together you can get an enormous boost at the beginning of the game, at least you should - because later commercial civs got really an advantage.

[Arrian]

The true beauty of CIV is that I can read the posts in this thread, understand their point of view, completely disagree, and yet realized that there is no "right" or "wrong."

The best combo, for my style of play I have found so far is Religious/Scientific = Babylonians. Now, if you hit me hard early on, I'm toast, but let me get into the Middle Ages and I'm flyin'

First off, I play on Reagent, so we're clear on the difficulty setting.

Religious: temples/cathedrals cheap to build, only 1 turn of Anarchy between gov'ts

Scientific: libraries/universities cheap to build, free tech at beginning of every age.

Why I think these are great to have together:

1) Cheap temples/libraries/cathedrals/universities (built in that order) allows a very, very quick "culture bomb." Even if you play a more militaristic style game (culture? we don't need no stinking CULTURE!), quickly expanding borders are nice, and the AI negotiates differently w/high culture types. Also, in my last game, the Zulus rushed me relatively early w/Swordsmen, Arches and Impis. They took two cities (including the one with 6! gem deposits). I fought them to a standstill, and then the two cities they took reverted to me b/c of culture. Also, I got a great leader out of the fighting and used him to rushbuild the F. Palace.

2) One extra tech at the beginning of every Age isn't a big deal you say? Well, that all depends, I say. First off, how often are you getting tech advances? At the Ancient/Middle Ages switchover I betcha it's taking you 10 turns or so (I'm guesstimating, 'cause I can't remember). At the Middle/Industrial and Industrial/Modern switchovers, it's lower, but still, you're looking at say roughly 20 turns of research for free. If you have a large, sprawling empire, commercial may offset some, if not all of this, but ONLY in that situation. If your empire is fairly compact and has the forbidden palace, commercial just isn't that big a deal.

3) Along the lines of #2, you will probably switch gov'ts twice in the game, at least I do (Despotism -> Republic -> Democracy). Under a non-religious civ, I think that works out to 10 turns in Anarchy. Under a religious civ, it's 2. 8 more turns saved.

Anyway, I've had quite a bit of success with the Babylonians thus far. I'm still trying out different civs, so the jury is still out.

-Arrian

[nato]

I just tried another game with Americans and only got 1 Warrior and 3 Techs. I guess thats not awful, but its nothing compared to 3 Warriors and 10 Techs.

I think expansionistic really is hit or miss. Extraordinary advantage or mild disadvantage.

I have read that there are two types of wargamers, classical and romantic. Classical are pretty conservative, try to do everything right but not daring, minimize the maximum loss. Romantics hope for the one daring great stroke that wins the game, and take risks to get it. I think expansionistic is for them.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
I'm sure many players are starting to find what kind of Civs are best for their own type of play. Here are my thoughts. I listed the Civ bonuses in their order of importance.

The only problem with your list is that you don't consider unique units, which are not created equal.

The hoplite rocks, and that makes Greece (commercial, scientific) probably one of the best civs to play.'

Otherwise, I like the babylonians (religious, scientific). I don't go for for militaristic or expansionist civs because that's my natural style of playing anyway. I get plenty of leaders for rush-building wonders, but I never build armies any more -- what a joke!

[scientific civ]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Xin Yu
Some math:

Scientific civ: starts with Bronze working, value = 3, can build Colossus. Greek can build Hoplite at start.

Please don't use my name without asking me first.
And guess what my favourite civs are. I can tell you it's NOT scientific civs.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ray K


The only problem with your list is that you don't consider unique units, which are not created equal.

The hoplite rocks, and that makes Greece (commercial, scientific) probably one of the best civs to play.'

Otherwise, I like the babylonians (religious, scientific). I don't go for for militaristic or expansionist civs because that's my natural style of playing anyway. I get plenty of leaders for rush-building wonders, but I never build armies any more -- what a joke!

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

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

Here are the most retarded UU's:

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

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

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

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

AHHHHH I WANT MP NOW!!!!!!

[rah]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin

AHHHHH I WANT MP NOW!!!!!!

AMEN...

Totally agree on industrious.

I offer religious as the other one for one reason only.
Early in the game in despotism, you can rush build that temple for only one pop point. This is real useful for expanding those cities to reach those squares 2 away, and for those cities that fall to your armies early. It eliminates a bad citizen that you can replace with one of your own workers, and makes it easier to control the city.

Of course the UU for the Egyptians suck but like you said, it doesn't make much difference.

Other than that, I'd have to agree and go with comercial.

RAH

[Ray K]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
Sure, a religious Civ might be able to build temples faster, and you might get 10 cities from your expansionistic bonus, but it in the end, you'll die when I conquer you.

Well, duh. The human can beat any AI civ with any randomly selected civ.

As far as the hoplite being "useless" by Feudalism, I would remind you that the game should already be decided by the time you get to feudalism.

At that point, it's just a matter of finishing off the other Civs. You achieve your dominance in the early game, which is where Hoplites rule. The AI is not smart enough to mass-attack any city with 8 units, so the Hoplites are great. They are the game's defensive unit for the most important part of the game (pre-gunpowder), they are cheap, and they start in 4000 BC. So they are definitely one of the best UU in the game.

The F-16, on the other hand, is completely useless.