Picking the right Civ!

[Out4Blood]

SoulAssassin should test his theories out on Emperor/Deity level before he cries for MP. I he'll find the AI puts a bit more resistance...

[hoyatables]

Well, I have to say, Expansionist is hit or miss. The beauty of them is that you find out really quickly whether they work out well or not, and can restart within an hour if you're not happy with the results. Here's a few notes:

Scouts are useful, but only on Large continents with smooth terrain. Don't pick anything less than Panagea; even with 60% water, I've still found myself stuck on relatively small continents with one other Civ. After you scour the island, they are useless. And don't play expansionist if you like lots of mountains. I believe 5 billion years has the smoothest terrain; go with that. And going for arid won't hurt, either.

My problem is that my Scouts get eaten up pretty quickly by random barbarians. It's pretty frustrating.

I think the way to do this in the early game is to build units appropriate to your civ - in other words, build workers if you are industrious/commerical; build warriors if you're militaristic, and build scouts if you're expansionist. Play to strengths - you definitely CAN get a huge tech bonus through the combo of goody huts and contact with other Civs, but there is some luck involved.

Still ,though, my best experience has been with the French. Americans, it seems, are just really tough. I'm gonna keep trying though. I just don't like the Iroquois or Aztecs, and you're always stuck with them as neighbors...well, i should just select other civs...

Oh, if you want to make your live easier, select all the non-expansionist Civs - this way you'll have less of those random cities in your unofficial territory.

[Xin Yu]

If you play commercial, then you can set your first two techs as writing and literature. in 64 turns you get there with minimum tech spending. A very good chance to get Great Library (renamed to Money Cow after building it) The only danger is that somebody built Pyramids early and you don't have anything to switch to.

[SofaKing]

1.) If the game is usually decided by the time you hit feudalism, I'm definitely doing something wrong. What the level are you playing? I'm stuck on Monarch, and it's usually the end of the middle age/beginning of the industrial that I catch up.

2.) Hoplites provide the best defense, require no resources, and can be used offensively. I use them to siege my neighbors early in the game. This allows me to expand while they cannot. Once I've taken over the land mass, then I can eliminate them at my leisure.

3.) The Persian Immortal is one of the better units is useless? What is you reason? I think they are one of the best units in the game.

[zeace]

I like the Scientific attribute because one advance can be very important in this game. All too often I find myself 1 or 2 techs behind the tech leader. Everytime he researchs something, he sells it to everyone and gets lots of money. Then he'll offer it to me, and if it's cheap enough I'll take it because even if I'm 80% done researching it, I can't afford the time it would take to catch up on my own. Because of this, I'll end up throwing out most of my research

Suddenly when I advance to a new age, though, I'll get a free advance. Sometimes this will just push me past my opponent, and suddenly I'm the one selling my research and he's the one throwing out his...

This reasoning is also a reason I really like Darwin (or whatever it is now). It is a lot of production for a small tech gain, but the difference between just behind and just ahead is HUGE.

All that said, if you're not going to be the tech leader, ignore all of this and take com or ind...

Ze Ace

[Kc7mxo]

The persian immortal is hands down one of the most useful unique units. With it you can run over any unit in ancient era, excepting hoplites. My first few games relied heavily on them, and the persians are a good civ to play in any case.

More recently I tried out the babylonians, and while I do enjoy scientific and religous bonuses, that bowmen is virtually worthless. Especially when i'm next door to the persians!

[mharmless]

Do not discount the legion. Lets look at some numers here.
Legion - 3 attack, 3 defense, 1 movment - 30 sheilds, Iron
Immortal - 4 attack, 2 defense, 1 movment - 30 sheilds, Iron

So they cost the same to build. Lets check out how they preform in combat...

+10% defense terrain
Desert, Flood Plain, Grassland, Plains, Tundra
Legion attacks Immortal = 57.69% win for Legion
Immortal attacks Legion = 54.79% win for Immortal

+25% defense terrain
Forrest, Jungle
Legion attacks Immortal = 54.54% win for Legion
Immortal attacks Legion = 51.61% win for Immortal

+35% defense terrain
Desert, Flood Plain, Grassland, Plains, Tundra, all across a river
Legion attacks Immortal = 52.63% win for Legion
Immortal attacks Legion = 49.68% win for Immortal

+50% defense terrain
Hills, Forrest or Jungle with river, town with walls, City
Legion attacks Immortal = 50.00% win for Legion
Immortal attacks Legion = 47.05% win for Immortal

+100% defense terrain
Mountains, Town with walls on hill, City on hill, metropolis
Legion attacks Immortal = 42.85% win for Legion
Immortal attacks Legion = 40.00% win for Immortal


Well then. As we can see, the legion preforms better than the Immortal under every circumstance. If blows are traded equaly between the units, the Immortal units will suffer heavier casualties and lose more units over the course of the war. The most important factor is attacking first, but at least four of our (more common) scenarios have the Immortal loseing more often than not.

[Grunthex]

Yeah, but the comparison of Immortals and Legions is mostly irrelevant. They aren't fighting each other. They're smashing down the spearmen and occasional pikeman defending towns in the ancient/very early middle ages. The immortals extra attack is priceless there. Besides, Caesar just manages to look nerdy through the whole game.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Out4Blood
SoulAssassin should test his theories out on Emperor/Deity level before he cries for MP. I he'll find the AI puts a bit more resistance...

The first game I played was on deity... thanks for the advice though. I conquered the world in 1280 AD on a small map. Most of the game was getting used to the new interfaces and stuff. I play Regent because combat is the same on all levels. On Deity the computer just takes longer to kill because he spits out more units. It isn't any more difficult than Regent.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ray K


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.

I just think that its more important to choose a Civ based on their abilities, not their UU's. The hoplite is a better unit in the ancient age, but not so much better that I would choose the Greeks solely based on the fact that they have the hoplite.

The AI is a pushover, even on Deity. I'm concentrating on developing strategies that would work against human players. The best way to do this is to ask myself, what would work against me. The hoplite wouldn't because I mass when I attack. It doesn't matter what unit you have persay, as long as you have a lot of them. 2 or 3 hoplites aren't going to last any longer than 2 or 3 spearmen when I mass an attack. That's what I wanted to convery. Obviously, they are better than spearmen, but they aren't the best UU in the game. I'll post one of my saved games on this thread later today so you can see how I play.

My games aren't decided by Feudalism because I play 256x256 maps. They take much more time. I'm just getting to the second major continent in this one game and the year is 1600 AD. But the first game I played was on Deity and I beat the comp in 1280 AD on a small map. So the map you play determines how fast you can win by conquering the world.

[cort]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
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.

i strongly agree that France i the best civ to play. however, if you are going to play a heavily militaristic game (as i do), after some time you will have so many slave workers that being industrious becomes meaningless. i mean slaves do not care whether you are industrious or not and you can always have more workers work on a single tile to hurry a particulary improvement.

so i bet being militaristic might worth a try, i take Romans as the second best civ.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
The persian immortal is hands down one of the most useful unique units. With it you can run over any unit in ancient era, excepting hoplites. My first few games relied heavily on them, and the persians are a good civ to play in any case.

More recently I tried out the babylonians, and while I do enjoy scientific and religous bonuses, that bowmen is virtually worthless. Especially when i'm next door to the persians!

They're probably good against the AI. But they aren't going to be much good against a player like me who masses mobile units.

1. I'm going to almost always be on the offensive.

It's the way I play, when I post a saved game, you'll see what I'm talking about. You might say that it will be different against humans, but I disagree. I would just need to plan on consolidating my forces and I would attack the Immortals in the open. 2 or 3 horsemen would easily take out an Immortal. And since their mobile, even if the Immortal gets lucky and wins a few rounds, the horsemen will retreat. Then with the extra movement, I can put a 2-3 turn distance between the Immortal and my unit and heal him for another round of attack.

That's why any UU with 1 movement sucks. It isn't restricted to just the Immortal. For offensive campaigns, any units with 1 movement point suck. Period. The ability to retreat is the most important aspect of attacking in the game. It guarantees losing less men when attacking. And instead of building units to replace the ones that got killed, I can produce anything else. That is what Civilization is all about. Production management.

[Sava]

Originally posted by cort


i strongly agree that France i the best civ to play. however, if you are going to play a heavily militaristic game (as i do), after some time you will have so many slave workers that being industrious becomes meaningless. i mean slaves do not care whether you are industrious or not and you can always have more workers work on a single tile to hurry a particulary improvement.

so i bet being militaristic might worth a try, i take Romans as the second best civ.

That's a good point, but getting to the point where being industrious doesn't matter will take more time if you aren't industrious. By using IFE math, industrious civs can complete the cycle about 25 percent faster than non-industrious Civs. That means by turn 75 I will have x number of units, but to get x number of units with another civ it would be on turn 100. All other things being equal, obviously.

I'm not saying that being militaristic sucks, I'm just saying that for the way I play, France is the way to go.

[DaBear]

Another thing to consider when picking your civ is map type. Expansionist isn't as usfull on wet (swamps), 3 billion (Mountains) or islands as your speed advantage is usually negated.

[Dis]

I'll stick with my Aztecs they rock. although one problem is triggering my golden ages too early through stone age warfare. For some reason I couldn't do anything with the romans.

But the french aren't my style. If I don't conquer the ai fast, my few low corruption cities aren't going to do anything. I need to conquer the ai to keep up with their rate of expansion. And even the jaguar warrior on a hill can make a solid defense against any stone age ai unit. This stalls the ai while I bring in the archers/horseman.

So stop telling me the french are the best!!! in my games I usually get trapped in with only 5 cities. How is industrious/commercial going to help me there? I need to break out. And rush building temples dirt cheap helps keep enemy cities under control and allow me to free up more units for more conquest.

[eMarkM]

With an AI that spreads so quickly borders get set pretty early. Often the only way to expand is to conquer a neighboring civ. So part of my strategy is to take out one of the weaker civs that borders me early in the game.

Doing this generally gives you the largest empire and far more options to win in the end. It means you need a good offensive unit in ancient times. And that means Persia. Nothing beats an Immortal rush! It's unstoppable.

e

[nato]

I have been thinking about the extra shield and extra commerce of the industrious and commercial bonuses. I believe you get 1 extra shield/commerce at size 6 and another extra at size 12, for a total of two.

For shields I think this is often going to be useless. Building things is not gradual ... it is either done or not. Any extra shields above what was needed are lost. Therefore, the only time that one or two extra shield bonus will help is if it lets you finish something exactly one turn faster. So usually that will be irrelevant.

I know the faster workers are more important, but it is interesting if the shield bonus is most often plain lost. If you don't like playing lumber games, it makes industrious seem less great.

The commercial bonus however is not lost. It just keeps getting added to your treasury turn after turn. If you have 25 good cities, and they each get two extra coins for say 200 game turns, that adds up to like 5000 gold. Some of this comes awful late though ... too late to be useful. Still it is not lost and adds up pretty nice.

[kcbob]

This thread is so intriguing.

From my perspective, I pre-ordered the game and it was a week late in arriving. Then I try to load it and my PC chokes and pukes. I order another PC just for Civ III (even though I swear to my wife that it's not) and it's still another 2-4 days away from arrival. In the meantime, as another poster mentioned, everyone has their own opinions and they are all different!

When I finally get this game loaded and am totally immersed in my first game, I think I'll discover what you all are alluding to... Civ III is a game for all to enjoy!

[Daveman]

So far I'm loving the Greeks more than any other Civ out there, at least as a builder-type player.

The combined effects of Scientific and Commercial seem pretty impressive to me, if for no other reason than most buildings are half-price. Half-price Libraries, Universities, Marketplaces, and Banks are the bulk of what I need in early-to-mid games, providing plenty of science, gold, and culture. I thought Temples would be my first-build in most cities but I've gone with Libraries. They're cheap, boost research, and provide culture... happiness isn't usually a problem right away so Temples can wait a bit.

Hoplites are phenomenal. They're cheap, I can build them right away, and they require no resources. The only better defenders are Musketmen, and they're pretty far into the game. Those units that are equal to Hoplites in defense come into play fairly late in the ancient era (Pikemen), are civ-specific (Legions), and/or are more offensive (Knights, Samurai) and noticeably more expensive. If you're a gambler, their attack of 1 isn't even all that bad at the time as most other units have a defense of 1. Keep a Hoplite along with any ancient-era attacker and he'll provide excellent cover, especially for any fast-movers who need to retreat.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Dissident
So stop telling me the french are the best!!!

From what I've read, the French are for those players that like to "turtle" until they have a significant advantage, and then conquer.

My first city rush-builds a temple and then 4 offensive units.

It's like that General in Dr. Strangelove: "Kill! Kill! Kill!"

[FrostyBoy]

It makes sense, if you watch the AI play as the French, you'll notice that 9/10 games they will become power houses, I can't say that for any other civ yet..

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Sn00py
It makes sense, if you watch the AI play as the French, you'll notice that 9/10 games they will become power houses, I can't say that for any other civ yet..

I can honestly say I have never seen the French become a power house in any game I've played yet. Usually the strongest AIs are the ones that have had the good fortune to start far, far away from my civ.

Turtle soup doesn't taste so bad, you know.

[gamma]

French are the best, eh? In my second game, I played the Zulu. The French were the first civ I saw. Whereas I was the last civ the French saw.

(I fenced them off to a four-city region in a tundra-covered peninsula for the rest of the game.)

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by Sikander
I have been playing India recently, and I like the religious attribute.

I tried India as well myself this weekend, and on Huge/16/Regent had a very good victory. I personally prefer to avoid anarchy, in a large civ anarchy can cost you thousands in lost productivity, and I found their war elephants to be even more useful than I expected.

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by Sikander
I have been playing India recently, and I like the religious attribute.

I tried India as well myself this weekend, and on Huge/16/Regent had a very good victory. I personally prefer to avoid anarchy, in a large civ anarchy can cost you thousands in lost productivity, and I found their war elephants to be even more useful than I expected.

[Blaupanzer]

Ray, what AI have you been playing. They showed up in stacks of 12 to 16 regularly at my cities (after razing the other AI cities in between) in late ancient and early feudal times. I was forced to form a few stacks of my own, slug it out with them, and crush some of their cities (governing not razing) to get them to stop. This is on Regent.

As the AI goes military, religious civs are really dangerous once they get going. (I think this is, in part, a bit of a joke on the Civ 2 players, where the Aztecs were usually a pushover, and now are very dangerous if left alone for long.) I think the Babs are best. The cheap buildings, free techs (I've not gotten one outside of the new era in three games now [no Amphibious Warfare type bonus].), and 2-2 archers for the price of 1-2 spearmen are all significant advantages. The 1 turn of anarchy is very useful if you are trying to stay in Democracy, but your neighbors keep forcing you into war. Flip to Commie, conscript your defense, use your vets to smash the fools, go back to Democracy. Only two lost turns, plus a few turns in Communism (less science, lower happiness rate, cheaper army), no thinking involved. Haven't tried industrious or commercial. Haven't noticed an AI civ with either do particularly well, although the Brits seem to stick around. This could change. In three games the French have appeared twice and the Germans have appeared twice and both were exterminated both times. The Aztecs have been in two and were my number one competitor in both. Other powers have not registered although Russians got big, England dominated a continent, and the Japanese and Chinese got big enough to drag the whole world into their war.

Seem to be rambling. Try the Babs, you might be surprised. It's not a wargame, it's Civilization!

[MadWombat]

At this point, I've completed 5 games.

1st: Chieftan, Chinese, Domination victory.
I liked the Chinese rider, but wasn't all that fussed about their abilities.

2nd: Regent, French, Diplomatic Victory
The French were quite easy to play with. I didn't do that well this game because I had no source of iron, and my neighbours did. I ended up having to wait for Chivalry before making serious gains. The French Musketeer is totally useless.

3rd: Regent, Russians, Space Ship Victory
On this one, I landed in a large open space, with a choke separating me from England and Germany, the Babylonians to my West, and the French to my SW, cut off by a choke point. I managed to get both choke points, and out-expand the other civs.

4th: Monarch, Romans, Cultural Victory
I went with a rapid early military style this time. Wiped out the English starting position (they moved elsewhere), knocked the Iroquois down to 2 cities (they eventually built a few more), and took a couple of American cities to boot. Conclusion: Legionaries are great. They really make the Romans worthwhile.

5th: Monarch, Aztecs, Killing Everyone Else Victory
I thought that Jaguar warriors would be useless, but boy was I wrong. I went for a massive early military game, and basically overran more of my continent than I could efficiently use. Those Jaguar warriors only stopped when I ran up against the Zulu with Impi. This game convinced me that militaristic is quite useless. In the entire game (which I played very aggressively), I managed to get only 3 leaders; my average is 4. On the other hand, I discovered the true value of Religious. Not only is it very useful to be able to get cheap cultural improvements, but the lack of anarchy is a VERY powerful advantage. Starting in the late Middle-Ages, I was at war frequently. War under Democracy is... difficult. Communism on the other hand, is your friend. I tended to declare war on whoever had the most technology I wanted. After smacking 3 or 4 of their cities, they're usually quite willing to hand them over, along with significant other bonuses (cash). being able to use forced labour is a huge advantage, and being able to switch back to democracy fast at the end of your wars is too.

My next game will be at Emperor difficulty level, so we'll see how it turns out. I'm thinking Industrious/Religious. I REALLY like those fast workers, and the cheap population control and no anarchy bonus are big.

[Thunderfire]

My ranking:

Good:

Religious:Cheap temples are nice and important during the early land grab. 1 turn anarchy is excellent because 4+ missed turns will hurt alot - especially if you loose some buildings.

Industrious: Fast workers are also very important for early expansion. Those extra shields are just a bonus.

Ok:

Comercial: Excellent late game trait with reduced corruption and extra comerce. But it is not so usefull during the land grab phase.

Expansionist: Good early game trait. I never got bad huts with an expansionist civ and the early granery will help me to pump out settlers
fast.

Bad:

Scientific: Cheaper sciene buildings are nice and the extra tech sound
good but ... Comercial civ will have more money for research, religious
civs loose less turns to anarchy and industrious civ have a better
infrastructure. It must be combined with one of these attributes.

Militaristic: totally useless. I haven't noticed much of a difference between militaristic and non militaristic civs. This one needs an improvement. Something like warlord in MoM/MOO would be good.

[Thunderfire]

My ranking:

Good:

Religious:Cheap temples are nice and important during the early land grab. 1 turn anarchy is excellent because 4+ missed turns will hurt alot - especially if you loose some buildings.

Industrious: Fast workers are also very important for early expansion. Those extra shields are just a bonus.

Ok:

Comercial: Excellent late game trait with reduced corruption and extra comerce. But it is not so usefull during the land grab phase.

Expansionist: Good early game trait. I never got bad huts with an expansionist civ and the early granery will help me to pump out settlers
fast.

Bad:

Scientific: Cheaper sciene buildings are nice and the extra tech sound
good but ... Comercial civ will have more money for research, religious
civs loose less turns to anarchy and industrious civ have a better
infrastructure. It must be combined with one of these attributes.

Militaristic: totally useless. I haven't noticed much of a difference between militaristic and non militaristic civs. This one needs an improvement. Something like warlord in MoM/MOO would be good.

[uh Clem]

Militaristic: totally useless. I haven't noticed much of a difference between militaristic and non militaristic civs. This one needs an improvement.

Don't know if it's the levels I play on or what, but the Romans, Germans, and Chinese almost never bother me, especially if I start trading resources with them.