Picking the right Civ!

[Thunderfire]

Militaristic AI Civs. are more aggresive at war.

I was in a 3vs3 fight with the US and Japan as my allies vs England, Rome and France on a normal/regent/island map. Only Japan, Rome an I managed to capture a city from another nation.

[sophist]

Militaristic works quite well for my style of play. Remember, it's not just about the leaders. If I have 3 elite swordsmen, that's 5 HP * 3 Attack * 4 units = 45. You'd have to have 3 HP * 3 Attack * 5 units to be the offensive equivalent. Higher morale units are basically more unit for the same money. It comes in handy.

Regarding the fewer leaders... I'm playing the Chinese (favorite) and it took until 1500 to get my first leader (3 major wars). It just happens sometimes. There's no consistency to it.

[Thunderfire]

Originally posted by sophist
Militaristic works quite well for my style of play. Remember, it's not just about the leaders. If I have 3 elite swordsmen, that's 5 HP * 3 Attack * 4 units = 45. You'd have to have 3 HP * 3 Attack * 5 units to be the offensive equivalent.

Elite Units aren't limited to militaristic civs. I always have hordes of them
anyway. I get most of them with the iroquis and these guys are not
militaristic. Their UU has nice stats and is very usefull during early wars
and can be upgraded to knights/cavalry.

[HalfLotus]

I think sophist was saying that unit promotions (vet, elite) are more common with a militaristic civ. This is the same principle that makes leaders more common.

[FalloutBoy]

I think the Iriquois Mounted Warriors are awesome. 3/1/2 for a cheap price and can be upgraded all the way to cavalry. They show up just about the right time when I have a few cities established and want to start kicking somebody's ass. The Expansionist is really useful on large maps, and combined with Religious, makes me think this is the perfect civ for REXing, as you can outculture the annoying AI cities that pop up inside your sprawling empire.

I think Aztec is probably the best for an early explore and conquer strategy. The jaguars give them some of the benefits an expansionist civ would have.

[Rust]

I like to play the English still havn;t come up with a use for there unique unit though. But I like the expansionist makes the early game more exciting, heh.

[Thunderfire]

Originally posted by HalfLotus
I think sophist was saying that unit promotions (vet, elite) are more common with a militaristic civ. This is the same principle that makes leaders more common.

The problem is the difference between militaristic and non militaristic civs
is to small.

[vmxa1]

I have not see any concrete proof that it matters as to getting elites. I have gotten then in droves without being military type. I just had a very good location and nearly endless fighting. Calv and tanks and mech inf went elite often and I got 6 leaders and had not build the EPIC. Other games they were less frequent, I really could not say why. At this point I am just trying all of the Civs. Later I may stick to a few I prefer.

[vicever]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin


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.

If someone attack me with huge mobile force. Lets say 9 horseman. I would have 4 spear man fortified with barrack and wall. Also place 5 horseman to counter attack. The first round you attack the best you can do is kill 2 spearman with most you horseman injured and possibly 2 killed since when both horseman and spearman have last point, horseman does not retreat. Then I would use 5 horseman to kill your 5 horseman with only minor injury. After one round, you have 2 horseman left with one point left, continue attack means nothing but suicide. In fact defense is much easier then offense, the only problem is the programers did not have AI designed smart enough. If AI has computing power as Deepblue, we would all play on first level.

[vmxa1]

Vice, I think you may want to consider that if they made the AI so smart it made the correct play all of the time, we would never win. I do not know how much of the "incorrect strat" is due to lack of time or a need to not be too strong. I doubt it was due to a lack of intellect by the designers.

[MadWombat]

Ok, I would have to say that the Egyptians rock. Industrious/Religious makes them powerhouses of the early ages, since they can get their infrastructure up MUCH faster, and cheap temples make claiming land a breeze. As a bonus, they have a great special unit. If you get horses at the start, you can pump out war chariots like there is no tomorrow and beat down anyone else on your continent, and maybe even score a leader or two. =]

[Windwalker]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin


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.

L...O...L...

Just let me have whatever you're on
- Windwalker

[zlandar]

I'm wondering if everyone is playing at the same difficulty level. I personally play at Monarch most of the time, the other two difficulty levels are just too insane. I find Religion to be the most helpful attribute, since half cost temples/cathedrals are a cheap way to keep the yapping workers from complaining and allows your city to gain the two radius. The reduction of anarchy time is significant also, since I often switch at least 3-4 times in a game (despot-monarchy-republic/democracy- back to monarchy during an extended war). Assuming anarchy averaging 5 turns per switch, that's a significant time savings. There's nothing that drives me crazier than having my whole civ at a standstill during a government switch.

UU can be pretty important, especially the highly specialized ancient units. The mounted warrior is my favorite (war chariots are decent too since their cheaper), despite the crappy expansionist trait the Iroquis have. The added point of offense in addition to the movement of two and ability to withdrawal in combat makes them the perfect blitzing unit. I personally will start pumping these puppies out once the inital land grab is over and target my nearest neighbor. It's not too hard to get a CPU civ to tag team another civ with you and crush it. The MW is good until musketmen comes out, which is significantly farther up the tech tree.

How do you guys take advantage of the added production industry and commercial provide during the early game? I personally found my limiting factor in cranking out settlers was food rather shields. I like the industry trait second after religion, but the commercial one seems to kick in too late to matter since it doesn't help in the land grab phase. I'll give the French/Romans a spin though, since I've stuck with religious civs too much and a new perspective might give the game a new polish.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

IMO commercial doesn't kick in too late to make a difference.
In the Ancient and Medieval Era your more distant cities are more likely to produce something more than one shield in comparison to non commercial civs. 2 shields instead of one shield for new cities can make a huge difference during early playing. Of course, cities too far away will never give anything more.

Commercial is one of the top traits, alas when playing deity/emperor religious is almost always a must-have.
Of course you could try sticking to monarchy or, preferrably republic. Democratic would only be possible if you rarely fight, meaning you must have lots of tradeable luxuries.

AJ

[player1]

Originally posted by MadWombat
Ok, I would have to say that the Egyptians rock. Industrious/Religious makes them powerhouses of the early ages, since they can get their infrastructure up MUCH faster, and cheap temples make claiming land a breeze. As a bonus, they have a great special unit. If you get horses at the start, you can pump out war chariots like there is no tomorrow and beat down anyone else on your continent, and maybe even score a leader or two. =]

Yes, Egyprioans are awsome.

I always play with religious attribte.
Since I playe Emperor games, it's a must.
I am very frustrated when trying to play non-religious civ and need a to much time to finish temples.

Industrious is also an excellent attribute.

Never found good use of Commercial, played them a lot but don't see the difference.

Militiarstic is not my style.

Scientific is OK, but nothing more.

Expansionistic: only on bigger maps.

[player1]

Worst combo in my expirience are English.

Since I never found good use of commercial, and I sually play Standard maps to make expansionistic usefull these traits are not importatnt.

Man-O-War is also nothing usefull. Naval power in that stadium is unimportatnt and it become to quickly obsolete.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
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

Legion? Immortal? Jaguar Warrior? Impi? Hoplite?

You, my friend, have the brain of a trout.

I'll step in and defend my favorite. The jaguar warrior is a scout that can fight. It only costs 10 shields. A size 4 city can sometimes crank out one a turn. They can run amok in enemy territory, destroying things, etc. They can spend one movement moving to a new spot, and the second pillaging. you can surround the AIs and capture any of their land grabbing settlers, which go out every two turns or so. A worker a turn is much better than a cossack.

[kokomo]

I agree that the Hoplite is the best pre-gunpowder deffensive unit. After you get gunpowder and saltpeter becomes a most valuable asset you got to look after thoroughly, the best unit is without doubt Musketeer... switch that to the industrious + commercial carachteristic, you get France the best Civ so far...

[hannibcannib]

F-15

[kokomo]

Originally posted by hannibcannib
F-15

F-15? It comes too late in the game.... I'd rather get my SAM's and fighters...

[Giovanni August]

When I'm playing a war game I found militaristic an exellent trait, considering that I'm gonna have a huge Empire, commercial as second trait seems to be the right choice, this bring me to Rome, whose Legions are awesome (great attack and great defense... althoug not upgradind path )
Japanese too seems very good and I love their UU.

Playing a peace game i love the Babs, with them a culture win is pretty much set. Greeks are a good choice, i love to stack some Hoplite in a Hill, declare war on somebody (Rome if they have no Iron... otherwise Egypt due to cultural link). After a while the Hoplites became Elite and with luck produce a great leader.

Genarally i can get a couple of free wonders that boost my culture up.

If I still don't know what kind of game I'm gonna play, Germans seems perfect to me. The scientific trait gives me Bronze working soon and easier advances, the militaristic trait helps me in having better units and than when i get the Panzers....... BWAH BWAH BWAH BWAH BWAH...... GOODBYE WORLD


Saluti

[notyoueither]

Oh Giovanni. You are deviating from the one true path for the Glory of Rome.

That'll be 5 M&M's to Mars for you to make penance.

Salve

[godinex]

By the way China but is the map is HUge Rome

[realpolitic]

[SIZE=1] 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.

Expansionist is even worse than that: when map making appears, everyone trades techs with everyone, the only vestige of tech left is how much money you made in trades.

[captaincurt]

On anything less than huge/pangea, you can probably ignore this post, but *on* such a map, the Iriquois rule!

The Mighty Iriquois:

Your Expansionist Scouts can net you the ENTIRE set of Ancient techs, one or two settlers, numerous warriors, and many 25 or 50-coin "gifts" from goody huts (and *never* any angry barbarians).

Prime benefits:
- free settlers (most valuable in the early game)
- free warriors (makes up for you not building any, since you're cranking out scouts and settlers probably)
- free gold (always useful)
- valuable world map (for a while anyway)
- early knowledge of luxury resource locations (send a settler!)
- can choose to spend 0 on research: this means you are free to support a larger number of units (important in the early stages, esp. for a rush attack), produce luxuries if necessary, or just save it in your treasury and build up a huge bankroll
- can get to Monarchy a lot earlier: Some cities are dramatically affected by the escape from despotism (e.g. floodplain/wheat, cattle, forest/game). I had a couple cities producing two-turn workers and five-turn settlers, enabling rapid expansion *much* earlier than normal, and while there is still much land to claim!
- you get Horseback Riding very quickly: enables your Mounted Warriors early, at a time when they are absolutely decisive.

An additional strategy to try: once you obtain Monarchy, pop-rush Mounted Warriors in all cities, then switch governments, then gold-rush Mounted Warriors in all cities... voila, an unstoppable ancient horde in 5 turns (remember that rushing is cheaper if you have produced at least one shield on that item)

The fact that you can build temples for dirt cheap is just icing on the cake.

Although the benefit essentially expires once the map is fully explored, it can push you into a runaway lead early in the game, and the AI civs simply can't catch up, regardless of what special traits they have.

Drawbacks:
- Scouts are vulnerable to barbarians (but it seems like there is a certain "grace period" at the beginning of the game before they are active)
- Scouts are hobbled in rough terrain: if you start in jungle or forest or have a lot of mountains, they are worse than a warrior (since they can't fight)
- most effective on a huge/pangea map, and degrades rapidly to uselessness on smaller maps
- may be significantly less effective on Deity due to bonus AI units
(I'm only playing on Monarch)

[Hail Caesar!]

Expansionist Rocks!

When I first got this game I got sick of ending up with only one Civ per continent, since the Militaristic Civs always start wars which end up with the most powerful (militaristic or not) civs wiping out the weaker ones. This is why I always play on a huge map...

Anyway, with Expansionist, on a huge map you get:

1) Crucial map knowledge for city placement. Don't just seek out luxury resources. I would say that the most important resource at the very beginning of the game, where it would seem that whoever cranks out settlers fastest wins, is the grassland cow. Mine those grassland cow to get 3 food and 2 shields (other bonuses you have to wait for a new government because of the penalty under despotism). This allows you to set your production in the city to alternate between warrior / settler or spearman / settler. You only need 2 or 3 scouts to reveal the entire continent.

2) Almost the entire ancient era tech tree in less than 80 turns. See for yourself! You will have most of it before you "discover" your 2nd advance. The scientific advantage is generally lost in the Middle Ages, as the scientific civs will advance much faster than you and trade techs it to the other civs. However it is still nice because in the beginning you are preoccupied with building settlers aren't you? I noticed a trend that greatly affects my strategy. Whatever tech you are researching, you never get from Goody Boxes... so beeline for something useless like mathematics or mysticism. I almost always get Iron Working and a complete map of the continent before all the other civs so there is a definite military strategy to being expansionist.

3) If you are lucky, a bonus settler. This always seems to be the very first or second goody-box, so if you are a cheater like me, restart until you get one.

4) A few extra warriors is good since your production is based on expansion anyway (someone else mentioned this too).

I usually play as Americans. There seems to be a decidedly un-American sentiment in these threads but America kicks ass in real life and in Civ3, even if F-15 does suck. I also tend to notice that France and Egypt are usually 2nd and 3rd in the rankings... partly because they are Industrious but also because #1 (me) tends to favor them because well they are cuter. Do you ever give freebie techs to someone and then have Joan ask you to "share the wealth" ? With that irresistible smile of hers...

Oh yeah and I play on Regent too.

[Hail Caesar!]

Oh I forgot to mention that one thing really annoying about playing America is your neighbors are almost always Aztecs who are aggressive at the beginning, and Iroquois who never fail to build a city in between two of your cities.

[Jethro83]

I have no single favourite civ-specific attribute. I try to find the perfect strategy for each COMBO of traits.

So far, I have come to the conclusion that:

1. Militaristic/Religious (Japan/Aztecs) Militaristic makes you much more battle-ready than your enemy with cheaper barracks/walls, and quicker promotions (in this case to elite). The Religious trait mixes in nicely with this because you can easily switch governments as quickly as you switch from peace to war. So therefore, you can have a Republic or Democracy in peacetime, and build up your wealth (and research if you can somehow get ahead of the others). Once war begins, switch to Monarchy and take full advantage of free unit support for 4-8 units (if your cities are large enough) and the lack of war-weariness, allowing you to continue your war, and production of military units indefinitely. Once you've decided to go to peace again, switch to Rep./Dem. and return to your wealth and research gathering. I consider this to be my favourite warmongering combo.

2. Commercial/Industrious (France) The reduction in corruption makes building a far-flung empire an easy matter. Furthermore, the Industrious trait allows you to build a strong infrastructure that can take full advantage of this (more roads = more commerce. Less corruption, means less of this commerce lost). My favourite combo of traits for both peacemongering and warmongering (and now to mod France so they don't have that sissy colour).

3. Expansionist/Industrious (America) Instant construction capability of granaries, and greater possibility of settlers from goody-huts makes building a far-flung empire easy. Due to being Industrious, infrastructure can be built at less expense to cover the wider amount of territory. And more irrigations sooner will also mean more food, larger population, and ultimately more settlers to continue this expansion (I once expanded to the extent that I controlled 3/4 of the landmass, while other civs split the last quarter.

4. Commercial/Expansionist (England) Commercial corruption reduction makes the huge far-flung empire derived from being Expansionist much less prone to corruption.

5. Militaristic/Commercial (Rome) Being militaristic keeps your forces at a huge advantage. Let the other civs build the cities for you, then take advantage of reduced corruption from a distance in them once you occupy them.

6. Militaristic/Expansionist (Zululand) The larger number of towns from being Expansionist makes this civ's superior military acumen go even further, as the more towns means more free support. A decent warmongers' combo. But not as strong as Militaristic/Religious by my opinion.

7. Scientific/Religious (Babylon) The ultimate cultural builder's combo. Cheaper cultural improvements will give you much more time to build a military, as long as you can hold out that long, you can be an unstoppable cultural power and have the military to keep your enemies off your back.

I'd add more, but I still need to think some things through first.

[Saint Marcus]

The best civ, IMHO, is Egypt. Fast workers, cheap temples/cathedrals, free gov switching, being able to build the pyramids from the start. Egypt's UU isn't very impressive, but does give a cheap ancient age fast attack unit (strenght of a horsemen, but cheaper).

Though it's only because it suits my style. With other civs I haven't been able to get the same results (I'm playing on Emporer (modded))

[Txurce]

I just finished my second domination game, in 1410. My prior one was completed in 1415. The civ I used in both? Egypt. In neither case did I intend to play domination - I always go for space race. But the Egyptians' combination of fast road-building, cheap temples, and a UU that has speed and some punch along with the ancient era's most important trait - cheapness - put me in a dominant position in both games while still in BC. What is Egypt's overwhelming common trait? It does everything fast in the decisive ancient era: build temples, roads, and units, which in turn are fast themselves. The only thing it's not fast at is building barracks, and I squeeze those in early while letting my pop build up before building another settler. An argument could be made that Egypt is hard to beat for warmongering.