what tribe?

Darth Sidious · January 14, 2002, 11:18

what tribe do you prefer to play, or if you don't know what advantages each tribe has, state the advantages you prefer.
And why.

In the first place, i prefer industrious because the double worker speed will help me a hell of a lot, espescially in early game.
To go with that, i am still in doubt, which is why i post this tread. I currently just use the commercial french, and since even now corruption sucks like hell, i don't even dare to take a non commercial tribe.

additional questions:
-does anyone know how big the effect of being commercial is?
-does a millitairy tribe also have a better change of getting a leader from an elite unit, or does it only count for promotions to veteran and elite?
-how exactly do large sities produce more shields/commerce for industrious/commercial tribes? -how big do they need to be and what bonus do they get. My biggest city now is 12 and i dont notice any bonus.

Arrian · January 14, 2002, 11:32

To answer some of your questions:

The commercial/industrious bonus, as I recall, is 1 shield/gold in a size 7-12 city, and 2 shield/gold in a 13+ size city. As I undestand it, the Great Leader rate is normally 1/16 (1 in 16 elite unit victories), and being militaristic makes it 1/12. I personally think militaristic is a really weak trait... you can make that Leader rate 1/12 with the heroic epic... and Sun Tzu takes care of the barracks.

As for the overall effects of commercial on empire-wide corruption... I'm not sure, but it doesn't seem to be that pronounced. In fact, although when I first got the game (and, admittedly, corruption was worse then, pre-patch), I thought commercial would be one of the best traits. Now, I think differently.

I seem to never tire of this topic, why is that? I don't know. Anyway, my favorites are the Babylonians, followed by the Egyptians. I consider religious to be my "almost never play a civ without it" attribute. I'm big about expanding those borders early on, and you need temples for that (libraries come much later, even though I beeline for Lit.). Also, the 1 turn anarchy is HUGE.

Scientific, in combo with religious, is nice for the 3 extra techs you get, plus cheap libraries/universities. Industrious is great for the early jumpstart it gives you and the overall ease of building all those roads, mines, irrigation, and railroads... not to mention cutting down all that pesky rainforest.... err, jungle.

Basically, I feel religious is the #1 trait. After that, it depends, as I mainly think of the others as they work in tandem with religious. Scientific on its own isn't really at that great, but with religious it's fantastic. Industrious is probably stronger than scientific as a stand-alone trait. I'd call scientific vs. commerical a tie, or nearly so.

Expansionist is weak, except if you play on large/huge worlds with lots of land.

I should mention, so you have an idea of my playstyle (which definitely effects my ranking of the attributes), that though I end up doing plenty of fighting, I'm not a warmonger. I'm all about building up my empire. If someone gets in the way of that, of course they die, but I will always choose a library over a knight.

-Arrian

Aeson · January 14, 2002, 12:46

I just posted on two different threads about this, and will paste those replies here...

Civ Traits -

I think the worth of attributes depends more on the situation than anything. Synergies depend on the map type, desired outcome, and strategy used to obtain that end.

For instance, Expansionist and Scientific (Russians) doesn't work well on small maps where conquest is the main goal. But on huge maps, with a more enlightened goal (space race, cultural, diplomatic) the two attributes can work perfectly together. The early expansionist advantage, combined with cheap science improvements later on, can give a Civ in an unbeatable Tech advantage.

The way I see the combinations and their best uses, not accounting for UU's.

Industrious/Expansionist - early exploration, find the best city sites, and connect/improve the empire quickly.

Industrious/Religious - build up an early cultural advantage.

Industrious/Militaristic - more experienced troops to the battle lines quickly due to more roads.

Industrious/Commercial - build up a great core empire, and it can be slightly larger due to less corruption.

Industirous/Scientific - lots of commerce from roads, and cheap libraries make for the best early science rates.

Expansionist/Religious - find the important city sites, and claim them early with culture.

Expansionist/Militaristic - find everyone else early, and wipe them out.

Expansionist/Commercial - find the best sites for your core cities, have a good set up for later in the game.

Expansionist/Scientific - find the other civs early, broker your tech advantage from huts and cheap libraries to them.

Religious/Militaristic - great for taking and keeping the other civ's cities by culturally keeping conquered cities, or defending culturally aquired cities.

Religious/Commercial - for some reason I can't think of where poor Ghandi has an advantage, but I'm sure there is a reason to choose the Indians. Oh yah, rich happy people!

Religious/Scientific - best cultural combination, also one of the better research oriented ones as well due to quickly switching governments.

Militaristic/Commercial - fight your way to a large, less corrupt empire.

Militaristic/Scientific - get a tech advantage, and use it to dominate militarily.

Commercial/Scientific - less corruption, less % needed for taxes, better research capabilities, best tech combination in the game.

I think overall, the Religious combinations have an advantage. Scientific, Industrious, and Commercial are quite evenly balanced. Militaristic and Expansionist depend heavily on map type and desired victory condition. On a huge pangaea map, nothing else comes close to Expansionist, but on an archipelago small map, it is by far the worst attribute. On standard continents maps, it's just so-so. Militaristic is the most important attribute for war mongers, but in peaceful games has practically no use. In most cases though, I find the UU to be a better determination of the Civ's worth, but thats just me.

Civs -

My new favorite Civ is the Zulu's, though I am just starting to use them. Impies are the perfect unit to support horsemen with, and of course, the perfect defense against horsemen. Chosing the Zulu's means that I don't have to fight against the Impies. Also Expansionist is maybe the best trait on anything larger than standard maps. On Pangaea games, it definitely is the best trait as far as I'm concerned. Military is great as well, those extra leaders, fast promotions, and cheap barracks give a nice advantage when at war.

I also like the Egyptians. Cheap, early horsemen (War Chariots) make for very early conquest possibilities, and the extra cost of upgrading isn't a problem, as gold is abundant when everyone else is paying to keep you from attacking again. Though getting the Zulu's for a neighbor really bites. Conquering Impi defended cities with Horsemen/War Chariots is always a bloodbath, so many dead horsies. It's better just to take the Zulu's in my opinion.

The Iroquois are probably the best Civ. Expansionist I already touched on, and Religious is maybe the best overall attribute (it's great on any map). Combine that with the best UU in the game, and it's really not even close. For this reason they are my least favorite Civ, as it's just too easy to play with them.

The Greeks, Persians, and Aztecs are all good Civs. Greek Hoplites make for good horseman support, though it slows down the conquest a bit. Immortals are almost as effective as Mounted Warriors, only they can never be upgraded. The Jag Warriors are real pests, but I'd take 1 Impi over two Jags most of the time.

It's kinda funny, but Arrian's signature is "grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!" and my sig over at CivFanatics is "tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner." yet I'm the warmonger and he's the pacifist

Arrian · January 14, 2002, 12:59

Aeson,

You're the first one to comment on my sig. Do you know where I got it from? It's from a Civ I cheat program a friend of mine gave me (with some basic options, like giving yourself Tanks in 4000bc). When you loaded it up, one of a number of kinda funny intro quotes popped up. One of these was:

grog want tank....

-Black screen again-

Grog Want Tank...

-Black screen again-

GROG WANT TANK!!

And then you could, indeed, give Grog his tank. It always made me laugh.

As for me being a pacifist... no, no, not at all. I'm just not a warmonger. Actually, I do lots of fighting... I just start later. I aim to nail a tech advantage prior to fighting, and then to hit with overwhelming force (why fight fair?). Most of my games that I've played out could have been either SS or Domination wins... I just tend to choose the SS.

-Arrian

Skeletal Dragon · January 14, 2002, 13:23

I'm really finding myself to like Militaristic civs more and more lately. The ability to pop-rush Barracks early game is so powerful that you can find yourself taking over 1-2 civs even before the Middle Age. They also gain rank more easily too, so I tend to have masses and masses of Elite units lying around.

The other civ trait that I really like is Religious. Pop-rushed temples can't hurt, and having a Cathedral being cheaper than a Library or Marketplace is downright funny.

Currently, I am really disliking Scientific Civs because, well, they don't really do anything immediate. Its more of an accumulated trait, since its hard to see the results right away, unlike Militaristic and Religious Civs. With Militaristic/Religious, you can poprush a Barracks or Temple right away and you see a difference immediately. With Libraries, it needs an aggregate number of them to make a noticeable difference and that aggregate number can take a lot of turns.

Also, the civ tends to give the tech that I don't need for each age after Ancient Age. Monotheism with Cathedrals aren't really big because Feudalism is the tech that's more valuable (Sun Tzu, woo hoo!). Some people may disagree with my choice, but I tend to be more aggressive before I hit Democracy. Nationalism is definitely the wrong tech in the Industrial Age; the tech that you really want is Steam Engine for Rails and Industrialization for Factories. In Modern Age, Computers should be your first priority to get Research Labs so that the techs don't take 8+ turns.

Aeson · January 14, 2002, 13:32

Arrian -

Haha, I remember that program now, completely forgot about it. Of course "cheating" on Civ 1 was basically to build a chariot and a trireme to take over the world, with the necessary reloadings. Either that or reload every time the AI built a wonder, as it was just a random occurance.

I'm not really a warmonger either, just more-so than you

vmxa1 · January 14, 2002, 13:58

I agree that many traits values are dependent of conditions. IMHO, the only must is Religion. The close second is Industry. Things like expansion move up in value as the map size grows, but on low difficulty settings, you do not need it regardless of the map size. I have seen huts sitting around close to cities when I got there with my warrior on the lower three settings. I do kill any scouts I run into to slow down the AI's search. Let them go to war for a while, they can do nothing and will soon want to make peace. Science and Military are the two traits I like, but rarely use. I have found that SCI and REL combined means very poor results from battles. Low promotions and few leaders and more frequent lost of battles I should win.

Darth Sidious · January 14, 2002, 14:06

i play deity, which prevents me from building all the wonders i want.
I go for pyramids, and if i dont get it, the one that has it will most likely be my first target.
later on, the sistine is a muct have for me, and i really like to have sun tsu and the workshop.
I am a fighter, the only use of tech is to get to certain units first. In everything i only see the ultimate perpose is to strengthen my armies and to conquer the world.

I start exping to about 6 cities and tech to iron works. the other low techs i trade. when i iron, i set science to 0, use the money to up my warriors to swordsmen and use the production to build additional swordsmen. i take my army of around 12-15 swordsmen to destroy the first opponent and make him pay to save his last vilage.
next step is to take over his area with the forbidden palace build with a leader i should have now and while teching towards knights, expand my empire and get temples and all that needed ****.
when knights, i will fight my next war. maybe head on, maybe i just take some boats and destroy important cities. depends on situation. This war is just to be fighting and to weaken the strongest enemy.
Next i will tech to cavalry for the next fight.
This is how far i have played this far.

Aeson · January 14, 2002, 14:38

Darth -

Why swordsmen? You end up using Knights and Calvary later. With 100% tax rates, you would easily have enough to upgrade whatever Horsemen you could build before Chivalry comes along. You said that the ultimate purpose was to strengthen your armies and take over the world. Isn't upgrading much more efficient than rebuilding your army once Chivalry rolls around?

Also it's more efficient to allow the AI to build wonders on Deity. The Pyramids cost 400 Shields, with that you could build a barracks (40 shields) and 12 Horsemen (30x12 = 360 shields). 12 Veteran Horsemen is enough to take whatever city builds the Pyramids (though if the Zulu's build it, there might be a problem, solution.. play as the Zulu's!), and keep going. Even if you just build graneries in all your production cities, that is 2 pop points per city, or 60 shields. If you have 7 or more cities (420 shields for graneries) before you can build the Pyramids that would be ok, but to get the Pyramids you have to cut expansion in half. One of your first 2 cities has to start building up to it from the start (garrison units and a temple for happiness) to have any chance at all, cutting it out of the settler rotation.

Darth Sidious · January 14, 2002, 15:08

I feel horsemen are too weak to beat a civ defended by spearmen, certainly cuz at deity the AI usually has quite a number of units. Also, i cannot build cheap warriors and upgrade them to horsemen, but i would have to build all those expensive horsemen.
So bassically i can use less resources for units. swordsmen can be build by shields, by gold (upg) and even by food (rush buy).

Also, not much of my army usually survives the first war, so there isn't much to upgrade to knights anyway. i usually just build an army which i expect to be enough for 1 opponent (12-15 swordsmen that is) if i can't take em all, i can demand the last few cities as well when talking about piece

About the pyramids you are right, cheaper to conquer than to build. It only is a real problem when it is built on the other side of the planet though

(can't keep a single city there cuz of the culture crap) Not having the pyramids is ehm...painful.

Additional question:
i am currently considdering to play egypt next game as i have just learned the importance of being religious (when it took me 20-30 turns to build a cathedral in each city it already crossed my mind last game)
The war charriot is not good to get me in golden age though, as it would be useless to get golden age under despotism.
To get golden age by wonders, do i need to BUILD them or is capturing them ok as well ? (build has proven to be a problem)

And if a wonder like the pyramids can give golden age to industrious or religious, will it on its own give it to a civ that is both?

(I currently am in doubt between egypt and japan)

Soren Johnson · January 14, 2002, 15:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Darth Sidious

And if a wonder like the pyramids can give golden age to industrious or religious, will it on its own give it to a civ that is both?

Yes

Aeson · January 14, 2002, 15:35

The point about your first army not having many survivors is the main reason for using Horsemen. Once the tactics of using 2 movement troops is understood, losses should be minimal. I regularly have 80+% of my horsemen survive to become Knights and later Calvary.

For a golden age triggered by wonders, you need to build them yourself. Captured ones don't count from what I can tell. Maybe I'm the only one, but I find an ancient era golden age is the best. Triggering a golden age with a UU means one thing, you are at war. The golden age helps you build more units, making that war more successful. I would much rather have an empire several times as big later on, than wait for a golden age in a smaller empire.

Darth Sidious · January 14, 2002, 15:52

GA under despotism sucks cuz you wont have your 3th production anyways. All those extra shields you would get from your mined shielded grasslands are wasted. in early game, you are mainly using shielded grasslands anyway, since you are only using few squares yet. I prefer to get GA as soon as i have swiched government. in that period i am just building up after my first war, and the extra production + tech is very usefull to get to the next step (having the needed improvements and the knight tech) asap.

Arrian · January 14, 2002, 16:57

Well, I also hate despotic golden ages, but I like playing devils' advocate, so I will say this: early conquest can really set you up for the rest of the game. If this means triggering a "premature" (read: despotic) golden age, so be it.

I triggered a really early one last night by building the Great Library and the Colossus (I'm Babylon). I tried to delay the Colossus (yeah, I actually put all the citizens on unshielded terrain or water) until I could switch to republic, but I was still 15 turns away when I built the damn thing. The golden age wasn't all that bad, though, since my empire was already huge. I got unbelievably lucky early on - I stumbled across an undefended Beijing with only a settler in it. "Yeah, sure Mao, my warriors were just leaving. Oops, you didn't need your capitol, did you?"

-Arrian