Most fun militaristic style civs

[Artifex]

Rank you favorite militaristic civs and why?

[Velociryx]

AZTEC!

Jaguars rule....I don't even mind blowing my Golden Age in 3800BC...if I eat the continent, I figure it doesn't much matter!

-=Vel=-

[FrustratedPoet]

I think I'll pick this one before Arrian gets here...

JAPAN!

Well ... Samurai's are just very very cool.

[Chemical Ollie]

I played my best early conqueror games as China. Those riders roll over the continent like locust.

[Jethro83]

CHINA!!! Those riders are definitely the most powerful medieval UU in the game. Not to mention being Industrious.

As for the lack of Religious trait, that hardly matters, since I've found China to work best under Monarchy for most of the game anyway, and as such won't need to change governments so often.

[LionQ]

CHINA, of course!

Those Chinese Riders are having a Movement Rate of 3, so you can crush a whole continent in a few turn.

And not to mention: with China you're having also the mighty power of the ability Industrious!!!

[Arrian]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
I think I'll pick this one before Arrian gets here...

JAPAN!

Big Jerk. j/k,

Japan is my favorite, but China is right behind. It's very close. I've never played the Aztecs, and imagine they could be quite fun, but the early golden age put me off.

I like Japan because they're religious, have a perfectly timed Medieval UU, and begin the game with the wheel.

I like China because they're industrious, start with warrior code for the archer rush, and they have a perfectly timed AND incredibly powerful UU (a 3-move knight, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!).

Also, if you play with cultural linking on (which I normally do), the Japanese and Chinese each get the Indians to beat on.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

Japan and China together at the 1st place. Religious and industrious are the best traits. Religious (Japan) is best on a middleaged or old map (4/5 bill years). On a young one (3 bill years) I prefer China.

Germany and Zululand together at the 3rd place. Germany I prefer on a standard or less map. Awesome civ for an early rush. Zululand on a large or huge map. scouts, impi and horsemen are a great mix. Disclaimer: Militaristic sucks at Archipelago maps.

Rome being last. Commercial sucks. Sorry NYE.

Aztecs are out of my judgement, because I never played with them. I hate a GA when I have only 1 city.

[Theseus]

Sir Ralph,

Logic on the map age, please?

[Blitzer]

1) Aztecs
2) Chinese
3) Japanese
4) Germans

Never played any of the other civs, but I would imagine the zulus are good... they seem to make thmselves annoying enough

[Thomas Paine]

The first time I played as China, I couldn't wait to begin building my massive Rider hordes.

Until I discovered I was on a small, isolated island. D'OH!!!

Random maps can be so damned....random!

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Theseus
Sir Ralph,

Logic on the map age, please?

Young (3 bill years) maps usually give a very rough terrain due to the large clustering of the terrain types. Vast mountains, plains, forests, jungles. In older maps, the terrain types are more levelled, meaning there are almost in all cities 4-5 good tiles to work at in the early game. But in younger maps you have a lot of cities that don't work at all without terrain improvement, because they are located in a vast [insert terrain type here], and in that situation, China (industrious) has a clear advantage over Japan.

I've made the observation, that the "Killer AI", using your settings (includes 3 bill years), almost for certain is an industrious civ. Look at the first two Minitourneys, with China and France.

[Arrian]

I'd agree with Sir Ralph on the map settings. 3 billion years will provide an extra advantage to Egypt, France, China, Persia and America.

-Arrian

[alva]

I hope you people realise this is all going to change when MP arrives

[Arrian]

Must we always include a disclaimer like:

[not discussing MP implications]

or

[SP strategy discussion only]



-Arrian

[alva]

Originally posted by Arrian
Must we always include a disclaimer like:

[not discussing MP implications]

or

[SP strategy discussion only]



-Arrian

YES !!!!!!! you must !!!

but come to think of (taking Mark's advice here )
we could have seperate forums ,
that might not be such a bad idea afterall

[Signa]

Of course its the Romans...

Legionairy (3.3.1)

Think about those stats, the second best attack and best defense in the game in the ancient era. I've had massive armies of 10 of these supported by a few Horsemen and Catapults and plowed past civs x2 my size when they had Knights and Pikemen.

Plus with Rome you get the Commerical attribute on top of militaristic, so you have the best trait and enough money to keep up in science even though your at a constant war. Talk about sweet.

[Artifex]

im trying rome next..those legions look rad.

[Arrian]

Plus with Rome you get the Commerical attribute on top of militaristic, so you have the best trait and enough money to keep up in science even though your at a constant war. Talk about sweet.

NotYouEither is gonna let me have it for dissin' Rome, but I can't let this one pass. Commerical is the weakest trait in the game (depending on map factors, sometimes expansionist is weaker). It does very little for corruption and provides a bit more money... that's it. PtW, however, will include improvements, which is good. There is a general concensus that the two strongest traits are Religious and Industrious (though the debate rages as to which is #1).

The Legionary is a solid unit, no doubt. But keep in mind that you will use up your golden age in ancient times and that on the attack, the Legionary is no better than a standard swordsman. They're slow, too.

At some point I will drop down in difficulty level and give Rome another try. The coolness factor is there, even if the traits aren't.

-Arrian

[DrFell]

China, Japan, and the Aztecs. They're all good fun to play, and have a good second trait (religious and industrious, the two best traits in the game). Plus they all have strong UUs.

[Dimension]

I'm surprised more people don't like the Zulus. It's so obnoxious to have the AI take all the huts and be running Impis through your territory in the early game... but playing the Zulus means you won't get stuck next to them, and who really needs Religious when you kill half the other civs before you discover a government to switch to?

I've only ever tried them on Monarch, but Shaka certainly makes quick work of his starting continent. You explore the whole place and get all the huts, then can take down everybody very quickly with horses & Impis.

Normally, I like the Aztecs and Japanese, though. The Aztecs are a bit awkward, but I try to just explore instead of attack with Jaguar Warriors. That fixes all their problems, making them basically a Militaristic/Religious/Expansionist civilization that just happens to have explorers that can steal workers. You never get a golden age if you're just out slave hunting ... Japan seems to fit my style the best, but it's very frustrating how slow your start is if you're not Expansionist or Industrious or at least have Jaguar Warriors running around.

Honestly, China (or Egypt for the less warmongering) is probably the best, but I try to force myself to switch to all captured workers quickly enough that Industrious becomes useless pretty fast.

I really like Militaristic civs, and I see Commercial & Scientific as nearly worthless, so that leaves me with just Japan, Aztecs, China & Zululand.

I understand everybody thinking Industrious & Religious are the best traits, but Great Leaders are so strong that you could certainly argue anything that gets you more leaders is a better. The last game I played as the Aztecs, I fought almost the entire game and won culturally because of leaders. I built an army, the Forbidden Palace, 17 wonders in my capital and the Iron Works in another city, all with leaders.

[Theseus]

Dimension... I dream of doing that. I always try to build GWs in my capitol, just in case I get a string of GLs and can pull off a cultural win. Well done.

[Arrian]

Heh, I deliberately DON'T build too many GW's in my capitol so I don't win via culture before I want to. Many times wonders are rushed in whatever city is closest (obviously not wonders like Copernicus or Newton's... those obviously need a low/no-corruption city).

-Arrian

[W4r_Machine]

I'ld go for CHINA. I very much like the quality of being Industrius too.

I never get GL, but I capturing one is a whole different story.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Dimension
The last game I played as the Aztecs, I fought almost the entire game and won culturally because of leaders. I built an army, the Forbidden Palace, 17 wonders in my capital and the Iron Works in another city, all with leaders.

wow!

I would expect that by the time you had fought enough battles to get 20 Leaders (if I understand you correctly) you would have won by Conquest anyway.

Great work!

[Arrian]

Dimension,

What size map was that one, and how many civs? I'm curious, because the best I've ever done was 12 GLs (standard map, 8 civs). IIRC, I used them on an army, the FP, a palace move, 6 Great Wonders, the Pentagon, the Iron Works and a marketplace.

-Arrian

[Dimension]

Arrian-

It was a standard sized map with 8 civs. I know I got at least 20 leaders, because I built at least 18 wonders, an army, and the FP with them, but I think I had a couple I used for other things. You always want to use a leader as soon as you get it if you're fighting. A number of times I got a leader at the beginning of a turn, used it immediately, and got another leader that turn, because I was fighting on multiple fronts with 50 or more elites. I mean, doing the math, you SHOULD get multiple leaders when attacking with 50 elites with a militaristic civ and the Heroic Epic.

As FrustratedPoet said, it seems a little strange getting 20+ leaders without winning by conquest, but I was actually fighting very carefully. In the mid to late game, it's more depressing to lose a couple elites than it is to lose a whole city. In that game, I was fighting just to fight, not to conquer. I would just run a railroad up to a large border town, and beat on it till it was empty, always fully healing every unit that took a single point of damage. When the town is empty, I don't take it unless it'll put me in position to attack other large cities. That way, you leave the computer in all-out military production. You cut off their good resources, but still let them produce stacks and stacks of inferior units. I guess it's mean, but getting leaders is so much fun

Specifically, that game I was on a very large continent, and the Iroquois had the entire bottom half. I beat on them for a very long time before I bothered finishing them off and going overseas.

[Arrian]

Damn, talk about making leader generation into a science! I've dragged wars out a bit hoping for an extra leader, but I've never taken it to the extreme you describe.

I could have done something like it late in my 12 leader game, once I was fighting off-continent (if you're at all curious, look up the "Game of Ultimate Power" thread in this forum). I was razing just about every city I took (whereas I kept all of the cities on my continent), so I would not have lost anything if I had kept the Iroquois around as a punching bag.

-Arrian

[Transcend]

My current game is only 1000AD, and I already have 7 leaders used(2 for armies, 1 for FP, 4 for GWs). One thing I refrain from doing is to use any elite units after a GL has spawned. Also, I usually keep any
unit that has generated a GL in reserve until the next upgrade.

Since a palace costs as much as a GW, using a GL for relocating palace makes sense, too.

[Fighter]

I cant believe that no one ranks Germany highly!

I personaly believe it is one of the best civs in the game. The militaristic/scientific combo rocks, you stay up there technologicaly.

And when those Panzers hit? They happen to come in at a perfect time to kill, also the scientific factor keaps you up there technologicaly so you get there faster.

Come on! You roll through your oponent with them, at the time they come into play you can easily tear apart your oponent with masses of them.

One of the best civs in the game IMO

Of course I also happen to be fascinated by historical Germany... That could cause it