Why Egyptians Rock

[The Bloody Baro]

I personally think that Egyptians are the best civ out there. Their ablities are great for me a turtler who expands enough to get the required resources then bides his time until the late game and then explodes out with bombers nukes and modern armor. The following is a list of what egypt's traits are and why they are so powerful

Industrious:
Workers work two times as fast allowing for roads out to distant continents.
Examples: One of, if not the best Civ 3 players (Vel) wrote a topic which has 138 posts and is probalbly growing.
I built a road across a large pangea map allowing trade between all civs in 26 turns with 5 workers. It would take a non-Industrious civ 52 turns to get the same thing.

Religious: The government flip alone is enough but the religous buildings too?! Science is better for research but DOES NOT keep your pop happy, and needs to reach modern times to get all 3 of the buildings.

War Chariot: Sucks when compared to other ancient age UUs but I did conquer Rome with these before they could get there precious Legions.

Some of you will almost certainly argue with me but for me when am not going to a warmonger until Modern this is the civ for me.

[albiedamned]

I don't think you'll get too much disagreement. There is an ongoing debate about whether Religous or Industrious is the best ability, but the Egyptians have them both. The UU isn't that weak either - it can make for good early game rushes to take out a close neighbor (provided you have horses), and it can be upgraded later.

Militaristic seems to be the third most popular. So civs which combine Mlitaristic with either Industrious or Religous - Japan, China, and Aztecs - are also very well liked. But I think most people believe Egypt is the most powerful civ to play. I know I do. Of course, I've only ever played as them once. I try to mix it up. I'm currently trying to play as the English, which have the weakest combination of abilities and a bad UU!

[Solver]

This somehow makes me thinking to write a topic "Why Egyptians suck" .

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by The Bloody Baro
I personally think that Egyptians are the best civ out there. Their ablities are great for me a turtler who expands enough to get the required resources then bides his time until the late game and then explodes out with bombers nukes and modern armor
...
Some of you will almost certainly argue with me but for me when am not going to a warmonger until Modern this is the civ for me.

Yeah, I'm a Cleo addict - for similar reasons, except that at the end my turtle explodes out into space for victory. I can't be bothered conquering a hundred cities when there could be a new game to start

With cheap early temples you can soak up a whole layer of rival cities round your borders, winning extra resources without war.

Even without using the tactic of building roads out to other civs for trade or war, the first worker is quick enough to service 3/4 cities before more are needed.

Also, my last three Egypt games had desert starts which might get some players conceding at once but in fact it's great for saltpeter and oil later on. Anyone else notice a high % of desert starts for Egypt (standard settings)?

Before the golden age you can keep building war chariots for ever, it seems. I've used this to trigger GA's in the mid/late game after some fool declared war.

[player1]

War Chariot is usualy a GREAT unit.
You can get it quickly, it's cheap and it's almost as effective as Horsemen.

Now, some people don't like early golden age, but I am not one of them. I like early golden age.
I usuly double my empire in that period.
Not to happen in late golden age (at least not usualy).

Now, only possbile Egyptian drawback is neighbouring civs (if culturaly linked starting locations are used). Two civs with units with defense of 3.

But even they are not such big problem.

You can take out Romans early, or if not, try to pillage thier Iron as soon as possbile.

As for Greeks best strategy it to pillage early with War Chariots (if you can't conquer him, make him weak), and if you have time, wait for for Swordmen (or even Catapult).

If you greatly outnumber him (which can happen if you constantly pillage and prevent his expansion), you could take cities with War Chariots too.

[seraphin]

i cannot say they rock. they are kind of the basic race - very easy to play.i like them if i wanna play a game without danger of loosing and without having a concrete plan.if i am in the mood to make up such plans i prefer china ,babylon or persia...why playing the egyptians which are only half of everything.

[King of Rasslin]

Militaristic civs have 2x the chance of a unit promotion. This means 2x the leaders if you play right. You don't need fast workers until pollution comes, and you want to win the game by then. Militaristic is better.

I would choose a civ with religious and an uber UU. I like the Japanese samurai and the Iroquios mounted warrior. The Iroquios can use their mounted warriors effectively in monarchy. The Eygptians UU will be obsolete in monarchy. Both Eygpt and Iroquios use an early game UU. If you want to win using that UU, would you rather have industrious or expansionist? Expansionist is actually very useful if you are planning to use an early UU to pull ahead.

I just don't like their UU. While their traits are good, they just don't have the GA timed right. And the GA is how you pull ahead for the win.

[Theseus]

Actually, the WC can be considered a non-essential UU, meaning often you can forego its use, and save it for a precisely timed GA... pretty powerful.

[King of Rasslin]

Well, you don't want to slow expansion, and you might only get 3 out before you get horseback riding. And techs progress so quickly in monarch or emperor I wouldn't mess around with the chariots.

[Catt]

When I play the Egyptians I will often do exactly as Theseus says -- I will build 3 or 4 WCs and then just tuck them away in a safe, interior city. Come the late ancient ages or early middle ages, towards the end of a war I can end on my terms, I will haul the WCs out of storage to take down a wounded horseman, archer or longbowman, or even a wounded knight or swordsman. And you really don't slow down production because the WCs simply replace other units (like spearmen) that you would have built anyway -- they just get "easy" guard duty in the interior.

It's one of the few UUs that are ideal for GA timing -- most of the other ancient and early middle ages UUs are powerful enough compared to their contemporaries that you simply can't forgo using them if the opportunity arises (can you imagine not using hoplites, immortals, legionaries, mounted warriors, samurai, riders when at war?)

The WC's value lies in its relative lack of miltary prowess -- its purpose readily becomes GA timing rather than military advantage.

Catt

[Theseus]

Exactly. I did this in one of the recent tourneys, where we were blocked from Rome by mountains anyway.

This is going to be one of my proposed trials in the War College (new name for the Best concept)... timing your GA.

[Arrian]

I love Egypt. Haven't played as Cleo in a while, though, due to my ongoing infatuation with the militaristic trait (more specfically, with Great Leaders).

War Chariots are, from the standpoint of their a/d/m, an unimpressive UU. However, there are several nice things about them, some of which have already been mentioned:

1) cheap - 20 shields to build.
2) "non-essential" in that you don't feel like an idiot for not using them in ancient times, so you can hold your GA for later.
3) you can continue building WCs until you have Chivalry.

I would like to focus for a moment on #3. Think about that. Then think about Leonardo's Workshop.

My girlfriend started an Egyptian game on Regent recently. It was going well, and I was enlisted as an advisor. Upon the discovery of Chivalry, I unleashed 52 Knights on the poor, unsuspecting world.

Sure, you can turtle for longer than that. But lemme tell ya, 52 knights can sweep across a continent like a tidal wave.

-Arrian

[Theseus]

Also, Arrian, you can concurrently build Horsemen, if need be.

[Arrian]

Like if you don't want to trigger your golden age? Yes, you can build horsemen and WC's at the same time.

Also, a city with 15-19 shields of production (early medieval golden age... this happens pretty easily) can build either a horseman or wc in 2 turns. Clearly, it's best to build the horseman to save money on the upgrade.

-Arrian

[The_Hawk]

I agree with the points made here. Egypt is by far my most favorite Civ. I can mitigate the scientific benefit by leveraging my industrial strength (I usually beat scientific nations to any era and usually maintain a 2 science lead on them). Commercial Civs I deal with by dealing for all of their boundless money. Can't do anything if i'm getting all of their money per turn. Expansionist Civs do not even need mentioning since, to me, it is the worse trait ever. The only trait I can't seem to mitigate is the militaristic trait. I would love to get a GL in the ancient era. Heck, i'd love one in the middle ages. I just can't seem to do it. I've waged entire campaigns sending EXCLUSIVELY, all of my elite units and still no GL. Ohh well.

I must give mention to the Industrious/Commercial combination as well. (Gotta love the French!).

[W4r_Machine]

Aside from the game "calling me QUEEN" whenever I play Egypt I have no problem with them.

[Theseus]

You can change that, you know. When you're setting up, click on the bar underneath Cleo's picture, and you can change the name and titles.

You still look like an Egyptian woman, but hey...

[dunk]

I think the war chariot is a very good unit to use as a weapon. The same as horsemen, but much less cost. Who wouldn't love that?

[phunny_pharmer]

Anyone (everyone?) tried the DyP mod? If you think Egypt is good in standard civ3, Egypt is god over there...

I, too, wish there was an alternate portrait- and another non-agressive civ. With 16 civs, only India will serve as your tribute bank. Too bad- I liked making 30 gold every other turn.