Which Civ - War Monger/Small Map?

jeffds · December 11, 2002, 05:10

Hello,
Was reading some of the interesting threads on the best/easiest Civs to play and was after some further advice.

I have always played in Builder mode with the Egyptians or Babylonians - only going to war when I have discovered Chivalry. So I have never utilised the Civs UU.

Anyway for a change I want to try a few games on a small Pangea map and basically go to war as soon as possible. So which Civ would you recommend based on their UU?
From the threads I have read most people recommend Japan/Iroquois. But I am not sure if these discussions are in the context of large/huge maps. How would they go on a small map.

Thanks for any advice!

VenomLord · December 11, 2002, 05:16

for very early war the iroquois are very good as are the aztecs or persians... it all depends on HOW early you want the war... pre-resource connection? go the aztecs (they are the only ones that can get one that early besides the babs ) otherwise i suggest either the iroquois or the persians

FrustratedPoet · December 11, 2002, 06:39

Early Archer rushes are most effective with Germany or China.

Overall I think that China and the Iroquois are the best early warfare Civs. The Chinese cheap barracks and well-developed cities (due to Industrious workers) can crank out a lot of units early in the game. The Iroquois will quickly have access to their Mounted Warriors (although you need horses for this), which are an absolutely devastating unit.

Based solely on the UU, and on a larger map, I would say that the Iroquois is the best Civ for pure warmongering.

On a smaller map the Iroquois' Expansionist trait has limited usefulness so I would definitely go for China. Another good option for a small map would be Persia - the Immortal is awesome as long as you have Iron and again the Industrious trait works wonders. You won't have cheap barracks with the Persians, though.

Harovan · December 11, 2002, 07:42

Take a militaristic civ. It will provide you with cheap barracks, twice as quick promotions and Archers from the start (unless Japan). As FP said, Germany and China are the best choice. You may try also the Aztecs. If you aren't into Warrior and Archer rushes, the Persians and Iroquois are good choices because of their strong UUs, although both lack the militaristic trait.

My choice would be Germany.

Arrian · December 11, 2002, 10:25

There is also Rome. Their traits are weak, it's true, but you get to play with Legionaries, and on a small map their lack of mobility isn't as painful.

But I'd go with China as the overall best. Archer rush to do some damage, Horseman rush to secure your position, Riders to finish it off.

-Arrian

Jawa Jocky · December 11, 2002, 10:41

I'd say Iroquois. With your small Pangea map setting you maybe able to end the game really early. A Mounted Warrior rush supercharged with a GA.

The Ottomans and Greeks may slow you down a bit.

If I tried these map settings, I bet horses would be on the other side of the maps.

Harovan · December 11, 2002, 10:42

If you are ready to gamble, you could try the Zulus as well. Their expansionist trait is not as good as at a large or huge map, but if you play on a small pangea, it is still pretty powerful.

The Zulus can dominate the Ancient age. They provide you with scouts to find your opponents early and deny them resources (exploit alert, though). They also can fool and mislead counterattacking forces. And there's nothing what can stop a rush of a combined Impi-Horseman force. (Impi to Horseman ratio about 1:2 or 1:3).

However, if you fail to win the game in the Ancient age, you remain in the Medieval age with a mediocre (militaristic) and a useless (expansionist) trait, an outdated UU and a too early burnt GA.

Konquest02 · December 11, 2002, 11:09

I like the Germans or Chinese for a strong early game. Build cheap barracks, some archers and rush that AI!

You mihgt want to consult Sir Ralph's thread on how to successfully rush the AI with archers.

--Kon--

jeffds · December 13, 2002, 02:27

Thanks for the feedback and tips. I am trying out a game with the Iroquois at the moment. Have dropped down to Regent as I don't have a clue about playing in this style. Don't know anything about the ins and outs of Archer rushes etc.
Having a ball though. Got lucky with Horses right near my capitol so have been churing out MWs. Wiped out the Romans - it is a real rush plundering one city after the next - completely different to Builder mode.
I didn't attack straight way though - couldn't break those Builder habits - built up a few cities first. I haven't bothered with Wonders this time. Will concentrate on capturing those.
I have built in the following order - Temple, Granary - if on a river, Barracks, MWs. Is this advised - or should I be going straight for Barracks, and MWs.
Anyway - either way - having fun.

DaveMcW · December 13, 2002, 03:01

You don't need a granary unless you're losing pop due to settlers or frequent rushing. If you really want a size 12 city you can join workers for less shields than the granary costs. But it's quite difficult to keep a city that big happy.

If you plan on winning in the BC years you don't need temples either.

FrustratedPoet · December 13, 2002, 05:57

If you aren't going for a Cultural victory you shouldn't need the Temples for anything that early in the game.

Granaries can be the best choice in the right situation, but usually you would be best going straight for Barracks and then military units. Don't bother with Temples/Libraries until you've fought at least one war.

Brizey · December 13, 2002, 12:52

Small maps limits the usefulness of the 3-move rider a bit. I'd go with the Germans.

On a lower difficulty, go with the Aztecs. Just keep cranking vetern JWs to hammer everyone on your landmass before they get feudalism.

jshelr · December 13, 2002, 14:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
There is also Rome. Their traits are weak, it's true, but you get to play with Legionaries, and on a small map their lack of mobility isn't as painful.

But I'd go with China as the overall best. Archer rush to do some damage, Horseman rush to secure your position, Riders to finish it off.

-Arrian

So true.

Interestingly, PTW now offers the bargain-basement version of China in the form of the Arabs and their low-cost 3-move "knight." On a small map, you get religion but give up industriousness, which is maybe an ok tradeoff. Religion is a good thing for the warmonger. I'm a China fan myself, but the small map downplays industriousness and tilts 3-move-knight lovers a bit the Arab's way. Also, the scout is particularly nice to have in all-human games that are now starting up.

joncnunn · December 13, 2002, 14:56

I'd sugest any of Irq (Mounted Warrior), Rome (Legions), and Persians (Immortals) on a small map in orginal Civ III.

The problem with the Chinese Rider for war monglers, is that you'll find Japense with Samurai at the same time near by, and so you need to take the Japnese out first.

In the original, the 3 civs above are less likely to face a tougher UU than their own while using it.

badams52 · December 14, 2002, 01:03

I'm surprised no one mentioned Egypt as a good early civ for war. Of course they used to be better when your chariots would always retreat from a loss which is how I got my Diety domination victory and I would still recomend them. But like others said, the Iroquois and Japanese are two of the best when thinking about UUs. I usually don't play with culturally linked starting positions so I don't always get China next to Japan. I find variety of neighbors is more interesting to me.

Zero · December 14, 2002, 01:30

I think the aztecs are good at just about any scenario. Them having a early UU and being mil/rel certainly also makes them viable for good early conquest civ.

Among good early conquering UUs, Romans are the only one with militaristic trait. Iroquois is good for the same reason why everyone else is telling you. (3 mounted attack unit and fairly good trait) So are the Persians for their Immortal, but IMO I'd rather take one less attack for iroquois retreat function or Roman's defensive function.

For extremly fast conquest, other than Aztecs, I recommend the Babylonians and the Germans. Germans dont start out with UUs, but they are militaristic and they can produce both archers and spearmen straight off from the start. Babs start out with spearmen which is nice, but thats irrelevant since you should just be building bowmen. You can research iron working straight off the bat and eventually replace bowmen/archer with swordmen and finish off the job for both civ which comes in real handy.

Zulus have mil/exp which is nice and Impis can facilitate horsemen rush by accompanying them. I havent tried this method though so I can't really tell how effective this is.

For PTW,

Celts are great, but their price increase is terrible price to pay. They are just militaristic version of Iroquois with price increase, if your looking for fast conquest game.

If games gonna go little longer,

China, Japan, Arabs are great. I think ansar is bit superior than rider when it comes to fast conquer games. Japan's Samurai is one of my favorite UU. It's a great bargain to build one of them and they are also mil/rel so it helps alot.

I havent tested keshik's ability fully enough yet.