A look at ALL the Civs, from a MP point of view

[Fried-Psitalon]

One last hurrah in an attempt to generate active theoretical discussion for MP games: I'm going to sit down and take a look at ALL the tribes, by tiers, in the Civ 3 Online Multiplayer environment.

Caveats/Explanations before I begin:
1) I am writing this with consideration to the current MP environment: Pangea-games, rarely bigger than "Small/Standard" maps, ranging from 2 to 6 players. If you disagree with that, you'll find lots to disagree with herein.
2) All of this is IMO. Feel free - no, PLEASE do - debate and share your ideas. That's the whole reason I'm doing this.
3) If you can't follow some of the heavier discussions in the Strategy thread, you will probably be a bit out of your depth here- go check those out first.
4) I didn't proofread this- it was too bloody long when I finished. Apologies in advance for grammatical/spelling/typographical/train-of-thought errors.

To begin: All civs in a Tier will be put in Alphabetical order.

Tier 1, or: "Yeah, that Civ is a PAIN to deal with."

Aztecs
The Green Machine can be a very serious threat for the first 50-100 turns. Once you have a stable defense against swarms of Jaguar Warriors, you might have a chance, but it's just as easy to turn the Jag Nightmare loose on your improvements as it is to turn it loose on your cities. Typical Aztec Golden Age is the earliest in the game (too early to be truly effective), but it can help them continue to pump out units in enough quantity to stay in your face, while the Aztecs continue to settle cities in the other direction. Militaristic trait only enables the Green Machine to be that much more of a threat, and starting two steps towards Monarchy ensures that their Religious trait will allow them to shift gears without letting up on you for a minute. If you see someone using the Aztecs, you may be in for a rough ride.
Achilles Heel : If you can keep them from reaching you (Water, plugged bottleneck, etc) the Aztec horde suddenly is pretty useless, and the Aztecs become a mediocre Civ. Strong defensive Civs (Carthage, Greece, Zulu) can probably weather the storm.

Carthage
If Carthage had been this strong in history, Rome would never have stood a chance. Carthage holds the distinction of being able to field a unit that is very respectable at any point in the Ancient Era - roughly 12 turns after the game begins (yes, that's counting research and production time.) Since people generally aren't too keen on attacking Carthage first, you can usually trigger a Golden Age when it's right for you. Although they don't move fast, 2 or 3 Num Mercs running together can probably trash a lot of improvements before the Civ in question can stop them. In larger numbers (easy enough to do- they may cost as much as Swordsmen but you can build them SO early) they are more than capable of taking down cities. Industrial is an excellent accompaniment for the Num Merc; Carthaginian workers can easily make a highway for their units straight into your capital. Commercial isn't the biggest bonus in the world, but it does mean that Carthaginian roads can drop settlers farther out than some folks can.

Achilles Heel : Carthage can be a little slow off the starting bell. Num Mercs aren't cheap early on in the game, and building the workers to get the Brown Death rolling can take time. Out-expanding Carthage and then setting up to hit them fast before they can get rolling can drop the Civ most feel is "the best Civ" quite easily - leaving novice Carthage players wondering what happened.

Egypt
Cleopatra is more than just a pretty face- Egypt can be quite a handful without much warning. War Chariots, as cheap as normal Chariots and potentially built after a mere 6-8 turns of research, are effectively "Horsemen" for 2/3 the cost and one advance earlier. Egypt's industrial trait ensures that if horses are to be found anywhere, Cleopatra will get a road there quickly, and the religious trait ensures a smooth transition of governments, and if need be, temples to push out Egyptian boundaries to get horses, iron, luxuries....or anything else Cleopatra wants. Since Egypt's UU doesn't appear immediately, you have some leeway over triggering the first golden age- but you can't wait too long, or the horses of the pharoahs won't be able to do quite as much damage.

Achilles Heel : Obviously, Egypt needs horses. If there aren't any around, it's still an Industrial/Religious society (very strong combo in MP) to at least be careful facing. If you don't fear the War Chariots (you're playing Carthage/Greece, or you have the Great Wall, or there are big fat jungles or mountain ranges in the way) then Egypt is much weaker. Take heed! If the player using Egypt is any good, you probably still need to get rid of Cleopatra first!

Iroquois
Hiawatha probably gets revenge on the Americans at least 10 times a week in the world of Civ, and for good reason. Regarded by many players as "the" Civ before PTW came out, the Iroquois are still absolutely a force to be reckoned with even after the expansion. As an expansionist culture, you can be relatively certain that the Iroquois will find you early in the game (and all the huts they need to immediately pick up Horseback Riding for their UU) and any horses they'll need to bring the Riding Rage down your throat. Effectively trading the swordsman's 1 defense for 1 more movement (same cost, same attack), the Mounted Warrior's 3/1/2 can be more than a match for many "late developing" Civs and their spearman defenders.

Achilles Heel : Not as much of one as some might think. Yes, the Iroquois need horses for their UU- but horses aren't hard to find. You can bet the Iroquois will find them fast, too- and have enough scouts roaming around to see you coming long before you can threaten the supply line producing Mounted Warriors. Sans horses, the Iroquios are still a threat - they've probably gathered 2 or 3 techs and a settler (and maybe some warriors and gold) while you were fumbling around in the dark with your warrior. Best advice: Stay on god terms with the Iroquois player until you have city walls, or make sure0 that he doesn't have horses.

Zulu
If the Zulus didn't invent the "Pillage and move" tactic in the Civ world, they probably strangled, surrounded, and killed the tribe who did. The bane of "Builder Players" everywhere, an Impi rush early on can bring on a case of Yellow Fever that will send almost all late-developing Civs home early. While they are slightly slower than the Aztecs at starting off, within 6-8 turns you can expect Bronze Working to be completed, and shortly thereafter, the Impis will begin moving. The Expansionist nature of the Zulu means that a Zulu scout at your border guarentees the Impis are coming for YOU in particular, and the Militaristic nature of the Zulu hints that the Impis will be veterans when they do. To make matters worse, if you are one of those players that puts one spearman in each city and spends everything else on improvements/settlers/expansion, you might *never* be able to stop the Impis before they raze everything around your cities. Sure, Impis may have trouble killing your cities themselves, but if you can't ever leave them...... you can bet the Zulu cities aren't having the same problem.

Achilles Heel: Defensive players with cool heads can sometimes weather the storm by building an extra unit or two to "sorte out" and deal with the marauding Impis. (They are just spearmen in stats, after all, and they don't run away all the time.) If you see the Impis coming, that helps too. Once you get past the initial stages of the game (if you survive mostly intact) the Impis aren't as much trouble - and Miltarism and Expansionist don't help as much later in the game as they do early.

Tier 2, or "Civs that can be as dangerous as Tier 1 in the right hands, or with the right resource-breaks."

Celts
You have to respect anyone who spends that much time on face makeup, and Brennus will give you other reasons to respect him if you don't. The Celts have, arguably (and assuming you have the resources) the best Ancient Era unit. The ability to retreat if the Gallic Swordsman is losing makes these folks *much* more valuable than most players realize. Unfortunately, there's a price for that - shield cost for Gallics is the highest in the ancient era. Militarism makes the Gallics more potent, and Religious makes them keep right on coming.

Achilles Heel: The Celts NEED iron almost as bad as Rome does. Without it, you've got the Aztecs without the Jaguar Warrior, which isn't very impressive. The cost of Gallic Warriors makes them want to run away from any 2-movement unit they meet; it HURTS to lose units that cost almost as much as a granary (50 to granary's 60)!

Greece
Alexander's spot in the number two tier is due solely to the strength of his Hoplite, a unit that can leave others green with envy. It may not have the two attack of the Numidian Mercenary, but it costs 66 percent of what the Num Merc does. Special added bonus: As a scientific Civ, Greece can build its Hoplites immediately. The commerical trait allows for some additional expansion room, which the Greeks will need to put together a reasonable empire. While not real huge in the conquering column, Greece can give a "builder" player a fighting chance in a warmonger's game - warmongers don't tend to go for the guy who will cost them them the most troops early - a warmonger looking at a Hoplite behind a wall is going to leave you alone (or at least for last.) Greek Golden Ages tend to occurr when the other players decide they should, so they're not to be counted on.

Achilles Heel: Greece's only real hope for military victory relies, ironically, on iron. In the average MP game with strong offensive UUs all around, archers don't measure up. A few Hoplites teamed up with a few swordsmen can make for an imposing threat, but without iron, Greece lacks the offensive punch to gain ground. Usually, in MP, the Greek player gets left for last, but if you haven't gotten Swordsmen or Medieval Infantry by that time, you're probably still dead.

Rome
More than one person has had to say "Hail Ceasar" at the point of a sword in Civ3PTW. Rome's Legionnaire is a mighty unit, and if the iron is plentiful, you can bet the Legionnaires will be too. Boasting defense to match a Hoplite or a Numidian Mercenary (and for the same cost as a Num Merc!) the UU of Rome is not to be trifled with. A Red Tide of Legionnaires rolling across the landscape towards your city can often be the harbringer of another red tide: your army's blood. Militarism ensures that a smart player will take the time to produce those cheap barracks, and Commercialism points to Rome supporting a LOT of Legionnaires. Final bonus: Generally, when you make your first win with a Legionnaire, that's EXACTLY when you want your Golden Age to occur - so you can pour it on!

Achilles Heel : Rome, ever the ponderous juggernaut, needs two things to ensure victory. Iron, and TIME! Rome has the dubious distinction of being the ancient culture that has to wait the longest to get its UU into the field- and even then, only if Iron is around. Without Iron, Rome is merely average at best, and will quickly fall prey to other Civs that otherwise would grovel to a Legionnaire. Leaving Rome alone is asking for trouble, and smart players know it!

Persia
Many newer players look at Persia and immediately assume that THIS is the best Civ to play in MP, bar none. True, Persia has a great deal going for it: As a scientific Civ, they can immediately start work on Iron Working when the game begins. The Immortal is a unit with 4 attack- nothing in the Ancient Era can match its ferocity. As an Industrial culture, Persia will probably get that road to the Iron supply pretty quickly. You can be sure that once Immortals are flowing, Persia isn't going to negotiate for much - it can simply take it. Persia and Rome have one other thing in common - Persia's Golden Age is triggered when the Persian player wants it, and usually right when hordes of Immortals would be really handy.

Achilles Heel : Persia's Immortals go by another name amongst the veterans of Civ: Persian Expendables. With 4 attack, they're dangerous on the offensive, but with 2 defense, they're just as vulnerable as anyone else on the defensive. Unless they're moving on a road, you can bet the other guy will get to attack your Immortals FIRST - often with ugly casualties. Without Iron, the Persians can still expand quickly relying on quick road construction, but they are definitely defanged- which your opponents will probably work towards reminding you about!

Tier 3, or, "You could play these Civs, but better choices are out there."

Arabs
The Muslim Jihad does have a few things going for it: as an Expansionist culture, they'll know the lay of the land quickly and have a few techs for their trouble, and as a religious culture, any government swapping (or temple building) they do will go that much quicker. That's about all the Arabs have going for them, however. The problem with the Arabs (and indeed ALL the cultures in Tier 3, except the Americans) is that their cultural units center around 2 or 3 advances into the Medieval Era - and by that point, 99 percent of MP games are either resolved, or already so lopsided that the emergence of the Arabian cultural unit (Admittedly pretty spiffy - three squares allows for FAST transfers in attack/defense) won't change the final outcome at all.

Achilles Heel : UU is a non-factor for too long. Expansionist and Religious alone won't make Arabia competitive against better players of Tier 1 and 2 cultures. Arabia has a shot, but it's not the Civ to bet on, most games.

Americans
America is the culture to use if you want to play mind games - and you're really good to begin with. People often assume America is a terrible Civ choice for MP, and in the hands of a novice, they're right. America boasts what is probably (in MP) the most useful Civ trait combo- Expansionist to see what's out there, and Industrious to build your Civ over what you found. With a little luck and a lot of skill, the vanilla units of America can suddenly be a serious pain in yer opponent's rear end.

Achilles Heel : UU? What UU? America might as well not have one. That means you have to play fast, smart, and be a little lucky early on when your opponents come calling. If that happens to be anyone in Tier 1, you're going to have to work very hard indeed - and get a few lucky breaks - to come out on top.

China
China is a solid Civ, but nothing to write home about. As a miltaristic/industrious, they have the ability to build a strong empire and enforce it with strong units, but you won't see anything spectacular or remarkable because, like Arabia, the UU arrives with Chivalry. China's UU is QUITE nice- a knight in attack and defense, but moving at 3 squares. Just like every other Chivalry-UU, though, the game is probably close to being decided when these folks come out. There's a chance you could turn things around, though, and China's civ traits are probably decent for 'holding off' foes until you can get Riders rolling.
Achilles Heel I'm going to say this a lot - the UU probably arrives too late for major usage. The Civ traits aren't THAT big an improvement. China would be at the mercy of an Impi strangle or an Aztec rush if the players started too close together- they don't have expansionist to warn them of what's coming.

Japan
Reread the China entry, and say to yourself "Once more, with gusto!" Okay, it's not quite like that, but it's close. Japan's militarism gives it the same notes that China gets, and religious is probably not quite as good as Industrious as a companion to it. Japan doesn't start anywhere near as fast as some Civs, and they aren't likely to get a UU going fast enough to really save the day. One upshot: They start off with the Wheel, which means they can see horses. A smart player might research straight to Horseback Riding, jump on those horses, and ride them to glory while everyone else is getting started - but that's betting a lot on luck. The UU, if you manage to get to it, is nice- 4/4/2 can hold back a lot of foes. If anyone has a chance to "turn the tides" late in the game when Chivalry appears with their UU, Japan does.
Achilles Heel Japan doesn't expand quickly at all. You'd better use those horsemen to good effect. On a small map, a rival can probably kill 1, maybe 2 opponents and still have time to come back for Japan before they get to their Samurai- and that assumes one of the other players hasn't gone for Tokugawa's head early.

Mongols
Of all the Civs in the game, you'd think the Mongolians would've gotten a better deal. As a military expansionist, they have all the ingredients needed to have a massive-early-rush culture like the Zulu or the Aztecs, but their UU shows up at Chivalry! Argh! I guess the Hordes were slightly more evolved than I remember from my history lessons. Anyhow, as a Military Expansionist, you might be able to "archer rush" or "horsemen rush" your way to early glory with the Mongols, but don't expect to build any great, expansive empires; the Mongols don't have the infrastructure to do it. You might pick up an early edge with barbarian hut-tech, but relying on luck as your first line of strategy is always dubious.

Vikings
In a fair world for the Vikings, there would be more Archipelagos, more Continents, and more 80 percent water games- but since that doesn't happen, the Vikings are lucky to be left in Tier 3. Essentially the same Civ as the Mongols in the Ancient Era, they can't even muster a decent UU (in the current MP environment) if they manage to get that far. While marine landing is a GREAT ability, the Berserker on land is merely a bigger Persian Expendable - but in an era where 2 movement units are more common, and 2 defense is a downright liability. Maybe you can put together a rush of vanilla units using Mil/Exp....but don't count on it.
Achilles Heel As long as you don't see these guys SAILING at you, you're fine. Put a few galleys out to explore the coasts and make sure of that if the game actually gets to the point where the Vikings might get Invention...but why are the Vikings still alive at this point? Were you feeling sorry them because their leader's name translates to "Hairy Breeches?"

(continued in next post - Tiers 4 and 5)

[Fried-Psitalon]

Tier 4, or "You're either really good and handicapping yourself, or really bad and dead shortly."

Babylon
Alas, Babylon has the embarassing distinction of being the lowest ranked of the Ancient-Era-UU Civs. Bowmen, or "poor man's Legionnaires" as they can sometimes be called, really don't stand out in any way. Their attack isn't good enough to reliably punch through spearmen, and their defense isn't good enough to reliably stand up to swordsmen. Scientific/religious is the second worst combination of traits to have in MP mode- okay, you have a solid culture base. Culture flipping is a non-factor in MP games. The only thing saving Babylon from being in Tier 5 is the fact that if, somehow, no resources existed ANYWHERE....well, the Babylonian Bowmen would at least be on par with the vanilla units. That pose is you- surrendering. Only possible upshot: You can at least be relatively sure of when you're going to trigger your Golden Age. You can finagle that into some kind of advantage, possibly.
Achilles Heel: The only real way to die to Babylon is to play pretty awfully. If the player is very good and trying to save a Golden Age until they can locate some iron, suicide a unit into a Bowman and laugh a lot. The "Impi Choke" tactic can ruin what little hope the Babylonians had.

France
Many folks feel that France is a major contender because they're Comm/Ind - arguably two of the best traits for MP. If you feel that way- go play Carthage! If Carthage is taken, there are still many, many good choices above France. The French are blessed (cursed?) with a UU that has no additional defense above its vanilla counterpart, and 2 more attack. 2 more attack on a defensive unit? Big deal. Particularly when that attack value isn't even enough to guarentee victory against units significantly weaker than Musketeers. The only time a Musketeer attacks is in reprisal for a unit that attacked and retreated....and that's assuming you get to see Musketeers at all! Gunpowder tech and Saltpeter resource, in a MP game? Good luck.
Achilles Heel: France's best shot is to expand very rapidly early on and rely on their excellent infrastructure traits to carry them. Solution: Don't let them build an infrastructure- capture workers, tear up roads, ruin irrigation, collapse mines. Make fun of the pink units for a change of pace. Don't worry, as long as you keep the heat on, France won't be able to shut you up.

Germany
The Germans, for all their might in the real world, really aren't a factor to concern yourself with in MP games. True, they have a fearsome UU, but that UU appears in the LATE Industrial! A non-factor. After that's gone, you have Mil/Sci... not a combination that works well together, especially in MP. Maybe someone can rush vanilla unit veterans with the cheap barracks and sneak a small tech lead using science, but I won't be the one to try. Sorry, Bismarck, but you struck out.
Achilles Heel: The only reason Germany didn't see Tier 5 is that some players will go crazy with early rushes using a militaristic culture. Watch for an early archer rush- if it doesn't come, raze Germany at your leisure. You have until the Late Industrial until they'll field a unit better than yours. Anyone in the first two tiers should have no problem handling Germany, player factors being equal.

India
You know how Gandhi is always offering you that vegetarian curry? That's because India's best chance to win is to poison you with it. India gets to enjoy having the worst two Civ traits for MP when put together - Comm/Rel (Comm is only good with Ind, really) and doesn't have a particularly fancy UU. Ironically, though, India is saved from the bottom tier by that same UU. In the incredibly unlikely circumstance that no one is able to locate horses or iron, and everyone fumbles their way into the Feudal era, you can suddenly shine. Behold! Against your Longbowmen and Spearmen I have: Elephants! In this rare setting, India can be pretty daunting. The rest of the time, though, Pikemen make Elephant-ka-bob and Knights say "Hmm, that's different" and then attack anyhow.
Achilles Heel: India's only chance is to hope there aren't any resources and wait it out until the Feudal. Then and only then, India's elephants are a threat. If you can scrape up any iron, or find something to mount up and ride to Delhi, Gandhi will have to go back to preaching pacifism from the sidelines.

Ottoman
Some players actually think the Ottomans are worthwhile- but I can't really figure out why. The UU is a non-factor; late Feudal is reached so rarely as to not even be considered. Industrial is a nice trait, but with scientific as the other trait, you'll have to work hard to keep the terrain your Industrial-road expansion earned you. Best hope? Expand early, try to build a nice, solid, science-earning empire that you can use to get enough of a tech lead up to scrape an offensive together. If you do manage to see your Sipahis- go wild.
Achilles Heel: The jolly old ruler of the Ottomans will only be a problem if you ignore him a long time. Long, as in, 200 turns or more. Go visit his lands and admire his roads from up close, generally be a pain, and don't let his industrious workers build anything you can't tear down.

Tier 5, or "Do you just want to concede the game now?"

England
Jolly old England doesn't have much to be jolly about this time. The Man-o-war gives the F-15 competition in the "useless UU" department, and the Civ stats aren't any help. Comm/Exp means you can find neat stuff quickly, and you'll make lots of money so that when someone comes along and kills you, they'll at least get plenty of gold from your cities. If you got an insane tech edge early on with your explorers, maybe being Commercial would help you keep it. If you could expand quickly enough. If no one harassed you. Far too many if's.
Achilles Heel: There's not much England can do comparatively. Squish the scouts if you see em to stop England from getting intelligence on your locations, and grabbing goody huts. Then go squish England.

Korea
Korea holds the distinction of being the single worst Civ out there for MP. An artillery UU in the late medieval? Ugh. No golden age for you from your UU, ever! Comm/sci? Great! You'll be able to do lots of research- for other cultures. At least England might get an early tech lead with expansionist.
Achilles Heel: I've said this before- just don't ignore them for a really long time so that Korea can build up a serious science department and work up a technology lead. On the other hand, at least Korea's ruler will have a career in beard fashions when he's ousted.

Spain
Spain is just like India with one minor problem- their UU is even further away! If, by some staggering miracle, you managed to keep Spain alive until you researched Exploration, you could send your Conquistadors zooming behind enemy lines to cut off their resources - in which case they'd simply smash you to bits with what they already have on hand.
Achilles Heel: You might want to leave Spain alive to see how Isabella goes from scary-looking in the Ancient Era to elegant-looking in the Feudal?

Russia
Maybe putting Russia in the bottom tier isn't fair, but I think it could be. Expansionist/scientist has one shot, and one shot only- get a lot of tech early with goody huts, then use your science skills to try and stay ahead. Pretty grim - particularly since most players are smart enough to keep beating those scouts down when they show up.
Achilles Heel: As long as you don't let Russia go crazy with scouts early on, they have no major weapons to throw at you. Just don't let up.


That about does it. Please note, again, that I'm not saying any Tier 4 or 5 Civ is worthless and has no chance - just that, in the hands of a good player, a Tier 1 or 2 (or 3) Civ is going to work just as well, or better - in the multiplayer environment.

[MattH]

woah... and you did that all yourself?

[CrONoS]

Keep up the good work!!!!!

[ktaek]

Mongols:
I was just as suprised at how weak these guys were in terms of traits/UU. The military trait is a no-brainer, but expansionist? AFAIK the Mongols weren't explorers as much as they were conquerors.

But what would have made the Mongols truly respectable us a decent UU, which is currently rather a joke. I also don't think of Chivalry as a tech the Mongols would focus on reaching.

Definitely a poor showing for arguably the most impressive military society in all history.

[Azeem]

Kind of wierd that they would have the civilizations that were historically the strongest as some of the weakest in the game.

[Fried-Psitalon]

Matth/Cronos- Thank you thank you thank you. I was beginning to think these threads were a waste of time after writing FOUR (Check for other threads by me down a few pages) and getting no responses. It's nice to know that someone is reading, and appreciating...I just wish more people would reply with some feedback. Maybe I'll find something else to write about after all.

About the Mongols- I think a unit a bit closer to what the Iroquois have might be appropriate. Maybe the same thing, slightly more expensive, and that mountain-walking ability. Or make it 3/2/2 and mountainwalking and make it as expensive as a granary, which the Gallics nearly manage. Although I don't know about expansionistic- I don't think you could really call the Mongols scientists, merchants, city-builders, or pious, could you?

Keep up the comments!

[CrONoS]

Fried: Don't stop writing, I've read all of your text in this Civ3 PTW forum, i'm sure when I read it, I will find something interesting!!

[Aro]

Same with me. Great job, Fried! Thanks!

[eloquence]

I have to admit that I do agree with the majority of the list. One interesting thing to note is that i seldom see Egypt being played as a civ that people choose.

Aztecs, Carthage and Iroquois are the most common.

Also - as an avid Babylonian player I have to disagree with it's inclusion at the bottom of the list. I believe that being able to create a 2/2 for 20 shields is a great way to add a lot of flexibility to your army.

I find that players who see a bowman tend to back off a little more and give me more breathing space than they would if it was just a spearman. Why you might ask ?

Well bowmen force the other player to be very careful when attacking you before they get iron. They can't just march up to you with an archer because you will get the drop on them by attacking them first. They need to get a combo of archer/spearman in order to really feel sort of safe.

This means bowman (while not as good as the impi) are great for running around and pillaging your opponent's land. They can defend well enough that the opponent must create archers to have a shot at getting you and if you can get into their territory well enough they need to build up far more in order to stop you than you did in order to harrass them.

I agree that they're not really a tier one civ but I'd argue for putting them into tier 2 or 3.

[Fried-Psitalon]

I could see potentially giving Babylon a tier 3 nod, on a rethink. They're still definitely not a 2, though. Here's why....

The Tier 1 civs are all Civs that are both excellent UUs, and can probably still wreak havoc without them, with the exception being the Aztecs. Carthage/Egypt can develop on par if not faster than any foe around. The Iroquois can build granaries, search out huts, and switch governments instantly - look for another Expansionist/Religious combo. See one? Arabia- which you'll note is tier 2. The Zulu and the Aztecs get Tier 1 simply because their "Bumrush" is so incredibly powerful as to potentially override any strategy, especially on a tiny map, and cast everything to luck. The Tier 2 civs are all relatively strong even if they don't get the needed resources, with the possible exception being Rome, but Rome's UU is terrifying once a decent number get rolling. It's not like you can jump them in the same way you can a Berserker.

Babylon, on the other hand, has absolutely no noteworthy "building" characteristics. It has good long-term MAINTENENCE characteristics, but Sci/Rel isn't the kind of thing that gets you a solid footing in the ancient era. And while a large number of Baby Bows can be a deterrent, your barracks will cost full price, they don't move all that fast, and it's probably better to wait and build swordsmen anyhow. So, like I said- Tier 3, yes. Tier 2, nah.

[player1]

It' really strange that you rated Gramans so bad.

WHile they have no early UU, they have Militrastic trait, so they'll quickly get Archer rush.

As plus, with Scientific trait they have Bronze Wroking which makes them just one tech away from Swordsmen.

So early archer such plus a little bit later Swordsmen rush would make excellent combo.

So they are definelty goof form group 3 (or maybe even group 2)


P.S.
Good thing of Scientifc trait in MP game are early SWORDSMEN.

[Fried-Psitalon]

Player1- it's certainly true that Germany's militarism gives them an archer rush, but...well... I've come to question the effectiveness of that tactic in MP. In a duel, your opponent should be expecting it early on - and by the time your archers slog across the land (assuming you've found him) he should be ready to block you. Alternatively, really good players will set out a few sentinels along your faster lines of approach and know 10-15 turns in advance that you're coming. Now, if you find your opponent FIRST... and he doesn't know you've found him...AND he doens't blunder across your army/units and get any hints, then yes, an archer rush can be nice. But let's take a look at who else is in Tier 1... Aztecs, Carthage, Zulu very obviously don't fear an Archer rush. The Iroq are very likely to find you and have a lot of advance warning (one good thing about expansionist, why I rate it higher than religious for MP - see a thread that's dived to page 4 by now, I think) and that leaves Egypt, which very likely has her War Chariots, since it's a good early move for them. Tier 1 doesn't fear the archer rush. Tier 2 and beyond? Sure, except maybe Greece.

There's one other dimension that bears noting- if I'm playing 3 or more player games, and I hear someone say "!#@$!$#!!!! So and so is archer-rushing me" then I know what you've been doing for the last fifteen turns.... and I know who's probably vulnerable to MY attack now. Player who are extremely aggressive very early also tend to draw a great deal of unwanted attention.... another serious risk in MP.

I respectfully submit that archer-rushing, an excellent tactic in the SP game, is simply too fraught with potential problems in MP.

Now, your claim for scientific is a more valid one- but there's a lot of scientific cultures, so I'm not sure that one criteria is enough to move someone in Tiers. You'll note that my favorite trait, Industrious, also resides in Tier 4 (Ottomans.) Relying on Iron is risky; everyone's noticed by now that MP maps use a different resource generator than normal ones. When you bet on a resource as your first and best line of attack...eh.... I dunno. I see your points, and I could see maybe making Germany High Tier 4, but....ugh.... betting on iron's appearance, and an outdated (no offense intended) SP tactic... I just dunno.

::awaits the flames for calling the Archer Rush outdated::

[player1]

The thing is that German can push quickly, and after that they can continue with Swordsmen.

Actauly thay would be probably first nation with Swordsmen since all other nations, even Scientific ones are not folish to skip Warrior Code.

So the Germans woould be only one havong both rather quickly.

And chnace of getting Sworsmen pretty eraly is intimidating.


And the thing with Archer rushes is that they are pretty good with Militaristic civs.
You could quickly build Barraks and several archers beteen settler squadrons.

And then those Archers could drive out enemy expansion.

P.S.
And 4HP Archer is pretty good against poor 3hp Spearmen.

Or even Warrior since human players tent to have more warriors then less Spearmen.

P.P.S.
Archer rush is not so good for non-Militarist since he dosn't have time to build Barraks too.


Actualy I think that Germans are as good as China.
China would have quick roads.
And Germans would have early Swordsmen.

Personnaly I think that these two civs are best no-early UU civs for MP.
Although, to be fair, Americans are pretty good too.

[player1]

Now other Scientific civs are really not impressive since they would still need to take Warrior code fiirst.

Greeks are nice.
Persians are nice.

Ottomans and Russians are not so bad if you consider that they get get relatively early Swordsmen.
Especily industrious ottomans, while russians would have higher chanace of finding iron then other since it's expansionist.

Other scientifitc civs are just bad.

But, this could give one better light to Babylonians.
They could try Arher rush at first (to get some use of poor bowmen).

And they to go for Swordsmen since they'll need him.

[vondrack]

Being heavily involved in the Civ3PtW demogame, I do no longer have time enough to read everything that is posted on Poly, but I always find some time to read through your threads, Fried-Psitalon (even sometimes get back to your posts for reference). Very good work! Even though I do not 100% agree on everything you say, it really is stuff well worth reading.

[BoNeHeD]

Fried 2 words: LEGIONS RULE!

[ktaek]

1 more vote for bumping the Germans up a notch.

You give some valid reasons how Archer rush can be thwarted, but those same tactics can be used against most of the UUs in the higher ranked civs, there's nothing specific about an Archer that makes it weaker than other units.

Basically, Germany should be ranked higher purely on its military trait, if nothing else.

[player1]

Actualy if Garmas know to act quickly they could be better then Persians and Romans, and even Irquois (they realy need a lot some time to get MW) and Celts (they'll need time to make their army), since they'll push quickly and get first Sowrdsmen.

P.S.
Of course passive play by Germans woudl be their downfall.


P.P.S.
Somehow I think that if Babylon could have Militaristic trait instead of Religious that take could be cool MP civ.

But this way...

[Oerdin]

I might put Celts into the first level just because I really like their CSAs and their UU kicks a$s. Sure it's expensive and you need iron but you will likely find iron if the player has put any effort into exploring at all.

Also I normally see 4-6 players in an MP game so more often then not how well a player does depends on how good he is at diplomacy. A smart player will psyop the other players and build up a winning alliance.

[Beta]

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
Matth/Cronos- Thank you thank you thank you. I was beginning to think these threads were a waste of time after writing FOUR (Check for other threads by me down a few pages) and getting no responses. It's nice to know that someone is reading, and appreciating...I just wish more people would reply with some feedback. Maybe I'll find something else to write about after all.

Keep up the comments!

Hey, fabulous thread!!!

And I'm guilty . I read it soon after it was posted, and actually referred to it in our Misfits of Society PTW match thread (where another player picks your civs - you can imagine the 6 dogs which are playing ). But I did not congratulate or comment. For now I will do the former, I am working on the latter.

Please keep it up. The early Civ3 strategies threads are still quite useful, but the many upgrades, and now PTW with the new civs, requires new analyses, new threads, and new discussions of some of the earlier topics.

Muchos gracias!!

[Fried-Psitalon]

Geez guys.. heh, I might start writing more threads now that I know it's actually being heard. I'm just nervous about giving out too many of my secrets to the general public, I have to have *something* left to win games with.

You folks ought to come join our ladder. THe competition is pretty good, and you'll get a chance to take on the author of these threads, too.

I'll probably confront the dread issue of "Build order" sometime soon, but I'm having to give it a lot of thought. Please always feel free to talk about these threads- analysis which cannot withstand criticism is unworthy of the name.

[Sallandair]

Excellent value technique Fried-Psitalon and I would have to agree with 95%+ of your observations.

Would like to commit on Germany and Iron-needed UU's

I believe that Germany is appropriately Tiered. As for those who believe that Germany should be boosted for their starting techs - their arguement could be sound only with a 6+ player small map or a 2hr max time limit. Any other enviroment provides those civs on the upper Tiers enough time to gain the upperhand.

As for Iron-needed UU's, one must take in account in a six player game one should expect at least two civs without the source of iron near their core infrastructure. Does one honestly want to invest soley in a civ that has a 1/3 chance of being unable to use their special units early enough to be a factor (esp a non-Industrial civ). And remember, those civs with two movement units or scouts will already know if you are near that precious source or not. A good player will exploit that knowledge while you grumble for not being near iron.

See you on the high ground - Scouts Out

[Dominae]

Ok, there are far too many positive comments here; figured I'll be the one to start some healthy debate.

First, Fried-Psitalon, nice effort with this thread. Although people have been discussing the civs in MP here and there, no one has "put it all together" in one place.

1) I am writing this with consideration to the current MP environment: Pangea-games, rarely bigger than "Small/Standard" maps, ranging from 2 to 6 players. If you disagree with that, you'll find lots to disagree with herein.

There is a big difference between Small and Standard, and Tiny and Small. Each civ should really be evaluated with respect to map size above all (assuming no knowledge of the opponents' civ choices). Last I heard many MP games are played on Tiny maps, which makes Archer-rush tactics all the better.

3) If you can't follow some of the heavier discussions in the Strategy thread, you will probably be a bit out of your depth here- go check those out first.

I resent this! Not to knock your thread, but the depth of strategy is a lot "deeper" in the Strat thread, you just have to work to find it...So far, this thread is commendable for its breadth, not depth.

Aztecs: The Green Machine can be a very serious threat for the first 50-100 turns.

Like I said above, this is highly map-dependent. If you Jag rush your neighbor on a Standard map, expect to be quite weak relative to those distant civs who you did not manage to molest. You have to be sure that the benefit of an early rush warrants the early expense.

Carthage: Since people generally aren't too keen on attacking Carthage first, you can usually trigger a Golden Age when it's right for you.

Since Carthage is usually focusing on building early on, it is usually possible to intentionally lose a Warrior to a Merc to trigger their GA, without much fear of a backlash. Sure, you've made an enemy, but you want to take them out eventually, right? Might as well hit them where it hurts early.

Commercial isn't the biggest bonus in the world, but it does mean that Carthaginian roads can drop settlers farther out than some folks can.

I assume you mean that Carthage can support a geographically larger empire, which has nothing to do with roads.

Iroquois: Hiawatha probably gets revenge on the Americans at least 10 times a week in the world of Civ, and for good reason.

I disagree.

Sans horses, the Iroquios are still a threat - they've probably gathered 2 or 3 techs and a settler

Never expect a Settler. If every Expansionist civ "probably" gathers a Settler every game, everyone would be playing Expansionist (Americans, probably).

Zulus: Defensive players with cool heads can sometimes weather the storm by building an extra unit or two to "sorte out" and deal with the marauding Impis. (They are just spearmen in stats, after all, and they don't run away all the time.)

Retreating Spearmen (Impi) survive more often than 3-defense units. In addition, if the Zulu player is forcing player X to keep Swordsmen and Horsemen inside his cities, the Impi are doing their job and then some.

Celts: The ability to retreat if the Gallic Swordsman is losing makes these folks *much* more valuable than most players realize. Unfortunately, there's a price for that - shield cost for Gallics is the highest in the ancient era.

Actually I think people rate the Gallic a lot higher than they should. Like you said the Shield cost is a factor. Surivability is very important. But strength in numbers is also very important. The fact that the Celts can produce fewer "warm bodies" than the Iroquois (or any other civ, really) is a major disadvantage. This and their traits places them at Tier 3.

Greece: Alexander's spot in the number two tier is due solely to the strength of his Hoplite, a unit that can leave others green with envy.

Greece is only powerful if you can diplomatically safeguard a position entering the Medieval age. The Hoplite supports this strategy by acting is a deterrent to potential attackers. Greece's traits prevent it from being a truly effective early military power. This makes the Greeks very one-dimensional.

More than one person has had to say "Hail Ceasar" at the point of a sword in Civ3PTW. Rome's Legionnaire is a mighty unit, and if the iron is plentiful, you can bet the Legionnaires will be too.

I think you're not taking into account the importance of a civ's traits, despite the power of its UU. Commercial does nothing for Rome as it prefers warmongering to building. Militaristic is nice, but hardly a trait to build a civ on in MP. Thus while the Legionary is a potent unit, Rome will typically not be as great. Tier 3.

Persia: Many newer players look at Persia and immediately assume that THIS is the best Civ to play in MP, bar none. True, Persia has a great deal going for it: As a scientific Civ, they can immediately start work on Iron Working when the game begins.

Persia is Tier 1. Industrious is the best trait, especially in MP. It allows the rapid construction of a Immortal force, if the game calls for early war. Like you said, Scientific puts Persia closer to Iron, which is nice and synergistic. But Scientific also brings some later-game power, so if Persia does fight in any early wars it is still in the game later on. Given that Industrious is good through all ages and that the Immortal is still useful in the Medieval age, and you've got a civ that is powerful early but does not need to rely on this to win (unlike the Iroquois, for instance).

Persia's Immortals go by another name amongst the veterans of Civ: Persian Expendables. With 4 attack, they're dangerous on the offensive, but with 2 defense, they're just as vulnerable as anyone else on the defensive.

I suggest defending Immortals stacks with Spearmen.

America: America boasts what is probably (in MP) the most useful Civ trait combo- Expansionist to see what's out there, and Industrious to build your Civ over what you found. With a little luck and a lot of skill, the vanilla units of America can suddenly be a serious pain in yer opponent's rear end.

So why is it Tier 3? I posted a big essay on the Strat forum why I thought America is Tier 1, so I will not repeat myself here.

China: ...you won't see anything spectacular or remarkable because, like Arabia, the UU arrives with Chivalry. China's UU is QUITE nice- a knight in attack and defense, but moving at 3 squares. Just like every other Chivalry-UU, though, the game is probably close to being decided when these folks come out. There's a chance you could turn things around, though, and China's civ traits are probably decent for 'holding off' foes until you can get Riders rolling.

I think you've defeated your own argument. Industrious/Militaristic sets up a nice early-game both in terms of defense and offense (especially the latter if on a Tiny map). Thus China enter the Medieval era in at least an average position. Enter Riders, who utterly dominate the battefield. If you think that the AI has trouble handling Riders, just think of the headaches a human players has facing them!

I'm going to say this a lot - the UU probably arrives too late for major usage.

Depends on the game, and the map size. A Chinese players has the tools to make sure the game lasts until Riders.

France:
Many folks feel that France is a major contender because they're Comm/Ind - arguably two of the best traits for MP.

Not sure why you think this, given that you expect most games to end before the Medieval era.

Germany:
The Germans, for all their might in the real world, really aren't a factor to concern yourself with in MP games.

As already mentioned by other posters, Germany execel at Archer-rushes, and therefore are best on smaller maps.

Turks:
Some players actually think the Ottomans are worthwhile- but I can't really figure out why.

The Ottomans are like the Persians without the Immortals. Yes, this makes them weaker, but not Tier 4 weak. I put them Tier 3.

Russia
Maybe putting Russia in the bottom tier isn't fair, but I think it could be. Expansionist/scientist has one shot, and one shot only- get a lot of tech early with goody huts, then use your science skills to try and stay ahead.

Russian can do some interesting things with diplomacy and tech-trading. Agreed, not fabulous, but still they may belong Tier 4 in the hands of a crafty player.


Whew, that's all for now.


Dominae

[Fried-Psitalon]

LOL! Taking me apart piece by piece! Worthy critiques, all.... lemme start cooking dinner and then I'll rebutt your rebutts... in some cases. That was one of the earlier posts I wrote, and I've moved a few Civs up and down mentally since then. Thank you for the energetic critique- that's what I was originally hoping for.


RE: Map size
Map sizes do seem to have shrunk; I play almost exclusively Small-map games, and tiny seems to be most of the rest that the ladder sees. (With the exception of Expansion-Race games, obviously.) I think if there were two maps sizes you can smear together for advice purposes, it would be small/tiny, so I'll hold to that, but yes, Standard is completely different than Small.

RE: Depth/breadth
Yeah, when I originally started writing this thread, it was a lot 'thicker'... but it started to look really daunting to finish writing, so the finished product was less of a deep polish, and more of a broad topcoat. (How's that for an ugly metaphor?)

RE: Aztecs
I think the Aztecs are worthwhile and dangerous on a Standard map because they can get to Monarchy so quickly, but they would definitely drop a Tier outside of small, you're quite correct.

RE: Carthage
The "roads and settlers" comment was more intended to mean "you can use the Commercial trait together with industrial workers to really slap out a large empire quickly, because cities further from the capital can contribute significantly." No, road-building does not assist in supporting a large land area, corruption is unaffected by roads, etc. I hope no one took that the wrong way, but obviously some did. ::cough:: You'd think more people would bumrush Carthage to get that GA triggered, but that rarely happens to me. On the flip side, when it does, I utilize most of the GA in making Veteran Num Mercs, and then just mill them around inside opposing territory, ala "Zulu Choke."

RE: Iroquois
Can you link me to your thread on America as a civ? I must have missed that. I have a hard time accepting that Lincoln's boys could stand up to a determined rush of Mounted Warriors on a small/tiny map. You are quite right about "expecting a settler" - when I first started playing online I was having shocking good luck with that. (Prior to PTW, I tended to play Germany and Persia mostly, so I didn't see much expansionist there.) Recent history has corrected me. All told, Hiawatha's folks are probably the first Civ that I'd move- down to Tier 2.

RE: Zulu
Retreating 2s survive more than 3s? Hmmm... I tend to make Num Mercs a nuisance on favorable terrain or across rivers, so I would think it would be more even? You might be right, though, and there's nothing more annoying than watching an injured Zulu scoot out of reach, rest up, and come again. These guys are the only Tier 1 civ I don't frequently use... I dunno, they just kinda don't agree with me. Must be the builder in me.

RE: Celts
I'm never sure what to make of these guys; I need to spend more time on them. I think the right player with the right use of roads and terrain could overcome the low warm-body count and make them a real terror. Normally these two civ traits wouldn't impress me, but together they mean Monarchy isn't too far off. I consider that very significant, especially since freeing yourself of Despotism makes churning out the Gallics that much easier. I think I'm gonna stick with Tier 2 on these, but admittedly, sans Iron, like I said last time- you've got the Aztecs without the Jags. Bleh.

RE: Greeks
Recent experiences have soured me to the Greeks. They're awful easy to harass, and spreading a Hoplite to every square you want to keep your improvements on is a pain... Tier 3 for you, Alexander.

RE: Rome
I was on the cusp of putting these guys in Tier 3 when I originally wrote this article. They escaped it because, well.... I dunno. Rome would be very unhappy if the Zulus or the Aztecs came to town and applied the choke on their iron supply. Tier 3, agreed.


RE: Persia
Persia is probably the only Civ that I might keep out of Tier 1 on "Nitwit power." As in: The majority of people who play Persia online seem to be nitwits! I've experimented with fast-draw tactics using Perisa, and I'm inclined to agree they are worthy of Tier 1. Now why can't we get more players who don't simply give up when they can't find iron? Side question: I know in Alpha Centauri there is a way to force a unit to be the defender for the group; is there a way to do this in Civ? Defending Immortals with Spears is all well and good, but if the Immortals step up to defend instead of the Spears....

RE: America
Again, can you hit the high points of your America thread? I kept America out of Tier 2 solely for their UU problem; I think the combo of traits they have is ideal (fast tech grabs/resource location combined with infrastructure speed.) I'm still not convinced the average player will be able to play an excellent game with them, though. America requires a lot of careful play to be powerful. On the flip side, at least all American units will be cheap, since there's no UU costs to deal with! I agree with you that America could be Tier 1.5 normally, but for the average player, I'm gonna say America is 2.5... there's absolutely no crutch for someone to lean on using Lincoln, and when Persians or Carthaginians come calling, that hurts.

RE: China
Yep, I goofed on this one. China is probably 2.5 or even straight 2. While I'll still prefer other Civs over them, you can utilize Chinese roads to move veteran (and quickly elite) archers and spears around rather nicely. Riders are impressive, to be sure, and if you don't mind how long a game usually has to go with 3-4 players to GET to the medieval, you might be able to drag it out to that point. Honestly, though, I think I prefer Japan's Samurai to China's rider.... they look cooler, which breaks what to me is a pretty close race. Hehe.

RE: France
I'm a big fan of the Commercial trait's "build one city farther out" factor, and that pays off in any era, if only because your units don't have to retreat and regroup as far away as they might otherwise. Industrious, as both you and I have noted, requires no explanation.

RE: Germany
Bleh bleh bleh! (What an articulate rebuttal!) I'm beginning to see some value in archer-rushing, but as I mentioned (I think in another thread, dunno which) I feel archer rushing is too unreliable to plan on as a tactic anymore. Too many Civs have very easy counters for it- any expansionist should see you coming, and Carthage/Zulu/Aztec/Greek?/Babylon? has no fear of it. I will grant you that on a tiny map, a blitzkreig of archers might be enough to win the day very quickly.

RE: Ottomans
I think part of the reason I'm reluctant to move up the Ottomans is that if someone is playing them, smarter players often assume the Ottoman player is new/unwise. That usually results in a beeline to the Ottoman capital in large numbers. Tier 3.5, maybe, but I'm not impressed by scientific, and Industrious alone can't carry THAT much weight.

RE: Russia
Interesting things with diplomacy and tech-trading? Come now, let's not grasp at straws.

NOW this thread is going somewhere.

[Dominae]

Fried-Psitalon, nice to see someone who doesn't mind a little criticism. I'm sure your MP experience is greater than mine, so we're actually helping each other out here.

Defending Immortals with Spears is all well and good, but if the Immortals step up to defend instead of the Spears...

As long as the Spearmen have equal or greater chance of winning a battle than the Immortals the former will always be selected first. So yes, escorting Immortals with Spearmen sounds like a dumb idea, but really is not.

RE: America
Again, can you hit the high points of your America thread?

I've put a link here

RE: Russia
Interesting things with diplomacy and tech-trading? Come now, let's not grasp at straws.

Well, if you can ensure that you're not a target early on, you can use Expansionist to get yourself ahead in the tech race, and Scientific to keep you there. Many smart players would rather be friends with the tech leader, so the Russians should be well-protected once in the Medieval age. Something to try out, at least (best on a Standard or larger map).


Dominae

[Theseus]

Where you find one Strat Forum guy...

I gotta chime in on this iron-deficiency thing. There's this vitamin called One-a-Day...

Seriously, dinging Rome and Persia down a half tier or more because of the potential for iron deprivation is a bit much. Let's give the Swords-level UU player a bit of credit here, and assume that ESPECIALLY in MP finding, connecting, and protecting iron will probably be the highest priority imaginable.

[Arrian]

It should still have a negative impact on the ranking of such civs, though, Theseus. Particularly, IMO, for Rome. Persia is at least industrious, and can leverage that trait into solid infrastructure and then go with horsemen (assuming they don't get completely screwed for resources). Rome without Iron really is garbage.

My experience is limited, but I do think China offers some real MP strengths. I'm in a PBEM game and am a few turns away from war with a friend playing Egypt (I started a thread about it in the Strat forum).

Egypt is clearly a top civ, and has spent its GA building WCs, so I know I'm in for it. But, by utilizing my traits, I have built up what I believe to be a solid defense & counterattacking force. We'll see how it pans out.

Dominae,

Russia does seem pretty weak to me. They will have weak infrastructure (non-industrious), and they have to wait a long time before getting their UU (which, though decent, isn't particularly powerful). If I wanted to be scientific with a Cavalry-based UU, you better believe I'd go with the Ottomans.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Where you find one Strat Forum guy...

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Egypt is clearly a top civ, and has spent its GA building WCs, so I know I'm in for it. But, by utilizing my traits, I have built up what I believe to be a solid defense & counterattacking force. We'll see how it pans out.

I can vouch for China as a solid MP civ. I crushed the Egyptian attack. My traits (mil/ind) were a major factor in that.

-Arrian