A look at ALL the Civs, from a MP point of view - Page 2

zeeshan · January 30, 2003, 18:59

This is a very comprehensive and stellar review of the civs. However, I would disagree with many of the rankings. Personally this is how I rank the civs:

1.Carthage
2.Persia
3.Rome
4.Celts
5.Greece
6.Iroquois
7.Arabs
8.Scandinavia
9.Zulu
10.Babylon
11.Eqypt
12.Aztecs
13.Japan
14.India
15.Spain
16.Ottomans
17.China
18.Mongols
19.Russia
20.France
21.America
22.Germany
23.Britain
24.Korea

What do you think?

Fried-Psitalon · January 30, 2003, 20:26

I think you need to justify your rankings, state the conditions you consider them under (Rome in third and Aztecs 13th on a tiny pangea? Come now!) and so on.

BRC · January 30, 2003, 20:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
If I wanted to be scientific with a Cavalry-based UU, you better believe I'd go with the Ottomans.

-Arrian

I have just recently started my first Emperor game using the Ottomans. While Scientific is not one of the best traits in SP, I think that it can be very useful in a non-duel with many human players. Unless an agreement is made early on in the game with another human, you may have to do a lot of your own research. The free Monotheism upon entering the medieval age can guarantee you the first to have knights. The fact that many games will not last long prevents this trait from becoming useful all the time, but I do think that it may be more valuable than religious in the MP environment.

Due to this and the industrious trait, I also have to say that I agree with Arrian in that Persia and Rome can't be lumped together. Just my opinion, Theseus.

BoNeHeD · January 30, 2003, 23:31

After trying a few more civs I have to agree the fast movers have a definate advantage Especially on small/tiny maps and more so in elimination games.
PS LEGIONS RULE!!! in the long run lol

player1 · January 31, 2003, 07:57

Germany 22??? It could crush more then half of these civs in early game.

Sallandair · February 1, 2003, 06:56

If there is to be a ranking sysyem that is more accurate, it would have to be broken down into 5 separate categories. So much of the discussion in this thread bounces between types of maps, time, and the amount of players.

Tiny - 1 vs 1 <1.5hrs
Tiny - 1 vs 1 >1.5hrs
Tiny - 3+
Small - 3+ <2hrs
Small - 3+ >2hrs

Of course this is based on Pangea Maps for one could argue for an entirely different ranking system for Archepelo maps.

End State: Deselect the Civ specific Abilities Icon and just choose your favorite color.

----------------------------------------------------
See you on the High Ground - Scouts Out

Gareth_1 · February 1, 2003, 12:01

This is not Proofread.

Ok, first and foremost, great work Friedrich! I wish I had purchased/ got into PTW sooner so I could find this great online disscussion.

I personally agree with 95% of your tier rankings, and the "mental moves" your made in this thread in response to certain posts.
BUT! I do disagree with your eludment to moving the Iroquois down to tier 2...what foolishness

!
Basically, (and i am surprised this idea has not been posted before), your grouping of civs in a top tier would inevitably lead to one question...which of these civs is the best? or as I'd prefer, is in tier zero? *Yes in MP certain civs are better under certain conditions ex: the vikings rule in archipegalo, but this does not mean that one civ will be best in a variety of positions, best in an overall "your best bet is with the ____" when everything is set to random*
Well I'd just like to nominate the civ that is truly the best, the Iroquois, and yes I will provide a few points as to why.
NOTE: Im not going to go into great detail here because I want to hear some people scold or back me up with future posts.

Step #1
Lets look at the Qualities first: Religious, and Expansionist.
Now I entirely agree with your earlier thread ranking system of the Qualities: 1. Industrious 2. Expansionist 3. Religous 4. Commercial 5.Militaristic 6. Scientific
Now, in a mathematical perspective if you awarded points for having a Quality 6pts for 1st, 5 for 2nd, 1 for 6th you would find that the Iroquois would have 9 points...well they dont even have the top quality you say, therefore they cant have the top score...well who does have the top qualities? A: as you probably already know the Americans have the top 2 qualities giving them a sizable 11 points in this system. Well what immediatly eliminates them is the F-15 I dont even think we need to talk about this one.
Other potentials with good points that are eliminated due to UU weakness are:
French 9 points, England 8 points

Step#2
OK so step two of the breakdown would be which other civs have A) Quality Points comparable to the Iroquois and B) A UU that is relavent, deadly, and attainable.
Canditate #1: The Zulu- 7 pts. (5+2)
Now the Zulu where solely included because of your inclsuion of them in tier 1. Yes, they have their strong points including a UU that is very early, earlier than MWs, and the powerful coupling of militaristism and expansionism when pertaining to "bumrush attacks". Their flaws though outweigh their advantages, atleast in comparison to the Iroquois. Remember they only have 7 pts and therefore have to make up 2 to potentially beat the Iroquois IMO.
The Summary of their flaw is this, unversitility. No i dont think its a word. The Zulu are great "bumrushers" and therefore deserve credit, especially with such an early UU. The problem is that in the long run, Militarism isnt the greatest, and the Zulus Impis are a Defensive unit and therefore GA's are prone to come at unwanted/unplanned times.
Canditate #2: The Carthaginians - 9 pts. (6+3)
Oooo, the Carthaginians surely are a candidate with nine points and a UU to simply salivate over...how are the iroquois better? Well lets rule out my quality points idea, they are equal in that respect.
The Num Merc. requires no resources to build, but is 30 sheilds...a very hefty increase from spearmen. Especially in early game situations. Ok so these two factors cancell each other out ( iroquois need horses, no added prodcution cost) .
The only thing that separates the Carthaginians from the Iroquois in a holistic ranking is GA timing. Despite all its prowess the Num Merc is still a defensive UU, the MW is not adn therefore the Iroquois can trigger a GA when they want. Carth. might have a GA when a conscript warrior attacks them in turn ten.
Canditate #3: The Egyptians- 10 pts. (6+ 4)
Finally the Egyptians who have, yes, more points than the Iroquois and I cant use many of the arguements I made in the previous two candidates. They have an offensive UU, one that requires the same resource as the MW, and appears EARLIER! yikes it looks pretty grim to proove that the iroquois are better at this points, but wait...the chariot has a very big flaw. It is 2/1/2, this is not very good and cannot be truly effective in MP to the extent of the MW. Its advantage is in an early rush. But their is another flaw in its design; it becomes extinct with the discovery of horseback riding! These two problems are much to overcome despite the extra point on the iroquois.

I will leave it at that, don't want to reveal all my iroquois secrets, i would much rather others, in particular Friedrich, responded witht heir thoughts and stipulations pertaining to my post.

Gareth
-----
Peace in the Middle East!

player1 · February 1, 2003, 12:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Gareth_1
It is 2/1/2, this is not very good and cannot be truly effective in MP to the extent of the MW. Its advantage is in an early rush. But their is another flaw in its design; it becomes extinct with the discovery of horseback riding! These two problems are much to overcome despite the extra point on the iroquois.

Actuly it's still very effective in Horsemen age.

First, you'll have +50% more of them due the lower costs.
Second, you don't need to discover Horsebeck Riding at all (for some time), which gives you scentific advantage (you can get, for example Iron Working more quickly).

Now, the real probelm is if you use Culturaly Linked starting locations in MP.

In that case, you'll get two neighbours which are almost immune to them.

Yes, they are Greeks and Carthage.

P.S.
Rome, is not the problem since they would never get chance to build their road network.

P.P.S.
I would rate Militaristic trait as better trait in MP then Commercial and maybe even Religious (since there would be no more stupid AI ICSing).

It will help you to get advantege in start (some extra cities).
Which would heklp you toi win later.

P.P.P.S.
And Germans are very good rushers.

vmxa1 · February 1, 2003, 15:15

You left out one more problem with WC. It needs roads to travel over some tiles.
The word you want is universality.

Zero · February 1, 2003, 16:21

Germany is the best civ to duel hands down

-You start with mil/sci (bronze / WC)
-You can stack arch/spear as soon as you start
-You can immediately go with IW
-Their mil strat is iron-proof (they can continue with arch/spear tactic if iron is non-existent in continent)

Their military pressure never slows down from turn 1. Which is a good thing since most civs have that "I need to do this before I can militarily push X"

Either that or I would go with Aztecs. they are basically Mil/Rel civ with armed scouts. If you like Americans even though the wont have UU, imagine how much you would like having no UU for 3 trait!

BoNeHeD · February 1, 2003, 20:30

I still say in longer games (over 2 hours)LEGIONS RULE!

player1 · February 2, 2003, 06:04

If they make it.

Fried-Psitalon · February 2, 2003, 08:46

I feel like I'm beating my head against the wall on this Archer Rush thing, but what they hey: As I explain at length in another thread which I'm too lazy to go and find right now (though I'm going to have to soon, I think) I really, vigorously feel that the "Archer Rush" is a SP tactic that can be completely dismissed with a few simple considerations by the defender. (Those being: Sentries, building on hills, using walls.) For that reason I emphatically disagree with "Germany is the best Civ for dueling hands down." Swordsmen are great, to be sure, but if your strategy bends around "If I don't find iron, I still have my early-built Archers".....please play me sometime. Germany would be a good (Please note, I do say "Good." I"m not convinced of "Very good," and I definitely don't agree with "Best hands down.") Civ for tiny maps, if you had iron that appeared conveniently close to you, but the purpose of the Archer in MP when the UU's are flying around is to counterattack out of cities, not go on 6-unit marches across the countryside. And with all due respect to the "Jaguar Bumrush," I don't think I've ever heard a more unfair comparison of the Expansionist Civ trait yet. The Aztecs are *not* like having 3 Civ traits and no UU. You let me know what the Goody Huts give you using the Aztecs, and I'll compare it to what I get using, say, the Zulu.

In response to Gareth's glorious defense of the Iroquois....
Your idea of giving the Civ traits a point ranking is interesting, but I'm not sure how well it stands up to, well, reality. Some Civ traits work much better in combination with one trait than another. To use oft-quoted Germany as an example, Militaristic is indeed MUCH better in the hands of Scientific (for the potential veteran swordsmen early) than it is in the hands of Rome, coupled with Commerical. (What, you'll pay your Legions well?)
I have the same problem with the combination of Expansionist and Religious. Religious is spiffy for territory claiming, for long-game population stability, for subduing new towns, and for fast government switches (apologies for the crude summary.) Exactly ONE of those is useful in MP, and none of those tie in well with Hiawatha's other trait, Expansionist, the way Expansionist ties in with, say, Industrious. (Fast road building to prime city sites,etc.) Expansionist is great for letting you know where to go with troops, maybe snagging goody huts (Provided Barbs are on) and later using Scouts for sentries and distracters. Nothing there goes well with Religious. So while the Iroquois DO have two of my favored Civ traits.... they don't have two that go particularly well together.

If the worst happens, and Hiawatha just can't find horses, you've got an even bigger mess. You've probably researched The Wheel early on to get an idea of where to build (if not first.) So let's see, at this point you've got Pottery (granaries, no military), Ceremonial Burial (temples, no military again) and The Wheel (sans horses, useless as well.) This gives you the dubious distinction of having NOTHING better than a warrior when many other Civs can field Spears or Archers (or both, to give Germany another nod) and suddenly the oft-maligned-by-me Archer Rush could be a real problem. Jags, Impis, and War Chariots, oh my!

If you do find Horses? Hiawatha has the dubious distinction of being the Ancient Era civ with *the most* to research before he has access to his UU! Even Bonehed's Roman Legions can probably get there quicker. Better hope (admittedly, not a totally unreasonable hope) that your Scouts find at least one part of the three-tech research to get you Horseback Riding quicker. Now that I've completely trashed the Iroquois, I'm going to say: Hey, I still like em, they're fun to play with, and I've seen lots of success with em - the number 2 guy on our ladder favors that Civ, in fact.

BoNeHeD · February 2, 2003, 16:24

Thank you Friedrich for you well thought out treatise on the civs in MP. This thread has be a great help to my playing style as well as form (civ I pick) Keep up the very funny yet analytical points you bring to all our attention.
ps have you written any books?
pss LEGIONS RULE! Horsies drool!

Wtiberon · February 25, 2003, 16:52

If you consider ladder play and time limits I would have to say that Egypt would be number one...why...well because of the religious scientific aspect of their trait. They have the ability to put up temples fast and increase their points quickly. Iroquios and Carthage are a toss up for second. Again the Iroquois for their religious trait...also if they manage to find a couple of techs with the scout. Carthage of course for the industrious and numidian mercenary.