Lucky Civs

atomant · February 10, 2003, 06:56

This question is not particulary related to strategy, but it does determine one's attitude to play...

The question is, pauses for dramatic effect, do you play with one civ/leader that you consider lucky? For me, I almost always play Persians/Xeres. With anyone else I tend not to be as lucky. Irrational I know, but it works for me.

For the record I a too lazy to customise a Civ

Scouse Gits · February 10, 2003, 07:10

Nope - I avoid the dark blue civs - find them hard to see, but otherwise anything goes

Most frequently play Carthaginian

SG[1]

Ming · February 10, 2003, 07:14

Nahhhh... never even considered it. There is no "lucky" civ in the game.

It does make sense to take a civ that you don't want to play against. If you hate playing against expansionist civs or against science oriented civs, it does indeed make sense to play one of them to increase the likelyhood of less of them in the game against you.

But to your point... Part of your success in any game is your mental attitude. If you think you are going to fail, you probably will

So you probably do gain an advantage by picking a civ you think you will do better with. Just simple human nature

Scouse Gits · February 10, 2003, 07:23

Luck can be related to starting techs. Avoid the militaristic civs that tend to start with warlike techs which are off the Monarchy path.

---------------------

SG(2)

rah · February 10, 2003, 09:20

Or play MP, where if the host gets a tech or two..........
RESTART.

Ming · February 10, 2003, 10:04

That's what I like about MP. With humans playing the civs, it really makes no difference. Well, with the exception of the turn order... so i guess it does make a difference

War4ever · February 11, 2003, 01:31

first to wonders, last to react to the barbs....whites dilemma

the rest reat to barbs, but fall further down the list when it comes to wonders/kings on the same turn...

and then of course there is the host customization thingy that throws some hosts into a frenzy

rjmatsleepers · February 11, 2003, 03:55

I play with the English 90% of the time. I don't consider they are lucky. It's simply that I have customised the names of the cities and the order they are built in. I like to build the Roman cities before the Saxon ones and so on.

I rarely play with the Aztecs - all their cities sound the same to me.

I never thought of choosing the civ I don't want to play against - mind you, in my games there never seems to be a shortage of AI civs queueing up to sneak attack me.

RJM at Sleepers

Scouse Gits · February 11, 2003, 04:56

Quote:

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers I like to build the Roman cities before the Saxon ones and so on. RJM at Sleepers

...so by the time Milton Keynes comes in you know you've got a sleaze ....

-----------------

SG(2)

Ming · February 11, 2003, 05:55

Quote:

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers
I rarely play with the Aztecs - all their cities sound the same to me.

SO TRUE...

I hate playing the Aztecs. I end up renaming ANY city I start because I would like to have SOME CLUE to which city is which.

DrSpike · February 11, 2003, 06:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Scouse Gits

...so by the time Milton Keynes comes in you know you've got a sleaze ....

-----------------

SG(2)

Spoken like a true ICSer.

Bloody Monk · February 11, 2003, 17:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

SO TRUE...

I hate playing the Aztecs. I end up renaming ANY city I start because I would like to have SOME CLUE to which city is which.

Having a clue about where different cities are relative to the core and to the compass led me to make a 'map'. It is based on cities in the area where I now live, in some cases, neighborhoods in bigger cities. Anything to make the game map recognizable.

As for which civ to play, it doesn't seem to matter. Luck is the residue of a great design...or so the saying goes.

Monk

War4ever · February 12, 2003, 02:04

yes, i always tend to start with the same 10 cities (baseball stadiums) and then take it from there...these i know will need the all important caravan sleeze

rjmatsleepers · February 12, 2003, 04:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Scouse Gits

...so by the time Milton Keynes comes in you know you've got a sleaze ....

-----------------

SG(2)

Actually the Milton Keynes is last but one, followed by Basildon. But I've never played a sufficiently sleazey game to reach them

RJM at Sleepers

Six Thousand Year Old Man · February 12, 2003, 10:58

The higher 'up' in the play order that a Civ is (white-highest, purple-lowest) plays a role in determining how good the starting land will be. The white Civ is placed first, giving it the best land... and so on down to purple. On large and medium maps this isn't usually an issue, but on small maps, the purple Civ sometimes gets to start at one of the poles, or an otherwise poor location.

If you look in the GL under 'starting techs', there is a good analysis by the SG's regarding which colour Civs are most likely to get starting techs, and which techs are most likely if you do get starting techs.

And of course, if want to speed up your science acquisition rate, the colour of the Civ you're playing as will affect which Civs you should be giving away techs to (assuming you are 'Supreme'). Again, the GL should have the relevant info on the 'key civ' concept.

So... depending on what strategy you like... there may be one or two Civs that have characteristics that fit well into that strategy, and are thus 'lucky' for you

edit: Both threads still work - 'techs, starting', and 'beakers - the key to tech gifting'.

I don't have a favorite Civ. I used to play as the Americans or Chinese to get starting techs, but I seldom worry about that anymore.

War4ever · February 12, 2003, 17:20

I just play the mongols...they were a warrior race...i am a warrior.....

but really it makes no difference to me, especially since i reset until there are no techs when i play the ai....

though i have played out some starts where i had tech, all that told me was there were ciites to take over close by

Six Thousand Year Old Man · February 12, 2003, 17:35

Precisely... although the SG's research did indicate, all other things being equal, that the light blue civs do seem to get more techs.

Ming · February 12, 2003, 18:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
The higher 'up' in the play order that a Civ is (white-highest, purple-lowest) plays a role in determining how good the starting land will be. The white Civ is placed first, giving it the best land...

While you are indeed correct... sometimes the computer and you don't agree on what the "best" land is

Also... in a MP game with more than two players... It will in many cases place the White Civ in the middle of the board... surrounded by everybody else

DrSpike · February 12, 2003, 18:15

If you play with more than one continent white also often cannot use black map clicking......which is another potential disadvantage.

rah · February 12, 2003, 18:31

Yes, some turns it worked and some turns it didn't. We were never able to figure out what the pattern/cause of that was. I haven't played white in quite a while so I had forgotten about that.

And I agree with Ming that what the software considers a good starting position doesn't always match my definition.

War4ever · February 12, 2003, 22:17

the software determines good starts by the amount of food IIRC...which in MP is usually the least important thing on my list....

i am looking for trade, with ONE or two good squares...not abunch of grass with crap around them..

Ming · February 13, 2003, 02:01

Yeah... a four pattern with all food, and no production or trade anywhere to be seen. And the AI is licking it's chops...

rah · February 13, 2003, 09:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
Yeah... a four pattern with all food, and no production or trade anywhere to be seen. And the AI is licking it's chops...

And Ming is saying "THIS BLOWWWWWWSSSSS"

Six Thousand Year Old Man · February 13, 2003, 10:36

Quote:

Originally posted by rah
And I agree with Ming that what the software considers a good starting position doesn't always match my definition.

Clearly I should have qualified my observation that white gets the 'best' land. Obviously 'best' is best to the AIs reasoning.

Still, I've occasionally been stuck on a pole with an orange Civ... and several times with purple. White may not get any objectively better land than say, green or yellow, but they never seem to get a polar start, either.

So what's the 'ideal' start for everyone?

Trade specials for sure... rivered grass with a couple of golds/whales/wines in the radius?

Last night I started a game with a 3 whale/1 pheasant starting location... founded a second city, wandered a bit, and put my third city down on another 3 whale site. To me, that's a great start - many other good sites around, too.

DrSpike · February 13, 2003, 11:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man

So what's the 'ideal' start for everyone?

Trade specials for sure... rivered grass with a couple of golds/whales/wines in the radius?

Last night I started a game with a 3 whale/1 pheasant starting location... founded a second city, wandered a bit, and put my third city down on another 3 whale site. To me, that's a great start - many other good sites around, too.

Hehe don't think many would cry over that start........though of course there are people who cry over their start by rote no matter what they get.

Scouse Gits · February 13, 2003, 11:32

I only got three whales :sob:

SG[1]

Ming · February 13, 2003, 11:37

In MP games... whining is not only expected, it's required

Six Thousand Year Old Man · February 13, 2003, 11:42

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike

Hehe don't think many would cry over that start........though of course there are people who cry over their start by rote no matter what they get.

The only crying I would do would involve the fact that the 1st city wasn't placed until @3400BC, and the 3d city didn't get put down until @2500 BC due to a lot of wandering picking up huts

Otherwise, had I been able to found on both of those 2 sites before 3500BC, I don't see why I couldn't get all the early wonders and Monarchy before 3000

Anyway that game will have to be put aside in favour of the succession turns I promised to play

DrSpike · February 13, 2003, 11:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
In MP games... whining is not only expected, it's required

Hehe a necessary skill perhaps. I do like going back over afterwards and correlating icq/king chat whining with actual experience. It is often very amusing.

*cough* Markus *cough*.

ottok · February 13, 2003, 13:36

Lucky Civs?

Ugh mee,i play all (even barbiaans?!with civ2hack)

But really,in civ2, i think that there has no ONE...

maybe it whoos leader is best... But anyway?
Someone is better ships and other use Air units good
but i say "mix is best,or it is?"

And some ones builds good deffended cities! With city walls and missiles and SDI! and lot of mechings and air units...