The most "well balanced" civs

Fatalis2 · March 28, 2003, 12:34

(Sorry, I don't know where to post it !?)

Hello,

I’m gonna try to classify the better balanced civs. I don’t want to determinate wich one is the strongest, or the easiest to play, but the most flexible. The civ that offers the largest choice of playing style (building, peaceful, warmonger, rushing, etc.).

First, sorry for my poor english : this is not my mother tongue !
Secondlly, I specify that my comments are for :
. medium level (regent or monarch)
. Solo game only
. No PTW (I don’t own it, as a macintosh gamer !).

Now I explain my scale and the criterions I’ll use.

1. THE PROFILE OF THE CIVS AND THEIR TRAITS : 10 POINTS
I’ve tried to check the five points of view that form; IMHO, the potential of any civ.
- Starting potential (2 points) : the way a civ can offer you a fast and strong starting game. Religious for the borders, industrious for the faster expansion (roads, food & production), an UU that gives you a big early advantage… these are the criterions that form the " starting potential ". We all know how important are the early times in this game…
- Cultural potential (2 points) : Easy… Religious and scientific traits form the cultural potential.
- Cities / empire growth potential (2 points) : Industrious is of course the most important trait, here. But religious (for hapiness) and even commercial (for large empire growth & management) are regarded too.
- Science potential (2 points) : Scientific (of course…), expansionnist (for the huts !), commercial (more commerce means more research) and industrious (faster built roads and faster growth means faster research) are regarded.
- Military potential (2 points) : Militaristic (of course), UU (of course too… A nice UU can give you a big advantage for the war), scientific (techs advantage can often give you the victory), expansionnist (same as scientific, during the ancient age) and industrious (more units building potential)… all these things can increase a military potential.
- " Well balanced bonus " (1 point) : 1 bonus point for the civs that have at least one point in each of the cultural, cities, science and military potentials.
- Special : Sometimes, I’ll give an extra bonus point or half point to a civ that have, IMHO, a really big advantage in one of these five potentials.

2. THE UU : 4 POINTS
. 0 point for a useless UU
. 1 point for a very little advantage
. 2 points for a good advantage, but some disadvantage too ! (ex : good UU’s that can’t retreat – bad for attacking ! – or upgrade).
. 3 points for excellent defensive UU’s or good attacking UU’s that can retreat and upgrade.
. 4 for a huge attacking advantage

3. GOLDEN AGE : 3 POINTS
From 1 to 3 points… Maximum 3 points is for a perfect GA during middle age (for wonders like Sixtine, Leo, Bach, etc… and an already big enough empire).

4. MAPS : 3 POINTS
Ability to play a civ on a small, standardor big map.

GREAT BRITAIN :
Starting potential : 1 (EXP)
Cultural potential : 0
Cities/empire growth potential : 1 (COM)
Military potential : 1 (EXP)
Science potential : 1,5 (COM & EXP)
" Well balanced bonus " : 0
UU : 0
GA : 3
Maps : 2 (brilliant on big maps, average on standard, poor on small)

TOTAL : 9/20

Comments : No surprise… English can be played on a big map, but their lack of culture and useless UU make them not easily playable in any case.

ROME :
Starting potential : 0
Cultural potential : 0
Cities/empire growth potential : 1 (COM)
Military potential : 2 (MIL, COM and UU)
Science potential : 1 (COM)
" Well balanced bonus " : 0
UU : 2
GA : 1
Maps : 2 (good on big maps, average on standard, average on small)

TOTAL : 9/20

Comments : Sorry for Rome. I loved to play them on Civ 1 & 2… but now… ? No boosted start, no culture bonus => only militaristic way of development. And a strong UU… that can’t retreat (nor upgrade unless you get PTW).

ZULUS :

Starting potential : 2 (EXP & Impis)
Cultural potential : 0
Cities/empire growth potential : 0
Military potential : 2 (MIL & EXP)
Science potential : 1 (EXP)
" Well balanced bonus " : 0
UU : 2,5
GA : 1
Maps : 1,5 (average in every case)

TOTAL : 10/20

Comments : No culture, hard growth… only for warmongers ! And another problem : if you want to really take advantage of your cool UU, you’ll have a really too early GA, probably under despotism, with a little number of undeveloped cities.

INDIA :

Starting potential : 1 (REL)
Cultural potential : 1 (REL)
Cities/empire growth potential : 1,5 (REL & COM)
Military potential : 0
Science potential : 1 (COM)
" Well balanced bonus " : 0
UU : 1
GA : 3
Maps : 2,5 (no really weakness)

TOTAL : 11/20

Comments : No miltary advantage and no miltary profit from the UU… the indians are not well balanced : forget them if you’re a warmonger. No surprise that Gandhi is the most peaceful partner in the game !

GERMANY :
Starting potential : 0
Cultural potential : 1 (SCI)
Cities/empire growth potential : 0
Military potential : 3 (Special bonus : I think Germany has the best military potential, with MIL & SCI traits and one of the best UU’s)
Science potential : 1 (SCI)
" Well balanced bonus " : 0
UU : 3,5 (deadly invaders…)
GA : 1
Maps : 1,5 (bad on big maps – nothing to help ! – good on standard ; too slow on small ones)

TOTAL : 11/20

Comments : Germans are kings of the industrial age… but they first have to handle to reach it ! If you want to make great wars on standard maps, it’s a good choice. But Germany is really not a very flexible civ.

BABYLONE :
Starting potential : 1 (REL)
Cultural potential : 2,5 (Special bonus : Babs are clearly kings of culture, with both SCI & Rel traits)
Cities/empire growth potential : 1 (REL)
Military potential : 1 (SCI)
Science potential : 1 (SCI)
" Well balanced bonus " : 1
UU : 1
GA : 1
Maps : 1,5 (just like germans : bad on big maps – nothing to help ! – good on standard ; too slow on small ones)

TOTAL : 11/20

Comments : Surprising little score !.Probably due to the fact that Babs can hardly be anything else than a great building nation on a standard map ! Brilliant science to fight… but poor production potential and no good troops (UU or elite).

RUSSIA :
Starting potential : 1 (EXP)
Cultural potential : 1 (SCI)
Cities/empire growth potential : 0
Military potential : 2 (EXP & SCI)
Science potential : 2 (EXP & SCI)
" Well balanced bonus " : 0
UU : 2
GA : 2
Maps : 2 (average on evrery kind of maps)

TOTAL : 12/20

Comments : Probably one of the best science producers. The big weakness is the lack of growth bonus. And I don’t know what to think about the UU… I think russians are not bad balanced, I mean you’re not forced to be a warmonger, a builder, to choose a little or a big map… But I always find it hard to play them ! No decisive advantage, in fact.

AMERICA :
Starting potential : 3 (Special bonus : I think Americans, with their scouts and boosted workers, can get the most important advance during the early game… except, of course, if you choose a small map !)
Cultural potential : 0
Cities/empire growth potential : 2 (IND)
Military potential : 2 (EXP & IND)
Science potential : 2 (EXP & IND)
" Well balanced bonus " : 0
UU : 0
GA : 1
Maps : 2,5 (the best for big maps, cool on standard ones, not that bad on small maps)

TOTAL : 12,5 /20

Comments : Probably the best on large and huge maps. Americans can easily build a strong empire and a very good army. The lack of culture bonus is their problem… and their stupid UU !

JAPAN :
Starting potential : 1,5 (REL & " The wheel ")
Cultural potential : 1 (REL)
Cities/empire growth potential : 1 (REL)
Military potential : 2 (MIL & UU)
Science potential : 0
" Well balanced bonus " : 0
UU : 3 (Samurai rocks… and what an animation ! !)
GA : 3
Maps : 1,5 (Forget the big maps / cool on standard size/ just average on small ones))

TOTAL : 13/20

Comments : Much better on standard maps. Culture is average and the immediate knowledge of the horses emplacements can be a significant bonus for a good start. The only bad thing is the lack of science. In fact, Japan is most of times a civ for warmongers : make a lot of wars, enjoy your samurais and secure your conquests with cheap temples.

AZTEC :
Starting potential : 2 (REL & Jaguar Warriors)
Cultural potential : 1 (REL)
Cities/empire growth potential : 1 (REL)
Military potential : 2 (MIL & UU)
Science potential : 0,5 (for some benefits from the huts, due to the speedy JW)
" Well balanced bonus " : 1
UU : 3
GA : 1
Maps : 2,5 (with 2,5 traits – REL , MIL & the JW, Aztecs can play almost anywhere)

TOTAL : 14/20

Comments : Aztecs are well balanced. But they have, IMHO, 2 problems. First, it’s very hard to not fight a lot when you take them. Second and biggest problem, you have a difficult choice to make : if you really want to take advantage of your JW, you’ll have a quite useless GA. If you don’t, your JW is " just " an armed scout.

GREECE :
Starting potential : 1,5 (Hoplites ! !)
Cultural potential : 1 (SCI)
Cities/empire growth potential : 1 (COM)
Military potential : 1,5 (SCI & UU)
Science potential : 2 (SCI & COM)
" Well balanced bonus " : 1
UU : 3
GA : 1
Maps : 2,5 (good on every size of map)

TOTAL : 14,5/20

Comments : The best defenders of the game and a high science level. Well balanced civ : quite good for building, best defense for a long time, techs lead for good units, etc. The only weaknesses are the risk of a very early GA, and the lack of offensive bonus. I don’t understand why I can’t play them !

EGYPT:
Starting potential : 3 (Special bonus : IND for a very fast starting, REL to increase quicly your borders during the early times, it’s simply perfect !)
Cultural potential : 1 (REL)
Cities/empire growth potential : 3 (Special bonus : IND & REL can’t be beaten, by far !)
Military potential : 1 (IND)
Science potential : 1 (IND)
" Well balanced bonus " : 1
UU : 1
GA : 1
Maps : 2,5 (a little harder on big maps…)

TOTAL : 14,5/20

Comments : Egypt is perfect for beginners ! You can do everything with them : build a strong and fine empire, or produce tons of units to overflow your neighbors. Perhaps the most flexible civ. Only 2 disadvantages : the lack of offensive boost (the UU is poor) and the risk of very early GA (but if you activate it through the Pyramids, it can be pretty cool !).

IROQUOIS :
Starting potential : 2 (EXP & REL)
Cultural potential : 1 (REL)
Cities/empire growth potential : 1 (REL)
Military potential : 2 (EXP & UU)
Science potential : 1 (EXP)
" Well balanced bonus " : 1
UU : 4 (" THE UU "… MW are a HUGE advantage !)
GA : 1
Maps : 1,5 (you’d better play them on standard maps : no bonus to manage a very big empire, and the EXP trait is weak on small maps)

TOTAL : 14,5/20

Comments : A quite polyvalent civ. No real weakness (except on small maps). But, with a so brilliant UU, you’ll probably can’t stand peacefully building during a long time ! You MUST make war with the MW. Well, one of the best in terms of flexibility.

FRANCE :
Starting potential : 2 (IND)
Cultural potential : 0
Cities/empire growth potential : 2,5 (special bonus : IND&COM is really wonderful for cities/empire growth, one trait for the cities development ; one trait for the empire management)
Military potential : 1 (IND)
Science potential : 2 (IND & COM)
" Well balanced bonus " : 0
UU : 1
GA : 3
Maps : 3 (I think IND & COM is simply the best combination for any kind of map !)

TOTAL : 14,5/20

Comments : You can play " anywhere " with the French. You can build a big, strong empire or fight all your opponents, it’s up to you !. You just can’t win through culture and have to be careful with the city flips. The other problem is that you don’t have any UU to boost your conquests or your military level.

PERSIA :
Starting potential : 2 (IND)
Cultural potential : 1 (SCI)
Cities/empire growth potential : 2 (IND)
Military potential : 2 (IND & SCI)
Science potential : 2 (IND & SCI)
" Well balanced bonus " : 1
UU : 2
GA : 1
Maps : 2,5 (same as the egyptians :a little harder on big ones)

TOTAL : 15,5/20

Comments : Very close to Egypt, IMO, with a much better military potential and lightly harder starting and empire growth. Another civ you can do anything you want with… anywhere you want !

CHINA :
Starting potential : 2 (IND)
Cultural potential : 0
Cities/empire growth potential : 2 (IND)
Military potential : 3 (Special bonus : as good as the Germans, with IND, Mil and a really good UU !)
Science potential : 0
" Well balanced bonus " : 0
UU : 3
GA : 3
Maps : 2,5 (a little harder on big maps, too)

TOTAL : 15,5/20

Comments : The best military potential, the ability to manage a big and strong empire, an easy start, a very good UU… and the possibilty to choose the time of your GA : earlier with the Great Wall, later with the UU. A very effective civ. But don’t even think about a cultural victory and, as for the French, beware the city flips !

OK, it’s finished ! I hope you enjoyed the (very) long reading !

Just have to give my favourite civs : Persia, Egypt, France and Japan.

nationalist · March 28, 2003, 17:43

I disagree with your review of Germany. It is not unflexable. As has been noted here many times the Germans are the best civ for the early Archer rush, as they start with both Spearmen and Archers and expand as well as the expansionist civs can. This early rush can easily produce Great Leaders. Those great leaders can build the Leo's Workshop, giving a Golden Age at a perfect time. The scientific trait allows you to build cheap culture producing science buildings, as well as keep war-mongers in the scientific race. As you mentioned, the Germans dominate the late Industrial Age. Panzers roll over anything up until Computers and Mechanized Infantry. For my playing style there is no better choice than the Germans.

pedrojedi · March 29, 2003, 00:12

I think the "cultural flip risk" is dependant of a subjective point of view. For example, I think that France has a strong chance of being very good early cultural leaders of the world, since they can build relatively fast temples, and the cities' tiles are rapidly upgraded.

I remember a game that I played as the carthagians (PTW old version for France, at least for the specials), and I won basically with a big great culture and a big great commercial potencial. Diplomacy came soon.

Boris Godunov · March 29, 2003, 00:37

I second what nationalist said, for probably the only time ever. The Germans are a much stronger civ than this assessment suggests. Military plus science is a terrific combo, and when playing them my tech advantage is usually more than enough to offset any potential disadvantages. And that doesn't just help militarily, as it helps me get to cultural improvements faster.

Josquius · March 29, 2003, 13:25

Been so long since I played to comment on your verdicts however it is England in the game not Britain.

nationalist · March 29, 2003, 20:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
I second what nationalist said, for probably the only time ever.

That surprises me too. Does that mean that I'm wrong on this?

TheStinger · March 31, 2003, 08:20

May be its the way I play but I love the Babs. I'm a fan of the Persionas too. I think they both good all rounders.

pedrojedi · March 31, 2003, 21:42

The Babs are excellent, and in the long run they can have a real punch, with their science and religion traits.

I never played with the Persians, but they seem pretty good to me also; I love industrious.

Lord Merciless · March 31, 2003, 23:57

The thread starter has probably never faced Romans in his games. Horde of Legionaries followed GA will make short work of any empires. In ancient age, Romans rule absolutely.

georges bonbon · April 1, 2003, 05:05

Long live the Babs and Persians.

Fatalis2 · April 1, 2003, 05:29

Well... lots of tomatoes in my face !!

About the Germans, I must specify one thing : in the "starting potential", I didn't include the war ! The "starting potential" figures for me the "natural expansion", the ability to quickly expand your borders (settlers & units production ; civ influence growth) and to be the first to build cities on the better emplacements. The ability to destroy your opponents, erlier or later, is figured by the "military potential". For me, the archer rush is more a playing style than a potential.
Everybody knows that Germany is probably the best civ to make war, even very very early (archer rush + speramen). I mentionned that. I like the Germans, even if I prefer to play them on lower level. BUT, I tried to classified the MOST FLEXIBLE civs, not the strongest or funiest. And, I'm still thinking that Germany is principally a civ for warmongers. You have to fight a lot with them.

About the Romans... same comments ! How can you have a really good expansion / growth with them if you don't fight and fight again ? Please, give me some explanations... I repeat that I talked about "flexibility". With the Romans, I'm still thinking that your playing style choice is more limited.
AND, I specified that I'm playing WHITHOUT PTW : the Romans without PTW have to manage a big problem of upgrade... tons of legions to disband ! Yes, you can produce units by disbanding... But I think it's really easier to upgrade them.

About "England"... sorry for my mistake !! But in the french version, they called them "les britanniques", and not "les anglais". That's the explanation...

Mad Bomber · April 1, 2003, 07:20

Fatalis:

1) Persia is a warmongering civ pure and simple. Those Imortals are just too tempting.

2) What civ is more warlike than the Aztecs? Religious and Miltaristic means you can outlast your opponet in any war and the jag warriors are absolutely great at the 2000BC -Rush. I would never play the Aztecs as a builder.

3) There is no civ more well balanced than the Egyptians. They can out build or out fight any civ in the game. True the GA will be an early one (unless you plan for a later one) but its better than none at all.

4) You place too much emphasis on the GA. I personally do not mind a despotic GA (the fact is you 'lose' less shields than most believe) An early GA (even a despotic one) allows you to build setlers quickly which helps with the REX phase (the most important phase of the game IMO) or to build up an early edge in military strength.

5) As metioned earlier the babs are truly one of the most flexible civ's in the game. They are the only civ that is better than the germans at the archer rush and also have two cultural strength traits. This civ ranks right behind the Egyptians as far as balance is concerned.

TheStinger · April 1, 2003, 07:20

English or British there still rubbish. I mod em to make it worthwile playing them

Fatalis2 · April 1, 2003, 08:51

To Mad Bomber :

- I totally agree about Aztecs... Their result made me think that my scale is probably not really perfect ! In deed, playing the Aztecs without fighting a lot seems to be quite hard (and I mentionned that in me thread) !

- I agree too about the egyptians... Regardless of my scale of ranking, my experience would tell me THEY ARE the most flexible. They are one of me favourites, btw...

- Sorry, but I really hate a GA under despotism. Your arguments seem to be good... but I simply can't !
But you're perhaps right : 3 points for a well timed GA could be too much... It's true a GA is only 20 turns... and you can always get them through the wonders (except on the highest levels, IMO).

- I disagree about Persia... I already played them as builders. But I must specify that I don't like Immortals very much (not upgradable for me and, besides, no ability to retreat. I never invade a country without an huge army that can retreat...). Yes, of course, they're very effective as warmongers too. But they can build, too.

- The babs... I really don't know what to think about them. During about 5000/5500 years, I find them too slow to quickly produce a huge force, and I still consider that they're really not a good choice on large or huge map. On a standard map, they're in deed very flexible.
But it's true I don't like to make war with them : their offensive bonus comes too early for me (as their GA, then) and after that, they never have any more strenght for warfare (no IND, no MIL, no UU... just an hypothetic tech lead)

Considering only my experience, the ranking would be a little different :

Most flexible : Egypt, Persia, France

Still well balanced : China, America, Russia

Building dominant : Greece, Babylone

Warmonging dominant : Japan, Iroquois

Absolute builders : India

Absolute warmongers : Zulus, Aztecs, Germans, Romans

?????? : English !

But I found it funny to establish a scale...

Arrian · April 1, 2003, 16:49

Egypt is the most flexible civ, IMO*. France is 2nd. Carthage is close, but the Num. Merc hurts them (some people like them, I know, but I think they're a hinderance). Persia is fairly flexible too, and therefore so are the Ottomans (same traits, also a strong UU, just later in the game).

I don't see China as "flexible" They are definitely strong - I love playing them - but I don't think they're flexible. The militaristic trait is almost a complete waste if you don't fight. Sure, the cheap barracks/harbors/airports are ok, but the real boost requires fighting: the promotion bonus, and the subsequent indirect effect on Great Leader generation. China can still be decent as a "builder" civ only because their other trait, Industrious, is so strong. Using China properly, however, requires fighting. Lots and lots of fighting.

-Arrian

* - there is one exception to this, but even then it can be overcome. Egypt's UU does have 1 weakness: the terrain limitations. On certain maps :coughAU207cough: Egypt may have trouble using its UU, because WCs cannot operate in jungle or mountains unless there are roads leading into the tile(s). Having said that, I've played in that situation and Egypt's industrial workers have dealt with the issue handily.

Lord Merciless · April 1, 2003, 21:30

To be honest with you, warmongering is the most effective strategy in Civ3, even the civ you are playing is one of those so-called 'builder' civ.

pedrojedi · April 1, 2003, 21:55

Quote:

- The babs... I really don't know what to think about them. During about 5000/5500 years, I find them too slow to quickly produce a huge force, and I still consider that they're really not a good choice on large or huge map. On a standard map, they're in deed very flexible.

Well, I disagree with that, and I have several arguments for that.

1 - Archer rush: Well, yes, that's a tactic or play style, but for it is a canonic law, as it facilitates a lot your early building fase, specially if you have around aggressive civs like the germans, russians or even the always growing british guys. The babs have the good advantage of not having to initially build a spearmen force to go with the archers... just keep deploying the UU and go for it! I really don't care for the early GA, as long as it gives me an edge early on, and it will pay off really well latter.

2 - Religious: Readily available to build and cheap temples are a bless for the construction of a force. They give a good punch for production and growth, and those early shields make all the difference (Catt told that truth a while ago. That was illuminating). Also, the Ceremonial Burial is the first tech for the research of Monarchy. And you know how the AI loves Monarchy. And, lastly but no less important... The 1 turn Anarchy. There are no comments that could explain and show all the difference that it makes on your power and war.

3 - Scientific: First, it is a short road for Iron Working. Good for trading, even better for getting those precious (my precious...) ore resources from the enemy, and making them suffer early on with iron deficiency!

It also gives the cheap libraries, which are great for early tech lead and culture lead (I like culture lead

). And there is the GL. Also the free tech at each era is a real pain in the @$$ when you're not scientific and running with other civ for tech lead. That alone could define a fase in the game.

Since most of these arguments do not depend on war, it is reasonable to assume that on huge maps, these advantages are even more pronounced.

Well, I have to go, but that's it!

Fatalis2 · April 7, 2003, 04:55

Your arguments sound good... except for the huge map, IMHO... Years and years to build roads, and what a corruption !

The thing is probably that I won several games with teh Babs but... I've been boring with them !! As I dislike very early wars and, even more, very early GA, I only practice the archer rush when I'm really forced to do it... And the archer rush is the second (and short !) miltary advantage of the Babs (the other one is the scientific trait). To conclude : I don't like to be a warmonger without a militaristic or industrious trait, or without a very good UU... So, IMHO, the Babs don't seem to be a very effective civ for warmongering !

In fact, I think the industrious trait is the most flexible one, because it gives you an "offensive builder" potential !

pedrojedi · April 7, 2003, 10:19

Corruption seems to be adjusted by map size. About roads... only one thing: Worker Crews. The issue is that you will need only roughly the double number of industrious civs. "only" hehehe... But still, that's a manageable problem.

I still think that Religious is a very nice trait for warmongering. I really can't decide to say which one of the two is best with militaristic, religious or scientific. Both are very very good.

Fatalis2 · April 7, 2003, 11:20

Yes, Religious is very effective for warmongering (Japan and Aztec proove it !). But, it MUST, IMHO, be combined with Militaristic or Industrious to build a strong army... The only exception is the Iroquois, who don't get industrious nor militaristic... but can build the MW, THE perfect UU !

pedrojedi · April 7, 2003, 15:10

Well, a strong army comes independently of civ traits... how you use will determine your "preferred" traits. I had a strong military capacity in one of my most peaceful games, even though I had a small army. It's all about how you use it.

Theseus · April 12, 2003, 22:31

I think you will find that all of the most "balanced" civs include Ind. From there, either Rel or Sci, maybe Com. Exp can be guuuhhh-reat, depending on the situation, but is not a "balancing" trait.

Anybody can warmonger.

GAs? Not a contributor to "balance" at all.

Panag · April 13, 2003, 15:25

hi ,

the most balanced , ...

, ..... has to be the US of A

have a nice day

pedrojedi · April 13, 2003, 16:36

hi,

panag...

I think so... NOT.

have a nice day

Panag · April 14, 2003, 18:48

Quote:

Originally posted by pedrojedi
hi,

panag...

I think so... NOT.

have a nice day

hi ,

each has an other personal view , ....

have a nice day

Mad Bomber · April 15, 2003, 17:31

Actually I have to agree with Panag here

The US is a very balanced civ, their traits industrial and expansionist are strong in either playstyle. Also since the US must depend upon its GA on building at least two wonders(unless you want a GA after the game is over) means that you will need to build up a strong infrastructure. The lack of cheap buildings reinforces the desire for wonders. This in turn leads to thoughts of warmongering unless you can build all of the wonders.

The US is stuck with a lousy UU, but it is blessed with one of the best traits combos for play on a large or huge map. And is a great civ to play either as a builder or a warmonger.

For those of you that hate expansionists...try getting out of the ancient age at 1900BC without this trait. (I accomplished this with 6 scouts on a huge world with the Ami's.

However I would have to rate the US third behnd Egypt and Babylon which are the most flexible civs.

pedrojedi · April 15, 2003, 23:13

I have problems when dealing with expansionist trait, since after the expansion time, you have only 1 trait to go all the game. IF you had a nice start, that's gonna be all that's necessary, if you start is even not-good...

Flanker · April 16, 2003, 06:03

What do you guys think about the PtW-civs then? Are there any contesters in the "most balanced"-ranking among them? I haven´t tried them all yet, so I´m not sure myself.

pedrojedi · April 16, 2003, 10:45

Carthagians are good. Ottomans, gooood. Celts and their garlic warriors? Goood. Vikings? They're nice. The others? Haven't tested them and their traits.

Flanker · April 16, 2003, 13:10

I´ve only played with Spanish myself, and they were rather nice. I guess the UU is a really great one if you are playing on huge maps.

However, I think the new civs might be a little bit too many with exp-traits. I myself am not convicted about the pros with exp, so I'm really not that eager to try them.