The most "well balanced" civs

[Panag]

Originally posted by pedrojedi
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...

hi ,

make about a dozen or starts with the US at random and see the start , ....

they get 9 out of 10 a good start with food and shields , with at least one lux nearby and at least one important resource like aluminium , oil , uranium etc , .....

have a nice day

[bobbo008]

pardon my language, but they are all too damn alike.

[peterfharris]

I do not think are all so alike.

if I do use Expansionist then I miss all those goodies and the exploring and early contact and tech whoring during the Ancient Age. If I do not use Religious I miss the cheap religious buildings, the faster culture and the one turn of anarchy all through the game. If I do not use commercial I am missing that by the Industrial Age if not earlier. I always miss Industrious at least until I have all squares improved and railways all over the place.

I prefer Industrious and Religious.

[peterfharris]

Originally posted by Flanker
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.

I think there are too many civs with the expansionist trait. I think that the more expansionist civs there are then the less the expansionist trait is worth.

My reasoning is that the more expansionist civs there are the more likely it is that someone else will find a goody hut before you do thus reducing the potential gains from goody huts.

More expansionist civs mean it is more likely that someone else will be first to make contact with a particular civilisation and be first to trade techs making it less likely that you will have a tech that civilisation wants.

Umh, expansionist is an extremely strong trait if you happen to be the only expansionist civ on a large continent. OTH If there are say three other expansionist civs on your continent the benefits of expansionist are severely reduced.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

make about a dozen or starts with the US at random and see the start , ....

they get 9 out of 10 a good start with food and shields , with at least one lux nearby and at least one important resource like aluminium , oil , uranium etc , .....

have a nice day

Panag, how many times do I have to tell you that starting position does not have anything to do with the civ you choose!!

There is no mathematical evidence to prove it, the last time you said this I actually went in and chose the US and played 10 starts and some of them were very crappy just like any other civs. I have therefore seen no evidence to prove that the US get's better starts just because they are the US.

Now I admit that the US is a wonderful civ on huge maps, perhaps the best, no doubt about that at all.

But saying that the US gets better starting positions than the rest... c'mon.... we know you LOVE and WORSHIP the U.S.A. for whatever reason but don't bring your bias to the game's technical aspects.

[Master Zen]

As for most balanced civs I would have to go with those with the industrious trait. Industrious is just so overwhelmingly better than any other that any civ with this one is miles ahead.

My choice:

1. Egypt
Ok, so their UU isn't that good (although you can hoard it for knights later) but the rel/ind combo is IMO by far the best in SP

2. France and Carthage
The Numidian is an AWSOME unit, the Musketeer not so much though its attack power is decent. I'd choose Carthage for MP and France for SP as the Ind/Com trait is the 2nd best to me. Great for large maps too

3. China
The warmonger civ of choice. Good on both MP and SP

4. Persians and Ottomans
Awsome Ottoman UU for SP, though may come too late in MP, but ind/sci still helps. Persia definietly better in MP.

5. USA
Best for huge maps.

Non-industrial civs worth mentioning are the mil/rel combo of which there are three Aztecs, Japanese and Celts. I prefer the Aztecs in MP, and the Japs in SP.

Iroquois are damn good in MP, the mounted warrior is amazing.

Worst civs: India, England and the worst of them all: KOREA.

[WhiteBandit]

Well despite having good starting spots or not, a starting spot in a map is not what makes a team balanced. That would make a team "lucky"

[Mad Bomber]

Master Zen:

I like the list but I would replace France (a CIV I despise both in CIV and in real life) with Babylon ( a great civ in CIV 3)

I for one do not want a defensive UU and Babylon has better traits.

I am not sold on Carthage but I will amit than in the ancient age a swarm of Numidian Mercs could do some serious damage to a civ's trade network ( the impi is better at this because of their high movement)

[Master Zen]

Mad Bomber:

I am not a big fan of Babylon as they are not industrial but the beauty of this game is that everyone finds civs to suit their style.

I played a huge/emperor game with France a while ago and the Musketeer was actually rather usefull to pick off units. Definietly not as good as the Numidian but not too shabby either. Anyway, I like France because of its ind/com combo not because of its UU. One big advantage though of its UU is that it comes at a much better time than the Merc. A GA in the medieval age is worth much more than in the ancient era.

Anyway, give France a try on a huge map (even if you despise them) and I'm sure you will be at least satisfied.

[Arrian]

France (or Carthage) is, IMO, actually the most "balanced" civ for large/huge maps, not the Americans (who are definitely very "good" on those maps).

Expansionist can be very powerful, but it is - to a degree - a gambler's trait. Sometimes you strike it rich with the huts, sometimes you don't. The benifits of quickly uncovering the map and meeting other civs, however, pretty much applies to every game.

Commercial, OTOH, is the stealth trait. No one really has a good sense of just how good (or crappy) it is, because of the way the trait works. It would take a huge effort to try and quantify its power (and you might go through that effort and be way off). Anyway, on a huge map, the 25% boost to the OCN is quite a few cities. The extra gold per city REALLY adds up. Add in the powerful industrious trait (which pretty much always rocks, but really really rocks on larger maps) and you have an excellent (and flexible) combo.

-Arrian

[Panag]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Panag, how many times do I have to tell you that starting position does not have anything to do with the civ you choose!!

There is no mathematical evidence to prove it, the last time you said this I actually went in and chose the US and played 10 starts and some of them were very crappy just like any other civs. I have therefore seen no evidence to prove that the US get's better starts just because they are the US.

Now I admit that the US is a wonderful civ on huge maps, perhaps the best, no doubt about that at all.

But saying that the US gets better starting positions than the rest... c'mon.... we know you LOVE and WORSHIP the U.S.A. for whatever reason but don't bring your bias to the game's technical aspects.

hi ,

try for yourself , ....

nope , personal feelings have nothing to do with the choice of the civ , .....

panag does not love and worship the USA , ...

and panag is not "biased"

have a nice day

[Master Zen]

Umm.... I've tried it, and no, I see no relation

BTW my best starts happen to be with the Ottomans but I truly doubt that the game forces this civ to get better starts, I don't know what gives you that idea. Just one big major coincidence.

[Arrian]

Coincidence, panag.

-Arrian

[Mad Bomber]

Arrian and Master Zen:

I am not a big fan of the Commercial trait as this trait only benefits my CIv after I have already established my 'up' phase. Sure the reduced corruption is a help but its not going to help me establish my dominance over the other civs. Carthage and France both suffer from a UU that is only useful as a defender or as a pillager and attacker of teh weak and defenseless. Babylon OTOH has a UU that is a defender and an attacker, has reduced costs for temples and libraries, and gets a free tech each age! Oh yes, there is that little benefit of switching between governments at will

As for the Americans, I play with a modded game and I should note that my F-15 is not the wimp of the default game.

As starting positions, the civ makes no difference. All my starts are crappy I just learn to live with them.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by nationalist


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

No, silly.

It means you're a homosexual.

[Theseus]

I'm with Arrian on the best civs for huge maps. Expansionist is a gamble, but commercial and industrious are exponential.

I'm just finishing off AU 207 (huge map) as Carthage... let me tell you, my empire is insane. Wait for the AAR.

[Master Zen]

My last huge game was with France and my empire was insane too. France was an excellent choice as I got my GA during the medieval era and it really helped.

France and Carthage rule.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Theseus
I'm with Arrian on the best civs for huge maps. Expansionist is a gamble, but commercial and industrious are exponential.

I'm just finishing off AU 207 (huge map) as Carthage... let me tell you, my empire is insane. Wait for the AAR.

hi ,

"huge" being 256X256

have a nice day

[twoflower]

my definition of huge= 362X362

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by twoflower
my definition of huge= 362X362

oh, that is too hard to pass up, but I will.



I have been playing more and more with egypt, their traits allow so much flexibility. Start with egypt on some flood plains and the game is over.

my second civ are the iroquios. I love them, not as much as I used to, but still a warm place in my heart. But I've found that I used their UU as a crutch early in my games and have tried to move away from that.

[Panag]

Originally posted by twoflower
my definition of huge= 362X362

hi ,

who-ah

have a nice day

[Master Zen]

One turn on that map would take like 30 minutes on mi lowly P3 500...

[Panag]

Originally posted by Master Zen
One turn on that map would take like 30 minutes on mi lowly P3 500...

hi ,

, maybe not , it depends , .... ram , programs you use , etc , ....

firewall's can slow it also down , especially if they are running in the background , ....

have a nice day

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Fatalis2

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 !).

The reason Egypt did not come out on top in this evaluation is that the value of its War Chariots was seriously underestimated. Granted, unit for unit, WCs are not spactacular. But on most terrain, WCs provide the same attack and defense as horsemen at two thirds the cost. That means that for the same cost in shields, you can build one and a half times as many of them as you could horsemen. Shield for shield, that makes the WC one of the most potent UUs in the game - equal to the Iroquois Mounted Warrior in terms of attack value per shield.

A value of "3" was defined as "excellent defensive UU’s or good attacking UU’s that can retreat and upgrade." Cost for cost, the WC has to be considered a good attacking UU, and it can in fact both retreat and upgrade. Therefore, I contend that its proper value is 3, not 1.

With that adjustment, Egypt's total moves up from 14,5/20 to 16,5/20, giving it the title of "most well-balanced civ" by a full point.

[Arrian]

Good point, Nathan.

Lots of people undervalue the WC. I did at first, too. Now I understand its power. Numbers. Sheer numbers. Think the inverse of the Gallic Swordsman.

-Arrian

[Master Zen]

I've never undervalued the WC, however, I still don't think it's strengh is comparable to other units like the Mounted Warrior. I would rather spend 50% more on a unit which has a better chance to defeat any ancient era unit.

Wars with WCs against fortified Mercs or Hoplites... not fun. MWs can even the odds.

Still, WCs are VERY good, don't get me wrong... one of the best UUs...

[nbarclay]

Master Zen, I agree 100% that I'd rather have my attack value per shield in a more concentrated form. And taking WCs up against Hoplites or Numidians is not my idea of fun either. Those reasons, plus the terrain difficulties, are why I give WCs a 3 rather than a 4. But MWs, Riders, Ansars, and maybe Sipahi are the only UUs I can think of offhand that I'd clearly rather have than WCs in a SP game. (I'd definitely prefer Sipahi if it weren't for the late GA.) So I think any rating less than a 3 on a scale from 1 to 4 seriously underestimates their value.

[Panag]

Originally posted by nbarclay


The reason Egypt did not come out on top in this evaluation is that the value of its War Chariots was seriously underestimated. Granted, unit for unit, WCs are not spactacular. But on most terrain, WCs provide the same attack and defense as horsemen at two thirds the cost. That means that for the same cost in shields, you can build one and a half times as many of them as you could horsemen. Shield for shield, that makes the WC one of the most potent UUs in the game - equal to the Iroquois Mounted Warrior in terms of attack value per shield.

A value of "3" was defined as "excellent defensive UU’s or good attacking UU’s that can retreat and upgrade." Cost for cost, the WC has to be considered a good attacking UU, and it can in fact both retreat and upgrade. Therefore, I contend that its proper value is 3, not 1.

With that adjustment, Egypt's total moves up from 14,5/20 to 16,5/20, giving it the title of "most well-balanced civ" by a full point.

hi ,

agreed but they trigger the GA early , to early for most of the people , and if you use them , nine out of ten the cities you bring them up against are empty with almost nothing in them , ......

then again on deity they can usefull at the early stages , they are good for going after a wonder the AI has build while in fact you could have used it , ....

have a nice day

[nbarclay]

The GA timing issue was broken out into a separate category, so it would be unfair to penalize Egypt a second time for the role its UU plays in untimely GAs. (GA already just got a one out of three in GA timing.)

But if you beeline for Monarchy (aided by Egypt's religious nature) and start a WC attack the moment you get it, Egypt's GA timing can be pretty good. You can either build massive numbers of WCs to romp all over your neighbors in whatever time is left before Feudalism or start building city improvements to leverage for a more productive civ after the GA is over - or some of each, perhaps massing WCs in the early part of the GA and switching to infrastructure later.

[Master Zen]

An added advantage of a later Egypt GA like nbarclay says is that the mass of surviving WCs can later be upgraded into Knights. Use the GA for science and building, then switch to $$ just before Chivalry and suddenly you have the most powerful mounted force in the planet and with the infrastructure to back it up.

/me is a big fan of horseman/WC hoarding