 |
What civ should we choose?
This poll is closed. |
| Aztects |
   |
0 |
0% |
| Greeks |
   |
7 |
28.00% |
| Iroquois |
   |
7 |
28.00% |
| Persians |
   |
0 |
0% |
| Romans |
   |
6 |
24.00% |
| Zulus |
   |
0 |
0% |
| Carthaginians |
   |
1 |
4.00% |
| Celts |
   |
0 |
0% |
| Ottomans |
   |
0 |
0% |
| Vikings |
   |
0 |
0% |
| Hittites |
   |
0 |
0% |
| Sumerians |
   |
1 |
4.00% |
| Mayans |
   |
3 |
12.00% |
| Dutch |
   |
0 |
0% |
| Portuguese |
   |
0 |
0% |
| Total: |
25 voters |
100% |
|
|  |
 |
|
Donegeal
|
 |
Apolyton's Resident Law Enforcement Officer. Founder of the Glory of War, Champions of Apolyton!
Jul 2002 time: 05:33
|
|
Yes NYE the MW is a great UU, however, having it almost forces us to an agressive position. Would we go with the The Iroquois and play a defensive game? NO. We would be an the offensive and people will notice. And, like Togas said, our rep from game one will carry over to game two. If we go at game one with an agressive attitude, that a wild guess how we will be percieved in game two.
In my SP games, I have noticed an almost even distrubution between Horse and Iron (and IIRC, I do believe that the "number appearing" is greater, albiet not by much, for Iron than Horse). I also feel that whoever make the map, will not doom a team becasue of resource distribution. If we are going to go with a resource dependant UU, I think we should go with the one that lends itself to more options, the Roman Legion.
Additional resons to go with the Roman Legion over the Iroquois Mounted Warrior:
Warrior + Iron + 60 gold = Legion
Chariot + 30 gold = Mounted Warrior
However, once Horseback Riding is developed, the Chariot becomes obsolete and cannot be built. With the Roman Legion, we can pilliage our sorce of Iron and build up lots of cheap Warriors to upgrade once we reconnect. Gold is MUCH easier to come buy than Shields.
Rome also has the Military trait as opposed to the Agri trait. In this game where the REX period is not going to fill the land, being able to do so should not be a priority. OTOH, being able to build cheap barracks and get quicker promotions means a greater chance of a MGL. If we get just one MGL, we will be garunteed survival in the first game.
ROME ALL THE WAY BABY!!!!!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001 time: 22:33
|
|
quote: Originally posted by donegeal
PS- NYE, I am really enjoying debating you about this. Thanks. |
Cheers. Too bad I had to sign off.
I have been thinking about another factor. Small map... 5 civs... Lots of room... Better chance of securing all resources, Iron and Horses included.
Both Rome and Iroquois are Commercial, so they both benefit from better empires at size.
So, I think it comes down to the uber foot unit (3-3-1; I rate as more valuable than the Immortal when they trade blows) and Militaristic vs the cheap, fast attacker (3-1-2 and let the Earth be the drums beneath the hooves) with Agricultural.
Take the UUs off the table, because both are very good and resourses SHOULD be available.
Grow faster into the larger spaces available, or get faster promotions vs barbs and the probably farther away civs is what it comes down to.
I have to favour growth, because I have seen first hand and too often how big a crap shoot warfare is in these games. Humans are not the AI, and they will not oblige our leader generation desires if they can help it. The best defense, in my book, is to be a bigger bad ass than the next guy when he comes calling. Be 150% his size, and he will most likely leave you alone, or fail in trying to pull you down.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33. Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|