 |
| |
|
|
E_T
|
 |
Orlando, Florida
Mar 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
The Iroquios are good, IMHO.
But, let's take a look at our "Luck" when getting starting Positions. Frankly, they have S@cked...So, it's good to have A trait that can help us take advantage of any lousy starting position that we might be given. And the Ag trait would greatly help in that situation.
No matter what Civ we take, we will be the one to beat, that is a FACT. So, we need to look more at the Units that we will need to compete, atleast during the early game. Granted, having to depend on any Resource is a risk, but we need to be able to "project" power early on and that would be with the help of a powerful & fast unit. The MW fits most of those needs.
If you want to be able to fight effectively against a smart opponent, you need to be able to catch him.
Being able to get "Slaves" isn't really that good, as you need pairs of them to even do anything within a reasonable time frame.
My choices are Iro, May, Per & Carthage (Ind & Sea; Num Warr 2/3/1 30su), in that order. I might change my last 2 choises.
E_T
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
RegentMan
|
|
I'd have to pick either the Iroquois or the Celts. They're both agricultural and have pretty good UUs. A stack of mounted warriors or Gallic swords is pretty much a death threat (learned that the hard way). Being religious, the Celts also allow you to switch governments at only a two turn anarchy; a nice advantage if our republic needs to become a monarchy for war. As the Mayans in CFC, they didn't turn out to be as decisive as everyone thought. The javelin throwers are slow and cost 50% more than the archer that it replaces (costs 30 shields). Odds are that you'll get a worker only 1/3 of the time. The arguments for Sumeria are also good, thus my top three choices are:
1. The Celts (AGR/REL) (3/2/2 40 shield sword)
2. The Iroquois (AGR/COM) (3/1/2 horse)
3. The Sumerians (AGR/SCI) (1/2/1 warrior)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ormuzd
|
|
3/2/2 swords means no need for spearmen and better protected army
|
|
| |
|
|
|
RegentMan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by E_T
* E_T has a question for the former team members of other teams....What and why did you all pick the Civs that you did in the other games? |
CFC went Maya mainly for the reasons posted in this thread: agricultural and industrious, and a worker-generating UU. However, like I posted before, the UU isn't all that and a bag of potato chips. If we're going to be attacked, I'd rather have 3/2/2 swords running around than 2/2/1 archers.
Plus, ormuzd makes an outstanding point. My preference is now as follows:
1. The Celts
2. The Iroquois
I wonder if we're going to have any competition from CDZ and CGN for these civs?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
RegentMan
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Krill
Advantage of the MW is that you only need one of either horses or iron to have a 3 attack unit, so you aren't putting all of your eggs in one basket. |
Hmm... a great point for the Iroquois. I can live with either civ choice.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Donovan Zoi
|
|
The only way I would consider the Iroquois is if we agreed to engage in early conquest of at least one civ. The disadvantage here is that we would gain an early reputation, but we also may be able to use our exceptional diplo skills to strongarm an alliance with a team that has no interest in fighting us.
If we wait to long to utilize the MW, we are then susceptible to just about any other mobile unit. And in the finals, most of the teams present will likely opt for mobility.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Donovan Zoi
|
|
I still can't help but make another plug for the Religious trait.
1. We will be able to switch governments at will.
2. After only 10 shields, we can pop-rush early Temples for cultural and defensive advantage (less mobility for rival attackers), and only lose 1 pop point. The 20-turn happiness problem is covered by the new Temple.
3. Cheap Cathedrals would give us an opportunity for unrivaled growth. Paired with cheap Aqueducts via the Agricultural trait (Celts), we could grow large fairly quick.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kloreep
|
 |
of the pillow
Jun 2002
time: 00:18
|
|
Can't speak for others, but to me, temples are like expensive luxury sliders. Either you spend 30 shields on a temple and add 1 to the max pop, or you use the lux slider to devote a commerce to luxuries and add 1 to the max pop without paying 30 shields. Only once you've expanded enough for the luxury slider to become wasteful due to the lack of city-specific settings, and/or have built Markets and Libs to make devoting money to the luxury slider wasteful, do you really need temples.
And yeah, that's probably a cause for our low scores, along with tight city spacing.
As for Religious, I like it too, and the cheap happiness buildings+cheap aquas do allow you to build large cities quickly. However, Ag+Sci is also a powerful combination of improvement bonii.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sipahi
|
|
Aachen-Germany
Jul 2003
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
There is no such civ in Civ3, as far as I know.
|
You can replace an unneeded civ with them in epic games. It might be possible for PBEM's too. See here
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ormuzd
|
|
we have gained exactly one city from CDG although we had much stronger army than them. I don't believe we will get any cities.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-05-2005 06:20
|