01-08-2002 08:47									#1
	Need information for making a mod... Enter the AD-FREE zone

I am making a mod, and I want to know:

1) What civilization do you usually play as AND WHY?
2) What difficulty level do you play AND win on?
3) What civilizations do you consider as weak AND WHY?

(Please answer these questions coherently and give full explanations as to why. I posted this in the strategy forum because I think you people will have better insights as to tricks and loopholes and the like. Thanks in advance.)

When you vote, vote for the civilization you use most often. In my mod, I am going to attempt to keep the civs unique, yet try to add some balance so that you may be tempted to try civilizations that you consider weak at the moment.

	01-08-2002 14:07									#2
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

1) Egypt - fast workers and cheap temple! Also, their relatively poor UU can work to your disadvantage since you can save up using it for when you really want to have your GA. I play China a lot too .... any industrious Civ really, but Egypt are my favourites.

2) Regent. I just moved up to Monarch, but have only played one game.

3) Babylon are the weakest IMHO. They are always so small and culture-focused that I simply roll over them whenever I want to. England are very weak also, and to a lesser degree Russia and India. The non-militaristic and non-industrious Civs are the easiest to fight against.

	01-08-2002 14:34									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

This should be a multichoice poll.

1) I don't play any civ "usually". I play them almost all. Which one I prefer in a given game, depends on map size, shape of the land, world age and on the goal I want to achieve. 2 civs I did not play so far, and probably never will: Aztecs (too early GA) and English (traits and UU suck). Abstain. No vote from me.

2) Flipping between Monarch and Emperor. I won at Deity, but don't consider these games fun. I'm neither a masochist nor a genius.

3) The English are probably the weakest. If talking about AI civs, all expansionist civs except the Iroquois are usually weak, because the AI doesn't handle this trait well.

	01-08-2002 14:51									#4
	Got spare money?

Germans. Reason, Panzers.

	01-08-2002 14:56									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I concur with Sir Ralph, this should have been a multichoice poll. But to give some input, I voted the

1. Persians, because industrious / scientific is about as powerful as ind / rel, and their UU is unbeatable, Immortals rock! (If you have iron, that is. It wouldn't be the first time you're stuck with a horse-rush because you have plenty of horses, but no iron). Egypt is a close second. And every industrial civ is good, IMHO.

2. Emperor. But after the MT MV is finished, I'll start with deity and keep the Emperor level for scenarios only.

3. weakest AI civ? It depends... but the English are no good most of the time. Babylon is normally also weak, but if they are in a good position, they can become powerful as culturally inferior civs lose their cities to them.

DeepO

	01-08-2002 23:51									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Thanks for the input guys. Sorry I didn't make it a multichoice poll, but the input is more what I was looking for anyways.

So far, England needs some serious help to be enticing, and the Babylonians are supposedly weak as well. Personally, I find Babylon a good rush civilization, though since the original Civilization, the AI has never done well with them. I think they are actually a pretty decent civ for a human to control though.

Thanks again, and keep up the discussion on weakness. Not just per civ, but per attribute or per UU such as expansionist or the Man-O-War.

	01-08-2002 23:53									#7
	Inflate your Upload Space

I almost missed the Aztecs. I agree that they are a rather weak civilization. What if I made the Jaguar Warrior replace the swordsman as a 3.2.2? Would that help, Sir Ralph?

	02-08-2002 00:26									#8
	Increase Your PM Length

D'oh! Did somebody say my Aztecs were weak?

-=Vel=-

	02-08-2002 00:49									#9
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx D'oh! Did somebody say my Aztecs were weak? -=Vel=-

Are you really good with the Aztecs or something? If so, please tell me and I won't change them. I can see some nice bonuses...like you nearly get the expansionist bonus with those Jag Warriors...though huts aren't as good and you don't get a free one to start with.

	02-08-2002 00:58									#10
	Suffering from ads?

1. I'm playing random about every game. My long-time sentimental favorites are Egypt and Japan, China trying to break in and make it a threesome. Egypt: industrious, religious, great UU for timing GA (bad UU for actually using ). Japan: religious, militaristic, great UU. China: industrious, militaristic, great UU.

2.

quote: Originally posted by Sir Ralph 2) Flipping between Monarch and Emperor. I won at Deity, but don't consider these games fun. I'm neither a masochist nor a genius.

Exactly what Sir Ralph said. I have more fun at Emperor and Monarch.

3. If weak when played by the human, then I find England to be a challenge (maybe 1.29f's tweaks to commercial can help a bit?). I also find any expansionist civ more challenging if the random map / random barbarian generator doesn't cooperate. If weak when played by the AI, then I find the Zulu seem to always implode by the early industrial age - sometimes the Aztecs do as well. Often Germany's aggressiveness results in his elimination prior to panzers.

(Aztecs played by a human can be a very, very strong civ).

Catt

	02-08-2002 01:10									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

As the Aztec, if you start even reasonably close to two other civs (which happens the vast majority of the time on everything but 'pelago maps), you're set for the rest of the game.

Sir Ralph is right...the early GA sucks wind, and on the surface of it, a two-move warrior might not seem like much, but mobility trumps raw firepower every time in Civ3 (and more often than not, in real life). What is it about Panzers or MA that make them so awesome? Their firepower is impressive, but it's their movement that make them so awesome (same with Cavalry and the Chinese Rider...the thing that MAKES them powerful is their flexibility...and that, in large part in Civ3, is expressed in terms of movement points.

So....with the Aztec, you get:
* Benefits of being a Religious Civ (one of the strongest, and arguably THE strongest Civ Trait in the game)

* More Great Leaders than the norm (Militaristic)

* The crucial benefits of the Expansionist trait (popping goody huts faster than the bulk of your rivals, and even if they're barbs, you're militaristic! Those barbs = all but guaranteed promotions for your forces!)

* The crucial benefits of the Industrious trait (lots of early warfare = tons of slaves captured in the ancient age, when they're most important....and so what if they're only half speed workers? If you have sixty of them, you'll terraform like lightning!)

And best of all....you have a fast, slow-mover! What I mean by that is....you've got your Jags....a spiffy two-move unit that *upgrades* to the powerhouse slow-poke of the ancient age, the Swordsman. How cool is it to spirit your swordsmen to the battle with the speed of horsemen by not upgrading them till they get to the front? Yowza that's power!

-=Vel=-

	02-08-2002 01:14									#12
	Support Apolyton

Here is what I am thinking so far:

1) Greatly improve the Man-O-War stats. (make ironclads come later in tech tree as well)
2) Babs are fine as they are?
3) Possibly change the Jaguar Warrior to replace the swordsman with the stats: 3.2.2
4) Give swordsmen, Jaguar Warriors, Legionaries, and Immortals the marine ability.
3) Pikemen: 2.3.1
4) Musketmen: 3.4.1 (marine ability)
5) Musketeer: 5.4.1 (upgrades to Infantry)
6) Panzer: 18.8.3
7) swordsmen, Legionaries upgrade to Musketmen
8) Immortals upgrade to Riflemen
9) Jaguar Warriors upgrade to Mech Inf (very expensive upgrade of course )
10) Paratrooper: 10.12.1
11) Marine: 12.10.1
12) Cossack: 7.4.3
13) F-15: 10.6 | 4.7.2

Any suggestions for the Man-O-War stats?
I'm thinking: 4.3.4 | 3.1.2
And make the Ironclad come with Industrial tech.

	02-08-2002 01:51									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Vel,

You've made a good case for the Aztecs. Whether or not I change their UU to replace the swordsman largely rests on you. Do you think you would like to try it that way? If not, the Aztecs stay as they are. I just don't particularly like the way they are set up as a civ, but I realize that different people adopt different strategies. Also, it would be good not to have swordsmen replacement overkill.

	02-08-2002 01:59									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

A two-move swordsman?

If you asked me what is the best UU in the game, I would offer the 3-1-2 Mounted Warrior. Can you imagine what a Mounted Warrior with extra defense would do to balance?

	02-08-2002 01:59									#15
	Got spare money?

I would *really* hate to be the guy who got squeezed between the Aztec and Iroquois on this map!

-=Vel=-

	02-08-2002 02:06									#16
	Got spare money?

Ohhhh the pressure!

If you ask me, the Aztec are plenty powerful as they are. If they had a well-timed GA on top of their other advantages, they'd be a runaway, nearly unstoppable civ. As it is, if you start next to them in MP, and the player controlling them is aggressive, the only prayer you have is if you're playing Japanese, build your capitol on a river, torque your research to max, and grab horsemen before they overrun you.

-=Vel=-

	02-08-2002 02:09									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Like Sir Ralph and Catt, I play on Monarch and Emperor. I normally play on standard size maps.

My favorites:

Egypt (two best traits in the game)
Japan (one of the two best + militaristic for leaders)
China (ditto)

I intend to give the Aztecs a thorough try at some point, as I like the traits... but I still am not big on the ultra-early GA.

Back when I played on Regent, I loved Babylon, but haven't played them in a while.

The relative strength and weakness of civs does depend on map settings, playstyle and difficulty level (for instance, the "scientific" trait is really nice on the lower levels, but gets less and less effective the higher you go). Militaristic isn't useful for a builder, but is awesome for a warmonger who knows what he's doing.

For me, the weakest civs are:

England (duh. terrible trait combo, terrible UU)
Zulu (exp/mil not a good combo of traits. UU good but a bit early for my taste)
Germany (so-so traits at best... but if you're in decent shape when Panzers roll around )
Russia (damnit, expansionist civs are really hard to rank, due to the fact that exp. can be great or total crap depending on the map. Cossacks are ok)

Leave the Jag Warriors alone. Anything more than 1.1.2 would be overpowering for a 10 shield unit.

Cossacks are solid units, but not great. The timing, however, is pretty damn good. One possible change: make them 6.4.2. "all terrain as roads"

Most of these civs are weak, IMO, because of their traits, not their UUs. I dunno how you fix that.

-Arrian

	02-08-2002 02:11									#18
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Vel,

Re:

quote: If you ask me, the Aztec are plenty powerful as they are. If they had a well-timed GA on top of their other advantages, they'd be a runaway, nearly unstoppable civ.

You just described Japan. I rest my case.

-Arrian

	02-08-2002 02:21									#19
	Got spare money?

Okay, so I'll keep the Aztecs the way they are. The way I would improve the other civs is...well....too bad for them.

England...much better UU good on water maps...sucks on land maps...not much I can do to help them there.

Zulu....we'll just leave them as is so that if you want a challenge you can pick them.

Germany...improved their UU....see above.

Russia...improved their UU...again, see above.

I know you said that the traits, not the UUs, were the problems for these civs...but the only way you can really make them better without changing their traits is to give them some irresistible UUs.

Last edited by Dimorier Maximus on 02-08-2002 at 02:27

	02-08-2002 02:24									#20
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Yep...and you'll note that Japan is the ONLY civ I would regard as having much hope of surviving in the very early game vs. the Jags.

The Greeks...yeah, they could survive, but they'd only have about 25% of the cities that the Aztec would have, cos they'd have to play turtle to pull it off...doable, but they'd be hobbled.

But if Japan got a little lucky with the timing thing, and the Aztec player "went the other way" with his initial explorer, then the Japanese just might be able to fight fire with fire....

-=Vel=-

	02-08-2002 03:09									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Iroquois
Emperor
English and Babs (and to a lesser extent, the americans and romans)

	02-08-2002 06:13									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 2. Emperor. But after the MT MV is finished, I'll start with deity and keep the Emperor level for scenarios only.

Mini Tourney 2005 you say?

Well DeepO, looks like you're going to be playing on Emperor for a very, very long time to come!

	02-08-2002 06:57									#23
	Inflate your Upload Space

Another little typo... I should be more careful here, it seems

DeepO

	02-08-2002 16:13									#24
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus I almost missed the Aztecs. I agree that they are a rather weak civilization. What if I made the Jaguar Warrior replace the swordsman as a 3.2.2? Would that help, Sir Ralph?

Sorry, I was absent yesterday...

I did not say that the Aztecs are weak. I never would, I fear the wrath of Vel . They are even pretty strong if played the right way. I said, that I don't like them for their early GA. It's just too early, when I have only 1-2 undeveloped cities. This handicap is IMHO not balanced by the good UU.

	02-08-2002 17:59									#25
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by DeepO Another little typo... I should be more careful here, it seems

Nah, Bambul should, as MV would be 1005 .

	02-08-2002 18:41									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

That one I can't blame on a typo, I should have noticed it! Well, let's say it was getting late (4 am), is that considered an excuse?

DeepO