 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
DeepO
|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:23
|
|
Without resorting to more spamming (thanks for the support, BTW  ), I have to reask the question of Arrian: why expansionist? I could agree it's not as weak as in SP, but still... on normal monarch maps I can't see the big advantage. There aren't that many barb huts anyway.
My choices would certainly be
1. either religious or scientific as a must (cheaper cultural buildings at least, some other benefits as well)
2. industrious (to be on the safe side)
3. militaristic (when going for a total war).
(4. commercial if they changed the cost of commercial buildings to be halved in PTW, otherwise it's less useful. corruption won't be a problem anyway (we have alexman  ), and that bit of extra gold only comes when you reach size 12 IIRC)
As to UUs: an ancient or early midieval UU certainly can be a big plus, but if you don't use it it's useless. E.g. immortals: they simply rock, and do that for a long time, but if you use them you need mountains of immortals, as you will lose plenty of them. If you're not focused on this, horsies can be a safer bet.
Of course I don't know about any of the new Civs yet, I expect the Celts to be a safe bet for their UU. Fast (so no need for so many of them), strong (beats everything, pikes included when you bring enough of them), defensive. They cost a lot, so when rushing you're likely to bring a mixed horsies / gaellic merc force, but every penny you gain can be put in updating another obsolete warrior.
Other UUs? The classics... WCs, MWs, immortals, Samurai. Riders are fun too, but I think the biggest advantage of the Chinese comes from their archers, not their UU.
So... either we fully go for using our UU, or we concentrate to have a balanced game were UUs aren't that important.
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DeepO
Without resorting to more spamming (thanks for the support, BTW ), I have to reask the question of Arrian: why expansionist? I could agree it's not as weak as in SP, but still... on normal monarch maps I can't see the big advantage. There aren't that many barb huts anyway.
|
good points about expansionist in MP
-huts always positive-more techs, maybe settler or city
-learn map quickly-humans will never trade us their map, so we must do all the work (along with the ai  )
---the most important thing here of course, is that we are likely to find our opponent much earlier than he will find us, due to the scouts 2 moves. means we can start gearing up for attack right away.
-early contact with other civs
I've played mp with the iroquois, and the trait is useful. I don't know how to quantify it, but that early knowledge of the land is so incredibly valuable in the game.
Of course, the key is that you have to use that early advantage, which is how the MW is so ideally situated to an exp civ.
Think of the power ofattacking a civ when he hasn't even found our cities?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-11-2002 17:54
)
, dutch being one of them(one of the difficult lingo in the world).
|