14-11-2002 09:41									#1
	No, we don't want the Iroquois! Tired of ads?

Same logic

Put all your thoughts in here, why we don't want them. IE, the negative aspects of the Iroquois

Again, all will be edited in this post (eventually)



to make things easier;
Yes, we want the Iroquois

Last edited by alva on 14-11-2002 at 15:40

	14-11-2002 13:42									#2
	Inflate your Upload Space

Negative aspects in my humble opinion:

Their UU (Mounted Warrior 3.1.2). Generally I have viewed the MW as a weaker unit who benefits from being able to retreat from battle and recover from damage, but also doesn't last long enough to make a hugely significant impact. We would have to use them en masse or in strong numbers for them to be lethal in battle. There isn't too much to complain about them, except that if they are attacked it doesn't matter what defense bonuses they get, they will generally be pummeled by units with a smaller attack ability.

Expansionist Trait .... Only really beneficial on pangea type maps where there is lots of territory to cover and lots of goodie huts to discover. If we get stuck on even a relatively large island away from a main continent then this trait would be to waste, and our scouts would be worthless. It's a case of whether the odds are in our favor or not.

Religious Trait Anyone got a problem with the religious trait? I don't really either. But I think it is not as helpful as industrial, scientific, commercial or militaristic. The ability to switch government types on a dime is helpful in certain cases, but I fear that again we're going to be playing against the odds this time.

Final decision: Well you know it wasn't my first choice; I'll go along with them if it's a majority, but I give this civ a 7 out of 10. I expect that not all share my sentiments for them.

	14-11-2002 15:05									#3
	Suffering from ads?

You are correct about the risk of an island start, but then we will be safe for a long while.

On Continents or Pangaea, these guys will rule.

I say it now. These guys will come to be the most sought after civ after long experience (much longer than mine) with MP and humans. They will outdo all the new civs.

They rule their small corner of the world early on in a warfare game. That's what really matters, because in Civ3 the winner on the field early will most often win the game.

	14-11-2002 15:39									#4
	Got spare money?

Mr. Prez; read topic!!!

serious: the idea is to have two different threads, and then to make a balance if it were.

If we do it in one thread, we probably get 4 or5 pages of posting ,that keep repeating it self.

So, in here only negative things, while in the other....

	14-11-2002 15:53									#5
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Iroquois suck. They bad. They come last season and steal my grain. Now I have no food. Baaad Iroquois.

Better?

	14-11-2002 15:55									#6
	Tired of ads?

That's the spirit

Now, try to make it just a little bit more constructive

	15-11-2002 01:22									#7
	THE CASE AGAINST THE IROQUOIS Suffering from ads?

Or, alternatively, the case FOR a couple of other civs...

First, the worries I have about the Iroquois:

#1: Expansionist trait on a normal size map is fairly weak. Yes, scouts can be quite useful, and we could get lucky with huts, but overall you have to admit this is more of a large/huge map trait.

#2: Lacking both industriousness and militarism, these guys take a while to "get going." Slow workers + 40-shield barracks and no bronze working to start translates into military vulnerability at the beginning.

Ok, enough of the negatives, because overall, I like the Iroquois, and I won't mind too much if they're our civ. Here are the two I would suggest instead:

First Egypt. Why?

1) Best trait combo in the game. I won't go into a discussion of the greatness of religious, because the Iroquois are too, so most people are cool with that trait. So, that leaves industrious. There are several reasons why this trait warrants a good, long look before choosing against it: a) 2x speed workers, b) a starting tech the AI loves, so good trade possibilities with the AI civs, c) extra shields as our cities grow.

2) Cheap ancient UU, the War Chariot. This is advantageous for three reasons: a) it's cheap, b) it's 1 tech away, c) Egypt is a powerful civ WITHOUT IT. So if we don't have horses right away, we're not screwed.

Egypt is perhaps the fastest early civ. By that I mean you can set up a productive empire with amazing speed. The only downsides are a lack of an overpowering UU (though in numbers lies strength) and full-price barracks, which hurt a bit in the beginning.

Second Persia. Why?

1) Strong trait combo. Industrious for the reasons set forth above regarding Egypt. Scientific provides BW to start (spears, 1 tech to iron), cheap research buildings and free tech per age.

2) Extremely powerful, if slow, UU. Personally, I like the MW better, but the Immortal is probably the #2 ancient UU.

The downside, of course, is the lack of religious... anarchy sucks, as do 60-shield temples.

Overall, my main opposition to the Iroquois comes from the lack of industriousness. That trait is sooooo powerful. The chances of expansionistic making up for its loss are low, IMO.

-Arrian

	15-11-2002 01:30									#8
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Going Expansionist is a gamble, I agree, and I suppose Egypt is a safer option ( I LOVE Egypt in SP).

I'm a supporter of Iroquois really, although I think any of the 3 Civs Arrian mentions (also my top 3) would be good.

It is worth mentioning that Expansionist is, even when at it's best, only a good trait in the Ancient Age (and only the first half of it really). Industrious, on the other hand, is a powerful trait for the whole game.

When we desperately want to put up a RailRoad network to fight a huge war in the Industrial Age while still maintaing high city population to crank out units we might begin to wish we had an Industrious civ.

We still have two weeks to choose (for the new boys: the game starts on 1 December) so we have plenty of time to thrash this out.

	15-11-2002 02:57									#9
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The more and more we discuss it, the more I'm thinking that we could pick a better civ. Especially due to the normal size map. Expansionist is not going to help us greatly on a map that small.

	15-11-2002 03:45									#10
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I gotta just say no to the Iroquois. Their UU makes them attractive, but we really need either Religoius or Industrious (or both!) to be a long term threat.

Expansionist isn't as strong as either Rel or Ind, excepting for on Huge Pangea maps, and the MW, while HUGELY potent in the ancient age, is only valuable vs. our continental rivals...by the time we could build enough MW's and galleys to use them elsewhere, their time would be drawing to a close.

Thus, I regard the Iroquois as a gambler's choice. Really, hatefully strong under the right circumstances, but under others, we're hosed before we get up and running good.

Safest choice: Egypt, but I suspect that everybody ELSE will suspect we'd go for egypt...no surprise value in that.

Other strong contenders: China, Japan, Germany (assuming that the sky's the limit where civ choices go).

-=Vel=-

	15-11-2002 03:47									#11
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx I gotta just say no to the Iroquois. Their UU makes them attractive, but we really need either Religoius or Industrious (or both!)

erm .... the Iroquois are Religious, mate.

	15-11-2002 03:49									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

To be fair, the Iroquois are Religious, so they do have one of the top two traits, plus a killer UU. But I think that in an MP game such as this, Industrious outweighs the UU, and I'm not impressed by the potential benifits of Expansionist.

I considered China and Japan, and could easily be talked into them, but militaristic is also a gamble. More of a calculated one, but still a gamble. Germany I just gotta disagree with. They have neither Rel nor Ind, and a late UU.

-Arrian

	15-11-2002 03:50									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

D'oh! This is true...

Well...I *DID* say I liked 'em pretty well....nonetheless, the points re: expansionist stand (despite my work-induced hallucinations about the Iroquois and their imagined traits! )

We can do better....

-=Vel=-

	15-11-2002 03:58									#14
	Inflate your Upload Space

The main reason I put Germany on the list tho, is because of their starting techs....true that they don't have either of the powerhouse techs, but....their starting position on the tech tree is *superb*

Don't get me wrong tho....if we opt for the Iroquois, I'll be cool with it, but I think we could do better. Does anybody know what map settings we'll be using? The answer to that question would cinch it in my head. If we're using a huge, pangea map, let's rock Iroquois style....if we don't know...it's dicey.

I would say that militaristic isn't really much of a gamble tho...of all the games I've ever played, I only got ONE island start where I was totally alone and not in range of neighbors via galleys, and on a continental start, I always had at least three neighbors.

Given those general trends, I'd say we can expect company, and prolly more than we want. Militaristic civ would prolly be WAY strong in this game.

-=Vel=-

	15-11-2002 03:58									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Good Discussion

I don't like Egypt's UU at all. Too short a life and too early a GA for my tastes.

I'm not so worried about the risks of expansionists, after all, what is life without a few risks. Even if it doesn't help us significantly, I am confident that we will have a strong game regardless. But the rewards are immense. a few free techs, a good idea of the map, early contacts, maybe a city or settler. Those are very appealing to me and outweigh the possible risks.

I agree that risks should be minimized but we should not be paralized by conservatism (not that I'm saying that's occuring now, more of a general comment)

	15-11-2002 04:00									#16
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Velociryx Don't get me wrong tho....if we opt for the Iroquois, I'll be cool with it, but I think we could do better. Does anybody know what map settings we'll be using? The answer to that question would cinch it in my head. If we're using a huge, pangea map, let's rock Iroquois style....if we don't know...it's dicey.

I believe its a standard sized map with all else random.

	15-11-2002 04:01									#17
	Inflate your Upload Space

For some reason, the MP'ers report, that expansionist is a very strong trait in MP (unless on Archipelago, that is).

It's probably the gamble about the early settler and the tech advances it can give us. The values of techs is vastly increased in MP, because tech whoring like in SP will hardly happen. Each ancient tech, especially the early ones is worth about 20-40 turns.

Also, the scout is a good and fast spy, who can cross an enemy border, look around and get out without the enemy takes notice. And luxuries and resources will be early reported.

A good start is the make or break in MP. And expansionist can grant it.

	15-11-2002 04:01									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Arrian I considered China and Japan, and could easily be talked into them

I think that the advantages of a good Ancient UU are so great in this game (we need to hit at least one human Civ very hard early on) that waiting until Knights to get our best unit might be waiting a little too long.

I could be talked into China or Japan too, however, they're excellent.

	15-11-2002 04:04									#19
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Vel, btw, I proposed the Germans to NYE too, in a PM, as a possible alternative. I'm a proponent of archer rushes and they are by far the best for this.

But they have an UU that comes too late for MP and they're not guaranteed to have a GA, like civs with early attacking UUs.

	15-11-2002 04:04									#20
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Sir Ralph For some reason, the MP'ers report, that expansionist is a very strong trait in MP (unless on Archipelago, that is). It's probably the gamble about the early settler and the tech advances it can give us. The values of techs is vastly increased in MP, because tech whoring like in SP will hardly happen. Each ancient tech, especially the early ones is worth about 20-40 turns. Also, the scout is a good and fast spy, who can cross an enemy border, look around and get out without the enemy takes notice. And luxuries and resources will be early reported. A good start is the make or break in MP. And expansionist can grant it.

In the few MP games I've played,the Iroq's have been very strong. Granted the were played by me The fast start is huge, the knowledge of landscape. the unit. all very strong mp.

	15-11-2002 04:05									#21
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by FrustratedPoet (we need to hit at least one human Civ very hard early on)

I think we should go for the AIs first. They are the easiest prey. If we won't take a big slice if this pie, the other human teams will, which is bad.

	15-11-2002 04:08									#22
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

well, you could be right. Of course, we might not have a choice. With 5 human and 3 AI then we might be boxed in by a couple of human civs.

Important general point (I know it's also obvious, but people like me need reminding so I'll post it before I forget):
We can't have a 'quick' war against a human Civ. They will not make peace and give us loads of techs like an AI would. If we start a war we must be prepared to finish it. There will be no oscillating war against the humans.

	15-11-2002 04:10									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by FrustratedPoet well, you could be right. Of course, we might not have a choice. With 5 human and 3 AI then we might be boxed in by a couple of human civs. Important general point (I know it's also obvious, but people like me need reminding so I'll post it before I forget): We can't have a 'quick' war against a human Civ. They will not make peace and give us loads of techs like an AI would. If we start a war we must be prepared to finish it. There will be no oscillating war against the humans.

Thats a very good point to keep in mind.

Have to strike and strike definitively.

Making Religious even more important to switch govs to avoid the WW.

	15-11-2002 04:12									#24
	Increase Your PM Length

True, FP, and another reason to go vs the AIs first.

We have to grow very fast very big. IMHO, that's the key for our victory. Helpers are attacking the AIs early and ... being expansionists.

	15-11-2002 04:39									#25
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Interesting thoughts.

Going into this, I'll tell you what scares me most: random settings. Think of all the bad cards we could get dealt... We need the most *flexible* civ, and to me that says Egypt.

The problem though, is that we ALSO need to have a first-level military tech, just in case!! And that means militaristic.

And if we have to give up religious or industrial, well it's buh-bye to the priests.

China.

	15-11-2002 04:55									#26
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I agree with the possibility of being the Chinese. But fear that their UU (Rider) may come in too late for us to use, because by that time there will most certainly be a war between at least ONE of the other human teams (whether with us or someone else).

The Japanese are very good too, and we would be virtually guaranteed a frequent line of Great Leaders...

Persia is great as well.

We need to decide soon, we have two weeks until game time.

	15-11-2002 04:57									#27
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I thought about this exclusively on the way home tonight, and here's the conclusion I reached.

Before we can settle on a civ, we MUST determine what traits "work best" with our assembled group.

If we're a bunch of warmongers, and we pick traits that do not play to that ability, then we work against ourselves.

Likewise, if we're a bunch of peaceniks, then the Militaristic ability will help us not at all.

Based on my reading here, and drawing conclusions FROM those readings, I think we can safely narrow the field to include any of the following civ traits, and prolly be okay:

Religious
Industrious
Militaristic
Expansionistic
*I have seen ZERO evidence in support of commercial in my reading here!

UU's are a bonus, but should not drive our thinking. For example, the Aztec give us a FINE, strong option....Militaristic AND Religious, plus the major benefits of the Expansionistic trait.

We can, by and large, control our GA, by deciding NOT to attack with our Jags, and simply using them to fulfill the same roles as scouts. They come with the added benefit of being "foot cavalry" (move them into position, build a --cheap!--barracks, and mass upgrade to sword once they're were we need them to be.

Very strong.

OTOH, as has been mentioned, the Iroquois DO have some attractive features. The MW is perhaps the most punishing UU in the ancient age, and mobility WILL win wars for us in MP, more often than brute force and massed slow movers.

Egypt has vast, superb peacetime flexibility, and is well suited to warring....also, the chariot ---> horsemen upgrade, sparing us from blowing our GA until we WANT it.

Germany = Archer rush from turn one. This implies activie hunting however, and is contingent on being near at least one AI (since an archer rush will be dicier against a human opponent unless we find him REALLY early).

China and Japan would round out my personal "top five" as their trait combinations are strong, and their slightly later UU's are superb.

If we picked ANY of these, I'd be a happy camper.



-=Vel=-

	15-11-2002 05:05									#28
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Hey, I just had a thought: Do we know difficulty level? What does that mean for the AI civs for the human players? I mean, if we're next to a human EARLY, and they don't have any unit advantage, shouldn't we Archer Rush the bastards into oblivion?

	15-11-2002 05:10									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Theseus makes an *excellent* point....Human players will have no production advantages....which means that the advantage WILL go to the Industrious player (faster mines = more production = more units). If we start next to a human opponent, we GOTTA make nice with the AI and take said human out, cos they'll be looking to do the same with us.

-=Vel=-
(and another excellent reason to have Industrious as one of our traits!)

	15-11-2002 05:13									#30
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Theseus Hey, I just had a thought: Do we know difficulty level? What does that mean for the AI civs for the human players? I mean, if we're next to a human EARLY, and they don't have any unit advantage, shouldn't we Archer Rush the bastards into oblivion?

Looks like its going to be monarch

theres a poll on the forum