LOL Germans are retardedly good if you rush a bunch of production heavy cities and crank out shitloads of warriors and when you’re finally ready just research Iron Working and watch them all turn into Legions immediately.
Civ has always been a top-notch franchise. I’ve never played any of Sid Meier’s other games, but I started with Civ I (SNES version) and they’ve been classy ever since. As far as turn-based strategy games goes, there’s really no comparison. I liked the Indian Civ for fast workers, but since Beyond the Sword I’ve been playing Byzantine since Justinian shares my name (kind of).
Also, we need some Civ IV tiers up in here. This is SRK after all.
If you’re talking about multiplayer (which is sort of lame for Civ), I’d say it’s like this:
Top Tier: Financial leaders like Elizabeth, Hannibal, etc. Practically unlimited money for tech-rape (since you should be building mostly cottages). Most other Financial leaders are pretty good. Creative and Charismatic are pretty strong traits as well.
As far as units go, Catapults and Axemen are top tier. If you hit the necessary tech for cats/axes before your opponents do, it’s pretty much game over.
Completely off topic, but you are right. Advance Wars is incredibly awesome. Except the last one. I like my war cute and cartoony goddammit.
There are. They only come out in force on the higher difficulty levels though.
Haven’t played the Civ IV expansions, but I definitely think that India is the top-tier for the vanilla version. Fast workers are just too good.
I do agree with you, but you could also throw in Praetorians as well, they are pretty beastly if you have early access to Iron.
Yeah…the thing is, just being able to improve tiles quickly isn’t THAT big of an advantage imo. Improving tiles and building roads is important, but I think a bigger factor is simply just putting your towns in better places. Plus…you only need 2 workers or so per city…wasting your turns building more workers than that is pretty risky, considering fast workers are still just defenseless workers. Especially if your opponents have scary units like…
…these guys. Almost forgot about the Praetorians, those dudes alone make the Romans worth playing. They’ve also got that “oh shit,” effect when you see them at your border. :lol:
It’s why I cry when I don’t have early access to Iron when playing against my friends 
Ive never played any Civ games yet but they do look cool. This caught my eye. Why is it kind of lame ? If you look at almost every other RTS game, playing against the CPU is kind of stupid. In Age 1, the CPU can be retarded broken if you give them Egyptian, Babylonian, or Yamato because their priests are just insane with their conversions and the cpu can get some retarded safe micro going. Not saying the CPU cant be beat because they can if you grind for a few hours, but the game really shines in RM multiplayer. Just wondering why Civ doesnt really lend itself to multiplayer.
financial trait is definitely op in civ4, at least vs cpu. shit, weren’t there half-price banks in previous patches/versions? cottage spam is so mindless it’s great. all it takes is a couple of flood plains or riverside grasslands…
on that note, I don’t really see how fast workers push india over the other civs in vanilla either. granted, spiritual is just as ridiculous as financial and faster chops (when trees gave you more hammers too) mean faster axes, but in the grand scheme of things, I’d take praets any day of the week. hell, quechua rush even. you’re never really in a hurry to improve tiles during any part of the game (chop chop chop being the exception) and hooking up hill resources one turn earlier isn’t exactly game-breaking.
cathy was financial/creative, right? 18 strength cossacks used to ream EVERYTHING before the bts nerf, plus you’d pretty much have military tradition a 1000 turns before the cpu did because of financial
For me its because the matches play way too long. It’s alright when I have an entire afternoon to blow and good friends to play against, but nothing is worse than getting ragequitted when you have like 3 hours or more invested into the game.
Yeah that’s a pain in the ass, its why I usually play with friends, if they wanna leave you can just save it and come back. That and it’s funny as hell to hear them swear at me when I rush them early on
Weird. Age 1 RM games usually last 45 mins + every time. Unless you’re playing against someone who knows how to tool bowmen / axeman rush well, the game lasts a while. If you get two good players or a 2v2/3v3 game going, the game can go on for 2+ hours. When it gets to Iron and you’re both struggling for resources, I’ve seen and played 4 hour games (gg jihad villagers). Its all about pride baby.
That was for Civ 4. CivRev games go a LOT quicker, which is one of the better qualities of the game.
Wow, sorry for the thread necro, but I just saw that Civ 5 is in development and is supposed to be out this fall. I wonder if it’ll be good, and I wonder if I’ll be able to play it