gold edition is definitely worth it. This game runs
so smooth that i almost forget that i'm playing a computer
game.
Anyway, I'm beginning to have a grasp of the basic elements
of the game. I've played full games with the babylonian,
egyptian, persian, roman, shang, and yamato.
my favorite unit so far is the scythe chariot, and i've
seen many posts which point out the benefits of this
unit, mainly the 0 gold cost.
my opinion was originally that Egypt is among the stronger
civs because its improved scythes and CA don't cost
any gold, and any gold which is mined by their +20
peasants can be used to make +3 priests.
but then i realized the value of Cavalry, in that it
doesn't require research of the Wheel, and are heftier
fighters than chariots. So now i'm looking for an element
of compensation for the slower development of Egypt.
4-player free-for-all matches with the computer have been
a challenge for me, until i played the roman and
babylonian civs. because they have such powerful towers,
even though the computer enemies were teamed up against
me, my defenses were able to hold up. this was
especially true with the Babylonians on a continental
map, with land bridges in between the continents.
i had great difficulty with the persians. athough my
priests could re-convert my elephants after they were
converted, they lost the +50% advantage which was the
reason i chose the persians. so i was forced to play
in a defensive mode with my priests acting as the backbone
of the army, slowly drawing converts from the phoenicians.
Yamato and shang were fun civs to play, but i only played
them in team matches. the only success i had with
free-for-all matches was with the babylonians and the
romans.
So now I'm still deciding on a 'favorite civ'. I'd like
to say the egyptians, but i realize they lack some key
elements which offset their advantage with chariots.
i really enjoyed playing the romans, but i didn't have
much opportunity to take advantage of their legions,
because i focused on chariots.
and yamato was pretty good, but i still missed the
chariots which they lack.
i've sure heard about hittite, minoan, phoenician, and
shang being the top 4 civs. is this true, or is it just
a myth?
i haven't tried hittite yet, but it seems their abilities
would suit my style of play. although they don't have
the extra hp chariots of egypt, they have horse archers
and catapults, both with extra abilities.
but rome seems to have a good selection, despite missing
range attack ability. because in defense the towers
make up for lack of range units. in offense, they
still have siege weapons and fast chariots.
so right now, my favorite 3 are egyptian, hittite, and
roman. egyptian because their armies are very economical.
is this good enough justification to make them a powerful
civ? as long as they can achieve solid development of
their chariots and priests.
hittite i haven't tried, but i just might like it, since
they have better balance of units than the egyptians.
i would probably enjoy the double hit points of their
catapults.
rome seems to have good economy and good balance of units,
but i'm still trying to grasp their offensive ability.
Because they could use legions or siege units, but no
archers.