What is your favourite( And least favourite ) native civ alliance?
-
- Skirmisher
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Nov 30, 2018
What is your favourite( And least favourite ) native civ alliance?
I originally wanted to make it into another Top 5, but it proved harder then expected. Truth be told, how usefull a native civ actually is depends majorly on what civilization you are plaiyng as, what civilization you are plaiyng against, and the general map, to name a few. So, it would be kind of like triyng to make a actual Top 5 best civs: There just wouldnt be a way to awnser this objectivelly.
With that said: My favourite native civ would probably have to be the Sufi Mosques. I know War Elephants are ridiculously expensive, but... With the Native Treaty cards, you can get a squad of then out surprisingly quickly. At worst, you will be forcing your opponent to expend a lot of food and resources making heavy infantry, what can kind of ruin their day if their original plan was going for a Fast Fortress. Like all Native units, their useability on the Fortress Age onwards is questionable at best, but they can take a couple of niche roles. For a example: For the Sioux, they can take a bit of a role as building destroyers, as the Sioux lack a specialized building destroyer of their own and the War Elephant has decent speed and siege damage.
Other then that, the upgrades are decent too, though I will admit I never know when to use Pilgrimage, and I rarely find myself needing to use Sharia either( Although the latter can still be usefull on certain circunstances, especially for civilizations like the Dutch, Japanese, and the French, who normally have a lower villager limit. ) As for my least favourite: Hard to say... I want to say the Bhakti temple, though, but it is mostly because of just how weak Tiger Claws are. The actual upgrades are still acceptable.
With that said: My favourite native civ would probably have to be the Sufi Mosques. I know War Elephants are ridiculously expensive, but... With the Native Treaty cards, you can get a squad of then out surprisingly quickly. At worst, you will be forcing your opponent to expend a lot of food and resources making heavy infantry, what can kind of ruin their day if their original plan was going for a Fast Fortress. Like all Native units, their useability on the Fortress Age onwards is questionable at best, but they can take a couple of niche roles. For a example: For the Sioux, they can take a bit of a role as building destroyers, as the Sioux lack a specialized building destroyer of their own and the War Elephant has decent speed and siege damage.
Other then that, the upgrades are decent too, though I will admit I never know when to use Pilgrimage, and I rarely find myself needing to use Sharia either( Although the latter can still be usefull on certain circunstances, especially for civilizations like the Dutch, Japanese, and the French, who normally have a lower villager limit. ) As for my least favourite: Hard to say... I want to say the Bhakti temple, though, but it is mostly because of just how weak Tiger Claws are. The actual upgrades are still acceptable.
-
- Skirmisher
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Apr 7, 2018
- ESO: _Attaque_77_CARP
Re: What is your favourite( And least favourite ) native civ alliance?
Sufi Mosques. They are not ridiculously expensive. Compared with an Indian elephant they are very profitable. they do not have a 0.5 multiplier against villagers so they are very efficient to kill vills especially hunting groups.
respect to sharia with Dutch. The 10% increase in the population of villagers is based on the standard population of most civilizations (99 villagers). so instead of adding 5 vills (which would be the right. 10% of 50) sharia add 9 vills with Dutch
respect to sharia with Dutch. The 10% increase in the population of villagers is based on the standard population of most civilizations (99 villagers). so instead of adding 5 vills (which would be the right. 10% of 50) sharia add 9 vills with Dutch
-
- Skirmisher
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Nov 30, 2018
Re: What is your favourite( And least favourite ) native civ alliance?
For Colonial Age standarts, 200 food is ridiculously expensive :p.
It is indeed much cheaper then Mahout Lancers though. Anyway, on the Fortress Age, the cost does becomes much less of a limiter, but unfortunatelly, it is very vulnerable to light cavalry. More so even then other heavy cavalry due to its lower speed and ranged resistance.
It is indeed much cheaper then Mahout Lancers though. Anyway, on the Fortress Age, the cost does becomes much less of a limiter, but unfortunatelly, it is very vulnerable to light cavalry. More so even then other heavy cavalry due to its lower speed and ranged resistance.
-
- Skirmisher
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Apr 7, 2018
- ESO: _Attaque_77_CARP
- GiBthedurrty
- Lancer
- Posts: 744
- Joined: Mar 20, 2017
- Clan: YumiW
Re: What is your favourite( And least favourite ) native civ alliance?
LAKOTA and all others not cool
Re: What is your favourite( And least favourite ) native civ alliance?
hp nats combo, comanche and cheyenne, can be really strong
- JulyBurnsOrange
- Skirmisher
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Apr 20, 2017
- ESO: JulyBurnsOrange
- Location: Aurora, Ontario
- JulyBurnsOrange
- Skirmisher
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Apr 20, 2017
- ESO: JulyBurnsOrange
- Location: Aurora, Ontario
Re: What is your favourite( And least favourite ) native civ alliance?
But naw, id probably go with Cherokee and Cree as the best, just cause theyre skirms, which would be a really cool strat idea for civs without skirms that like age 2 play, like brits.
Also, the upgrades from both are pretty solid.
Worst is harder to say, cause there is some merit to all native alliances imo... Maybe Seminole just cause theyre always on the same maps as Cherokee lol
Also, the upgrades from both are pretty solid.
Worst is harder to say, cause there is some merit to all native alliances imo... Maybe Seminole just cause theyre always on the same maps as Cherokee lol
- GiBthedurrty
- Lancer
- Posts: 744
- Joined: Mar 20, 2017
- Clan: YumiW
Re: What is your favourite( And least favourite ) native civ alliance?
apache and navajo is also cool
Re: What is your favourite( And least favourite ) native civ alliance?
JulyBurnsOrange wrote:But naw, id probably go with Cherokee and Cree as the best, just cause theyre skirms, which would be a really cool strat idea for civs without skirms that like age 2 play, like brits.
Also, the upgrades from both are pretty solid.
Worst is harder to say, cause there is some merit to all native alliances imo... Maybe Seminole just cause theyre always on the same maps as Cherokee lol
Seminole give a 25% boost to archers. Do you know how good that is for aztec? Or sioux bow riders? Or yumi archers? Def not worst. Id say that Klamath is probs the worst. Its a really weak unit and the upgrades are weak.
The one i use most is carib. It's a very good unit and the upgrades are fantastic for lots of civs. The bonus against villies is great for aztecs (mace, erks, arrow knights are all archers). So cav archers, erks, bow riders(!) Become extremely effective raiders. The carib blowgunner gets an extra upgrade late game (feast warriors) of 50%! This stacks with attack dance for aztec which can help really late game to make up for mace being weak lategame and lower pop space (in treaty they can get over 63 attack, its crazy). They are also crazy tanky as well. The other upgrade is 10% attack to all archer and hand infantry units so its really really good for civs that use those units (coyote runners, cav archers etc.)
War elephants make a great rush unit in general as they are very strong units. Dutch especially can benifit from sufi because the villies and a strong heavy cav unit that they are lacking.
Im also a fan of apache. That villie bonus upgrade is so overpowered and a colonial dragoon unit is really really strong, esp vs germany or sioux. They are also good lategame as they are one of the very few native units that cost coin instead of wood, for civs with bad ranged cav (china, japan, otto).
Inca has a lot of bonuses and their units are strong too. The huamanica has crazy seige and the bolas do area damage at range so they are really effective at dealing with goon or musketeer masses. The train time bonus is really good lategame for civs like china, otto, iro.
Mapuche situationally can be good. The coin crates is really strong if a game goes late. The seige boost to hand infantry is good for aztec (coyos, skull knights jags and pumas. Pumas especially) and japan (clubs, samarai, hatamoto). also reduced coin cost of units will pay off for germany, sioux, otto (abus) very quickly and can help compensate for lategame native civs that struggle on plantations.
Rattan shield rush is so painfully broken.
Warchief civs benefit the most from natives in general. The attack dance boosts their stats significantly (esp aztec) and have more units that benefit from archer upgrades and hand infantry upgrades.
All natives in general arent great in supremacy generally simply because they take a lot of investment and have such a small build limit. Like a nootka club rush is great but once you hit your build limit you max out your military and have to build another tp, or drop a rax, etc...
Edit : forgot huron. Super cheap upgrade for fishing ships, which is extremely good. The mantlet isnt a particularly good unit but combined with sioux fire dance they are extremely potent building destroyers
-
- Skirmisher
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Nov 30, 2018
Re: What is your favourite( And least favourite ) native civ alliance?
JulyBurnsOrange wrote:But naw, id probably go with Cherokee and Cree as the best, just cause theyre skirms, which would be a really cool strat idea for civs without skirms that like age 2 play, like brits.
Also, the upgrades from both are pretty solid.
Worst is harder to say, cause there is some merit to all native alliances imo... Maybe Seminole just cause theyre always on the same maps as Cherokee lol
Although neither the Cherokee and the Cree are useless, You underestimate both Longbowman AND the Seminole. In most standart situations, the extra range of the Longbowman tends to make up for its lack of a multiplier against heavy infantry. Plus, the Seminole bonus damage for archers means it has more synch with the British in the long run: None of the "Skirmisher-esque" native units are particularly usefull past the Colonial Age, for several reasons, but perhaps the main one being just that they are all units that would be better when massed, but... Cant be massed.
I also think I like the Cree more for their Courer Des Bois then for the-Actual-Cree Tracker, although the Courer Des Bois, still being superior to the Crossbowman against heavy infantry, still has its uses :p It does wonders, especially for the Ottomans. Then again... So do the Cherokee ability to ship 4 settlers...
Re: What is your favourite( And least favourite ) native civ alliance?
Klamath navajo and apaches are epic
Re: What is your favourite( And least favourite ) native civ alliance?
PeachTree wrote:Klamath navajo and apaches are epic
Klamath are awful? 60 wood each for a really cruddy skirmisher with only 10% resist?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests