The Quick and the Dead: A Guide to QuickCiv

[methodman]

First things first.
Whip, I would definetely be interested in a QC epic. Although I played a 90 turn qc game last night that took 6.5 hrs, damn near an epic. Other than that, I am with Cob on the fact that this is by far my favorite type of agme to play.
My two cents is pick a commercial civ. Obviously ind is for shiet and well with such fast production, I find that religious is not much of an advantage, unless changing govs.

And as for China, this is just me but China is great for QC barring one restriction. You must be isolated with lots of room to expand. If you are China and have limited expansion room, your as good as dead. I think China may possibly have the worst commerce in the game. And as someone mentioned in this thread previously(Mo I think) once behind in techs in qc well I'll see you in the lobby. Maybe it is just me, but whenever I play China in qc games I have a horrible time managing my army. I just cannot expand fast enough nor make enough money.
This is why I almost always choose a commercial civ in qc, with a few exceptions, Zulu, Scandy, Japan, Russia.

Meth

[Don K Hotay]

I doubt that China's commerce is the worst in the game. Industrious is not so bad, especially when it comes to improving ALL tiles, not just grassland and plains. It's a great trait when you consider that they cut down forests, jungles, and marshes faster, mine faster, road hills/mountains faster et cetera. Because they do everything else faster, industrious civs will need no more than 1/2-2/3'rds the peak number of workers non-industrious civs would. If anything, Industrious civs will produce the best economies.

As for the commerce trait, it's ok, but it isn't better than the other traits. It's benefits are 1 extra commerce at the center of every city, lower corruption in cities, and cheaper marketplaces and banks.

[Mo D]

DonKHotay said:

As for the commerce trait, it's ok, but it isn't better than the other traits. It's benefits are 1 extra commerce at the center of every city, lower corruption in cities, and cheaper marketplaces and banks.

Unfortunately, the commercial trait DOES NOT give cheaper markets and banks. I wish it did. It would be a lot better trait then.

As for industrious, they road at the same speed (1 turn) as non-industrious civs in QC. Thus, an industrious civ will not help your commerce one bit in QC.

The key to supporting a large army in QC is to build lotsa roads and get markets in your bigger cities. Another key is to not build too many cheap units. A big army of useless warriors that you don't plan to upgrade is not helpful to your economy.

[donaldkipper]

Mo said:

As for industrious, they road at the same speed (1 turn) as non-industrious civs in QC. Thus, an industrious civ will not help your commerce one bit in QC.

i'm no QC expert, but if your workers get other jobs done quicker, they can spend more time roading - therefore they will help indirectly cause they arent busy doing other stuff, plus u dont need to build as many

[Don K Hotay]

Wow, then the commerce trait does suck. Just curious, when was this change made to it? Wasn't it once the case that commerce related improvements were halfcost to commerce civs?

As for industrious, because it allows workers to mine faster, they will give cities better production and allow for more improvements earlier. Another example, since they can clear troublesome land (jungles/marshes) faster, something players have to deal with in most games, they will grow in size faster to.

[methodman]

I could be wrong, but doesn't the commercial trait give an extra commerce in every square that is already producing one, I beleive it does. If I am wrong can someone please smack me upside the head.
As for industrious, I still think it sux in qc. I would much rather have agri trait. Then i could easily build 2 workers to your every one, and work just as fast if not faster than you. I suppose that it depends on the age though. I still think the worker advantage of industrious civs is negligable, Although the extra shields prdoced in large cities is nice. Still the only industrious civ I personally would ever pick for qc is Japan.

And also Don, just out of curiosity which civ do you think has the worst economy in game?

[Mo D]

DonaldKipper said:

i'm no QC expert, but if your workers get other jobs done quicker, they can spend more time roading - therefore they will help indirectly cause they arent busy doing other stuff, plus u dont need to build as many

Yes, I suppose this is true. Industrious just does not give you the same "bang for the buck" that it does in the non-QC environment though. It is still marginally useful though.

[Mo D]

DonKHotay said:

Wow, then the commerce trait does suck. Just curious, when was this change made to it? Wasn't it once the case that commerce related improvements were halfcost to commerce civs?

Nah, that's never been the case. It's been suggested many times by many different people, but has never been implemented into the finished product. Would be cool if it was.

[synseer]

for Qc i find #1Religious #2Agricultural(Cheap Aqueducts) #3Militeristic #4Expansionist are the top traits, QC industrious workers mine in 1 turn right? cant remember now but am prety sure they do. if they do and others mine in 2 turns then industrious would be a 5th civ trait pick for QC

[Don K Hotay]

Commerce civs give an extra commerce in the square your city is planted on, not every square your city uses. Japan has military/religious traits, great civ for QC, despite not having industrious workers. QC industrious workers do mine plains/grass/desert/tundra in 1.

As for all of a sudden knowing that commerce civs do not get to build commerce improvements cheaper ....


edit: As for worst economy...I think it could very well be England, which is Seafearing/Commercial, or Germany (sci, mil). Other civs have a combination of UUs and traits that in some way will help, directly or indirectly in allowing it to make good bank at some point in a QC game.

[SexyBlitzerRoller]

This was really a great article Friedrich has made for us. Here I can reflect upon my bad moves in the few qc games I have done, and then be better. Even if it's 130 turns or 90, i feel I have to take it easy cause I play with 1 city elim and for me it's not coming to any rapid city expansion cause I get in trouble pretty soon.. so how to expand best in these ones? And, how are the governments in all this? I hear despotism is better, but what government for what situation?

[heroray]

Blitzer, In QC Sentries are Most important for expansion.

If you Can see if there is not a threat, you can Expand with less supporting troops. You can leave "Safe cities" Less Defended. When I first stated I used to try and put 10-15 units in as many cities as possible. and React to the attack when it came. So every time a stack of 30 showed up, I died. If You can See it coming, you can put more units in the city that is attacked.

[Heroic]

I am curuious about governments in Quick civ.

Despotism penatly is removed, so how helpful is Monarchy? I mean it probably can still reduce corruption some when you get large. So I would think for early war despotism would still be the choice.

Republic I wonder a lot about, I would think it would be more for the late game in a longer game. But actually revolting into it could be severe if you are not religious. For a longer game though, I wonder about just waiting for democracy or fascim?

Those of you who have played in epic QC games or the like, what are your thoughts on governments for QC?

[Avogadro]

Republic is the best early governement in my opinion. If you have a minumum of 5 towns with decent commerce. A republic with librairies and markets thrives as well as a democracy for 90-100 turn game purposes. There is of course the risk of long anarchy as you mentionned.