Civ and unit choices for 3v3 / 4v4 (RM)

Age of Empires: DE I - Discussion
1

Edit: Alright, after careful deliberation I found the civ that I like the most considering both history/mythology and game tech tree / graphics.

Random Map. Standard settings.
3v3, 4v4. Or FFA with 4+ people.

I could use some help deciding on which civilization to “main”. We’re talking about mediocre players here but discussion can extend to others also. The thing is, I can’t spam Chariot Archers. Not in every game at least. I’ve done that plenty in AoE Online where I “mained” Egyptians and that was okay. But in this game everyone spams Chariot Archers, and I’m not playing a game boring myself to death doing the same thing in every single game (which some players do).

Civs I haven’t eliminated so far based on how much I favor them at the moment:

Shang
Babylon
Minoan

Phoenician
Sumerian
Carthage

What would be the ranking list of these civs in 3v3 / 4v4 RM setting, with current balance patch?

Considering that this isn’t for pro level but more for mediocre level, is it possible to make some use of Long Swordsmen / Legion (outside of Choson/Roman), especially considering that this isn’t 1 on 1 and thus the map is bigger (favoring faster units)? These units seem to be countered by… everything.

I’ve been quite enjoying Composite Bowmen so far which is why I put Minoans so high up, but my main issue with Minoa is lack of diversity. I fear that I’m just gonna end up doing the same thing in every game and I’d like to avoid that.

Any thoughts on above civs or 3v3 / 4v4 setting, and applicable tactics, are welcome. All the guides on the Internet are outdated other than some generic ones.

2

Shang/Minoan probably top tier. Shang is always a decent civ while Minoan is a powerhouse in bronze with composite bowman spam. They are obviously also top tier on water maps.

Right under them I would put Assyrian, but they are obviously not good if you don’t plan on using chariots. It’s their only bronze ranged unit. They also don’t get slingers which is really bad for tool age fights. They are basically the ideal boom into chariot civ.

Egypt/Persian/Phoenician probably around here. All decent civs, but Egypt being bad if you don’t want to spam chariots.

3

Ahhh, my facourite civ is not even in list. Perfect! This means its not in meta and i ll continue rollin over other players. Heheh…

Macedonia is my favourite. I love destroying everything with my arrow immune immortal hoplites. They have lots of additional pierce armor and ressistance to wololo, which is in normal case, a counter for hoplites. Macedonian hoplites dont give a ■■■■ about priests and archers, and they kill every single infantry with no effert.

If somehow game goes for Iron age battles, its even batter, i back my army with mass ballista, thanks to cheap siege unit costs. Hoplite+Ballista combo is just super good, nothing ever beats it.

I see archer civs and i laugh, knowing its %99 victory for me.

I understand why everyone nearly, goes for archer civs tho, pathfinding is a problem fro most of the melee units, esspecially for big units, like elephants. Archers take adventage of bad pathfinding, but it just too overrated, otherwise i wouldnt be winning nearly every multiplayer game lol!

4

@“Cleglaw the mad” said:
Ahhh, my facourite civ is not even in list. Perfect! This means its not in meta and i ll continue rollin over other players. Heheh…

Macedonia is my favourite.

In case you didn’t notice I specifically avoid meta because I like to be unique :wink:

As for your favorite civ, it’s not on my list because in AoE Macedonia is a heathen civ that has no access to priests and I like priests, who in AoE are also an iconic unit (albeit not very useful in multiplayer). If it wasn’t for that, they would be on the list.

I’m not a fan of ballistae because they look awkward (read: bad) in AoE. Should’ve been somewhat bigger for start. Age of Mythology design is much better. I’m thinking of using catapults more though. Fast(est) game speed people use, massing of archers, lag and bad pathfinding - seems like the perfect chaotic environment for a weapon of mass destruction.

5

Frankly it feels like random civ is the way to go, to prevent people spam picking meta civs

6

Palmyra could be for you. Being able to use effectively the speed bonus is hard, but it is a strong bonus. Slingers are strong when/if enemy masses Chariot Archers. Balancing between Slingers and Camel Riders is
then necessary meaning that every game will be different and it won’t start to feel as repeating as most of the other civs.

Choson offers multiple different strategies. Cheaper Priest and longer tower range gives good defensive options that comes handy, whilst in offensive style both Swordsmen and Cavalry are great (UPatch added nobility to Choson). AOE:DE extended the swordsmen health bonus to Bronze Age units allowing Choson to be more aggressive at early on. Choson doesn’t have any economy bonuses meaning that it is not as strong civ as many other, but it is fun to play with because of how diverse the unit and technology availability is.

7

@“Cleglaw the mad” said:
Ahhh, my facourite civ is not even in list. Perfect! This means its not in meta and i ll continue rollin over other players. Heheh…

Macedonia is my favourite. I love destroying everything with my arrow immune immortal hoplites. They have lots of additional pierce armor and ressistance to wololo, which is in normal case, a counter for hoplites. Macedonian hoplites dont give a **** about priests and archers, and they kill every single infantry with no effert.

After priests turned out to be totally useless (I tested it quite a bit), the lack of Macedonian priests doesn’t bother me much anymore because what’s the point of building a temple in AoE anyway.

I tried Macedonia few times, it’s actually quite enjoyable. I’m a huge fan of no-trading-of-damage approach, which is why I prefer ranged units/abilities in every game. A slow tank/warrior is usually not my thing, but Macedonian hoplites are immortal. They kill fast, and they take almost no damage. The only problem are catapults and ballistae in Iron Age, and I’m not happy with Macedonian ballistae with range of just 9 but when massed they’ll still destroy non-siege units. Still, I’m not as enthusiastic as you are about Iron Age because gold becomes a problem as well.

Overall, right now it’s Macedonia, Babylon or Shang for me. I’ll keep testing to see what fits me more.

8

I also really like macedonian due to their incredible bonuses: conversion resistance, cheaper siege, and high pierce armor hoplites.
I don’t know which is the strongest civ but I’ve been doing well in multiplayer and my strategy generally is just to spam bronze swords. It works well enough and I feel bronze swords beat other units cost effectively. So right now I really like choson and roman for their bronze swords bonuses.

I actually don’t like Shang too much. They don’t really have a military bonus. They have a great tech tree and supply pit though. And so they’re probably stronger on land than some civs with worse tech trees. Their villager discount can translate into an eco bonus which translates into more units early on but I think it falls off once you stop making villagers.

9

I think Macedonia have always been the most under-rated civ, when in reality the bullet proof hoplite line are really good in Iron, they also have archery range units unlike say Greece and Carth.

Villagers being able to see further I find really useful for Scouting the enemies base for villager locations to hit as well.

If I played pick Civ I would likely choose either Macedonian or Minoan in a team game.

10
  1. Yamato, best civ imo with faster runing vills and cheaper kts/horse archers
  2. Shang
  3. Romans
  4. hetithers if full land, minoans if there is some water

no assyrians cause they have no slingers and can die horribly as flank.

11

Isn’t Shang somewhat weaker in 3v3 / 4v4?

I’m assuming some civs are better 1v1 and some make more sense in 4v4 game.

12

@JosephC64 said:
Isn’t Shang somewhat weaker in 3v3 / 4v4?

I’m assuming some civs are better 1v1 and some make more sense in 4v4 game.

Idk about 1v1, but I’m finding that shang can chariot spam with the best of them, and while its lategame might not be the best, having those units when the gold runs out is a big deal

13

Shang has been the best and most versatile civ for 20 years. The cheaper villagers means you never have a bad random map, you will ALWAYS have constant stream of villagers. They have a pretty good tech tree and are not limited to gold-only units later game, which is a problem in longer 4x4 games or FFA for some other civs. Shang is the tier 1 civ, all alone at the top. Impossible to match their economy for 25+ minutes and the game is usually over before then.

Babylonian is a ‘nice’ civ (never hated it when it comes to you, randomly) as it gets a full tech tree (pretty sure it’s the fullest tech tree in game), but it doesn’t do anything great…it’s good for walls, towers and mining stone but that doesn’t win a game usually. Many other civs are better; stone mining and strong walls is a not a key to winning 99% of games. Other civs will have better economies OR stronger units…you will have good walls :confused:

Minoans…excellent civ on water maps; but has fatal flaws. 1) it’s a gold civ and 2) no chariots. It’s best unit requires 2 upgrades in bronze…first the Imp bowmen and then the Comp. You better figure out how to defend an early rush and you better figure out how to get a lot of archeries down so you can spam Compies. Minoa has a great mid-to-late bronze game but that’s a small window and they have limited mobility with compies and catapults. They get wrecked in Iron and eventually, they run out of gold in very long games. But, in expert hands, on water maps, they are boat boomers. On 1v1 or 3v3 water maps, great civ. 2v2, 4x4 or FFA, they have weaknesses.

Phoenicians are a nice civ; very versatile. What Baby is to stone, Phoenician is to wood…and wood is much much better :slight_smile: They can boat boom a little bit (like Minoan) or they could spam more wood units/boats/chariots faster. It’s more than 15% wood cutting bonus too, unless they changed it from 20 years ago. It’s considerably higher as I recall. Phoney will give you tons of extra wood and in a wood-driven game, that means more options.

Sumerian is a nice civ. A poor-man’s Hittite. Sumerian is a great civ on Hill Country or similar maps where you end up farming a lot. Very nice catapults but that’s a mid-to-late bronze weapon en masse.

Carthage…is bad. Not as bad as non-wheel civs, but still bad. It’s a gold civ but without middle-game strength to keep you alive. Fast transports? Useless. Good elephants are fine, perhaps in DeathMatch, but in most games Carthage is too weak to last long enough. And civs with better economies (shang, phoney) will have crushed you long before “Carthage Elephants” show up. (similar to Persia but at least Persia can hunt quicker in the very early game…but both have crappy non-wheel economies that can’t really support “good” elephants in Iron Age 25 minutes later so they come crashing down easily enough)

Given this list of civs, I would recommend Shang or Phoney. Shang is…Shang. Phoney gives you the wood bonus that is versatile across all maps and starts which seems important to you (and is important to winning!). Minoans are awesome but have problems in bigger 4x4 games (or FFA) against beefy units.

Baby and Sumerian are fine. Carthage is weak.

And for those that champion Macedonia, also weak. Any civ without a Wheel is severely handicapped on multiple levels. 1) economy tanks in early bronze when everyone else gets ‘faster’ villagers and 2) lack of chariots. The cheaper price stone throwers can’t be upgraded, they are limited to being stone throwers. And 25% savings isn’t really 25% if the villagers are so…slow.

14

Good post @KORT99KORT, but just an FYI that all civs get Wheel now, and Macedonia gets Catapults.

You can find a list of balance changes in DE here: https://www.forgottenempires.net/age-of-empires-definitive-edition/balance-changelog

15

@AvallachAOE said:
Good post @KORT99KORT, but just an FYI that all civs get Wheel now, and Macedonia gets Catapults.

While I appreciate his post, it’s difficult to say how accurate some of the things are because he is talking about AoE and not AoE DE. Phoenician wood bonus is supposedly fixed in DE, Macedonians have Wheel and Catapults as you said, and so on. I know most of the things are the same but when it comes to balance little things can cause swings…

Anyway, I’m a bit disappointed there is no balance patch of any kind (post-release). There are units that I almost never see in multiplayer (Priests, standard melee Chariots, bowmen, scouts, Legion used by non-Roman/Choson civ…) and by now I think enough data is collected (if they’re collecting it…) to see what civilizations need buff and which ones need a nerf (with RM multiplayer in mind).

16

@JosephC64 said:
Anyway, I’m a bit disappointed there is no balance patch of any kind (post-release). There are units that I almost never see in multiplayer (Priests, standard melee Chariots, bowmen, scouts, Legion used by non-Roman/Choson civ…) and by now I think enough data is collected (if they’re collecting it…) to see what civilizations need buff and which ones need a nerf (with RM multiplayer in mind).

The developers have more important issues to work on right now. It would suck for those who can’t even launch the game if the developers were tweaking balance instead of making the game start properly.

I hope they will revisit the balance after all the major technical issues are resolved.

17

Since you’re playing lategame scenarios only bronze and up matters, you don’t have to worry about weak/strong tool(Not that any of the civs mentioned have trouble with that.)

Swordsmen are very viable, the enemies are not that far(usually) and even if they are, you can always build your barracks closer. A couple of sneaky villagers(early scouters, transport ship) behind enemy lines can make a few barracks and soon your enemy’s base will be flooding with swordsmen. Of course if you’re defending, they don’t need to run far in the first place.

BABYLONIAN lategame will be mainly Priests + Catapults + Scythe Chariots. If you’re against a civilization without any decent archers you can also do Legion but missing armour+shield techs hurt them a lot. Horse Archers are your best fighting unit in iron but you don’t get Heavy Horse Archers so they don’t scale up. Still they are often your first choice instantly after reaching iron for that power spike. Can do Tower push with Priests and Catapults as well, very strong but requires a bit of planning.
Bronze is everything goes, you’ve got full tech tree and can do literally anything you like. Very versatile.
Gold Heavy if going priests, otherwise very little gold required.
Good boom, good eco
Bad navy
Example strat: Walls --> Chariot Archers --> Horse Archers --> Priests

MINOAN lategame will be Centurion+Composite Bowmen+Siege without exceptions.
Bronze is more interesting because you can do cavalry rush or swordsman spam instead of only compies, still not great variety though.
It is also very gold heavy in the lategame because both siege and academy units cost a lot of gold. Not really a problem in 4v4, just be smart with your dock placement and you can keep generating that gold. Trade with your enemy docks as well if he doesn’t destroy them once you’ve won the navy(which you will, because Minoan.)
Excellent boom on water maps and great economy with farm bonuses.
Best Navy in game
Example strat: Cavalry Rush --> Composite Bowmen --> Phalanx --> Siege

PHOENICIAN lategame is almost always Elephants with or without Priests. You do have Scythe Chariots, Legion and Centurions as well but lacking armour and damage upgrades for them means they are going to lose out to pretty much everything. No siege also sucks big time.
Bronze is full tech tree and thus free to do whatever you wish. Very versatile.
Elephants are really cheap in gold so not a gold heavy civ unless going priests.
Good boom with great eco.
Strong Navy
Example strat: Cavalry Rush --> Chariots Archers --> Elephant Archers --> Armoured Elephants

SUMERIAN lategame should always be Heavy Horse Archers + Catapults. It’s a mixed bag of fun and fail. On one hand you get Heavy Horse Archers, Centurions and Scythe Chariots but on the other hand all of those are missing some upgrades, Craftmanship(+1 Range), Metallurgy(+3 attack) and shields. The Catapults are really good though and should always be included.
Bronze is missing the improved bowman line and cavalry so it’s not ideal either. Chariot archer spam is the most common way because it continues straight to Horse Archers but you can also do Chariots, Swordsmen, Hoplites and Camels, even Priests can be made if necessary. Still pretty interesting.
Can be really gold heavy if mixing Heavy Horse Archers/Centurions/Catapults but if just spamming Scythe Chariots and Catapults you can make do with very little.
Great boom with amazing eco because of the farm bonus, even stronger vils for easier time vs raiding parties.
Okay Navy
Example strat: Swordsmen Rush --> Chariots --> Scythe Chariot --> Heavy Horse Archer

SHANG lategame is usually Cataphracts and Scythe Chariots, possibly with Priests but Heavy Horse Archers and Helepolis are also pretty common. Both of those lack their most important upgrades(Alchemy, Ballistics, Engineering) so they’re not the primary option.
Bronze age tree is again perfect. Very versatile.
Great opt out of gold economy by going Scythe Chariots(Full upgrades!) but otherwise relies on gold quite a bit.
Best boom in the game due to cheaper villagers and good economy.
Really Bad Navy
Example strat: Cavalry rush --> Chariot Archers --> Horse Archers --> Scythe Chariots

CARTHAGINIAN lategame is Centurions/Armoured Elephants + Elephant Archers/Helepolis but you can also do Horse Archers or Heavy cavalry in iron if you wish. It’s an interesting civ for sure but it’s countered really hard by Priests so be aware of that. You also don’t get Catapults which is a pain.
Bronze is lacking both Chariots and Composite Bowmen so archers is pretty much out from the get go. Hoplites are really good if mobility is not an issue. Swordsmen and Cavalry are both an option but the Camels with their extra hitpoints are where it’s at. The only thing fast enough to catch your Camels are Cavalry and other Camels, both of which you are going to beat in a fair fight. Also do surprisingly well vs Chariot Archers but kinda pricey for that. Chariot Archers can become a problem on certain maps.
Not too badly gold dependent, elephants don’t cost a lot of gold. A bit more gold heavy if doing Centurions and Helepolis.
Okay Boom, good economy
Good Navy
Example strat: Camel Rush --> Swordsmen --> Elephant Archers --> Centurions

THE THREE WEAKER ONES:

Carthaginian definitely has the most issues with both chariot archers and priests but if your allies are taking care of those, it can be really strong. 25% hitpoints for already strong units is nothing to scoff at.

Babylonian lategame can be a huge problem if you’re not a priest/tower person. When everyone else has heavy horse archers or elephant archers and you’re stuck with legion with only one shield upgrade it’s not a fun day should some centurions block your scythes without armour from reaching them. The solution is of course to learn how to push with towers and priests so it’s a matter of preference/skill, not weakness.
Problems with navy though.

Sumerians are also a bit weird, your farm economy is great but your combat in late iron relies on catapults shooting at the enemy and not you so if you’re not very good at managing those cats it can be though. Again, a problem skill can solve.

THE THREE STRONGER ONES:

Shang is undoubtedly one of the strongest civs due to that villager bonus, you save 1000+ food in a full length game with it. The biggest problem is missing engineering for catapults, annoying if you’re playing against choson sure but not that big of a deal.
Does suck in naval fights though.

Phoenician is also very versatile. Lack of siege can sometimes be frustrating but it’s still one of the strongest civs out there.

Minoan is one of the best civs as well but the can be boring as there isn’t a lot of space for variation.

18

@AvallachAOE said:
Good post @KORT99KORT, but just an FYI that all civs get Wheel now, and Macedonia gets Catapults.

You can find a list of balance changes in DE here: https://www.forgottenempires.net/age-of-empires-definitive-edition/balance-changelog

Awesome and I did not know that! Thanks for that link.

19

@JosephC64 said:

@AvallachAOE said:
Good post @KORT99KORT, but just an FYI that all civs get Wheel now, and Macedonia gets Catapults.

While I appreciate his post, it’s difficult to say how accurate some of the things are because he is talking about AoE and not AoE DE. Phoenician wood bonus is supposedly fixed in DE, Macedonians have Wheel and Catapults as you said, and so on. I know most of the things are the same but when it comes to balance little things can cause swings…

Anyway, I’m a bit disappointed there is no balance patch of any kind (post-release). There are units that I almost never see in multiplayer (Priests, standard melee Chariots, bowmen, scouts, Legion used by non-Roman/Choson civ…) and by now I think enough data is collected (if they’re collecting it…) to see what civilizations need buff and which ones need a nerf (with RM multiplayer in mind).

I just looked at the changelog and I’ll stand by all of my opinions, even if some mild facts have changed. Persia and Mace getting the wheel is good, but they still lack wood based units so relying on gold-only can be a problem and—they have other problems that plague the civs with or without the wheel. Getting “good elephants” in Iron Age is fine for Persia but you can’t play many games expecting to get to Iron and then to get many elephants. The hunting bonus is good on certain maps (like Highland) but has always, then and now, required a lot of micromanagement (that berries, fishing and farming doesn’t require). Persia is a still bad, wheel or no wheel. They lack a LOT of market upgrades, even with everyone getting Coinage, to make it a worthwhile economy long-term (which is what a gold-based “elephant” civ needs). Was bad, still bad. (unless hunting to a 1v1 rush…but then, no need for markets/elephants) Persia was, and is, a 1-trick pony: hunt for food to tool rush (or play Deathmatch and run around with fast elephants). Not really a 4x4 or FFA strong civ.

Mace getting the wheel is nice. Can’t use it for Chariots/Scythe or Chariot Archers though since it’s a gold only Civ. The cheap Stone Throwers aren’t as cheap as they used to be, so that’s an odd nerf. Being able to upgrade them to at least Cats in Iron is good. Like Persia though, they lack a lot of Iron Age upgrades at both market and high end units (no heavy siege, no Scythe of course, no barracks units at all)

In your 4x4 and big FFA scenarios, you should keep an eye on civs that have (1) [mobile if possible due to larger maps you play on] high-end units, (2) long-term economic strength and (3) wood-based units in the mix since gold, can, run out.

I recommended Shang or Phoney. JoonasToo recommended Shang or Phoney, or Minoa. I was complimentary of Minoan as they have tremendous strengths on water maps and I love them in 1v1 or 3v3; not as much in 2v2 or 4v4 or bigger FFA. (in a 2v2, you better have good trust in your partner in case you get rushed especially if you are ‘boat booming’ and slower to age than usual. You can hide a little bit better in 3v3 and you control everything in 1v1. In 4x4 or big FFA games, you may not be able to boat boom as much due to too much competition and you will likely run out of gold late game. While the enemy spends wood on Scythe Chariots)

20

@JoonasTo said:
BABYLONIAN lategame will be mainly Priests + Catapults + Scythe Chariots. If you’re against a civilization without any decent archers you can also do Legion but missing armour+shield techs hurt them a lot. Horse Archers are your best fighting unit in iron but you don’t get Heavy Horse Archers so they don’t scale up. Still they are often your first choice instantly after reaching iron for that power spike. Can do Tower push with Priests and Catapults as well, very strong but requires a bit of planning.
Bronze is everything goes, you’ve got full tech tree and can do literally anything you like. Very versatile.
Gold Heavy if going priests, otherwise very little gold required.
Good boom, good eco
Bad navy
Example strat: Walls --> Chariot Archers --> Horse Archers --> Priests

Babylonian lategame can be a huge problem if you’re not a priest/tower person. When everyone else has heavy horse archers or elephant archers and you’re stuck with legion with only one shield upgrade it’s not a fun day should some centurions block your scythes without armour from reaching them. The solution is of course to learn how to push with towers and priests so it’s a matter of preference/skill, not weakness.
Problems with navy though.

I’ve been almost exclusively playing with Babylonians so far and chose them as my “main” civilization. Shang came as second.

The reason I picked Babylon over Shang is really bad Shang Iron Age from my perspective. I’m not a cavalry fan and the only thing Shang seems to have over Babylon in Iron Age are FU Cataphracts. Everything else is crippled in some way as you already mentioned. Archers have no Ballistics and Alchemy, navy is the worst (Alchemy increases the attack of Fire Ships by +8 AFAIK) although the question is how much do you even fight in Iron Age with the navy… Shang Siege is also dreadful. Yes, Helepolis is there but without Engineering and Ballistics. No Ballista Towers.

I understand that Shang is a strong civ and that sometimes Babylonian civ bonuses turn out to be useless. But I don’t want to just spam Scythe Chariots in Iron Age (they’re not that fun to use), which seems like the only thing to do with Shang (since I don’t like Cataphract line). And a lot of the games go to Iron Age in FFA with 5+ people, or in 3v3/4v4. Shang bonus evaporates later on. Babylonian Iron Age is much more interesting. They have Legion, although without some upgrades, but hey, at least you can spam these nice looking units when you’re already winning. Horse Archers, same thing, but I’m more a fan of raiding with Chariot Archers than HA, since I don’t think the gold is worth it. But what’s really good about Babylon in Iron Age are FU Heavy Catapults. 15 range; they destroy everything and the only threat is the cavalry/scythes. Gold cost is almost the same as that for Horse Archers, but with the possibility to get much more out of it. Babylonian catapult is a weapon of mass destruction. I had one 2v2v2 (or 2v2v2v2) game where my ally trained archers and I built catapults. We basically did Attack+Move across the whole map and cleaned it. It could be argued we could’ve done the same with something else because maybe we were better players than the competition, but it was still quite fun nevertheless. And that’s the point of the game.

I don’t mind “pushing with towers”, it’s a tower civ. But I haven’t experimented with that properly. I did test priests and had moderate success vs elephants while I was behind a wall, but pushing with priests? How do you protect them from dying easily? It’s rare to have no one training chariots with 5+ players in a game. So far priests have been underwhelming in my tests to the point that I gave up on them. They require insane amount of micromanagement, which is a resource in itself. And the benefit is… questionable.

There is one tactic that Babylon shines with, and that I’ve used several times already. It’s getting to Iron Age, getting FU Heavy Catapults, building layers of walls and then building a Wonder ASAP. Most of the time I don’t need anything but catapults in defense. Nothing gets close. I don’t need to push anywhere, they need to push towards me. I only once lost a Wonder, and that’s a long time ago when I didn’t wall properly at all (ally left a gap). This tactic obviously requires Standard game (and I only go for those nowadays because it’s more fun) and is best in FFA with 5+ players, or in 2v2v2(v2) games. These games are more chaotic, and everyone is reluctant to rush walled Babylon. They prefer to go for easier targets while I boom. But even in a 3v3/4v4 game, all I need is to hold ground until Iron Age and then it’s doable. Again, I am not saying this is a tactic for expert 2v2 games, but otherwise it has been really fun, with entertaining chat during the countdown and after game ends. And Babylon Wonder is very pretty (Shang too; not a fan of the others).

Anyway, Wonder tactic in Iron Age means that I play a civ that has all the technologies/units in Bronze Age and earlier, which despite mediocre/poor civ bonuses gives me versatility (and thus provides fun), whereas if I make it to Iron Age I can bypass the weaknesses of the civ by focusing on what Babylon does best and that’s walls and catapults (with few towers if there’s stone left, but using stone on walls for defense is much better because as long as walls are up catapults destroy everything). I think this is the optimal way to play Babylon. It’s not the only thing I do of course, but everything else is something that another civ would be better at.

@KORT99KORT said:
In your 4x4 and big FFA scenarios, you should keep an eye on civs that have (1) [mobile if possible due to larger maps you play on] high-end units, (2) long-term economic strength and (3) wood-based units in the mix since gold, can, run out.

I’ll keep Phoenicians in mind if I give up on Babylonians. The lack of armor upgrades hurts, and while I do like siege units I guess in this case elephants have that role. The biggest downside is the lack of Architecture for me, since I do like to build a Wonder here and there. I suppose I could just go with non-Babylonians in Conquest games.