atlanteans. because the villagers have donkeys. and donkeys rule

eggy, particually isis.
eggy has a diverse section of troops. the fh is one of the best strargtys of the game. isis has access to anubite raiding, ancestors+eclipse, or peschos+roc. IMO these are some of the best advantages in the game.
in the mythic, isis can go thoth. he can use meteor, and attack the enemy with super thoth elepants. also, he has the book of thoth which allows u to spam elies, and the valley of kings which lets u spam em' faster.

isis offers alot of chocies and IMO is the best civ.

i dont really get why eggy villagers walk around with just a little piece of cloth when playing on a winter map

Best civ is Atlanteans. Isis is a God. The atlanteans are very easy to control and do stuff, they cam do so much and are very fast.

If you let computer players play against eachother, the Norse will win. Atlanteans are overpowered IMO, so they are the best Civ.

eggy

Atlantean (Oranos) because you can moblilise so quickly and cane ass with a turma rush

There is no 'best' civ. Atlanteans could be called the easiest to play or the 'noobiest.' Isis is considered to be 'OP.' Just pick a civilization that is fun for you, and you can enjoy playing, even if you don't win all the time.

There is a best civ, and that civ is Egyptian.

Well agree with Sam_Ham.

Best civil is eggy. Not merely Isis. What about Ra, what about Set.

Only disadvantage of Ra is he don't get Neythesis and don't get Thoth. However, Ra's empowering is all over the place, and his camels and chariots are just... @_@ ... personally hate to face Ra, because I always lose to them.

Then set...You know kronos? You know kronos rush? And mediterrian map?

Remember Spoft, (I think that is his ESO name?) said, when kronos play against Set, never shift your temples, and never cast valor somewhere else other than your own base, or you don't know how you died.

I always like to mention the player Ilovelove (particially because his first battle on Ilovelove was against me and of course I got raped.), he played set up to 1885 just in one month time, amazing, isn't it?

Eggy rules. Either Isis, or Ra, or Set. Most people just don't know how to use set, it is one of the most powerful races if you simply know the way of Set.

By the way,

I don't get it why norse soldiers and villagers wear full length clothes and trousers on deserts... (hehe, only for a laugh )

Best civ?
Either Greek or Egyptian. I agree that Egypt is the strongest: free towers upgrades, healing, Ancestors, Rocs, laser-shoting crocodiles (peschukos), Elephants...
They have access to many incredible technologies. However the Greeks, who have incredibly stong units, have the easiest time beating them (it is a fair fight untill the greeks get mymidons, gastraphetes, collosi..)IF the Egyptains choose Sekhment or Netpyhys. It is quite possible for RA players to have the easiest time vs Greeks becasue Ra players tend to go with HAthor and locust swarm-roc/peschukos/chariot raid the Greeks to death before they can even get close to mythic. That would mean that that Egypt is the best civilization in AOM.

i disagree with mostly all players here, this thread will mostly get people to call there favourite civ the best. that aint so.

ive seen lotsa players saying: eggy's are pure ownage, i think not, we are all concentrated on good buildups, this mostly includes rushing. FR, semi FR, R are the ones i see when battling:
1. loki
2. oranos
3. kronos

sometimes people even use less expecting civs for a rush so you will be less prepared for it. and we all know: never do a semi FR or R against eggy's
and most of the time the reall FR aint good enough cause of its lack of econ, thats why eggy's are considered good vs rushers.

BTT: eggy's can be easily countered and can be tossed aside, you just need to know the right things at the right times


one last thing: i simply HATE people calling atlanteans a nooby civ... i mean c'mon... i play aom for lotsa years know and can consider myself is a fairly good player and after a few years of playing i changed my civ to see what else can be achieved, then i found the atlanteans... well anyway.... no civ can be considered the best, and dont disaggree with that, cuz you know i'm right!

i agree with shanks that there is no best.

but i have to say.

i'm sorry woodswolf but how on earth is kronos on your list??


... and besides those aren't civs, they are major gods.

Which for civilizationwise, i believe that (on average) if you had to choose, and by on average i mean that each civ if u think about it has an easy rushing god, a strong mythic/heroic god, and a god who is rather diverse...

but if you put Rusher vs. rusher, mythic vs. mythic, and all around vs. all around i think it would go like this.

Rushers - Kronos vs. Loki vs. Set vs. Possy = Set/Loki IMO.
Mythics - Gaia vs. Odin vs. Isis vs. Hades = Hades/Isis IMO.
All arounders - Oranos vs. Thor vs. Ra vs. Zeus = Oranos/Thor/Zeus IMO.

thats tallied.

Greek = 2
Egyptian = 2
Norse = 2
Atlantean = 1

all except atlantean evened out IMO...

and thats only really because Gaia cannot stand her ground mythic age against most other gods unless she has a tower spam with theia contarious' roaming about.

and kronos' only real rushing ability is the krush/turma murmillo rush, which vs. greek krush is destroyed, murm/turma is too slowly brought in, and calv. destroys it.

Vs. Eggy, HAHAHA thats a no.

Vs. Norse, its purely about how experienced the norse player is.

what i dont understand is how u guys keep on replying to these best civs topics

too subjective IMO

if you play a god well then good for you, there is no best cause mosty, each counters each

i'm complety with DBGT44 ...

Yes, this is silly. They're all good when played by an expert.

[This message has been edited by dangerous_frog (edited 06-14-2007 @ 05:29 PM).]

It's not subjective. Civs have numerical and strategical advantages and disadvantages notable from a purely objective standpoint. The higher up the ladder you climb, the more certain civ/god deficiencies and advantages stand out. Certain civs and gods don't get played more at the higher levels because they're the most fun or the easiest; they get played because they are better than other civs. It's a nice picture to paint, that there is no best civilization or god; let's be realistic, though. Egypt is the best civilization, Isis is the best god. Beatable, but superior overall.

[This message has been edited by Evanesce (edited 06-14-2007 @ 11:55 PM).]

Actually, I think Isis is pretty easy to beat if you know what you are doing. I don't. If the gold mine is up front, you can rush them off the map. If you prevent expansion to a new gold mine, they are screwed. If you are Greek, go fast mythic and spam colossi. If Norse, either do a real fast rush (front gold) and use undermine to handle the tower. Alternately you can hersir raid. Atlanteans can turma raid and spam units like no other so...

I stick with Oranos and Loki. If you get rushed by Loki, is very hard for you to recover. Though I must say tha Isis can only be beaten by a very powerful Loki player. Oranos on the other hand, he can own egyptians at tatters if he turma raid early (good pierce armour/very fast). Now that the great tower abiity of Isis is useless, I wouldn't say anything woud be hard

I think Isis is pretty easy to beat if you know what you are doing. I don't. If the gold mine is up front, you can rush them off the map. If you prevent expansion to a new gold mine, they are screwed. If you are Greek, go fast mythic and spam colossi. If Norse, either do a real fast rush (front gold) and use undermine to handle the tower. Alternately you can hersir raid. Atlanteans can turma raid and spam units like no other so...

So there are counter strats to every single one of those as Isis, and over many games the Isis player is more likely to win using his strat than the opponent using his.

Just saying 'i will maeken turmaz' doesnt mean Isis is easy to beat, because 'i will maeken sphinx/priest/sling/siege tower' then cast anc/ecl. And in a game of two equal players the Isis player is more liekly to succeed using his strat than the Oranos.

___________________________________________________________
It's not subjective. Civs have numerical and strategical advantages and disadvantages notable from a purely objective standpoint. The higher up the ladder you climb, the more certain civ/god deficiencies and advantages stand out. Certain civs and gods don't get played more at the higher levels because they're the most fun or the easiest; they get played because they are better than other civs. It's a nice picture to paint, that there is no best civilization or god; let's be realistic, though. Egypt is the best civilization, Isis is the best god. Beatable, but superior overall.
__________________________________________________________

Then how come none of the top 10 players are Isis?????

I know some people may think otherwise, but I think the higher up you go, the less the civilization actually matters. For example, if you see an Odin, you know he is probably pretty good to be that high. If you see an Isis, you know that maybe he isn't as good because Isis is 'the best goddess.' Now, assuming this is true, it is likely the Odin player will win because he has more skill and probably more experience in hard matches.

Forgive Sam for my broad generalizations. You wouldn't believe the number of people on ESO who can be beaten by using the same strategy several times in a row.

but I think the higher up you go, the less the civilization actually matters. For example, if you see an Odin, you know he is probably pretty good to be that high. If you see an Isis, you know that maybe he isn't as good because Isis is 'the best goddess.' Now, assuming this is true, it is likely the Odin player will win because he has more skill and probably more experience in hard matches.

It doesn't work that way. Higher up, people are just good. Put a good player with a practiced Isis against a good player with a practiced Odin, you'll just see again and again a 7 minute anc+eclipse right on Odin's economy followed up by a monumented midgol expansion by 7:30. In the hands of good players(aka higher rating), the more civ and god balance matters. An OP civ won't inflate any noobs rate, an OP civ is going to win experts games against other experts for the top spot.

In lower rates, an OP god won't inflate rates because there is simply just so much more room in execution. Sure Anc+eclipse is strong, but bring it in at the 10 minute mark after an 8 to 9 minute heroic with a single midgol over a goldmine w/o monument protection isn't nearly as devastating to an equally noob Odin player. In fact, there is a point where I'd put my money on the Odin player, as his economy is easier to manage and his heroic units are impressively more pop efficient than anything Isis has right away.

Maybe you are right. All I'm saying is that it takes more skill to get higher with a god that isn't as good as another. Probably more determination. And I would really like to know, who would come out on top? Someone playing a weaker god who has more experience under his belt due to more trying games, versus someone playing a stronger god who rose in the ranks easier.

Then how come none of the top 10 players are Isis?????

r u serious?, i would have a closer look if i was you. Even if they have more games with other Gods, they may have switched to isis when they get Higher up.

Its not all Isis, but Isis is played plenty up there.

[This message has been edited by MonkeyHead (edited 06-15-2007 @ 03:40 PM).]

Well, since Poseidon is the best greek i believe, he should be pretty high up there...

I always thought Poseidon sucked worse than both Zeus and Hades.

I think it really depends on which version you are talking about.

Vanilla, Poseidon probably ranks the top greek, with zeus just behind. Lure gives him great advances and he really can get alot out of his hips... his hip spammage can easily dominate early to mid classical. He works out on water maps in vanilla between pestilience longboat rush and scylla ceasefire FH, and his weaker mythic doesn't often come into play because things go boom usually either good or bad when heroic hits and you get ranged siege.

Zeus and Hades both are much better booming civs in TT because they can both do things like free MU supported FM, w/ myrms/gastra not limited to fortresses, and taking a second TC in classical.

Zeus's Myrmidons are actually even stronger in vanilla, they just come into play so rarely.

Hades is put in third because he doesn't have the economy bonuses of either posiedon's lure/hippikons or favor of zeus, and is weakest on water. In the right hands, he is still a pretty good, but honestly without more TCs in classic you can just take any egyptian god and play w/ the same style more effectively.

i am bored so i will construct a tentative ranking of Gods.

1. Isis(OP)
2. Oranos/Zeus(Both have rapage strats like turma raid and cent strangle)
3. Thor(Good econ,Good armory ups,just good)
4. Ra( Good bonuses, Solid Civ)
5. Kronos(Krush is powerful)
6. Loki(Rush is powerful)
7. Hades( Turtle power!)
8. Odin( Depends on player skill)
9. Set(really depends on player skill)
10. Posiedon(?)
11. Gaia( can be good, but honestly, myth spam rapage)

There you have it in my opinion.

Critique it all you want, it's just my 2 cents.(which kill a villie with special lol, bad joke)

This is more of a tier list than a ranking tho.

[This message has been edited by BlackSun88 (edited 06-18-2007 @ 05:04 PM).]