The basic idea is that I think Huns/Mong/Spanish is a viable option on 3v3 Arabia. This is obviously not the first time anyone's thought of this combo, but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. I think there's a good case to be made for them replacing China (and also Mayans, but I'll leave that out for now).
The appeal of China is that they have lots of little bonuses and a great tech tree, and they're very flexible to play. They can put in a reasonable performance in flank or pocket. Basically they're a safe option, but they're rarely the star of the show. The main problem is that they're doomed to have to go archers in imperial, which in a 3v3 on an open map dominated by cavalry civs (i.e. mangs and pals) is a weak option lacking in strategic options.
The reason is simply that of mobility. On flank, they can't push very effectively because they're so susceptible to cavalry (mang or pal) doubles. As soon as they over extend – bam – army is all gone. One common way to try and counteract this is to make lots of forward castles. In a game that's already being won, it's fine...but then again almost anything is fine in a game you're winning already! If we assume for a moment that everything is totally even, making forward castles is a bad idea. Firstly, you'll probably lose them at some point, and secondly if your castles are forward it means that they aren't protecting your base and trade line. This is fairly dangerous in itself, but coupled with the fact that your army is also very slow, stopping trade raids can become a nightmare. Opting instead to put your castles along the trade line isn't much better, since your units have to walk so far to get to the action. This basically leaves China in the position of having to try and slowly push his opposite player all game, but simultaneously not being able to travel far from his base without an escort from one of his teammates.
Spanish on the other hand are pretty much the perfect imp civ on 3v3 Arab. They have a fantastic tech tree for both gold and non-gold units, as well as quick units (conqs and pals). Not only that, but they have a game-winning trade bonus, and having all 3 team members with mobile armies will increase the strategic possibilities tenfold. They can raid, push and hold way more effectively than China. In short, if it was Hun/Mong/China vs. Hun/Mong/Spanish in a game that was even when it went to imp, the latter would win comfortably; and not only that, the Spanish trade bonus would build up more and more of an advantage as the game went on.
I don't suppose anyone can reasonably disagree with what I've said above in a general sense, though of course there will be some counter-examples. What I have missed out though is the main reason that people don't usually pick Spanish (or Franks/Persia/Saracens, etc), and that's because they suck in feudal and castle, and that games don't necessarily go to imperial if you lose them early on.
I'm not really sure how to answer this question, though I would point out that Mongols have just as weak bonuses (i.e. practically none) for feudal and castle, but still manage to be a top civ, mostly because of their imperial performance. China aren't particularly strong in feudal or castle either, and the +45 food farm bonus isn't that great (as shown by people dropping them for Mayans often enough). Spanish don't get X-bow, which is fine, but not having camels might be a problem as pocket. I think Mongol/China pocket only generally manage to hang on (just) against a Hun pocket in castle age by using camels wisely.
I think it would take a degree of teamwork to be able to pull this off, as well as someone competent with Spanish, but I bet there are some teams that could put it to good effect. I think a similar argument could probably be made for Franks as well.
Well those are my thoughts. What do you think?
The appeal of China is that they have lots of little bonuses and a great tech tree, and they're very flexible to play. They can put in a reasonable performance in flank or pocket. Basically they're a safe option, but they're rarely the star of the show. The main problem is that they're doomed to have to go archers in imperial, which in a 3v3 on an open map dominated by cavalry civs (i.e. mangs and pals) is a weak option lacking in strategic options.
The reason is simply that of mobility. On flank, they can't push very effectively because they're so susceptible to cavalry (mang or pal) doubles. As soon as they over extend – bam – army is all gone. One common way to try and counteract this is to make lots of forward castles. In a game that's already being won, it's fine...but then again almost anything is fine in a game you're winning already! If we assume for a moment that everything is totally even, making forward castles is a bad idea. Firstly, you'll probably lose them at some point, and secondly if your castles are forward it means that they aren't protecting your base and trade line. This is fairly dangerous in itself, but coupled with the fact that your army is also very slow, stopping trade raids can become a nightmare. Opting instead to put your castles along the trade line isn't much better, since your units have to walk so far to get to the action. This basically leaves China in the position of having to try and slowly push his opposite player all game, but simultaneously not being able to travel far from his base without an escort from one of his teammates.
Spanish on the other hand are pretty much the perfect imp civ on 3v3 Arab. They have a fantastic tech tree for both gold and non-gold units, as well as quick units (conqs and pals). Not only that, but they have a game-winning trade bonus, and having all 3 team members with mobile armies will increase the strategic possibilities tenfold. They can raid, push and hold way more effectively than China. In short, if it was Hun/Mong/China vs. Hun/Mong/Spanish in a game that was even when it went to imp, the latter would win comfortably; and not only that, the Spanish trade bonus would build up more and more of an advantage as the game went on.
I don't suppose anyone can reasonably disagree with what I've said above in a general sense, though of course there will be some counter-examples. What I have missed out though is the main reason that people don't usually pick Spanish (or Franks/Persia/Saracens, etc), and that's because they suck in feudal and castle, and that games don't necessarily go to imperial if you lose them early on.
I'm not really sure how to answer this question, though I would point out that Mongols have just as weak bonuses (i.e. practically none) for feudal and castle, but still manage to be a top civ, mostly because of their imperial performance. China aren't particularly strong in feudal or castle either, and the +45 food farm bonus isn't that great (as shown by people dropping them for Mayans often enough). Spanish don't get X-bow, which is fine, but not having camels might be a problem as pocket. I think Mongol/China pocket only generally manage to hang on (just) against a Hun pocket in castle age by using camels wisely.
I think it would take a degree of teamwork to be able to pull this off, as well as someone competent with Spanish, but I bet there are some teams that could put it to good effect. I think a similar argument could probably be made for Franks as well.
Well those are my thoughts. What do you think?