I think the russians are the worst because of the not so good local area map bonus.

I think the worst civs are the ones without a bonus that will make a huge impact.

I can't vote until I play the full game with all civs. Actually I was thinking in play with the Russians online, + 1 food from plains maybe is not that huge but that could help you to grown you cities faster + Loyalty for defensive units will help to focus in make you city grown without many worries, it is not easy to enter in one base with loyalty, probably you may need a powerful Aztec or German. I like the 1/2 price spies and riflemen, but let's see what happen. To me, every single civilization looks awesome, you just need to find the way to take advantage of his strengths.

aye ive seen every civ played well online and ive seen every civ played horribly too, id really depends on your strategies and a little luck with starting areas too

why don't people like the spanish?

Navigation from the beginning is a huge bonus :eek:

america and india shouldnt get votes.

It's July 4th. The American votes are probably from the UK. They are venting the loss of their colonies. They invested heavily in settler units and galleons all for nothing.

I think the Zulu are overated because there 4 to 1 overun will only help against barbs:

It's July 4th. The American votes are probably from the UK. They are venting the loss of their colonies. They invested heavily in settler units and galleons all for nothing.

:lol::lol::lol:

You get an internet cookie.

I think India could be one of the best civs...having the ability to make use of every single resource from the start?! :eek: I'm definitely excited about being able to use aluminum and uranium without waiting until the modern ages!(or not being able to use Dye until Monarchy)

I voted for the Mongols.

Barbarian huts don't give out money and they automatically settle. I don't know if you have noticed but barbarian huts are usually on resources, so you don't get a settler to move it to a nicer place. So every hut you conquer leaves you with a city in a not so ideal spot, sometimes extremely near to your own capital.

And to make matters worse, you don't get any money or units from the huts, just a not so ideally placed city. On paper it sounds like a very powerful trait, but it comes to a way too high price.

The +2 production to mountains can get rather huge later in the game though...

I voted for the Mongols.

Barbarian huts don't give out money and they automatically settle. I don't know if you have noticed but barbarian huts are usually on resources, so you don't get a settler to move it to a nicer place. So every hut you conquer leaves you with a city in a not so ideal spot, sometimes extremely near to your own capital.

And to make matters worse, you don't get any money or units from the huts, just a not so ideally placed city. On paper it sounds like a very powerful trait, but it comes to a way too high price.

The +2 production to mountains can get rather huge later in the game though...


You get about 300 gold from barbarians in the game

I dont think 300 gold = 9 cites by 0 ad

I understand the part about bad location, but its definitly no the WORST civ

Why do you think America is a bad civ? Their ability to rush units to half price is godlike versus good players. Also they get the highest production in late game because of their good factories.

You get about 300 gold from barbarians in the game

I dont think 300 gold = 9 cites by 0 ad

I understand the part about bad location, but its definitly no the WORST civ

You have more cities to defend and that means if you lose a non-important city, you can lose an important tech. So you lose land that could have been exploited a lot better by carefully thought out city placement.

I guess in the end the Mongols could be a pretty good civ, but you need to have a good map for them with huts being spread out and in good locations. I guess it takes a little extra strategy to make the best of the situation. The obvious benefit has a pretty large trade-off in my opinion, while benefits of other civs don't.

They are good for the one city challenge, which basically means you can only use settlers to found your capital or add people to that capital (read this in another topic).

You have more cities to defend and that means if you lose a non-important city, you can lose an important tech. So you lose land that could have been exploited a lot better by carefully thought out city placement.

I guess in the end the Mongols could be a pretty good civ, but you need to have a good map for them with huts being spread out and in good locations. I guess it takes a little extra strategy to make the best of the situation. The obvious benefit has a pretty large trade-off in my opinion, while benefits of other civs don't.

They are good for the one city challenge, which basically means you can only use settlers to found your capital or add people to that capital (read this in another topic).

the mongols are better to use in single player than in multiplayer
there probubly top 3 in single player because the AI wont attack you as much as humans

I've looked over a few so far and from what I see I think the worst is Russia with no "REAL" bonus. It's a little difference, yeah, but every little bit helps when Panzers are pouring into your country.

Looking at the bonuses Russia does look to be the worse. They simply don't have a stand out bonus.

Germany, In my opinion sucks

Russia are probably the weakest. Loyalty and 1/2 price riflemen help with defence and food 2 plains make it a easier to settle anywhere but they lack something to truely help them towards a victory. The map can help get to huts and barbs quicker but I'm normally able to explore the same amount pretty quick.

I think that the Aztec are the weakest civilization. Personally, I don't find the extra gold that much helpful.

With my limited historical knowledge, Russia should have started with Communism instead of a local area map, IMHO, with Carl Marx and all. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

With my limited historical knowledge, Russia should have started with Communism instead of a local area map, IMHO, with Carl Marx and all. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

:lol: Okay, I'll correct you, you're wrong... Karl Marx was GERMAN, not Russian! Russia was far from industrialized in the nineteenth century, at the time of Marx, hence Marx did not consider Russia to be developed enough for communism. Marx believed societies must pass through a capitalist stage of industrial development before achieving communism, and in the nineteenth century, Russia still had a feudal economy that relied on peasantry, not an industrialized proletariat. Marx expected the more industrialized nations, Germany and England in particular, to be the first countries to adopt communism.

I think that the Aztec are the weakest civilization. Personally, I don't find the extra gold that much helpful.

There is no weakening Aztec units. Either you kill them or they have a fully fit (and probably upgraded) unit. You really have to attack with superior units or bring a big stack of equal units to conquer them. You'd better wipe them out while you still can.

I think the Zulu are a terrible Civ. Not only do they always come in dead last in games where I play against them (all they do is go for military tech and always end up failing miserably), but they always declare war on me and fail even more miserably.

When I used them they werent particularly great either. I dont like them much.

I wish I could have my vote back... I voted for the Arabs before the game came out in the U.S., but now the Arabs have become one of my favorite Civs.

I think that the Aztec are the weakest civilization. Personally, I don't find the extra gold that much helpful.

I think you're wrong. I think they're ridiculously powerful at the start, even though I haven't used them yet. I played a Free For All private match with 2 friends online on my PS3 the other day, and one of them was using the Aztecs. I was unfortunate to start out in a poor spot and very near his starting position. On Turn 1, he used his starting gold to rush build his first Warrior unit and start exploring. He found me and claimed my capital before my first Warrior unit was built. Game over.

On other matches (he uses aztecs almost exclusively on MP), he's able to build his Civ much faster than everyone else. Turn 1 he rush builds Warriors and is able to start exploring and I think he has enough gold left over to rush build another Unit by Turn 3 or 4. Using that tactic, he has 2 Warrior units built that can be exploring the area around him, claiming land naming rights and friendly/barbarian villages before other Civs even have their first Warrior unit up. Because of this, even though he spends much of his starting gold, he still gets his bonus (100 gold) settlers way before anyone else, and if you were unlucky enough to start near him, by the time you start exploring you find there is nothing in your area left to claim. So, you lose out on early exploration gold and it takes until much later in the game to get your bonus settlers (which is HUGE), and instead of building enough Warriors to defend your turf and explore early, or a Galley to get to island exploration, you end up spending valuable time early on building a settler unit, which slows everything down. Science production and starting city growth (hurts less if you're using Romans, which I hardly ever do now that I got the full game) are stunted so badly, if he finds you early in the game and is aggresive enough, your game is essentially over.

So, I would strongly disagree that the Aztecs are the worst Civ, by far.

I agree, Aztecs are one of the better civs. And if you are lucky to find Ark of the Covenent and get insta temples (+3 science bonus for aztec) in your early 4-5 cities (after rushing with horsemen), then the world is yours.

On the Russians
After I saw this poll, I decided to test out the Russians (never played them before) on Deity and see how poorly they would do. And to my surprise they rocked!
I was a bit lucky with my spawnarea because I could see a huge area of plains just 3 squares south of my settler. So I moved the settler for two turns and settled up against 2 forest and 4 plains and a barbarian city. With no research possible I focused on growing my city and building some early warriors. Plus you get a free militia for settling up against a barbarian city. With my warriors and milita I collected barb huts and got 100gp and the free settler. The settler moved to the water and I focused on reseach of Pottery. When that was done I rushed granary in Moscow and it boomed. I think it did 20 food each turn. After some horsemen for offensive-definding I started building Hanging Gardens. When it finished it brought Moscow to 18 pop and it was still very early in the game. From then on I never looked back and just researched my way ahead from the AI. My easiest Deity win until now.

So - if you get a start with some plains (and you can use the revealed map to know this) - then the Russians are up there with the rest.

For right now the spanish have my vote, although they get navigation, it's takes ur city around 20-30 turns to make the galleon, (no making warriors/settlers etc...) and in order to really have a chance ur gonna need to find atlantis b4 anyone else, without that artifact I usually end up in civ creek without a paddle.