Worst civilization incl. BNW

India and France don't need a specific map setting to work, though. France needs to be able to toughen out the early game until they can set up their chateaus and see which theming wonders they can snag (Chateaus are more important though). As long as there's some luxuries around, France can do what they want to do.
As for India, the only thing they really want is a Coastal start, preferably with a second coastal spot closeby. Internal trade routes are king for India. Their elephants can ensure early game survival against highly aggressive enemies as well (They are quite underrated) and the Mughal Fort, while far from spectacular, is a decent-ish UB.
I'm not saying either are top tier, but they're less map-dependent than Denmark. Denmark on Archipelago is at worst mid-tier, yes. But any other map, and they suffer. They're not like England, who on Archipelago are God tier and still fairly decent on most other maps, or like the Mongols who trample everyone on Pangaea but can still be decent on most other maps, no, they are pretty piss-poor on most non-archipelago/small continents maps.
 
The OP question is for worst civ, but maybe we are really debating criteria for that low honor? I agree that India and France are more flexible with their map settings, but I would argue that is true when they are contrasted with any coastal bias civ. Denmark works fine on most maps, Pangaea included, and Archipelago is not required (and not even optimal for them).
 
My vote has to go for the Ottomans. While nothing about them is particularly bad, everything just feels completely redundant.

Naval warfare doesn't exist before Navigation and once you research it you get access to Privateers which coincidentally are able to capture enemy ships and carry that ability when upgrading into Destroyers.

The Sipahi is hardly better than the Lancer, which already is a unit that's hardly worth building considering its terrible upgrade path. Also don't get me started on Winged Hussars and how they compare to Sipahi...

The Janissary seems out of place as an offensive melee infantry in a game that punishes melee for attacking and not staying fortified. And fortified Janissary is no stronger than regular Musketman. I'd rather have a "boring" Muskeeter. That one at least can defend better.

Finally, the fleet maintenance reduction. Once again, if you're going to have a large enough fleet for it to matter it means you're playing on a water map and if so, you should already be swimming in :c5gold: from sea trade routes. All in all the UI is just "get some gold, on some maps, maybe". Rubbish.
 
Never played much with India, but after reading this thread i decided to check numbers again. Correct me if my calc. is wrong.

4 cities, size 30 each, standard sized map. (Fed by trade routes, of course!)

Capital (with Monarchy) --> 3.5 free happiness (compared to any civ with monarchy)
City #2 --> 11 free happiness. (+15; -4 from the UA)
City #3 --> 11 free happiness.
City #4 --> 11 free happiness.

Total = 36.5 free happiness. That likely means you will be able to sell far more strategics and luxuries instead of converting them into happiness, as you would, normally.

Plus, there is exception to Indian happiness mechanic: 2/3 [67%] of unused local happiness is converted into global happiness.
 
This is cute. Venice. The worst civ. Right. If you cannot use all the money generated by Venice to buy yourself into the higher ranks of the game, methinks you're doing something wrong. True they're not easy to play, but they're far from the worst. With the money you have, you should be buying an army to defend your cities. And nukes once the time comes.
Byzantium. OP on a duel map. You mean a civ that can't defend itself properly from a few battering rams is OP. Cute. On a duel map, that powerful religion you can set up isn't gonna bring you far. And unless your opponent only sits on a coast, the Dromon won't do much either.

I think he mentioned Venice being weakest on multiplayer. It is true. There is no civ that is so weak in single player that can compare to the weakness of Venice on multiplayer. It is weak to the point that it is banned so people can't roll it.
 
I think it pretty cool that there does not seem to be consensus around even one civ being terrible!

My vote has to go for the Ottomans. While nothing about them is particularly bad, everything just feels completely redundant. Naval warfare doesn't exist before Navigation and once you research it you get access to Privateers which coincidentally are able to capture enemy ships and carry that ability when upgrading into Destroyers.

I only played a couple games with them, but I think Ottoman are like Denmark in that you really have to adjust your play style to enjoy them. I built just one more trireme than usual, and was amazed how much of a fleet I had by Navigation. Iron-clads with prize are very fun! Because of upgrading expenses, and prized ships losing promotions, I still ended up hard-building destroyers, and prize on those is great too! The problem with waiting for privateers is the waiting, plus they have the CR promo when you really want the naval combat one.

Never played much with India, but after reading this thread i decided to check numbers again. Correct me if my calc. is wrong...
Total = 36.5 free happiness.

Seems like that should be more noticeable to me for in my India games! I am sure that part of my trouble is that my expos are only half that size.
 
My vote has to go for the Ottomans. While nothing about them is particularly bad, everything just feels completely redundant.

Naval warfare doesn't exist before Navigation and once you research it you get access to Privateers which coincidentally are able to capture enemy ships and carry that ability when upgrading into Destroyers.

The Sipahi is hardly better than the Lancer, which already is a unit that's hardly worth building considering its terrible upgrade path. Also don't get me started on Winged Hussars and how they compare to Sipahi...

The Janissary seems out of place as an offensive melee infantry in a game that punishes melee for attacking and not staying fortified. And fortified Janissary is no stronger than regular Musketman. I'd rather have a "boring" Muskeeter. That one at least can defend better.

Finally, the fleet maintenance reduction. Once again, if you're going to have a large enough fleet for it to matter it means you're playing on a water map and if so, you should already be swimming in :c5gold: from sea trade routes. All in all the UI is just "get some gold, on some maps, maybe". Rubbish.

I'm not going to argue the Ottomans are great, however they aren't the worse. Naval warfare exists once you start pumping out triremes. They don't start being useful against cities until the galleass though. Their UA gives you ships you don't have to produce and makes 2 out of 3 free from upkeep. This means you can have a large navy to protect your trade while devoting production and gold to other things, such as land military. You get the purpose of the privateer on all of your ships, that's pretty sweet. Nobody says the longbowman is useless because artillery have 3 range, that's what makes both great.

The Sipahi acts more as a scout, with that extra sight and movement. The free pillaging is a nice perk. It's not a great UU and doesn't compare to the Winged Hussar, but I've definitely have gotten good use out of it and nothing really compares to the Winged Hussar. Considering Poland as a civ is godlike, it's not really fair to use them as a comparison for balance.

The Janissary allows the ottomans to play their infantry offensively. The heal is crutch, and combined with your Sipahi scouts/flankers, they'll be more safe to play aggressively. With the both combined, you become a dominant military force during the renaissance.

A large navy can be helpful even on continents. And what is wrong with making more money from less navy upkeep WHILE having a larger navy to defend your trade routes?
 
@Moriarte - Indian 30 pop capital is generating 7.5 + 6 = 13.5 :c5unhappy: with Monarchy. Regular civs suffer 15 + 3 = 18 :c5unhappy:. So you gain 4.5 :c5happy: in your capital and 12 (15-3) :c5happy: in other cities.

The problem with India is not that you can't go wide - you can. It's just that early expansion is slower because each city hits you with 7 6.5 :c5unhappy: as opposed to regular 4 :c5unhappy:. And as we all know, in Civ small gain early >>> moderate gain late.

@Beetle, Tyrvos
If you could reliably convert enemy Galeasses (16 :c5strength:) with Triremes (only 10 :c5strength:) then I would value the Ottomans UA more. It is just that you can do so little with navy before Navigation it's just not worth it IMO. I mean, the way the coast appears in Civ 5 is that you can usually only fit 2 or 3 ships at once to attack a coastal city. And if you DON'T take that city fast enough it will rush Walls and your "fleet" will get thrashed by bombardment + archer + (gasp!) enemy Galleas inside...
 
However the other half of the Mongol UA is useless. +1 mov to horse units is great except that Keshiks are counted as ranged units.
Wow! You think you've seen it all and then someone comes along and complains that Keshiks aren't powerful enough :crazyeye: :lol:
 
If you could reliably convert enemy Galeasses (16 :c5strength:) with Triremes (only 10 :c5strength:) then I would value the Ottomans UA more.

But you can, because you have your triremes in small bunches (not hard with the UA) so you can attack the galleasses 3:1 or a couple turns at 2:1. I am not good at warfare generally, but even for me it was pretty straightforward. The limiting factor was having to stick to shallow water. Units get in the way of each other until you get logistics.

It is just that you can do so little with navy before Navigation it's just not worth it IMO.

I agree with you generally, and I wouldn’t argue that the Ottoman UA is sufficiently strong to enable taking cities with triremes and galleasses. But I do think the UA makes an early navy compelling! Very much worth playing things differently IMHO. Low cost / high reward, but not game breaking.
 
@Moriarte - Indian 30 pop capital is generating 7.5 + 6 = 13.5 :c5unhappy: with Monarchy. Regular civs suffer 15 + 3 = 18 :c5unhappy:. So you gain 4.5 :c5happy: in your capital and 12 (15-3) :c5happy: in other cities.

The problem with India is not that you can't go wide - you can. It's just that early expansion is slower because each city hits you with 7 6.5 :c5unhappy: as opposed to regular 4 :c5unhappy:. And as we all know, in Civ small gain early >>> moderate gain late.

Thanks! I sensed something was out of place..

As for Indian expansion: the best possible opening across all boards most of the time is 3 city NC anyway and then either war or another city founded. Which isn't, often, taxing on the happiness, even with India. The total gain is overwhelming though.. worth, like, 4 Notre Dame's. :) Just need a little creativity to secure early happiness. (focus production for settlers, exchange lux for lux, instead of just selling them)

To me the most useless is Byzantium. It should have been buffed from the start with more religious traits and/or buildings. I feel Byzantium is hollow. On the other hand, on marathon speeds, which i don't play often, this civ has great potential.

Denmark is a couple of levels higher than Byzantium in my book (for deity domination)
 
@Beetle, Tyrvos
If you could reliably convert enemy Galeasses (16 :c5strength:) with Triremes (only 10 :c5strength:) then I would value the Ottomans UA more. It is just that you can do so little with navy before Navigation it's just not worth it IMO. I mean, the way the coast appears in Civ 5 is that you can usually only fit 2 or 3 ships at once to attack a coastal city. And if you DON'T take that city fast enough it will rush Walls and your "fleet" will get thrashed by bombardment + archer + (gasp!) enemy Galleas inside...

This comes down to playstyle. I play mainly coastal teams and make use of even triremes early on for exploration and trade route control. Also, although a galleass is stronger, as the Ottomans you are likely to greatly outnumber them in ships.

Yes, you can only have around 3 ships attack a city on average, but hopefully you aren't just using a navy. You're navy will also help you be able to launch early coastal attacks with your land units, which can be very important.

Navigation vastly improves the role of the ships, but they are still important before that for securing coastal dominance.
 
Any civilization that benefits in a traditional start with the usual freedom ending social policy is boring to me. This is one of the ways to get to a victory in civilization and trust, the ai also does it sometimes...
 
Babylon is the worst. You get a huge benefit at the second tech you research and then you have to work hard to stay awake for the rest of the game because there's pretty much nothing else happening strategy wise. The one decision you get to make during the whole game related to your UA/UB/UU combo is where to settle the Great Scientist. Exciting.

I like the way this guy thinks. I find four-city Tradition to be a snooze-fest; you're not so much playing the game as you are watching a very dull movie you have to keep hitting "play" on.

As to the OP, I don't know if picking a flat "worst" civ is possible. There's some civs whose benefits are great in all situations, some that are great in certain situations, some that are okay in all situations, and some that are merely okay in some specific situations.

That last category is where the 'losers' reside, but picking a single one or two of them is impossible as there's too many variables where any given lower-tier civ can outshine the others.

In the interests of giving it the ol' college try though, I'd go with India. Early-game happiness is difficult to maintain, and I find that the direct happiness penalty that early hobbles my expansion somewhat. Yes, they can later grow to colossal heights (and even widths) with high happiness, but it doesn't really compensate for the disadvantage at the start. The good turf gets taken by other faster expanders than you, and you suffer growing early civs, and then someone can stop in and casually murder you.
 
Well only situation where Byzantium can come as close as OP is on 1 vs 1 situation. You are guaranteed to found a religion and it doesnt really matter who your opponent is. Loucypher in his rage assumed Byzantium is against Huns but Byzantium also has plenty of ancient units to counter ancient warmongering. Later with religion you can easily boost your strongest side to get advantage over your enemy.

Venice. Right. Right know I am talking of MP experience, not SP so you dont need to read any further from here. Having tons on money actually is worthless on short term because you can buy only one unit at time. Also Venice biggest weakness is that he is complitely mercy of geography: your capital stands pretty much where setler spawns and if you want more cities you need to buy pre-determined city states or conquer cities, or buy them. Sooner or later your capital is surrounded by other civ cities and when they want to kill you they will do that. Extra trade routes actually are quite weak power because they are so easily pillaged and thus you lose your main source of cash. You need to have a huge military to protect your capital so you lose money quite fast after trade routes are gone. I was killed by nukes, not by one but +5. Because I cant build military units anywhere else than capital, bought city states are far away if I buy units there so Venice is close civ not to meant to survive. Once your trade is plundered and main military gone even having unlimited cash is worthles because you can buy only one unit per turn.

And Ottomans are OP civ on archipelago map. Got a navy? Now I have it!
 
Well only situation where Byzantium can come as close as OP is on 1 vs 1 situation. You are guaranteed to found a religion and it doesnt really matter who your opponent is. Loucypher in his rage assumed Byzantium is against Huns but Byzantium also has plenty of ancient units to counter ancient warmongering. Later with religion you can easily boost your strongest side to get advantage over your enemy.

Venice. Right. Right know I am talking of MP experience, not SP so you dont need to read any further from here. Having tons on money actually is worthless on short term because you can buy only one unit at time. Also Venice biggest weakness is that he is complitely mercy of geography: your capital stands pretty much where setler spawns and if you want more cities you need to buy pre-determined city states or conquer cities, or buy them. Sooner or later your capital is surrounded by other civ cities and when they want to kill you they will do that. Extra trade routes actually are quite weak power because they are so easily pillaged and thus you lose your main source of cash. You need to have a huge military to protect your capital so you lose money quite fast after trade routes are gone. I was killed by nukes, not by one but +5. Because I cant build military units anywhere else than capital, bought city states are far away if I buy units there so Venice is close civ not to meant to survive. Once your trade is plundered and main military gone even having unlimited cash is worthles because you can buy only one unit per turn.

And Ottomans are OP civ on archipelago map. Got a navy? Now I have it!

With Venice, you typically want to buy one or two cs's close to you, for unit movement and internal trade routes. You can have 20+ trade routes as Venice. If the enemy is taking even half of them out, you are not defending them right at all. Also, at the same time you are buying units 1 a turn (which is fast not sure why you are saying that's a bad thing) your close bought city-states can buy units and Venice should have strong production so it can produce units are a quick pace. You should have, and can afford, a decent sized military before anybody threatens to attack you.

And don't accuse others of rage just because they do not agree with you.
 
With Venice, you typically want to buy one or two cs's close to you, for unit movement and internal trade routes. You can have 20+ trade routes as Venice. If the enemy is taking even half of them out, you are not defending them right at all. Also, at the same time you are buying units 1 a turn (which is fast not sure why you are saying that's a bad thing) your close bought city-states can buy units and Venice should have strong production so it can produce units are a quick pace. You should have, and can afford, a decent sized military before anybody threatens to attack you.

And don't accuse others of rage just because they do not agree with you.

And it is all about luck. If your gepgraphy sucks enough all of your advises are hollow. I dont really see enough reason here since you came down "not defending them right". There are simply too many factors based purely on luck and too often they always are against Venice. In case you dont have any first hand MP experience (SP dont really count, AI is dummy as bucket) please dont advise because you are just inexperied.
 
Venice is just a glorified one city challenge. Of course OCC is quite a handicap vs. other players who are not OCC. It's not a bad thing, though--maybe you play your 12-year-old brother and want to make a game of it.
 
And it is all about luck. If your gepgraphy sucks enough all of your advises are hollow. I dont really see enough reason here since you came down "not defending them right". There are simply too many factors based purely on luck and too often they always are against Venice. In case you dont have any first hand MP experience (SP dont really count, AI is dummy as bucket) please dont advise because you are just inexperied.

I have done mp, you need to plan your routes and ships so that at most a ship will plunder a trade route (at most) until you have ships engaged. Venice is given priority in settlement at the start, meaning they are given what the computer believes to be the best coastal start on the map before anybody else is given a spot. That's not too much luck right there.
 
Venice is just a glorified one city challenge. Of course OCC is quite a handicap vs. other players who are not OCC. It's not a bad thing, though--maybe you play your 12-year-old brother and want to make a game of it.

True. It is fun and fast to play but I merely pointed out that in true military situation your options are very limited.
 
Top Bottom