Is a Civ to Strong, to Weak or Balanced

The point with this tread is to list the arguments why a chosen civilization is to Strong, to Weak, or Balanced.

Every argument that make seans gamplay wise should be taken notice of.

For example, Babylon is weak because Korea UA can easly generate more science and Sweden can get more GS.
Neither of Babylons uniques are usefull.

I just used this to show and I don't count that as arguments to Babylon is weak.

You should probably choose a civ to slander xD

Ok lets start with America (I took the Civ because its the top one in the Civilopedia)

UA Manifest Destiny (All land units +1 sight and tile purchase cost half as much)

UU Minuteman Replace Musketman (All land squares cost one movement, get drill I promotion for free and contributes towards golden age then it kills units.
All 3 promotions are keept then uppgrading)

UU B-17 Replace Bomber (Got slight more attack strenght, got evasion and siege I for free)

UA purpose look to me that its made for expansion.
The +1 sight will help with scouting allowing for a slight faster start and the purchase land discont will help with closing of alot of land allowing America to easly get Control of many Resources and get alot of cities in good posistions.

After the expansion phase America will have good amount of time to build up their economy without worring about their UUs go obsolete.
At Renisance they get their first UU Minuteman which is far superior to the Musketman in rought terrain and can very slight help your economy with generating Points to golden age, its also good to note the UA will help well in warfare with the +1 sight.
Some eras later their second UU come online, the B-17 a completly superior Bomber which will allow America to bomb enemy cities and units much more effective then the Bomber.

America looks to me like being made for domination scenarios, compared to other civs in this catagory America focus on late domination compared to early domination.

The UUs is very good, an uppgraded Minuteman is completly superior to the Brazilan UU however Brazil do have more to gain on their golden ages, however Brazil would gladly trade their UU for Minuteman.

The only problems with America is that you need to be Active to take advantage of their UA and it will not help you much in situations with Little land or maps you can expand slow and still get the land. Also you have to wait a long time Before you can get your UUs and their is a long time between them to.

America full potiential will probably be seen on maps with alot of land, slight crowded but not to much.
America worst maps looks like it would be maps with Little land without any civs that you have to competate about getting the land.

So all in all America looks like a pretty balanced civilization, it got its strenght and weaknesses.

America sounds about just right as a balanced civ. We can use America as a benchmark to balance other civs.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

Your signature says the opposite of what you just said.

soldier2975 said:

Your signature says the opposite of what you just said.

Click to expand...

And what his statement in the op about Babs is also false!

as per Martin Alvito's theorum:
For all maps, ∫Babylon d > ∫Korea d

All civs are really dependent on the skill of the player, their starting spots and the type of map. So we should look for civs that are mostly situational. These civs can only function under specific circumstances.

My first example is Indonesia. It has a situational UU and UA. The UU could help you produce heaps of awesome troops, such as invulnerability, heroism, ambition and restlessness. However, the kris swordsmen have a small chance of getting the demotions. Enemy blade makes your melee units useless in attacking into enemy territory (or gives you an opportunity to get an achievement) whilst evil spirits weaken your kris swordsmen in attack and defence, but at least not to the point of complete weakness. The obvious solution is to delete the unit and build another one or use the evil spirit unit as fodder, but it doesn't erase the point that luck is a big factor for Indonesia's UU. You could get the promotions you want immediately or you waste hammers trying to get them.

As for Indonesia's UA, it depends on the type of map. It's obvious for all CFC'ers that Indonesia is epic on archipelago, ok/good on (small) continents and maybe terra, and crap on pangaea. So now I add the factors of multiplayer and singleplayer. In MP, unless you are host, there's no point choosing Indonesia if host chooses pangaea map type. Even worse, the host might choose disable start bias, so Indonesia starts somewhere inland Sure, you might be an epic player and declare that you're going to negatively handicap yourself to the other players, and you also got the UB and siuational UU to use, but the joke will be on you if things go pear-shaped and it will only add to the point of how situational this civ is.

Now, in SP, of course you set the rules and you will give yourself a great chance of finding islands nearby to settle. But, once WC begins, what if the proposing civs decide to ban your luxuries? No one else is getting any benefit from them, unless you trade with them, so they'll either abstain or support the move. So even if you do get your own luxury resources that no one else can get unless they capture your city or buy your spare LR, luxury bans might completely negate this UA altogether, even when your luck is high.

Now, to balance my argument, I must consider the UB. It enables Indonesia to generate GP at a faster rate especially when going wide. It also offers a faith bonus per follower of different religions. So Indonesia could end up getting lots of fpt, making piety > glory of God attractive policy trees and reformation respectively. However, the power of this UB also depends on size of the map and the number of religions near you. Having 7 religions near your (presumably) wide Indonesian empire would enable all your cities to generate up to 14 faith per turn. Add shrines and temples, and that's 17 fpt per city. So, as Indonesia, you have enormous potential in terms of GP's when next to religious empires and if you found your own religion too (+ the Glory of God reformation, or maybe even Jesuit education instead).

Situational =/= weak hands down. It means you have to be lucky in order to get something out of it. I'd say the best experience for Indonesia would be MP and you are host. Just don't set map to archipelago to piss off the other players. Try earth or continents instead.

Yeah, America is balanced. Fair UU but come too late into the game, with B-17 being there just to finish the game (more or less).
UA +1 sight is excellent, while title buying isn't that impressive. It can help when you really need to buy this or that title to prevent AI from settling, but otherwise, nothing special. Not bad, just not overall impressive.

I'll start with Rome, since it was my first civ I picked in CiV (and 4 if I remember correctly)


UA: Glory of Rome - 25% production toward buildings already built in Rome (capital)

Good strong UA that is very useful during the entire game. +25% bonus production helps Rome quickly establish infrastructure in their cities. Balanced by terrain and city placement. No amount of +% will help you out if you have terrible base production.

UU: Legion - fair UU, but nothing special combat wise. Can build roads and forts, saving precious times worker will use to build roads. Works well with UA, because Legions can help establish roads while workers are busy improving titles like farms\mines\luxuries. If give some promotion, they can survive until they are replaced by Longswords.

Fair unit if you ask me. Not that impressive on paper, but lot better in practice.

UU: Balista - not that great UU. It's slightly buffed catapult. Really nothing to write about. It will be used to weaken city before Legions finish the job. Composite Bows will usually be needed to protect Balistas.

Overall: Rome has very strong UA, one fair UU unit and one "meh" UU unit. Fairly Balanced civ if you ask me.

and I'll do one more civ, since I know it's gonna be bashed for no real reason:

Songhai.

UA: River Warlord - Triple gold from barb camps and pillaged cities. Embarked units can defend themselves.

Askia's UA isn't that terrible as people make it out to be. Check raging barbs and you'll have enough camps to pillage. You'll get 75 gold per each. Do several barb camps and you'll have enough gold to rush buy buildings or more units to do more barb hunts. Works well with Honor. Pillaging cities works even better, you'll often get 300-600 gold, or even more if you attack Tall Empires.

Other part of the UA isn't that great, because it's situational and no one in their right mind will do "water invasion". Why, when you can just attack from land?

UU: Mandekalu cavalry - on paper not that impressive, but they are quick to build and have no penalty attacking cities, which means Songhai can have highly mobile forces to raid and pillage.

UB: Mud pyramid mosque gives 2 Faith + 2 Culture and cost no gold to maintain. What more do you need??? boost it with religion (+2 Happiness and +2 Culture) and you'll have Mini World Wonder that cost no gold and is built for 100 hammers.

Overall: Songhai are close to balanced. UU and UB are strong, UA could be little better. It's not terrible, but it requires player to be more active and will not suit people who like to turtle. Too bad Askia AI is clueless and always fails to do anything.

soldier2975 said:

Your signature says the opposite of what you just said.

Click to expand...

Please tell me how my signature says the opposite of what I just said.

And what his statement in the op about Babs is also false!

as per Martin Alvito's theorum:
For all maps, ∫Babylon d > ∫Korea d

Click to expand...

I just used this to show and I don't count that as arguments to Babylon is weak.

Denkt said:

Please tell me how my signature says the opposite of what I just said.

Click to expand...

no best civ

Click to expand...

no worst civ

Click to expand...

If you can describe the elements of a collection (civs in the game) as greater than or less than one another, there will be (at least) one at the bottom and (at least) one at the top.

Magma_Dragoon said:

If you can describe the elements of a collection (civs in the game) as greater than or less than one another, there will be (at least) one at the bottom and (at least) one at the top.

Click to expand...

Not true because it will not lead to one civ being listed as the worst or the best

njmfff said:

UU: Legion - fair UU, but nothing special combat wise. Can build roads and forts, saving precious times worker will use to build roads. Works well with UA, because Legions can help establish roads while workers are busy improving titles like farms\mines\luxuries.

Click to expand...

Don't forget to build the Pyramids, Legions will have the benefits of it (build one road in two turns if I remenber well).

Magma_Dragoon said:

If you can describe the elements of a collection (civs in the game) as greater than or less than one another, there will be (at least) one at the bottom and (at least) one at the top.

Click to expand...

Denkt said:

Not true because it will not lead to one civ being listed as the worst or the best

Click to expand...

Yes it will. Compare two elements (civs) of a set, then compare one of them to a third thing, and one of those three to a fourth thing, etc. This is called bubble sorting. You end up with an ordered list.

Denkt said:

Ok lets start with America (I took the Civ because its the top one in the Civilopedia)

UA Manifest Destiny (All land units +1 sight and tile purchase cost half as much)

UU Minuteman Replace Musketman (All land squares cost one movement, get drill I promotion for free and contributes towards golden age then it kills units.
All 3 promotions are keept then uppgrading)

UU B-17 Replace Bomber (Got slight more attack strenght, got evasion and siege I for free)

UA purpose look to me that its made for expansion.
The +1 sight will help with scouting allowing for a slight faster start and the purchase land discont will help with closing of alot of land allowing America to easly get Control of many Resources and get alot of cities in good posistions.

After the expansion phase America will have good amount of time to build up their economy without worring about their UUs go obsolete.
At Renisance they get their first UU Minuteman which is far superior to the Musketman in rought terrain and can very slight help your economy with generating Points to golden age, its also good to note the UA will help well in warfare with the +1 sight.
Some eras later their second UU come online, the B-17 a completly superior Bomber which will allow America to bomb enemy cities and units much more effective then the Bomber.

America looks to me like being made for domination scenarios, compared to other civs in this catagory America focus on late domination compared to early domination.

The UUs is very good, an uppgraded Minuteman is completly superior to the Brazilan UU however Brazil do have more to gain on their golden ages, however Brazil would gladly trade their UU for Minuteman.

The only problems with America is that you need to be Active to take advantage of their UA and it will not help you much in situations with Little land or maps you can expand slow and still get the land. Also you have to wait a long time Before you can get your UUs and their is a long time between them to.

America full potiential will probably be seen on maps with alot of land, slight crowded but not to much.
America worst maps looks like it would be maps with Little land without any civs that you have to competate about getting the land.

So all in all America looks like a pretty balanced civilization, it got its strenght and weaknesses.

Click to expand...

That was a pretty good description of what you can expect playing as America. The best maps are huge continents for the expansion phase and to keep it interesting if you have a few city makers like the Shoshone Greeks French You are in for a fast pace game even with a huge map. America produces gold but you do have to work for it
. By the time your into the atomic era you can be making enough gold to support your empire and fund a very lethal military.
Although I've found in BNW that I have to really keep an eye on happiness in the early part of the game.

Magma_Dragoon said:

Yes it will. Compare two elements (civs) of a set, then compare one of them to a third thing, and one of those three to a fourth thing, etc. This is called bubble sorting. You end up with an ordered list.

Click to expand...

You use logic, I don't think this thread is meant to go there. This seems more of an "expression" thread, where everything is a valid opinion... including that certain logically inconsistent statements are not inconsistent at all.

I'll do Mongolia.

Pros:
- Best land unit in the game relative to era.
- Effective counter not present for another era.
- Khans heal, so you shouldn't lose a single unit and you simultaneously fight on as many fronts as you have Khans/horses.
- Horses move very fast, so you have essentially no travel time on flat land/roads.
- Keshiks now keep their upgrades when they become cavalry and eventually tanks. So, you will have super-tanks when the time comes to continue your conquest.
- Planes also work better because they get healed by Khans.
- You are playing as the coolest civ in history, with the most epically awesome leader. You actually feel historically semi-accurate when you dominate the entire known world.

Cons:
- The whole world will hate you. You will not have friends to trade with.
- If you miss your window, your bonus is now only the Khan, which has limited use.
- If you are missing horses, or oil later, you are screwed.
- If there is a body of water to cross, you are screwed unless you maintain an ally on that landmass. This means it's very bad for Island maps.
- Your happiness will be a complete mess during your conquest spree (not to mention late universities), which means you can't grow, which means you'll have bad science, which means your only option is domination win.

Conclusion:
- This is the best civ ever for military conquest over land. Duh.

Magma_Dragoon said:

Yes it will. Compare two elements (civs) of a set, then compare one of them to a third thing, and one of those three to a fourth thing, etc. This is called bubble sorting. You end up with an ordered list.

Click to expand...

This game to many variables to rank Civs like that, thats one reason I hate tier systems.
Compare is one thing, ranking is a compleatly other thing.

The Point is to Sum up Civs, tell about how their UA, UU, UB, UI will help them and try to get an overview of how strong it is.

Poland is too strong. Greece as well, especially in the hands of an AI on Deity.