Worst Gods and Kings ability

the first time I rolled as Japan, I went for a Diplomatic victory instead of some conquering. Partially because I started off on an isolated Americas, and mainly just because I never really beelined the UN before.

e: also the allure of having a cyberpunk future dominated by Japanese and Arabian zaibatsu

blackcatatonic said:

I worry about the Celts being so dependent on forests. With the right conditions they'll be very powerful (see the Iroquois and the Inca) but they won't be successful on every map.

Click to expand...

Interesting point you make about the Iroquois. They're one of my favourites to play as no matter the map condition - forests are good but not necessarily required to have a good game in my experience.

The Celts will also be pretty solid I think, but you rightly point towards a greater dependence on substantial forests. Their UU looks like it could be a hell of a lot of fun to play with, but the UA needs looking at.

Securion said:

I thought it was settled by now that the Swedish UA is the worst...?
10% more GPs? Wow! Not.

Click to expand...

10% per a friendly civ...

The worst civ is Byzantium, It's only going to kick in a percent of the time. based too much on luck IMO

That's not based on luck at all. The chances are 50% to start a religion...if you do nothing at all to try to start one. If you are trying to start one, you have a very likely chance of success.

RockTheCazbah87 said:

Interesting point you make about the Iroquois. They're one of my favourites to play as no matter the map condition - forests are good but not necessarily required to have a good game in my experience.

Click to expand...

Ha, well I've never actually played as the Iroquois so to a certain extent I'm just speculating. Although I did once get decimated by Hiawatha starting next to me in a heavily forested map...

I'm looking forward to seeing how the Celts pan out, actually. I just hope they won't be weak in the hands of the AI.

TheKingOfBigOz said:

I think people need to remember we don't know if the 10% stacks.. it might be a one off, or in case of multiple DoFs it would be 10%+10%+10% etc.

But I can't help but say Sweden purely because their ability doesn't work in Multiplayer games, unless you play with the AI, Sweden's ability half-working unless they bring in the ability to make doF into MP games.

Click to expand...

Swedens UA boost is likely stacked, else you're giving +10% to every other DoF civ, but only getting 10% yourself? Seems unlikely.

Sweden + RA change = most likely DoF is added to MP games. They really have to do it, else more than one thing will be broken.

Camikaze said:

Sweden on the other hand...

Ethiopia doesn't strike me as that great, either. It's of course largely dependent on play style, but I don't often find myself defending, or fighting against civs with more cities.

Click to expand...

I'd likely peg Ethiopia as the worst of the bunch. But, as stated already somewhere in this thread, it's only 'worst' of the new group, not 'worst overall', given that there's lots of playstyles/etc out there.

blackcatatonic said:

I get the impression that a few people are looking at the new Civs from the point of view of their own favourite strategies and inevitably finding that they won't work.

Sweden will become powerful quickly by playing a peaceful game. Lots of DoFs = lots of GPs = lots of CS influence = Diplomatic victory in the bag.

Click to expand...

Yup. Play style (and/or 'ability' of the player) will be the most important factor in a 100% subjective ranking system.

Though, 'in the bag' might become 'get bagged' if Austria is around Marrying all of those CSs.

King William I said:

The worst civ is Byzantium, It's only going to kick in a percent of the time. based too much on luck IMO

Click to expand...

With minor dedication, you'll get a religion every game. The 'questionable' part is 'what type of extra belief do you get' - and that will change in each game. Along with 'how many of my neighbours also founded a religion'.

I would agree that Ethiopia is the worst new civ. With Sweden I finally have good to do with my Great Artists and Merchants after I have them build their improvements. Otherwise from my play style and from a unbiased standpoint it doesn't seem very useful, it really only helps with a cultural victory. But it may help in the early game, say if the German or French warlords declare war on you, you could repel the invasion better

The Maya should be really powerful in the beginning, where one long count will take <10 turns. After that, it will gradually become utterly pointless

Ability only starts after researching Teologi

The Dutch ability is great, but only if you exploit it early. Their unique terrain building though has me intrigued. As for Sea Beggars, bring em out lads! Argh!!! I love navy!

Netherlands UA is one of the best going if you play Immortal+ on at least a standard sized map, just sell every lux you have and build up your empire like crazy while staying in positive happiness. Byzantium UA really does suck for higher levels, the chances of getting a religion are much slimmer and only if you luck into it or dedicate yourself to it.. in which case you risk sabotaging more important aspects of your game.. and honestly, I find the whole religion aspect of higher levels kind of pointless, trying to compete with the AI to pump out missionaries to spread your religion is just going to set you back in more important parts of the game. Most games I go for a pantheon and then forget about faith until I wind up with someone elses religion and use faith to purchase wahtever that religion allows.

Maybe it's my playing style, but I find Ethiopia to be a fantastic choice. The stele allows you to store faith earlier than everybody else, so you get dibs on the beliefs of your choice while also building wonders and doing science. Meanwhile you let the other civs duke it out, and if anyone comes a knocking at your door, they'll get their heads kicked. Once the dust settles between the Attilas and the Alexanders of the world, take out the other civs, starting with the smallest of the ones bigger than you. Fun fun fun.

Well the OP wasn't clear but I'm interpreting it as the worst UA of any civ after the changes/buffs G&K introduced. If it's JUST the G&K Civs I'll say Ethiopia.

There aren't nearly as many bad abilities as there used to be; G&K actually did a good job of buffing the ones that are were bad/situational(i.e. "water map only" civs). I'm just going to assume the UAs are all applied on a "favorable" map.

Arabia's UA is pretty weak and might get my vote as the weakest; that +1 really isn't all that much even with a big puppet empire, and the extra Oil is okay but not great when you consider they often have oil in their desert start bias anyway.

Germany's land maintenance can be a boon later in the game, but it's kind of eh early on and the barbarian recruiting thing is inconsistent as hell and only gets one per camp at most anyway. Of course, I may be biased here since I really don't care for Germany much now(Lancers aren't bad units but I don't really see the need for a mass of Lancers or eventually Helicopters; multiple upgrade options would help here).

Egypt's UA doesn't really come into play very often. It might be helpful for National wonders but there's not THAT many world wonders you'd be aiming for and it may not even make a difference whether you get them or not. I guess the other way to look at it is that it helps a cultural victory to get a world wonder in all your cities for that Piety policy, but even then...

I ALMOST said Mongolia but I forgot about the +1 to mounted units part.

Light Cleric said:

Egypt's UA doesn't really come into play very often. It might be helpful for National wonders but there's not THAT many world wonders you'd be aiming for and it may not even make a difference whether you get them or not. I guess the other way to look at it is that it helps a cultural victory to get a world wonder in all your cities for that Piety policy, but even then...

Click to expand...

HUSH YO MOUTH!!!
-Wonder Ho

Celtic UA (Druidic Lore) is, IMHO, the most lackluster ever.
+1 or +2 faith, yeah, right...

Fine for the pantheon. Not enough for a religion.

Petiscator said:

Celtic UA (Druidic Lore) is, IMHO, the most lackluster ever.
+1 or +2 faith, yeah, right...

Fine for the pantheon. Not enough for a religion.

Click to expand...

And on top of that, you have to leave multiple valuable tiles near your key starting city unimproved. Forest on top of a river+grassland tile and you're desperate for food? Sorry. Forest on one of the few hills nearby and you're in desperate need of mines? Sorry. Crap UA.

Petiscator said:

Celtic UA (Druidic Lore) is, IMHO, the most lackluster ever.
+1 or +2 faith, yeah, right...

Fine for the pantheon. Not enough for a religion.

Click to expand...

when you get the first pantheon, you increase the faith milestone for every other player.
It does in fact help you get the first religion, if not one of the first ones

I agree with hello; it makes getting the first pantheon a cinch, and it's not a big deal to leave the forest tiles unimproved for a while, at least until you found your religion unless you got a crapload of forest luxuries, and even then, just move the settler to not be adjacent to them

if I'm assuming right, we're talking about the UA. in combination with UU/UB they of course become more interesting or better but just by itself i would go with the Swedes. I can pretty much NEVER want to gift a Great person. Yes, 90 influence is sizeable, but most GPs have really valuable services from bulbs or landing them. Even a GG's citadel is more valuable to me than 90 influence in most circumstances. Maybe a faith bought prophet that you dont care about is nice for it but that's about it for me.