Most underrated civ
- Thread starter Doctor Doom
- Start date
Doctor Doom
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2013
- Messages
- 187
Arachnofiend
Perturbed Pugilist
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,950
I love the Maya I just wish I didn't have to take the great merchant or great admiral
I have literally never taken the Great Merchant, the game is always over before I have to. The Great Admiral is actually a really great early pick, it doesn't increase the cost of the other GP's and can be used to navigate oceans well before Astronomy. You can meet the other continent before anyone except Polynesia.
Well you have to have a base reference of some type as it is hard to quantify 'underrated' otherwise. That thread was quite frustrating because of perfectly good civs that drew hatred for strange reasons, ended up as more of a popularity contest.
It might be worthwhile looking at this list as well http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=505057 it should be remembered that this list is based on Diety level and that difficulty level encourages different tactics (e.g. trade routes) that may not be effective on lower difficulties.
Lower Tier: these civs are underpowered compared to most civs, but still workable.
Iroquois^, Carthage*, Japan*, Ottoman*, Byzantium, Sweden.
--------------------------
Bottom Tier: these civs are pretty bad on balanced maps, and require specific maps to work.
Denmark*, Indonesia*, Polynesia*
Civs that appear in the bottom 8 on both lists; Denmark & Byzantium
Underrated civs tend to be ones that require a change of playstyle, or don't fit into the fotm strategy. But yes I would say Denmark are the most underrated from that list.
I am not fan of Indonesia, they just take too long to get going if you don't have access to Iron early on. I am going to go with Spain as most underrated, they are simply misunderstood imho, Honorable mention for Venice as well.
PS even ordinary War Chariots can be awesome in the early game, just a shame they loose those early promotions if upgraded though.
Cromagnus
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,272
I think in order for a civ to qualify as underrated, most people would have to think they suck. It also depends on whether you're talking multiplayer or singleplayer, Deity or Prince. 
I constantly hear people say that Denmark, India and Polynesia are terrible. I think, as usual, what that really means is that you have to adjust your play style. Denmark is incredibly effective at surprise attack. Polynesia's ability to explore the whole map super-early is very useful. India's UA for doubling unhappiness from number of cities actually makes them *better* at going wide, not worse, in the long run, as long as you're not talking ICS.
(Base 6 unhappiness per city instead of base 3, but with ten 10-pop cities, that's 50 unhappiness from population and 60 from number of cities, instead of 100 from population and 30 from number of cities, for 20 *LESS* unhappiness)
So, they just require you change your playstyle, that's all. There are however, civs, IMHO, despite what Tommy says, that are just noticeably superior because of the synergy between their UA/UU/UB and the tech/policy trees. Notably, the Inca get terrace farms at Construction, which, on Deity at least, is very, very nice, because you tend to want to rush to Construction anyway. Cheap roads and fast movement in hills is tremendously useful. They're effective at both conquest and turtle. Poland's free policies are useful no matter your end goal. But a lot of UAs are not nearly as generically useful.
Denmark gets their UU at Machinery, and their UA only gives benefit if you go Domination, and to take advantage of all that you have to go with a very non-standard tech plan. You have to go all-in on Iron and Siege, and unlike say, Arabia, you don't get Civil Service en route to your UU, which really hurts for growth and tech in the long run because unless you win by t160, you're screwed. So, there are definitely civs that are harder to win with, unquestionably. IMHO.
You could also say that Polynesia, Indonesia, Denmark aren't under-rated, just *harder to use*. But IMHO that means they're not under-rated. They're rated exactly where they should be. The easier civs to win with are better. /shrug
However, of those three, Denmark is the one that jumps out to me as being *incredibly effective* when used correctly. Even Pangaea has a lot of coastline most times. Sometimes TOO much if you ask me, but whatever.
I constantly hear people say that Denmark, India and Polynesia are terrible. I think, as usual, what that really means is that you have to adjust your play style. Denmark is incredibly effective at surprise attack. Polynesia's ability to explore the whole map super-early is very useful. India's UA for doubling unhappiness from number of cities actually makes them *better* at going wide, not worse, in the long run, as long as you're not talking ICS.
(Base 6 unhappiness per city instead of base 3, but with ten 10-pop cities, that's 50 unhappiness from population and 60 from number of cities, instead of 100 from population and 30 from number of cities, for 20 *LESS* unhappiness)
So, they just require you change your playstyle, that's all. There are however, civs, IMHO, despite what Tommy says, that are just noticeably superior because of the synergy between their UA/UU/UB and the tech/policy trees. Notably, the Inca get terrace farms at Construction, which, on Deity at least, is very, very nice, because you tend to want to rush to Construction anyway. Cheap roads and fast movement in hills is tremendously useful. They're effective at both conquest and turtle. Poland's free policies are useful no matter your end goal. But a lot of UAs are not nearly as generically useful.
Denmark gets their UU at Machinery, and their UA only gives benefit if you go Domination, and to take advantage of all that you have to go with a very non-standard tech plan. You have to go all-in on Iron and Siege, and unlike say, Arabia, you don't get Civil Service en route to your UU, which really hurts for growth and tech in the long run because unless you win by t160, you're screwed. So, there are definitely civs that are harder to win with, unquestionably. IMHO.
You could also say that Polynesia, Indonesia, Denmark aren't under-rated, just *harder to use*. But IMHO that means they're not under-rated. They're rated exactly where they should be. The easier civs to win with are better. /shrug
However, of those three, Denmark is the one that jumps out to me as being *incredibly effective* when used correctly. Even Pangaea has a lot of coastline most times. Sometimes TOO much if you ask me, but whatever.
Yeah, I think you've always maintained Denmark being the most underrated but to me I think they are rated appropriately on the bottom. Sweden on the otherhand should be rated higher, I've always touted them as being a Upper Tier Deity Civ but most rank it as a below average civ.
Cromagnus
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,272
Sweden is under-rated, I agree. I didn't take them seriously until I played around with their GP UA tricks. Denmark is under-appreciated for conquest, but not for anything else. Sweden is good at any VC. Denmark never gets the credit that Shaka or others do for being good at warfare because people think that CB rush is the only way to go. Denmark is an exception to that rule IMHO.
Arachnofiend
Perturbed Pugilist
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,950
By the time you're prepared for going wide as India the map is already full. The only thing I can say India is particularly "good" at is domination since they don't take as much of a hit for capping those high-pop cities. But even then they are very low on my list of "good" warmonger civs, especially since the BNW economy nerfed War Elephants.
I'd take Denmark's free pillaging and Polynesia's early access to everything on non-pangaea maps over India's goofy happiness mechanics which is why I consider India the worst civ in the game.
The only civ I'd say genuinely does not get the credit it deserves is Sweden, but even then enough people (including myself) have been their tooting their horn long enough by now that they're probably no longer underrated, at least on this forum.
u should play india with a mix of liberty/tradition and sometimes even piety, then u would see going wide with them even from the beginning is absolutly possible up to immortal.
just focus on +1 happiness stuff. also for warmongers, the elephant is a composite bowmen on steroids. you dont need construction, its faster, stronger and comes in a tech line you need for economy kinda early on.
just focus on +1 happiness stuff. also for warmongers, the elephant is a composite bowmen on steroids. you dont need construction, its faster, stronger and comes in a tech line you need for economy kinda early on.
Problem is that you can't upgrade from a weaker unit. You need to build/buy them all. Great for defense at least(2/3 of opponent's army), so you can skip construction for a while.
i knew it someone would bring this argument and its totally correct, but! you will have at the same time when someone goes for a "gold upgraded composite rush" the amount of elephants since you need no mining, no masonry, no construction. 3 tech less!
i repeat myself go liberty, (the policy tree which focus on EARLY production) with india. u need it for your elephants, and if you dont upgrade archers which u can still do as additional force, you save gold!
Russia's main problem is it's starting bias - tundra is no fun. Though I guess it might work well playing them wide and having a lot of smaller cities to work a few key tundra tiles.
I'd agree that the Iroquois are underrated (assuming they get their start bias). They are one of the best civs for going wide - instant city connections, and then the longhouse's production boost allows you to buy one in a city and then bang out the rest of the buildings. In addition, the UA also is a great benefit to workers, saving them a number of turns in movement to get to different tiles. Plus they are often highly benefited by two pantheons - Messenger of the Gods or Master of the Hunt - which the AI, at least, never takes (though neither are faith generating, which is a minus for getting a religion).
Military wise, their UU is good, and because of their start bias, they are very defensible - enemy troops get bogged down in the forest (and can't fire more than on tile), while you run circles around them. An ICS Iroquois in the woods is very feasible and nearly unconquerable until later eras.
I'd agree that the Iroquois are underrated (assuming they get their start bias). They are one of the best civs for going wide - instant city connections, and then the longhouse's production boost allows you to buy one in a city and then bang out the rest of the buildings. In addition, the UA also is a great benefit to workers, saving them a number of turns in movement to get to different tiles. Plus they are often highly benefited by two pantheons - Messenger of the Gods or Master of the Hunt - which the AI, at least, never takes (though neither are faith generating, which is a minus for getting a religion).
Military wise, their UU is good, and because of their start bias, they are very defensible - enemy troops get bogged down in the forest (and can't fire more than on tile), while you run circles around them. An ICS Iroquois in the woods is very feasible and nearly unconquerable until later eras.
Honestly, I'm just playing my first game with Greece where I've understood how the Civ 5 mechanics work, and I'd say Greece are massively underrated. According to the list linked to above, they're a 'lower-mid tier' civ, but I'd disagree.
First off, their two units are very useful. The hoplite, if nothing else, is a free super-spearman when you inevitably run into that upgrade ruin, meaning you've got a bigger buff to go up against any invading barbarians or early rush warmongers. The companion cavalry is also great for this, just a buffed up horseman, but at this point in the game where you're defending from barbarians and the likes of Atilla, Shaka and Montezuma, you don't need anything like extra points towards golden age, you just need some superior units to them that are being thrown at you.
Secondly, their UA may not seem too great at first glance, but with a bit of religion focus, you can actually make all city states your friend by just converting them to your religion (+15 resting point to city states with your religion founder belief, forget what it's called, and the Patronage policy for +20 resting point to give you +35 resting point with all city states). That means that you get bonuses from every single city state on the map that you've found and converted, only the friend bonus, but still, for early game that is absolutely huge.
On top of this, their UA stacks with the Patronage opener, and I've realised that a city state that shares your religion also has some sort of benefit in this same manner, to the point that I do not lose any influence at all with city states that have my religion. In my current game, I'm at turn 170ish, 4 cities all with shrine + temple, and Stonehenge, Borobudur, Notre Dame, and a Grand Temple in Athens, producing 34 faith per turn. I have 9 city state allies, and 6 city state friends on a pangea map. Only one of them is a faith city state, and I'm in the industrial era so +16 faith there, so I'm producing +50 faith per turn, with missionaries costing 400, ie a missionary every 8 turns. The missionary can flip 2 city states to my religion because at this point in the game, not many other civs have strong religions, so at turn 170 I'm already well on my way to a diplomatic victory, simply because of playing a religious Greece game.
In other words, I'd say a civ is rated on how easy it is to win a game with them. With Greece, going religious makes it next to impossible to lose, and for that reason I'd say Greece is possibly the most underrated civ at the moment.
First off, their two units are very useful. The hoplite, if nothing else, is a free super-spearman when you inevitably run into that upgrade ruin, meaning you've got a bigger buff to go up against any invading barbarians or early rush warmongers. The companion cavalry is also great for this, just a buffed up horseman, but at this point in the game where you're defending from barbarians and the likes of Atilla, Shaka and Montezuma, you don't need anything like extra points towards golden age, you just need some superior units to them that are being thrown at you.
Secondly, their UA may not seem too great at first glance, but with a bit of religion focus, you can actually make all city states your friend by just converting them to your religion (+15 resting point to city states with your religion founder belief, forget what it's called, and the Patronage policy for +20 resting point to give you +35 resting point with all city states). That means that you get bonuses from every single city state on the map that you've found and converted, only the friend bonus, but still, for early game that is absolutely huge.
On top of this, their UA stacks with the Patronage opener, and I've realised that a city state that shares your religion also has some sort of benefit in this same manner, to the point that I do not lose any influence at all with city states that have my religion. In my current game, I'm at turn 170ish, 4 cities all with shrine + temple, and Stonehenge, Borobudur, Notre Dame, and a Grand Temple in Athens, producing 34 faith per turn. I have 9 city state allies, and 6 city state friends on a pangea map. Only one of them is a faith city state, and I'm in the industrial era so +16 faith there, so I'm producing +50 faith per turn, with missionaries costing 400, ie a missionary every 8 turns. The missionary can flip 2 city states to my religion because at this point in the game, not many other civs have strong religions, so at turn 170 I'm already well on my way to a diplomatic victory, simply because of playing a religious Greece game.
In other words, I'd say a civ is rated on how easy it is to win a game with them. With Greece, going religious makes it next to impossible to lose, and for that reason I'd say Greece is possibly the most underrated civ at the moment.
@rawrtrav That list is for Deity play so there are some assumptions you've made that aren't really true for Deity.
One the UU are above average in that they come early which makes them good but frankly they are on bad "unit lines" this makes them average compared to say Bowmen, Slingers, Horse Archers, and other early era unique units.
Their UA is above average it makes friendships and alliances last twice as long but you have to go out and complete those CS missions to get friendships in the first place. What if anything does Greece Do that Siam doesn't do at least on par with if not better?
I might put them in Upper mid-tier but that's only moving them one spot.
One the UU are above average in that they come early which makes them good but frankly they are on bad "unit lines" this makes them average compared to say Bowmen, Slingers, Horse Archers, and other early era unique units.
Their UA is above average it makes friendships and alliances last twice as long but you have to go out and complete those CS missions to get friendships in the first place. What if anything does Greece Do that Siam doesn't do at least on par with if not better?
I might put them in Upper mid-tier but that's only moving them one spot.
Fair enough, I don't play on Deity, I play on Emperor. By 'unit lines' I'm assuming you mean the line you have to take to tech them? In that case I'd sort of disagree. As I pointed out, hoplites are gotten free with the upgrade ruin, which honestly I cannot remember a game where I didn't get an upgrade ruin. Even without that, they're on the way to the Colossus which is a very underrated wonder. I'm not sure if you have any chance of getting the Colossus on Deity though, so if it's impossible then yeah I can see why that line would be pointless.
However, Companion Cavalry are on the way to Civil Service and Education, both very important techs, no matter what your play style, so I can't see how that's on a bad unit line to be honest.
Nope, to get friendships you only have to find the CS. If you have the founder belief and the Patronage policy that I mentioned, it will go up to 35 without having to do any CS missions. It goes up at 2.5 influence per turn until you rest at 35. The +20 from Patronage also rises with city states you haven't met yet, so if you meet any city states 8 turns after you take that Patronage policy, they'll already be at +20, meaning that a quick missionary flip will take just 4 more turns to get their friend benefits.
Of course you do then have to do the CS missions to become allies with them, but at the time where you actually need to become allies with them, their missions are really quite easy.
I thought about this myself, and honestly I think that Greece's strength lies in that they can get every city to be friendly with them by simply spreading religion. Siam needs to be friends with 1.5 city states for every city state that Greece is friendly with, right? So if Greece is friendly with every city state, then how does Siam top that? Plus, with the religion spread game, Greece doesn't lose any influence with city states, the only way you lose them as an ally (Instead of making 'alliances last twice as long' as you said) is if another civ is able to complete more quests or pump more money into them, and with you playing as Greece it means there won't be a Greece AI, so not really any threat for other civ's trying to steal that city state from you and giving you an actual problem with it. Every time you would be pumping 500 gold into a city state that you really want to keep, that's 500 extra gold that you can keep in your pocket instead, or possibly spend on a different city state to become their allies.
I personally would put them in the upper tier. I think it'd be much easier to win a game as Greece than as Austria, Venice or Egypt, and possibly even the Shoshone. But of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion
victorpras
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2013
- Messages
- 59
Someone explains why he thinks Greece UA is better than Siam. Pretty convincing if you ask me.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12866173&postcount=349
Cromagnus
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2012
- Messages
- 2,272
I think it's pretty obvious that Siam is better. Greece's UA means you spend less money/have to do less quests to stay allied/friends. Siam's UA means you get *more benefit*. Maintaining frienships/alliances with every civ isn't practical or necessary, but it's easy and worthwhile to maintain friendships with a few key CS. The +50% food, culture and faith is OMG awesome.
Plus, the Wat is a nice UB... a building you're going to build anyway gives culture too. As much culture as an amphitheatre, opera house and museum combined...
Both of them have mediocre UUs... but the earlier the UU, the less useful it is unless it's ranged. The ancient and classical eras are dominated by ranged units. Well, every era is, but still.
Siam >>>>> Greece. Greece is annoying as an AI opponent because on higher difficulty levels because their endless supply of cash allows him to Ally every CS. He did get an implicit boost by the consulates nerf, because it is now harder to maintain friendships... by nerfing that, his UA is more useful. But, still. Meh.
The only under-rated part about Greece IMHO is the "recovers twice as fast" part, which allows you to bully CS for workers and gold more often/effectively.
Plus, the Wat is a nice UB... a building you're going to build anyway gives culture too. As much culture as an amphitheatre, opera house and museum combined...
Both of them have mediocre UUs... but the earlier the UU, the less useful it is unless it's ranged. The ancient and classical eras are dominated by ranged units. Well, every era is, but still.
Siam >>>>> Greece. Greece is annoying as an AI opponent because on higher difficulty levels because their endless supply of cash allows him to Ally every CS. He did get an implicit boost by the consulates nerf, because it is now harder to maintain friendships... by nerfing that, his UA is more useful. But, still. Meh.
The only under-rated part about Greece IMHO is the "recovers twice as fast" part, which allows you to bully CS for workers and gold more often/effectively.
No, as in archer line, spearman line, warrior line, etc.
One other thing, you cant guarantee a religion on deity nor can you guarantee your religion in the CS and its still debatable whether or not Tithe isnt still better than papal primacy. Also you have to get to consulates to actually have an elevated resting point and that is several turns into the game.
The argument ignores value per turn; basically Greece has a longer duration and total amount of benefit than Siam but Siam gets its "money up front" when the turns are more important.
direblade99
Warlord
But as Greece you can sustain 2 city states for the price of one and get a 200% bonus per turn instead of a 150%.
Similar threads
