A Civ worth masterizing

[reason]

Hey guys, I'm currently on Emperor level, and I think it would be nice to focus on getting good with a single civ before playing with lots of them. So I wanted you guys to tell me nice civs that are good overall and can handle different types of victory.
For example, I like Arabia, Poland, the Celts and, though I never used them, I think the Incas are probably cool.

 

[Memoryjar]

Egypt : Wold Wonder and Happiness
Sweden : A bit brainstorming civ but very flexible.

 

[klaskeren]

my advice to you is not to play a civ for the bonuses, but try to get good without them, play many civs!

 

[Scarpa]

Persia. If you can get proficient at setting up super long golden ages they are a blast to play.

 

[cpm4001]

Sweden and Arabia are both great choices for first games on Emperor, as is Poland.

 

[tommynt]

master the game and u master every civ

 

[Buccaneer]

my advice to you is not to play a civ for the bonuses, but try to get good without them, play many civs!

+1 Also learn to play a civ away from their strengths. When people talk about benchmarks for science, growth, culture, tourism or units, it becomes irrelevant what civ they are doing it as.

 

[DarthSheldonPhD]

@ OP,
I think your strategy is more likely to be detrimental than beneficial. I usually do the opposite, not allow myself to play a civ within 8 games of the previous time I played that civ. The reason is that you become too acclimated to the advantages that civ grants you, and need to re-learn how to do without it. Examples:

-You play numerous games as the Celts or Ethiopians, then move to any other civ and need to relearn how to play without first picks at religious beliefs, or even relearn how to play without founding a religion at all.
-You play numerous games as the Babylonians or Mayans, and need to relearn how to play without a very early and compounding tech lead.
-You play numerous games as the Carthaginians or Arabians, then find yourself trying other civs only to have your early economy crippled.
-While the previous examples all dealt with top-tier civs, the rationale also applies to lower-tier civs. As the Ottomans, you get used to being "bailed out" with gunpowder, turning the tables on all the civs who were picking on you. Become too accustomed to this, and then try someone else to find that you don't have that "lifeline."

 

[PhroX]

my advice to you is not to play a civ for the bonuses, but try to get good without them, play many civs!

Yeah. In fact, just go random. Chosing a specific civ, chosing a specific playstyle, these aren't good ways to learn. Instead go random (and throw in random map while you're at it) and learn how to make do with what you get.

 

[zukenft]

if you could win using Byzantine without founding religion, you could win as any civ.

 

[budweiser]

Learn England now and they will serve you well on immortal.

 

[LordG]

Carthage on a great plains map, world age maxed.

You're forced play inland(great plains), without harbour bonuses and without the benefit of mountain crossings(older world = less mountains), the only thing you have going for you is the elephants, which come too early to make a great difference (in BNW at least).

If you can win this, and the Byzantium challenge (also optional; Venice inland no city states game) then you can win anything.

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

for most versatile civs anyone with a science or growth benefit (except India) make good choices. plus good gold civs too. Babylon, Arabia, Shoshone, Inca, Mayans, Poland, England, Persia and Siam are the ones I find most versatile to play. There are others that are good but those are my favorites.