Best Designed Civ Elimination Thread

[cpm4001]

Arabia - 20
Assyria - 22
Austria - 18
Aztec - 22
Babylon - 4
Brazil - 20
Byzantium - 10
Carthage - 20
Celts - 18
China - 22
Danes - 16
Dutch - 22
Egypt - 16
England - 20
Ethiopia - 20
France - 20
Germany - 22
Greece - 16
Huns - 22
Inca - 22
India - 12
Indonesia - 16
Iroquois - 20
Japan - 22
Korea - 12
Maya - 20
Mongols - 24
Morocco - 20
Ottomans - 20
Persia - 20 - 4 = 16 - The UA is good, but it causes problems: it's dependent on having lots of happiness to spark Golden Ages while you go to war, but then once you conquer their cities your happiness tanks. The Immortal meshes well with the UA, but it comes at a bad time. The Satrap's Court is a fine UB but is put at a bizarre point on the Tech Tree.
Poland - 20
Polynesia - 20
Portugal - 22
Rome - 22
Russia - 10
Shoshone - 22
Siam - 22
Songhai - 16
Spain - 18
Sweden - 22 + 2 = 24 - Everything about Sweden meshes well - play diplomatically for a while and then go kill your enemies.
Venice - 24
Zulu - 22

 

[OnceAKing]

Arabia - 20
Assyria - 22
Austria - 18
Aztec - 22
Babylon - 4
Brazil - 20
Byzantium - 10
Carthage - 20
Celts - 18
China - 22
Danes - 16
Dutch - 22
Egypt - 16 - 4 = 12. I agree with the original criticism of Egypt. Why play as Egypt when you can let them build three cities complete with Wonders and then just go conquer them. I understand that it's an aspect of there history. But it makes for a civ that I've never ever seen dominate the world in respect. There UA is really the only thing that can possibly help you win in any respect. But building every wonder is a HUGE opportunity cost to your economy, science, and military.
England - 20
Ethiopia - 20 + 2 = 22. I have to highlight Ethiopia for the same reason someone highlighted the Shoshone. Ethiopia is a very underrated civ from a design standpoint. I could be wrong but I believe they start with a jungle bias. Which most people hate BUT wait! They ALWAYS get the first or second pantheon. Because of their UB. Which may be the best in game because it's a compulsory building anyway. So there is no opportunity cost. You can effortlessly play a religious game and spam Great Prophets accidentally. But back to my point about jungles. When you get that first quick pantheon you can get the one that gives you +1 culture for jungles. Which now encourages you to keep the jungles up. Now you have a natural wall against aggressive civs who think they can push your tiny empire over. Couple that with the Great Wall and your UA and your undefeatable. Which mean you don't have to spend a lot to maintain a military which saves production and gold. Of course as Ethiopia you can focus on culture with your UB, Your jungles, a well designed religion, and the fact that you can focus on the top half of the tech tree knowing that you can fall behind a little militarily. Which passively helps science. Oh by the way those jungles will give a bonus to both science and culture once you build universties. There UU is extremely bland but is not a weakness it's just not interesting. But if you play builder and forget to build a military and spam these. They will save the kingdom.
France - 20
Germany - 22
Greece - 16
Huns - 22
Inca - 22
India - 12
Indonesia - 16
Iroquois - 20
Japan - 22
Korea - 12
Maya - 20
Mongols - 24
Morocco - 20
Ottomans - 20
Persia - 16
Poland - 20
Polynesia - 20
Portugal - 22
Rome - 22
Russia - 10
Shoshone - 22
Siam - 22
Songhai - 16
Spain - 18
Sweden - 24 -
Venice - 24
Zulu - 22

If we're designing Egypt I would have given them the UA of starting with writing. Yes I know that gives them the great library but hey they literally had it. And it give them a national college. But I think that's enough of a slingshot science boost to affect the rest of the game but not entirely to much to be a run away if they still don't bolster their military. Plus like I said the automatically get the Great library if they build it and they have an early lead to tech to other ancient wonders. So they passively maintain there original UA. Their advances in science is what is still there stand out attribute. But it doesn't really reflect that in game

 

[DWilson]

Arabia - 20
Assyria - 22
Austria - 18
Aztec - 22
Babylon - 4
Brazil - 20
Byzantium - 10
Carthage - 20
Celts - 18
China - 22
Danes - 16
Dutch - 22
Egypt - 12
England - 20
Ethiopia - 22
France - 20
Germany - 22
Greece - 16
Huns - 22
Inca - 22
India - 12
Indonesia - 12
Iroquois - 20
Japan - 22
Korea - 12
Maya - 20
Mongols - 24
Morocco - 20
Ottomans - 20
Persia - 16
Poland - 20
Polynesia - 22
Portugal - 22
Rome - 22
Russia - 10
Shoshone - 22
Siam - 22
Songhai - 16
Spain - 18
Sweden - 24
Venice - 24
Zulu - 22

I hear what you all were saying, and yet I still find it to be just not well meshing. I understand Unity in Diversity. Unity implies something works together. Putting the challenge on the player to make the mess work together is a cool change, which has cool background in their culture, but that doesn't at all mean that I think it is a good design. I still think that they could have done it a lot better. So my vote stays the same this time.

As to my up vote, there are a ton of good options. Shoshone are still my favorite design, but at this point I feel free to throw the love around. So, this time, I go to Polynesia. To start, their UA opens things up really well to allow them to find some nice island locations, ancient ruins, better settling spots, etc. A fun way to make exploration easier, instead of the more common more rewarding (not that I think that's bad). Next, an early UU which gives you more flexibility to take your time getting that military tech. This is helpful, as being explorative, and subsequently expansive to the better locations, can be resource draining. Having an easier time putting out some more long term defenders is really useful. Plus, that ability upgrades. Lastly, with BNW expansive has become quite a bit more effective in culture games. The downside to expansive, however, is boosted policy costs. The moai can offset that to an extent by generating a fair amount of culture. Not to mention the added gold later, as well as the bit of even extra tourism provided by Hotels, Airports, and National Visitor Center. All around, this civ is well built to push for a dominant culture game. Not that it is limited in others, extra culture can mean quicker rationalism policies for a science victory, quicker patronage, commerce, or exploration policies for that diplomatic victory, or a good passing upgrade for your military units, on top of early advantage from more easily coordinated naval travel and amphibious invasions (though not nearly to the extent the Danes have) for the domination victory.

 

[lokithepunishr]

I'm not sure I would even call the Jaguar "meh." With the way you're likely to be playing as Monty, the Jaguars let you clear out barbs for culture while not having to spend precious hammers spamming them quite so much. Pretty good synergy, I think.

It's just a little overpowered for a starting unit IMO.

 

[Vitruvius]

Alot of the arguments in this thread went down to which civ is better for the game. I rather each civ to carry more of their historical flavor, in that their uniques are essentially what we best know that civilization for.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

[Walter R]

Redwings, I no longer feel like reading or voting in these elimination threads simply because one or two individuals seem to take great delight in repeatedly torpedoing; and as the downvote is always larger than the upvote they can. Sorry because I'm generally interested in the majority of people's posts and their rationale in voting but there you go.

 

[redwings1340]

Redwings, I no longer feel like reading or voting in these elimination threads simply because one or two individuals seem to take great delight in repeatedly torpedoing; and as the downvote is always larger than the upvote they can. Sorry because I'm generally interested in the majority of people's posts and their rationale in voting but there you go.

Well, it's your decision in the end. This is why I made upvotes +2 though, so that upvotes would have a bit more weight. I could create a rule that says you can't downvote the same civ 2 times in 3 votes if you want. I personally try to spread my downvotes around to avoid this problem. I figure the civs that deserve the downvotes will get downvoted by others, while the civs that don't will stay largely intact and stand my hit on them.

But yes, I did notice that there are certain people only downvoting individual civs, which does dramatically change the votes and results, and in my opinion does put a lot of power of what civ gets eliminated when in the hands of an individual rather than the group. What do you guys think? Should I institute that rule? Previous votes will still count obviously.

 

[Walter R]

Well, it's your decision in the end. This is why I made upvotes +2 though, so that upvotes would have a bit more weight. I could create a rule that says you can't downvote the same civ 2 times in 3 votes if you want. I personally try to spread my downvotes around to avoid this problem. I figure the civs that deserve the downvotes will get downvoted by others, while the civs that don't will stay largely intact and stand my hit on them.

But yes, I did notice that there are certain people only downvoting individual civs, which does dramatically change the votes and results, and in my opinion does put a lot of power of what civ gets eliminated when in the hands of an individual rather than the group. What do you guys think? Should I institute that rule? Previous votes will still count obviously.

R, thanks for your considered reply, appreciated.
I did notice that you had altered the +/- ratio and thought that a good idea.
You could implement the rule you suggest, but I think a better outcome would be for folk to refrain from the temptation to torpedo. But I recognise that it's a free vote, so it's not for me to try and somehow dictate how folk behave...

 

[Guandao]

Arabia - 20
Assyria - 22
Austria - 18
Aztec - 22
Babylon - 4
Brazil - 20
Byzantium - 10
Carthage - 20
Celts - 18
China - 22
Danes - 16
Dutch - 22
Egypt - 12
England - 20+2=22, England's UA and Ship of the line help the civ in its naval adventures, Longbowman helps in maps without much ocean, the extra spy is the weird one for me (a reference to Bond no doubt),
Ethiopia - 22
France - 20
Germany - 22
Greece - 16
Huns - 22
Inca - 22
India - 12
Indonesia - 12
Iroquois - 20
Japan - 22
Korea - 12
Maya - 20
Mongols - 24
Morocco - 20
Ottomans - 20-4=16, another naval civ, but it doesn't seem to be well designed as England, were the Barbary pirates even connected to the Ottomans? I don't think of naval success when I think of the Ottoman Empire, I think land conquest, I guess the Sipahi and Janissaries help with that though, also everything about the civ is military and I also think of glorious architecture and religious tolerance when I think of Ottoman yet these are not incorporated into the design
Persia - 16
Poland - 20
Polynesia - 22
Portugal - 22
Rome - 22
Russia - 10
Shoshone - 22
Siam - 22
Songhai - 16
Spain - 18
Sweden - 24
Venice - 24
Zulu - 22

 

[gaerraty]

Arabia - 20
Assyria - 22
Austria - 18
Aztec - 22
Babylon - 0 (–4)
Brazil - 20
Byzantium - 10
Carthage - 20
Celts - 18
China - 22
Danes - 16
Dutch - 22
Egypt - 12
England - 22
Ethiopia - 22
France - 20
Germany - 22
Greece - 16
Huns - 22
Inca - 22
India - 12
Indonesia - 12
Iroquois - 20
Japan - 22
Korea - 14 (+2)
Maya - 20
Mongols - 24
Morocco - 20
Ottomans - 16
Persia - 16
Poland - 20
Polynesia - 22
Portugal - 22
Rome - 22
Russia - 10
Shoshone - 22
Siam - 22
Songhai - 16
Spain - 18
Sweden - 24
Venice - 24
Zulu - 22

Babylon (–4) – though very powerful – is uninspiring to play. After first Great Scientist, their UA turns into nothing more than a passive modifier. Early game UU and UB are both very useful for extra defense but only increasing numbers you won’t get anything fun, interesting or unexpected effects to gameplay. Powerful doesn’t mean inspiringly designed.

Korea (+2) on the other is much more exciting. While UA gives you extra science for each specialist and great person tile improvement, it can be used in various ways and all kind of strategies: Holy Sites, Artists, Writers, Engineers… There is also possibility for not to take advantage of UA by not making tile improvements or hiring specialists which makes UA less passive. Korean both UUs are very interesting: not only being very powerful, they completely change whole unit into something very different. This makes it challenging to do certain tasks but both give you very high defensive capabilities – which kinda fits for Korea for certain historical periods.