Thanks - I have a few more to share. And I should probably point out that I don't always play clearly with the various victory conditions in mind, it's more for the fun of it. I'm a tactical player rather than strategic, (incidentally isn't that Ophelia's benefit - tactics I & II?) Strategy is a different attribute altogether.
Clan of Embers - I played Jonas Endain in the role of a barbarian with principles. They have useful early advantages but I didn't expand too quickly to stifle technology. I wanted to but never did call the horde - I wonder if it is best early in the game when there are more barbarians, or later when they are more powerful and you are ready to benefit from them? The Clan is pretty hard to beat as it is. Used forts and overlords with garrisons to cover approaches and choke points, and built an empire in two discontiguous pieces at the expense of Scions, Balseraphs and Svartalfvar. Became an arbitrator in other wars to keep any one side from becoming too powerful. The biggest challenge was a mature Illian/Doviello alliance that was probably getting close to ascension for Auric, and I had to march across a Malakim desert to get to them. Slow going on their home turf of ice and tundra, but the Priest of Bhall is an excellent solution to countering the Clan's vulnerabilities in the late game. In addition to scorching terrain and enemies they racked up mind promotions to turn some enemies. Ironically I ended up with Baron Halfmorn (or Halfmoon I call him when he's not in werewolf mode
and turned Wilboman into a werewolf.
Where the Clan is too powerful is the Warboss. A simple ranger unit without experience should not have the recruiter function, they are powerful enough with no terrain costs, take no collateral damage, and the fact there is no unit or promotion I'm aware of that grants a bonus against commander units. I racked up lots of experience with them, and literally crushed the alliance by recruiting big armies in captured mature cities. And every time I recruited I got more war bosses to sustain the offensive. I think a recruiter has to be earned by experience - so a separate barbarian warlord (great commander) unit could fulfill this function, perhaps with some combat ability and a recruitment bonus. The Ogre Warchief would also be in character with a one time recruitment ability.
Austrin - would be one of my favourite picks for any game. Their mobility and adaptability to terrain make them ideal for exploring. The Highlander and Recurve Archer are best in class, a match for champions in the late game on rough terrain. And the Tracker is effective despite its weaker base strength. What you realize is to leave a few cities without barracks and keep producing Highlanders as long as you can. If you have the money the unique upgrade options give you guerilla I, woodsman I with tracker, then woodsman II with the bowman. Pick up guerilla II on the way and you keep all the promotions when you finally upgrade to crossbowmen, giving you an unparalelled two way fighter with mobility in rough terrain - (but the crossbowman in my opinion has become too dominant in the game and I have some suggestions on that later that would limit its numbers).
The other thing I learned is that with the right civics, religion and wonders it seems possible to bring her into good alignment, but though I've tried twice I never succeeded in that. You are better off to pursue the neutral Leaves religion abilities and gather some heroes before the elves do. I've played Deirdre twice in some of my most challenging games and had success - winning once on a crowded map where I had every civ in pairwise teams. I was lucky to explore an unclaimed land mass first.
Hippus - with only one unique unit the mounted mercenary seems like a limited advantage but with Horselords it is a mounted champion with withdrawal and terrain defense capabilities - that you can hire whenever in need (if you have the money). Build forts for that very purpose. I played two of my most exciting games against the odds with Hippus. In the first I was embroiled with the Calabim and the Lanun won a religion victory.
In the 2nd my empire was small relative to rivals but my recon units had success recruiting animal packs and gaining promotions. I was just able to upgrade to beastmasters and berserkers before I had to face a dominant and more advanced Amurite foe under Naxus supported at times by Bannor under Gaius. I focused on getting knights (and Magnadine) while recruiting mounted mercs, and sounded the Warsong - the one and only time I played the world spell and it was decisive, it actually saved my ass. One of the highlights was evacuating a city about to be taken having just a bowman, ranger and assassin I rushed in production. I couldn't even get a mounted merc in to help them. By recruiting animals in wild regions behind the lines this little force gained promotions in ambushes and eventually conquered an Amurite city - saving my allies the Sidar from extinction. The only way was by capturing animals summoned (even temporarily) by Amurite priests and wizards to avoid attrition. Later I was able to capture Acheron, then used him to kill Abashi and capture Nitrospira lol.
Unfortunately I left quick victory conditions on and Svartalfvar stole a quick culture victory - but if I recall when you play the game further (as I will if its fun) it allows you to claim the full victory conditions later on. Like the Austrin pursue a neutral religion with the Hippus - and unless you are rich in wooded lands and forest lore - my choice is Kilmorph. The Paramander and Earth affinities come in quite handy in any terrain dealing with demons, and dwarven mines are awesome..
Kuriotates - I played this with advanced start and all classical era advances, on barbarian world. It was the most intense survival game I've played. I started getting the upper hand over babarian lairs but too late to save Ethne the White - closest thing I would have to a true ally. I had powerful beastmasters and mustevals by then, but most of them were crazed, part demon, mutated or undead! I also did not fully appreciate the Kuriotate mechanics and should have been more particular about selecting my 5 cities. In the end I really like the settlement concept - reducing micromanagement while holding a large area. It was hard to defend against the Clan, Khazad and Basium. I fell into the trap of accepting vassalage from unworthy allies I could neither defend nor prevent the Armageddon counter from accelerating - because they refused to abandon Ashen Veil - and I could not disavow vassals once given to them - so I closed borders to prevent the spread.
Eventually I racked up the most experience and with Phoenix Blood, master outfitters, fletchers and the like prevailed, but by far the hardest going was against the Cualli who transformed a vast empire into jungle swamp. You lose all mobility and it takes a lot to remove even one blowpipe on their home turf. I introduced the airship rather late. Without deploying Eurybatres, the Cualli if unchecked are really too much and were starting to whittle me down, but I had a dramatic finish by killing Hyborem, regaining birthright, and completing altar of Luonnotar all on the same turn. Kuriotates are definitely recommended for a game experience.
Lanun - I have to mention Falamar in the context of FfH II and the Radiant Guard scenario. The rest are easy by comparison. I don't know if it is ever possible to upgrade the handful of weaker units (hunters, axemen and archers) after achieving the first objective - but the only thing, besides radiant guards, that allowed me to survive hyborem's numberless balors, eidolons and liches was summoning elementals and hosts of the Einharjar. As long as they win a victory they stick around for the next turn, and I finished without losing a single original unit. The Lanun world spell came in handy at a critical time against the Sheaim in Black Tower.
Lord D'tesh - the only time I intentionally played an evil character, because this one is not allowed on AI. After awhile I got into it despite its minimalist undead trait, but in the bronze era, turn 167 the game abruptly crashed when I advance the turn and I cant seem to get around that.
Well that wraps up my review of all the civs I've played. Not sure who I should try next, but I have a great idea for team pairings in a multi-player environment. It would be cool to find some likewise gamers interested in that.
I have just a few general observations to make independent of any particular civ.
I mentioned crossbowmen as being too powerful - and I think at one time they were limited in number as a national unit. I would suggest allowing maybe six as a start, up to the number of cities and bowyers you have - so averaging out to a max of two per city. With all the other powerful units and promotions this may upset the balance and mechanics, but one thing that would help is assigning a significant city malus to cavalry units and chariots. They should definitely have a penalty attacking cities especially when some have a bonus against archery to begin with. It stays closer to vanilla concepts, in which chariots and crossbows are not generally the top of their combat class. To partially compensate, I would suggest chariots and cavalry units get a strength bonus on open plains and grassland, where they can defend as well.
Maybe a weaker crossbow that upgrades to arbalest as a national unit with mechanical weapons, and a similar upgrade for arquebus/musketman extending range to two with rifling. And btw If you ever reintroduce the Hamstalfar I think having such a fast moving recon unit with withdrawal ability should come at the expense of access to mithril or heavy weapons.
The other thing is having only one melee class for any era (except in some unique civ units) you potentially draw on to upgrade to four different national units. I'm thinking with iron comes two melee units; one is a defensive close order formation that is slower but strong on open ground against archers and cavalry, and an open order melee unit that favours terrain and attacking cities.
I know such a change adds a lot of complexity - and one of the first goals of any game fixes should be reducing memory and CPU cycles for minimal gains or flavour. So I don't know how practical these suggestions are, just my two cents.
Cheers