Worst civilization incl. BNW

[topresch]

Having played this series and possibly Civ 5 more than any other games in my 25 years as a PC gamer, I clearly enjoy them a lot. One of the better aspects is the fact that while relatively balanced, there are some good and some bad civs/leaders to play.

I've looked around for a thread on the worst civs which also includes BNW (which I think is excellent), but could only find Vanilla/G&K - where it seems the Ottomans won this unwanted award hands down.

My question here is: Are they still the worst to play, or did BNW bring with it an even more lamentable society to be part of at the start of a game? Any revisions or disagreement on the previous winner post-BNW?

I don't know if they're the worst, but the ones I've found most boring to play, in addition to the Ottomans, are the Shoshone, the Mongols, and the English. I evidently don't like sea power or to destroy CS.

 

[Vitruvius]

I find that there are no worst civs but there are best civs. A bad civ on one map can be great on another. But there are civs are just good on any map.

On your comment about Mongols. Their UA doesn't mean you have to destroy CSes. When the CSes declare war on you because you are warmongering their allies, its much easier for you to cope with the Mongol UA. However the other half of the Mongol UA is useless. +1 mov to horse units is great except that Keshiks are counted as ranged units.

 

[topresch]

I do agree that one plays with what is dealt, and that all civs are quite playable. However, I just enjoy favorites and least favorite civs as concepts, and wonder how other players see it. I don't particularly like a Domination game, which is probably why I find Mongols and certain other military-based civs less entertaining to play.

 

[peterw1987]

I vote for Denmark/Harald Bluetooth. They really need some buff.

 

[topresch]

I thought about nominating the same civ. They're quite historically accurate when it comes to ability, but it's not a particularly fun one.

 

[Matthew.]

Denmark apparently can now build zerkers at metal casting, which is quite the perk. When did this happen? I don't remember reading about it when America, Japan, and Germany got their small tweaks.

I agree with Vitruvius on no worst Civs. Not because all good-feely everyone is a winner, but because there are so many stats and bonuses throughout the course of the game that a small set of them upon game creation makes such a small difference (in most cases). There are "best" Civs, because they are the exceptions to the rule, the ones with starting bonuses that are actually significant.

Ottomans = most underrated Civ in the game. Easy. I won't argue they are top-tier... in fact they struggle to even reach mid-tier, but still doesn't change the fact they are often underrated. I'd take Janissary over any of the other long sword equivalents, or any unit on that line up to muskets. Except perhaps upgraded Jaguars. The chance of ship conversion is insane, if not borderlined OP. AI targets weakened units, so you convert one of their ships, the AI kills it off. Target another, AI kills it off. You go entire naval battles where the AI is quite literally attacking itself.

Lancer replacement is forgettable and overall the Civ is very bland/generic like all the vanilla Civs, but I'd still rank them higher than a few others in the game. Like I said, underrated.

 

[beetle]

I looked for but could not find somewhat recent thread where people voted. It was kind of nonsense anyway. Contrary to popular opinion, Denmark can be lots of fun. I am still working through all the civs, trying to exploit UU/UA/UB/UI each time. So far, the only civ that stands out in my memory as just being blah is India. I could not get any traction with their ’phants and the all the rest was just unnoticeable.

 

[Zaimejs]

I just can never get anywhere with Polynesia. My tweak wish would be to let me build the stupid heads right away instead of waiting for Construction ... I don't think those Easter Island people had much technology when they built them. Am I right?

Also, get the extra gold at navigation... when people could go look at them. It takes so long to make those things pay off. Fun idea though.

 

[tetley]

Byzantines. Oh wow, you get an extra religious belief, but no way to speed up getting it. So you get to choose one MORE leftover that the AI's passed over.

 

[Loucypher]

Keep in mind that "being fun to play" does not equal being "good". Yes, Denmark is fun to play and yes, the ability is very fitting...but they're just in general rather poor. When it comes to flexibility and power relative to other civs, they're near the bottom of the barrel for sure. The Ottomans aren't exactly high grade material either. Carthage suffered from the Harbor bonuses moving to the Lighthouse and as such they fell down considerably now in BNW. The Iroquis have a problem in that their Longhouse doesn't provide the base workshop bonuses making it usually actually WORSE than the normal building, and their UU and UA are pretty poor as well. Finally, Byzantium suffers from having a potentionally awesome UA, but no way to generate quick faith leaving them biting the dust. When it comes to selecting THE worst civ, it's probably one of those five.
Even so, they each have something unique that makes them interesting to play, and they can do various things. Mongolia kind of narrows you to Spam Keshik, Ruin World, which makes them less interesting, but what Mongolia DOES do is pretty freakishly strong due to the sheer power of the Keshik + Khan combo.

 

[shaglio]

However the other half of the Mongol UA is useless. +1 mov to horse units is great except that Keshiks are counted as ranged units.

But Keshiks get a +1 movement (5) over the standard Knight (4) to compensate for this technicality.

 

[Doktor Vic Tim]

With the Landknecht improvement after the Fall patch, Denmark took another hit. Everyone can now technically build a fast unit that can pillage without movement cost. The Ottoman Sipahi also suffered from this, although it has extra movement and sight as a fallback.

Denmark is fun, but a little bit too warmongery in terms of UA, and the UA doesn't help in terms of snowballing. Although it can help melt other snowballs if you know what I mean. I do like Denmark's "bending the rules" thing with the move after disembarking. They could use a buff in pillaging or something to make it more unique.

 

[Chris3894]

In the elimination thread from a couple years back about which Civ is the strongest Denmark was the first to go, a lot of people attacked Venice as well

 

[beetle]

Byzantines. Oh wow, you get an extra religious belief, but no way to speed up getting it. So you get to choose one MORE leftover that the AI's passed over.

Once you get to the point of being able to reliably found a religion, Byzantium is fun and even OP. I think they are weak civ for the AI and new players.

I take “worse to play

Keep in mind that "being fun to play" does not equal being "good".

True, but the criteria is “worst civ” so unless there is no war or no water, then Denmark is not the worst.

When it comes to selecting THE worst civ, it's probably one of those five.

I can’t disagree with your pick of the Iroquis, but please explain how India out performs the other four you mention. It is pretty easy to have fun and strong games with Byzantium, Denmark, Ottomans, and Carthage (also assuming sufficient water for the last two, and Carthage needs mountains for good effects). Good point about Mongolia’s Khan making them good, even if the UA is meh.

 

[beetle]

In the elimination thread from a couple years back about which Civ is the strongest Denmark was the first to go, a lot of people attacked Venice as well

Yes, but that thread also knocked out America pretty quick, which is the main reason why I think it can be objectively characterized as “nonsense”. Venice has also gotten lots of love since then.

I think this all speaks to how well balanced the civs are. You can get some general consensus about above/below average, but much finer than that is debatable. I would have expected that by now there would be general agreement about the top and bottom three (or so) by now, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Here’s the link to the Overall Civ Elimination Thread, you might wish it were a couple years back, but it was just this past October and November.

 

[Ziad]

Denmark is fun but the UA doesn't help in terms of snowballing.

This is very, very wrong.

It may be an obvious strategy, but by reading several posts today it seems to me that most people on these boards don't understand that you can snowball by suppressing others. You can go to war with civilizations and force them to give you concessions in the form of tribute payments and luxuries without taking cities, or by conquering cities then selling them back to the original owner even.

I played Denmark on Immortal Marathon on Small Continents (low sea level) a few weeks ago and "roleplayed" them as a naval state with a focus on pillaging and exploration before the industrial era (VIKINGS!!!). I even picked social policies which I felt made sense, including points in Tradition (didn't complete til WAY later), some Honor, Exploration, and some Rationalism after Freedom ideologies to speed the game up a little.

I massed around 8 warriors and tried to train them via barbarian camps, then I upgraded them to swordsman and promptly wrecked nearby France with them (with only two ranged units and no siege as support). I conquered Orleans and sold it to the neighboring Ottomans for a hefty gold sum (around 40gpt and 2 luxuries). I then invaded nearby Persia and completely decimated their cities by pillaging EVERYTHING in sight. They then gave me a 90gpt concession without any luxuries obviously. From that fighting I made 130gpt which effectively tripled my income.

I didn't beeline philosophy at all either. I took a "natural" progression path by taking most techs before moving on to the next era. Of course I prioritized certain techs but I wouldn't call them beelining. When I got to Berserkers, I pulled another invasion on the nearby Greeks and essentially shut down their competition with CSs by taking a significant portion of their wealth.

After the berserker stage, I become more pacifist and "roleplayed" Denmark as a leader in freedom and so went for a diplomatic victory without taking a single point in Patronage and with only one city conquered (temporarily) but with a LOT of pillaging and concessions.

TLDR. War can make you rich as hell and gold can snowball you in every aspect of the game without having to resort to set strategies and policies.

 

[Doktor Vic Tim]

Huh, that's very interesting. I'll try that out in the future. I mean, I've only consistently played at Emperor, and won't you suffer warmonger hate from everyone when you start warring?

Though there's always bribing people to attack each other.

 

[zukenft]

ottoman 'zombie outbreak' UA is very useful on naval maps.
denmark artillery can disembark, move and fire in a single turn.

well yeah, if you play peacefully it's useless. but then you don't play Huns and turtle all the way to spaceships, right?

 

[Væringjar]

Denmark is the worst. Embarking ability is good but can't compare with other Civs' UA. They need buff.

 

[beetle]

Riffing off your handle, yes if you want to be a Peaceful Viking, the Denmark UA is no good. But the UA is quite competitive with other UA that are war-only (Ottomans and Mongols, off the top of my head).