worst civs

[blac]

I guess it comes down to opinion but what do you guys think are the worst civs? I find America sorta weak, although the +1 sight can be really useful sometimes.

 

[Roughly 6 Owls]

The Ottomans are generally regarded to be the weakest civ, I think. Their UA comes into play very rarely and one of their UUs (The Sipahi) is an upgraded Lancer, which isn't exactly known as a powerhouse unit. The Janissaries are pretty awesome, admittedly, but I don't think they elevate the Ottomans much in terms of power.

 

[blac]

Yeah, I guess it depends on the situation, I was playing as the Ottomans once and I just set up a ship near a barb camp and built my whole fleet out the ships the payed tribute. Although they are pretty weak compared to others

 

[Roughly 6 Owls]

It definitely does depend on the situation. If you're playing Pangaea, Elizabeth's UA and her UU that replaces the frigate (The Ship of the Line) are basically useless. If you're playing Archipelago, she's easily one of the best leaders in the game. She is also considered pretty bad, but she makes a good example of how the situation (or the map, at least) changes the civ.

 

[stormerne]

General opinion of worst civ: Ottomans.
General opinion of America: divided, but many feel it's the closest you'll get to a vanilla civ.

 

[blac]

I actually Elizabeth really useful for military and expansion purposes. the +2 to naval units also effects embarked units so they can move 4 per turn which is faster then land. I just focus on controlling the seas when I play as her so at least you changes my style. But you are right, it really depends on the map.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Another thing that would plead against the Ottomans is that both of their UUs are unlocked at the same time, making them a powerhouse for only ONE particular moment in time.

Second weakest imo is Germany. A handfull of Warriors won't make that much of a difference, you will need a lot of them to Warrior-rush your opponents early. Besides, traits that are based on chance alone... not my cup of tea, really. Both the UUs are good though. Landsknechts are usefull because they are ridiculously cheap (allowing you to have swarms of them in a shockingly small amount of time) and Panzers transform the otherwise lackluster Tank into a useful unit for a change.

America is pretty decent imo. The +1 LoS is very handy for bombardment when at war (no need to move land units into range of cities to allow your ranged units to bombard them) and to maximize Ruin popping. Buying tiles imo isn't that strong, but it allows you settle your cities in more defencively appealing locations, rather than directly next to a resource. If you need a resource within range, you can just buy it without having to wait for your borders to expand. (and I think the synergy with Angkor Wat is a very neat thing too)

 

[Razzlesnaff]

Play a few games as a America, then play any other civilization. I promise you that you'll miss the +1 sight. Granted, they aren't my favorite.

I don't really look to much into best/worst civs. For instance my favorite Civ is the Aztecs. As far as I can tell, Montezuma isn't regarded as great or horrible. Most people put him somewhere in the middle, but I love him. Floating Gardens allows for big cities quickly. Sacrificial Captives provides quite a large amount of culture. It allows you to go to war and keep gaining social policies at much better pace then other warmongers.

The main reason I love him is he gives me the most immersion. Play as him long enough and you'll start to see the enemy units purely as the amount of culture they give you once you rip their beating hearts out. :3

My least favorite to play as is probably Germany. Cheap Pikes are nice. I've seen the AI turn Germany into a powerhouse in the Medieval Era purely because of them. But I just don't have fun doing that. His UU isn't really unique, it's just cheaper. It doesn't have it's own feel to it. =\

 

[Antarion]

ppl who complain about ottomans should try to play them to their best. i dont know why you bash them. janissary got one of the strongest unit promotions (full heal after deafeting an enemy unit wtf?) which will swap over to rifles, infantry and even mech infantry if you play it right.

their 2nd UU is also a great plus to the strong backbone build by their jannis. 5 movement and pillaging bonus are a great flanking unit which even gives a nice economy bonus. i always pillage mines and farm before i capture cities. puppepts just need trading post and nothing else.

about their UA its not that bad if you know how to handle it. first of all you can build a ship without being penalized by paying high amounts of maintenance because of the gold bonus if you convert an enemy vessel. in addition you get easy map control with early triremes and cities build at good seaside locations. nothing you should overlook. dont kill barbarian camps at the coast instead park one ship near it. at last you will reach faster your first general without going to war vs another civ or CS.

 

[Martin Alvito]

The problem with the Ottomans is the amount of effort necessary to get mileage out of the main UU. You have to push Gunpowder quickly, pump out 120H units, get to Rifling and then upgrade the UUs. Pulling this off without any UU/UA/UB assistance can get a bit challenging on Deity, and you end up restricted to the Rationalism Rifle Rush as your strategy.

Living long enough to put that together is going to be challenging post-patch.

Washington's abilities aren't great, but the +1 sight often will keep you from getting explorers killed by camps you can't see. That's pretty valuable.

 

[Johnpecan]

Second weakest imo is Germany. A handfull of Warriors won't make that much of a difference, you will need a lot of them to Warrior-rush your opponents early. Besides, traits that are based on chance alone... not my cup of tea, really. Both the UUs are good though. Landsknechts are usefull because they are ridiculously cheap (allowing you to have swarms of them in a shockingly small amount of time) and Panzers transform the otherwise lackluster Tank into a useful unit for a change.

I agree for the most part, no early economic help. Although if you can pick up Civil Service with The Great Library the Germans can be scary rushers.

 

[Roughly 6 Owls]

I don't really look to much into best/worst civs. For instance my favorite Civ is the Aztecs.

I think this is the important thing to remember. None of the civs are 'bad' when used to their strengths. Any one of these civs can play to a win on and difficultly level.

ppl who complain about ottomans should try to play them to their best.

about their UA its not that bad if you know how to handle it. first of all you can build a ship without being penalized by paying high amounts of maintenance because of the gold bonus if you convert an enemy vessel. in addition you get easy map control with early triremes and cities build at good seaside locations. nothing you should overlook. dont kill barbarian camps at the coast instead park one ship near it. at last you will reach faster your first general without going to war vs another civ or CS.

Ignoring the lack of capital letters, the issue with the Ottomans is that when you play them to their strengths, you'll be able to roll over a couple civs with Janissaries, get a late-mid game boost. When you play Alexander to his strengths, he wins games by giving you a continent to play with before 1500BC. I did point out that Janissaries were very good, but as noted, they lock you into a single strategy at the diety level. The UA helps mitigate some of the expenses that occur with a military, but honestly, sitting outside a barbarian camp waiting for it to spawn triremes (Or maybe just outside of vision? I don't know how barb spawning works yet.) is no way to build a navy nor is the trait a great economy booster.

This thread and the others I've noticed (How good is (Washington, usually ), Who is the best civ, etc.) are pretty common. Maybe a ranking list is in order? Obviously there is a lot of grey area, and traits vary widely based on map type and play style, but maybe for standard settings to start? I envision it something like this.

Tier 1: Wu Zetian/Alexander/Genghis Khan/Napoleon/Nebuchadnezzar II
Tier 2: Montezuma/Darius I/Hiawatha/Oda Nobunaga/Ramkhamhaeng
Tier 3: George Washington/Askia/Catherine/Augustus Caeser
Tier 4: Harun Al-Rashid/Ramesses II/Gandhi/Elizabeth
Tier 5: Bismarck/Suleiman

With reasons for each tier. And of course, I'll never get to see it because someone will say "But Ramesses is so good! I play him and win 100% of the time on immortal." And they won't understand that the list isn't saying that any civ is bad, just a hasty approximation of power relative to one another, all other factors being equal.

And, of course, I'm not really qualified to rank the civs yet, as I've only had first hand experience with about half of them.

 

[Martin Alvito]

You are badly, badly underrating Gandhi. The UA is absurd and the UU is quite good. They're not quite as good as the Babs, but they're top tier.

I'd juggle a few placements here and there, but there isn't much to complain about. Bismarck is only tier 5 on certain map settings. On smallish maps, he's the best civ in the game unless you are extremely unlucky.

 

[Roughly 6 Owls]

See, I haven't played Gandhi, and on first glance, his UU looks like a worse version of the Siam elephant, his UB requires walls to be built (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but not a high priority for me) and his UA appears crippling to any expanding strategy, which is primarily what I play. The only time I've played Bismarck was when I randomed him on a duel map and popped only two brutes before I started building Landsknechts to kill the AI. Thus why I said I'm not qualified to rank the civs yet.

Ultimately, if I ever made such a thread, I'd probably want to edit it to reflect patches and I would definitely edit it to reflect community input so as to provide as little bias as possible.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Here's what you need to know about Gandhi: at size 4 (a typical ICS cutoff) he is Happiness neutral, and after that it's pure profit. The net effect is that you can have an empire full of huge cities running specialists rather than an empire full of 1/3 large production cities and 2/3 pop-limited cities.

Bismarck is pure evil on Duel. Honor farm barbs while beelining Iron, then settle Iron, upgrade and rock. As maps get larger he gets terrible in a hurry. Cheap Pikes are cheap, but can't be used for conquest and have a rotten upgrade path.

 

[Kyroshill]

his UU looks like a worse version of the Siam elephant

It comes much earlier if I'm not mistaken

his UB requires walls to be built (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but not a high priority for me)

Gandhi is built for cultural wins... a few giant cities, and probably not much military, hence walls are your friend anyway

his UA appears crippling to any expanding strategy, which is primarily what I play.

True... but it's not what India is designed for... a few huge cities, and keeping CS's happy and AI civs at each other's throats

 

[Antarion]

Here's what you need to know about Gandhi: at size 4 (a typical ICS cutoff) he is Happiness neutral, and after that it's pure profit. The net effect is that you can have an empire full of huge cities running specialists rather than an empire full of 1/3 large production cities and 2/3 pop-limited cities.

Bismarck is pure evil on Duel. Honor farm barbs while beelining Iron, then settle Iron, upgrade and rock. As maps get larger he gets terrible in a hurry. Cheap Pikes are cheap, but can't be used for conquest and have a rotten upgrade path.

oh now you start to talk about settings, great!

i bet i can beat you both on a duel setting pangea with EVERY civ.

of course if you wanna exploit horsemen rush alex is slightly better, but why the hell do you always wanna win deity games vs AI? thats kinda boring isnt it? i rather play a quite balanced game vs real opponents not vs a machine.

and under these circumstances the ottomans arent that bad as ppl try to convince the rest. to survive until their jannis come to the battlefield isnt that complicated, believe it or not.

 

[Lord Lakely]

See, I haven't played Gandhi, and on first glance, his UU looks like a worse version of the Siam elephant, his UB requires walls to be built (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but not a high priority for me) and his UA appears crippling to any expanding strategy, which is primarily what I play. The only time I've played Bismarck was when I randomed him on a duel map and popped only two brutes before I started building Landsknechts to kill the AI. Thus why I said I'm not qualified to rank the civs yet.

Ultimately, if I ever made such a thread, I'd probably want to edit it to reflect patches and I would definitely edit it to reflect community input so as to provide as little bias as possible.

India is actually a pretty neat Civ imo. As soon as your cities have a population of roughly 6 or more, you'll have a HAPPINESS ADVANTAGE to all empires the same size as yours. (both population and size-wise) This, plus Chichen/Taj, often results in some ridiculous Golden Age abuse.

The key with Gandhi isn't not expanding... it's expanding more slowly that you otherwise would, not before your cities have been developed and have grown beyond 5pop or so. And since your happiness will be higher, you can afford more often to sell some of your luxuries for a satisfying amount of gold.

Elephant Archers are amazing imo. They are basically a fast, ranged unit who doesn't require horses, allowing you to build them en masse as soon as you get the wheel.

I'm not a big fan of Castles in general, but basically the mughal forts are a combination of a Castle and a Monument. Since you'll have a smaller empire than most other Civs, this will result in better defence (since you can't afford much of an army) and more SPs! Maybe not the best bonus... but certainly handy at times..

 

[charm3]

I hate Nebuchadnezzar.

ppl who thought bab is good FTW. But, bab is slower than other civs.
eg siam, china, greece, france etc.

 

[basta]

Having tried them 3 times and had nothing but slow, attrition, falling-behind failure, I'd have to say China.

Lousy start positions--semi-arid and scarce resources, the archer that comes too late and costs too much, the paper factory is great but doesn't do enough to overcome the start bias, production seems truly crippled (start build is 7 turns for a scout when most other civs get 5) and soon enough you're running all cities at production focus and so you slip behind on gold and SPs and ability to keep your happiness + and to expand.

What fun! By late medieval you're so behind, with ridiculous build times, poor production and lagging techs and SPs, that you toss it in. Really I must be doing something terribly wrong but I just don't see why they're always high on everyone's list. Maybe at lower levels they're better but not at immortal.

Also France, which should be a great civ for immortal, but is seen as a huge expansionist threat by the other AIs and is consistently DoWed with multi-civ pile-ons. Still, very strong if you survive. Mongols, however, are left alone and can really rampage. Curious imbalance, where France is seen as a threat and the Mongols not.