A Civ5 Guide for the Civ4 Veteran *Updated 9/24*

[Feyd Rautha]

I think pointing to multiplayer is the key here, and I therefore go back to my previous assertion that I believe all the civs are balanced for an earth type map. You may be "challenging" yourself, but you're also giving yourself a huge boost in strength if you wind up with a civ that can specialize in that kind of map. If you want balance then include all terrain features.

 

[DaviddesJ]

It is a handicap....it may be a Fun handicap, but it is not a limitation imposed by the game rules.

This is just wrong. The fact that some civs are less powerful than others in certain situations is imposed by the game rules. The abilities of the different Civilizations are a fundamental aspect of the game.

 

[patsfan454]

Civ 5 is like Civ 4, your starting position is always far more important than whatever civ you choose/are given. I would take the "worst" civ with an excellent starting position over the "best" one with a bad starting position. With that being said, the UA, UU, and UB of each civ in Civ V has a far greater affect on the game than it did in IV.

 

[Vordeo]

Right, my last word on the subject, both because it's off topic and because we're taking away from the original thread.

No, I'm not. I can choose a civilization that has interesting but somewhat weaker abilities, that means I get a more balanced game without either giving the AI bonuses or handicapping myself.

So you're arguing against a balanced game essentially because you want a balanced game? And how is picking a weaker civ not handicapping yourself, in any case?

And when I say balanced, I don't mean I want them all overpowered, like Praets were in CivIV. As things are now, they all have their own strengths and weaknesses, and that's brilliant. It's just that some abilities are strictly worse than others (ex. Ancien Regime >>> Sacrificial Captives), which just reeks of an imbalanced game.

Now you seem to like the idea, but I do not, and frankly I'd imagine most people would be in favor of the civs being generally balanced with each other, for gameplay purposes.

All that said, this is a pointless conversation because I doubt Firaxis cares.

This is just wrong. The fact that some civs are less powerful than others in certain situations is imposed by the game rules. The abilities of the different Civilizations are a fundamental aspect of the game.

He was referring to self-imposed rules such as resourceless units, only building farms, etc. I believe.

 

[DaviddesJ]

So you're arguing against a balanced game essentially because you want a balanced game? And how is picking a weaker civ not handicapping yourself, in any case?

There are two meanings of "balanced" here. One meaning of balanced is that I have an equally good position as the AI players, looking at the position in isolation. The other is that I have an even position when you take into account that I play the game far better than they can. If you contrast the two they will of course be different, because a "balanced" position in the first sense is necessarily very "unbalanced" in the second sense.

All civs are necessarily different, that is part of the design, so I don't see choosing a somewhat less favorable civ (or a somewhat less favorable starting position, etc.) as a "handicap" in the same sense that altering the rules of the game by giving the AI players reduced build costs, extra units, and so on, would be. Of course, language is subjective, and you can call it whatever you want.

I'd imagine most people would be in favor of the civs being generally balanced with each other, for gameplay purposes.

It seems simplest to just let everyone express their own opinion. I have mine, you have yours, if someone else has their own then they can post it too.

If you're talking about "most" of the group of all Civilization players, most people play the game very casually, have a good challenge from the game even against an AI with no handicap at all, and so their situation is totally different than mine or (presumably) yours.

 

[Vordeo]

Ooooh, first few posts have been updated. Kinda wish you'd kept the ratings in, but it's always good to get a fresh perspective on things. Good stuff!

All civs are necessarily different, that is part of the design, so I don't see choosing a somewhat less favorable civ (or a somewhat less favorable starting position, etc.) as a "handicap" in the same sense that altering the rules of the game by giving the AI players reduced build costs, extra units, and so on, would be. Of course, language is subjective, and you can call it whatever you want.

Fair enough, though the end result is the same: a bigger challenge.

It seems simplest to just let everyone express their own opinion. I have mine, you have yours, if someone else has their own then they can post it too.

That's what I've been doing, and that's the first thing I said in reply to you. Look at the previous posts, you're the one who's been challenging my opinion that balance is a good thing.

Time to really let this drop though, we're derailing a good thread.

 

[Trickster7135]

Ooooh, first few posts have been updated. Kinda wish you'd kept the ratings in, but it's always good to get a fresh perspective on things. Good stuff!

The more I play each civ, the more I get the feeling that they are actually all more or less balanced with each other. Some are still better than others dependent on map type or size, or even just random luck of starting position. But I'm really getting the feeling that a lot of play testing went into this. It's more finding the play style that suits each civ best, and that can be hard for some for the less obvious ones.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

This is just wrong. The fact that some civs are less powerful than others in certain situations is imposed by the game rules. The abilities of the different Civilizations are a fundamental aspect of the game.

Choosing your civ is a part of the strategy.
Choosing a "weak civ" is a self-imposed handicap

Just like choosing a weak tile improvement is a handicap

Deciding to play a game with the English if you believe they are weak
and
Deciding never to build Trading posts

Are both self-imposed handicaps... they might be fun, but they are handicaps.

 

[Vordeo]

The more I play each civ, the more I get the feeling that they are actually all more or less balanced with each other. Some are still better than others dependent on map type or size, or even just random luck of starting position. But I'm really getting the feeling that a lot of play testing went into this. It's more finding the play style that suits each civ best, and that can be hard for some for the less obvious ones.

I'd like to believe that, but given how unfinished the entire product seems, I wouldn't bet on it. Not that I don't think the game is still pretty good, but it just feels like it needs alot of tweaks.

I do think things aren't as unbalanced as some people are saying, but I do think some civs are clearly stronger than others (which, granted, will probably always be the case).

As an example, take the Aztecs. Their UA and UU aren't very good at all. The UA will maybe get you your first policies 2-3 turns earlier if you commit to warmongering. The UU bonuses aren't that good, as jungle battles aren't too common, and the healing isn't much. Granted, the UB is fantastic, but can that alone put the Aztecs on the level of a civ like say, Greece or France?

Greece has two very powerful UUs that come at around the same age and probably one of the best UAs in the game, and France has two solid frontline UUs and a UA that is strictly better than Monty's. Now I think Suleiman's UA is by far the worst in the game, but at least he has 2 very good UUs that come around the same age. The likes of Monty and Harun are just clearly weaker in general IMO.

I do agree that they're well designed though. Different civs are extremely powerful in different ages, and you really feel that: being Alexander's neighbor in the Classical Age is terrifying.

On that note, I'm also going to say that I think China is stronger than you think. The Paper Makers are a very good UB (one of the best around, IMO), as libraries are generally built everywhere, and the fact that they're effectively maintenance free (and in fact add to your gold count) mean your can spam them without worrying about cash. A decent sized empire powered by Paper Makers mean you tech faster and have more cash, and teching faster gets you to Cho-ku-no quicker. With uber-GGs, those guys are beastly.

 

[Paeanblack]

The Indian civilization [...] leader trait, Population Growth, halves unhappiness from number of citizens while doubling unhappiness from number of cities. [...] This trait greatly discourages warmonger, as most conquered cities will have to remain puppet states for much longer to accommodate the increased unhappiness compared to other civilization. Overall, the unique building and leader trait encourage a peaceful victory, something Gandhi would approve of.

This is completely backwards. The Indian UA is unparalleled for managing huge empires. Yes, the # of cities penalty gets doubled, but this breaks even with the # of citizens benefit at a city size of 4.

India can't do an Ancient Era REX or rush without hurting for happiness, but after Civil Service, any conquered city will grow back to size 4 relatively quickly, since they have a couple of farms already built. India will have far, far less unhappiness n a massive empire of conquered cities than anybody else.

The War Elephant changes the chariot archer drastically. It's strength, both melee and ranged, are increased by two, while it's movement speed is reduced by one. It's production cost is increased by 20, but it no longer requires horses to build and has no penalty for moving on rough terrain. This turns the normally quick to scout and harass chariot archers into pseudo siege units, capable of taking down cities when applied in large numbers, but able to counter spearmen and archers thanks to their higher movement speed. It is a pity that the other aspects of the Indian civilization do not line up with early conquest like the unique unit does.

A regular chariot archer loses all movement when entering forest or hills. The War Elephant does not. The elephant can move 2 tiles per turn in rough terrain, or it can move one tile AND fire. It is completely dominant in hills or marsh, since it cannot be caught by spearmen. It can either run circles around them at twice the speed, or it matches their pace while firing every turn.

Unless you are fighting on large, wide-open plains, it is effectively the fastest unit in the game at the time. For cross-continent travel across mixed terrain, it moves about as fast as a scout, and the 8/6 strength gives it more staying power. Also, no horses are required. India can start pumping them out after one tech.

Don't let the "peaceful" description fool you. India is one of the strongest early warmongers out there.

 

[Trickster7135]

As an example, take the Aztecs. Their UA and UU aren't very good at all. The UA will maybe get you your first policies 2-3 turns earlier if you commit to warmongering. The UU bonuses aren't that good, as jungle battles aren't too common, and the healing isn't much. Granted, the UB is fantastic, but can that alone put the Aztecs on the level of a civ like say, Greece or France?

The Aztecs are the civ I had in mind while writing that. Their UA and UU are terrible, it's true. But their UB is the only building until hospitals that increases food by a %. Combined with the extra food from lake tiles, and their jungle starts, they are poised to an extremely strong science victory. Every jungle tile gives 2.3 food, so after six tiles are worked, Aztecs get a free citizen, at least from food. This extra food can easily be used to support science specialist, which work extremely well with trade post jungle tiles: 2.3 food, 2 gold, 4 science per tile. Very few civs have jungle as their start, and the Aztecs are designed to take full advantage of it.

 

[Trickster7135]

A regular chariot archer loses all movement when entering forest or hills. The War Elephant does not. The elephant can move 2 tiles per turn in rough terrain, or it can move one tile AND fire. It is completely dominant in hills or marsh, since it cannot be caught by spearmen. It can either run circles around them at twice the speed, or it matches their pace while firing every turn.

Unless you are fighting on large, wide-open plains, it is effectively the fastest unit in the game at the time. For cross-continent travel across mixed terrain, it moves about as fast as a scout, and the 8/6 strength gives it more staying power. Also, no horses are required. India can start pumping them out after one tech.

You're comparing the elephants to chariots and saying elephants are better because of certain terrain. While certainly true, that's not comparing the units fairly. Which terrain you will you have around your empire is dependent on map settings and luck, if you play with the elephants with the mindset of hills and marshes, with they still live up to your expectations if you start on plains or grassland? Or even if you have rough terrain, what if you build a road to your enemy? Then the higher movement speed of chariots will really be pronounced.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Choosing your civ is a part of the strategy.
Choosing a "weak civ" is a self-imposed handicap.

Well, you're wrong. Choosing the best civ is not part of the strategy of the game. If it were, you would have to let the AIs do it too, and then where would you be?

Choosing the best civ is like generating random maps and discarding them until you get an especially favorable one, or like choosing from among all of the map types the one that will help you the most. You can do that if you want, but it's not part of the strategy of the game, it's a way to make the game easier for yourself.

 

[the oob]

Great Generals now provide a flat +25% combat bonus to any unit in their tile or surrounding them. Up to seven total units can take advantage of a Great General.

Not to be picky, but the range is two tiles

 

[Vordeo]

The Aztecs are the civ I had in mind while writing that. Their UA and UU are terrible, it's true. But their UB is the only building until hospitals that increases food by a %. Combined with the extra food from lake tiles, and their jungle starts, they are poised to an extremely strong science victory. Every jungle tile gives 2.3 food, so after six tiles are worked, Aztecs get a free citizen, at least from food. This extra food can easily be used to support science specialist, which work extremely well with trade post jungle tiles: 2.3 food, 2 gold, 4 science per tile. Very few civs have jungle as their start, and the Aztecs are designed to take full advantage of it.

The UB is top tier IMO, but given the fact that their UA and UU provide negligible benefits, I don't think it alone is enough to push it to the level of the 'good' civs. Another problem with the UB is that AFAIK it has to be built next to a lake or river, so that limits expansion a bit.

They are equipped to take full advantage of their jungle starts, true, but overall I feel they're still one of the weaker civs in the game. I love the flavor of the different civs, but I really do feel the power levels of some of the civs need some tweaking.

 

[Trickster7135]

Not to be picky, but the range is two tiles

Hmm you're right, I never noticed that before. Wish the interface wasn't so lax on information.

And btw, be picky! I want this guide to be 100% accurate, but that might take awhile on my own to test everything the civilopedia says (and doesn't say, or says in a vague way). So thanks!

 

[rune42]

The UB is top tier IMO, but given the fact that their UA and UU provide negligible benefits, I don't think it alone is enough to push it to the level of the 'good' civs. Another problem with the UB is that AFAIK it has to be built next to a lake or river, so that limits expansion a bit.

They are equipped to take full advantage of their jungle starts, true, but overall I feel they're still one of the weaker civs in the game. I love the flavor of the different civs, but I really do feel the power levels of some of the civs need some tweaking.

Despite how Monty likes to play, the Aztecs are probably the best at keeping a small empire while still being able to achieve a science victory(keyword here is small empire). Universities are practically a second UB for them.
And as trickster mentioned, universities + floating gardens + jungles = science powerhouse.

I think Jaguars are perfect for what they're supposed to be used for. The AI loves to chop down jungles, and if an AI starts near the Aztecs, their city is going to be surrounded by jungles. Other civs starting next to the Aztecs is a significant detriment to them. I believe the Jaguars were made specifically to help with that problem. Put a stop to their jungle chopping and pick up a city while you're at it with those Jaguars!

Of course, the one time i tried the Aztecs, my starting position contained no jungles whatsoever, sooooo.... yea....
...bug maybe?

I just started up another Aztec game real quick and this is the starting position I got:

Spoiler :

 

[Vordeo]

Despite how Monty likes to play, the Aztecs are probably the best at keeping a small empire while still being able to achieve a science victory(keyword here is small empire). Universities are practically a second UB for them.
And as trickster mentioned, universities + floating gardens + jungles = science powerhouse.

India are probably better than that. Also, generally large empires are better at teching, as pop = research nowadays. They do decently at science, but just the food bonus alone doesn't make up for the other crap. Also, you'd need alot of food to get a sizable pop for research, and if most of your territory is jungle...

You could rely on city states for food, but everyone can do that.

I think Jaguars are perfect for what they're supposed to be used for. The AI loves to chop down jungles, and if an AI starts near the Aztecs, their city is going to be surrounded by jungles. Other civs starting next to the Aztecs is a significant detriment to them. I believe the Jaguars were made specifically to help with that problem. Put a stop to their jungle chopping and pick up a city while you're at it with those Jaguars!

Jags are decent, but taking out decent cities is pretty hard with warriors, and the jungle bonus isn't really going to help with any invasions.

I rather like the civ, and I really wish they were better, but well, they aren't.

 

[rune42]

India are probably better than that. Also, generally large empires are better at teching, as pop = research nowadays. They do decently at science, but just the food bonus alone doesn't make up for the other crap. Also, you'd need alot of food to get a sizable pop for research, and if most of your territory is jungle...

You could rely on city states for food, but everyone can do that.



Jags are decent, but taking out decent cities is pretty hard with warriors, and the jungle bonus isn't really going to help with any invasions.

I rather like the civ, and I really wish they were better, but well, they aren't.

India is the best at creating large empires. Their UA only prevents REXing, not keeping their empire small. You can't fully utilize their UA if it takes 50+ turns just to reach the next population. Their description and the Bollywood achievement is completely misleading.

1 jungle = 2 pop worth of science
Also, Civilopedia is wrong. Jungle tiles give the exact same bonuses as grasslands: +2 food

The Aztec +15% food UB also scales with maritime CS because they add their food directly to the city's tile.

 

[Trickster7135]

Also, Civilopedia is wrong. Jungle tiles give the exact same bonuses as grasslands: +2 food

Now if only that were the only thing the civilopedia got wrong.