Are any civs or leaders by themselves weak? Are some too good?

[Siptah]

Curious to hear your assessments after a few games on whether some leaders or civs disappoint or are too good. And I don't mean synergies or combos, just the civs and leaders in isolation. Are any bonuses or units weak or irrelevant?

For me, my first few games surprised me insofar as most played even better than I expected. All these bonus really come together nicely, and some traditions are just great for the whole game.

Positive:
Rome, Persia, Spain, Chola, Inka, Moguls, Prussia
Revolutionary Napoleon, Baroque Friedrich

Neutral (played strong, but not more than expected):
French Empire
Achaemenid Xerxes

Negative:
Aksum

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

I liked Aksum with Amina.
Aksum > Chola > Mughal seemed strong with a continual economic focus
And the first too feed Mughal’s gold power

 

[local_hero]

I've yet to play Hatshepsut, but she looks underwhelming to me. 1 culture per imported resource, compared to so many other bonuses being 1x per age? In the late game, I'm usually limited by the number of resource slots in my settlements, that simply 1 culture in the Modern age seems very weak? Or am I missing something? The 15% to buildings and wonders is maybe better than I think, but I thought that the culture on imported resources was the "main feature".

Edit: I played my first game with Aksum and found them to provide a lot of culture throughout the ages with their tradition that granted 2 culture for resources on coastal terrain.

 

[Cannonballninja]

The thing that's surprised me most are how good I find unique improvements to be? They're a constructible specialist that can fit into towns! I initially thought fishing towns were clearly the premier sort of food town, but I'm actually a little down on them because they lack the ability to spam unique improvements. I still recognise they have their utility (basically zero footprint on land - you can squeeze a seaside town almost anywhere), but compared to a town with eight Ming Great Walls, they look a little anaemic!

 

[Melkus]

but she looks underwhelming to me.

I didn't check if you have to put the resource into the city slot to count (the game doesn't say what "imported" means exactly), but you can assemble quite a lot of resources by trading - it's basically 3-4 culture per trading route. That's at least strong in Antiquity.

But it certainly wouldn't break the game if the bonus was "per age", you have to build the bonus back up in every age too. At least she synergizes well with Egypt - but she's probably not especially great in other combinations (maybe trading-focused civs).

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

I've yet to play Hatshepsut, but she looks underwhelming to me. 1 culture per imported resource, compared to so many other bonuses being 1x per age? In the late game, I'm usually limited by the number of resource slots in my settlements, that simply 1 culture in the Modern age seems very weak? Or am I missing something? The 15% to buildings and wonders is maybe better than I think, but I thought that the culture on imported resources was the "main feature".

Edit: I played my first game with Aksum and found them to provide a lot of culture throughout the ages with their tradition that granted 2 culture for resources on coastal terrain.

Hatshepsut and Egypt are a match made in heaven, if you are really into building wonders and get a bit lucky with your nav river spawn, holy hell, she is beautiful. +15% production to wonder can stack with so many other policies, both traditions and common civics.

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

I didn't check if you have to put the resource into the city slot to count (the game doesn't say what "imported" means exactly), but you can assemble quite a lot of resources by trading - it's basically 3-4 culture per trading route. That's at least strong in Antiquity.

But it certainly wouldn't break the game if the bonus was "per age", you have to build the bonus back up in every age too. At least she synergizes well with Egypt - but she's probably not especially great in other combinations (maybe trading-focused civs).

From my Qing game, I don't think you need to slot those resources for them to count. I got minus science immediately when my merchant established a trade route.

 

[Siptah]

I liked Aksum with Amina.
Aksum > Chola > Mughal seemed strong with a continual economic focus
And the first too feed Mughal’s gold power

My main gripe with Aksum was that the two units aren‘t great. I rarely (never?) had a trade route pillaged in antiquity in my non-Aksum games, and I didn‘t have that much trouble with sea trade route distances either. And the Dhow doubles down on sea trade routes, but requires open borders to do so. I felt that one of these units was enough: both do similar things, but aren‘t as useful as other unique units.

I‘m also (with 3.3 games under my belt) more of a unique buildings fan than a unique improvements fan. But maybe this will change with time.

 

[queenpea]

I find that the AI performs consistently well with Revolutionary Napoleon. I am yet to play as him and will likely not.

 

[queenpea]

My main gripe with Aksum was that the two units aren‘t great. I rarely (never?) had a trade repute pillaged in antiquity.

I’ve never had a route pillaged so assume you just couldn’t…

 

[Siptah]

I find that the AI performs consistently well with Revolutionary Napoleon. I am yet to play as him and will likely not.

The +1 movement on all units is a huge advantage. It gives so much more tactical freedom. The culture from kills is quite a boost in antiquity.

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

My main gripe with Aksum was that the two units aren‘t great. I rarely (never?) had a trade route pillaged in antiquity in my non-Aksum games, and I didn‘t have that much trouble with sea trade route distances either. And the Dhow doubles down on sea trade routes, but requires open borders to do so. I felt that one of these units was enough: both do similar things, but aren‘t as useful as other unique units.

I‘m also (with 3.3 games under my belt) more of a unique buildings fan than a unique improvements fan. But maybe this will change with time.

I haven't tried Aksum simply cuz they are the least appealing to me. A boring civ ability, unique improvement instead of building, and a unique Trade ship? not even unique merchant, but a trade ship? Why should I care? A trade ship is something I cant even interact with.

 

[Melkus]

And then you lose these abilities when they'd be interesting in Exploration. The Hatshi synergy for trade routes is real, but you would absolutely have to keep good relations.

 

[Vahnstad]

What i've played so far

Very, very, very Positive (did no combat as Hawaii though, except vs independent cities):
Maya:
Pet kot is insane, their scouts are insane (and can be used with other bonuses to stack), poison ability is very good too, their focus on science & happiness is good too, so is their unique district & building. Overall a very good civ that synenergizes with most leaders very well, sometimes simply because their scouts can fight, and that these same scouts benefit from powerful mementos and other abilities that you can stack, as well as combat strength.

Hawaii
Ho'okapu is very strong, you can get +4 culture on every coastal tile. If you settle a lot of island cities in the second age, you swim in culture very fast and snowball. Unique units (both the missionary and infantry), abilities & improvement seem very good too, but it's their traditions that are the most powerful imo.

Positive but not enough experience because culture victory is just insanely fast (and did not use combat or the great persons at all):
Mexico

Neutral:
Xerxes (King of Kings)
Allright but possible i did not utilize max potential, especially since i did not do combat vs a civ in exploration & modern era.

Neutral/lean negative/niche:
Mississippi
however i do believe Ibn Battuta did not synenergize well, and Xerxes the Achaemenid probably synenergizes much better with their uniques, also did not test the unique improvement. Its unique unit is very weird too, probably good but hard to master because the burns can hurt yourself but can simultaneously make sieges quicker, likely very good in defensive wars tho. I need more experience with them, also because the set-up or start was probably not great for them. And i think they relatively shine better at higher difficulties because their unique unit is good in a defensive war and trade routes are more powerful with more competent AI.

Lean negative:
Ibn Battuta
Good for the wildcard attributes, but i mean... at most that's only good for niche strategies if you want to get to a certain attribute point very quickly. Trade maps endeavour is useless though. Overall probably not geared enough towards a victory type to make him ever worth using, and likely does not synenergize with anyone.

Played but too early to judge:
Han (which seems rather bad) and Confucius (which seems in theory good)

 

[queenpea]

Positive but not enough experience because culture victory is just insanely fast (and did not use combat or the great persons at all):
Mexico

Endorsing this. Mexico is insane with culture and I delayed building World Fair as early as I could in order to keep playing. Didn’t want to win yet.

 

[Giskler]

Civs:

Really strong and/or really fun to play:
Maya, Songhai, Hawai'i, Egypt, Abbasids, Rome, Normans, Mexico, Spain, Siam

Seemed fine:
America, French Empire, Meiji Japan, Majapahit, Greece, Han, Khmer, Maurya, Mughals, Qing, Mississipians, Persia

Seemed meh:
Aksum, Buganda, Prussia, Chola

Not tried yet:
Mongolia, Inca, Ming, Shawnee, Russia

Leaders:

Really strong and/or really fun to play:
Lafayette, Hatshepsut, Isabella, Harriet Tubman

Seemed fine:
Benjamin Franklin, Ashoka World Renouncer

Seemed meh:
Xerxes the Achameneid, Jose Rizal, Confucius

Not tried yet:
Lots

Obviously early days still and I've only had a chance to try some civs once. So far I'd say Harriet Tubman is the strongest leader I've played, her +5 war support is crazy.

 

[Leyrann]

So far, I've played:

Jose Rizal: Mississippian -> Inca (game aborted halfway through Exploration Era because the number of unfixable mistakes made out of ignorance was getting large enough to hamper my enjoyment)
Xerxes, King of Kings: Rome -> Spain -> America
Himiko, Queen of Wa: Khmer -> Majapahit (ongoing)

The standouts to me so far are Mississippian, America and the Majapahit.

Mississippian gets to generate a pretty ridiculous amount of gold through Gift Economy and Shell-Tempered Pottery, and you can continue using these in the Exploration Era, until eventually they are overshadowed by better civics later on - but that's only by the late Exploration Era, if not the Modern Era. Also, Shell-Tempered Pottery and their Goose Societies unique ability synergize well because they both work on resource adjacencies. You just generate pretty insane amounts of gold and, to a lesser degree, food and happiness.

America has Robber Barons, which can give upwards of 100 influence per turn, as well as Gold Rush which itself also just puts a flat 5 gold on every single resource. They also get two production unique buildings allowing you to build up everything else extremely fast after that, and sure, I was snowballing pretty hard, but the gold income got absolutely crazy even then. I ended the game with over 7k gold per turn. The vast majority of my rail stations and factories (and I had one in all of my nearly thirty settlements, except for the ones that were on islands too small to make it work) weren't built, but purchased. (Edit before posting: I just realized this was probably boosted further by Xerxes' leader ability)

As for the Majapahit... 1 culture and 1 production on every naval tile is a really strong social policy. And yet it's completely blown away by the innate unlock of Gamelan, which provides 4 culture on every single Quarter. I was perpetually behind on culture in my game due to a lack of mountains or natural wonders for adjacencies, but after I rushed the Majapahit unique civics, my culture per turn was all of a sudden outpacing my science per turn (which is boosted by Golden Age Academies and the Friend of Wa endeavour!). It went from I think some 140 or so per turn to 420 per turn with those two civics, and I only built like three or so Kilns in the meanwhile. Oh yeah and uhm... their unique Cultural building that gets adjacencies from coastal terrain? Yeah, that stacks with Nusantara's innate bonus (of giving coast giving culture buildings adjacency bonuses).

Honorable mention to Jose Rizal's permanent celebrations, to the point where I suspect I was missing out on social policy slots due to the increased duration he gets on celebrations. EDIT: And also to Himiko, free support on all endeavours.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Agree with anyone saying Maya, they seemed strong to me, I enjoyed it.

Haven't seen Machiavelli mentioned but I found him pretty potent in the early game at least, that gold on refused endeavours is no joke. Quite fun to rile up the neighbors and get money for my trouble.

 

[RockTheCazbah87]

+1 for the Majapahit being a cultural juggernaut (Sovereign difficulty, not especially optimised either)

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

I think Askum could use a tiny buff, probably to the Dhow. I think letting it enter into Friendly players' territory without Open Borders would be good.