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

[Xefjord]

Is there actually any chance any leaders get buffed or nerfed over time?

I feel like I always see Lafayette and Himiko steamrolling in my games as the AI. The only way to stop them on my Sovereign difficulty is just to invade them.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Weak. I bought my entire rail and factory network in my first Modern Age game. I believe that was 21 factories and their associated rail stations?

Bought the first three railroad stations on the first turn they were available: 5500 Gold on one turn, instant rail 'network'.

I suspect costs in Modern Age may have to be adjusted Soon, because the amount of Gold you can amass in just a few turns by then is simply ridiculous.

 

[Giskler]

If you want gold just play Songhai, was drowning in gold and had nothing to spend it on by the end of the age.

 

[Leucarum]

I really enjoy Songhai. Even if it's not the best transition I am always tempted by them - and they have to be the fastest civ to win economic in exploration with! I appreciate that as economic is always slowest.

 

[Navelgazer]

I really enjoy Songhai. Even if it's not the best transition I am always tempted by them - and they have to be the fastest civ to win economic in exploration with! I appreciate that as economic is always slowest.

Exactly my thoughts. Plus they seem to be really easy to unlock through gameplay (I think the unlock might be bugged to be easier than it's supposed to be, actually) so I feel like they're always an option.

 

[Menocchio]

Hatshepsut feels... underwhelming. As opposed to other leaders, who for the most part give bonuses that are fully unique—like Augustus' culture districts in towns, or Amina's bonus resource slot—Hatshepsut just gives numerical bonuses, and ones that are really closely linked to playing Egypt specifically. It's not too far off from being a combination of Civ VI's Cleopatra + Egypt bonuses, even down to the same 15% production increase. Some of the most frustrating civs in previous games, I found, were always the ones with strict geographic playstyles: if there are few/no navigable rivers, you're out of luck. Unlike with other leaders I never found myself thinking, "wow, I'm glad I picked Hatshepsut for this!"

I also found it funny that, somehow, Mughal India is a "strategic" choice for Hatshepsut in the Modern age. If only buying wonders was the same as building them! Apologies to Her Eminence for the slander.

 

[Navelgazer]

For me, so far, the "weakest" leader I've tried out is unfortunately José Rizal. I say "unfortunate" because I love his inclusion here, and his design is interesting and all, but it's so generically flexible as to not really synergize with any particular civ (in Antiquity, at least. In Modern I can see it being decent with Mexico and/or France, but even then there are downsides.) The extra narrative events and little bursts of culture/gold for completing them is fun enough but not really impactful. And while the longer celebration length is good on some level, it also can actually lead to fewer celebrations overall, and thus fewer policy slots.

If somebody's found a good Joey Rizz strat, please let me know, because I'd love to play through a decent campaign with him, but they've all been pretty much non-starters for me so far.

 

[Cannonballninja]

A thing that makes some of these evaluations more difficult than I feel they should be are the narrative events. Because if you know what they are, you can definitely trigger them. And these aren't necessarily small things - they can be pretty potent!

Take Persia: you have deployed your Immortals in a war. At some point, you'll get a quest to kill some units with an Immortal (I think it triggers on the Immortals killing something? Then you need to kill two other things?). The reward is either a free Immortal or a free commander.

Persia again: you're in a war, and an Immortal dies. You will trigger another event - gain some gold, or gain two free Immortals.

These are considerable warmongering bonuses! Liable to make prosecuting your first campaign vastly easier while setting you up for future success.. And they are utterly invisible until you know they exist and know how to trigger them.

 

[Leucarum]

For me, so far, the "weakest" leader I've tried out is unfortunately José Rizal. I say "unfortunate" because I love his inclusion here, and his design is interesting and all, but it's so generically flexible as to not really synergize with any particular civ (in Antiquity, at least. In Modern I can see it being decent with Mexico and/or France, but even then there are downsides.) The extra narrative events and little bursts of culture/gold for completing them is fun enough but not really impactful. And while the longer celebration length is good on some level, it also can actually lead to fewer celebrations overall, and thus fewer policy slots.

If somebody's found a good Joey Rizz strat, please let me know, because I'd love to play through a decent campaign with him, but they've all been pretty much non-starters for me so far.

The relatively small yields from narrative events make the most difference early on, so when I tried him I went for 3 scouts right off the bat to try and find as many goodie huts as possible. It's difficult to quantify how much of a difference it made though, and it's so random...

 

[tedhebert]

Just finished my 4th full campaign with Confucius, Khmer/chola/siam. First try at Immortal level, won easily before turn 100, culture win again.

I thought moving from sovereign to immortal would be difficult, but it was a breeze actually. I even got the FLAWLESS CAMPAIGN foundation challenge, complete at least 2 legacy paths in every age !

Honestly, culture and economic victory are attainable way to fast compared to the other two, this should be getting a balance fix. I usually get them before even getting the first science milestone.

As other have said, gold is probably the better currency in the game. It's so flexible. In modern, I hard buy all my rails stations, ports and factories most of the time. So much easier and faster than hard building.

IMHO, you should not be allowed to hard buy more than one building/improvement in a settlement per turn, just like they restrict it for units.

So, now it's time for me to go for an all military campaign. I'm thinking of challenging myself by NOT buying or building a single settler during the whole game, and restricting myself to military victory in modern.

Any leader/civ suggestions from those who HAVE gone military in their previous games, that worked out well for them ?

 

[Sagax]

Any leader/civ suggestions from those who HAVE gone military in their previous games, that worked out well for them ?

KoK Xerxes+anything militaristic, Lafayette+Rome, and Charlemagne+Mongolia are all solid, to the point you might feel comfortable starting at a difficulty higher than your current comfort zone.

For modern, might as well go with Prussia for the ultimate combat strength overkill - although you may want to reduce enemies to a single city for that, instead of eliminating completely. I’m also yet to understand if Staatseisenbahn is functionally non-existent or secretly OP.

Testimonials: this usually King-level player that beat Deity in Civ7.

 

[Siptah]

Charlemagne+Mongolia are all solid, to the point you might feel comfortable starting at a difficulty higher than your current comfort zone.

Having played Charlemagne now, I honestly expect his ability to get changed. It could be a 50% chance to get 2 cavalry units or just 1 per ceremony. I didn't even choose Mongolia, but went Greece > Normans > America, and I had so many Cavalry units in Exploration and so many tanks in modern, I didn't know what to do with them. I don't think I've built a single unit in the second half of the game, despite fighting many wars.

I was positively surprised of the Normans: getting cities with free walls is nice, and they generate a lot of happiness, have ok traditions. There's a great synergy with Charlemagne as well, as you swim in happiness and have great cavalry.

Greece allows for a fun and strong diplomacy play, but I find CS-based strategies to be too luck dependent. Several times, an independent people got destroyed while I had already invested in befriending them.

Still haven't played all civs though, so I can't really make a full list.

 

[theadder]

Is there actually any chance any leaders get buffed or nerfed over time?

I feel like I always see Lafayette and Himiko steamrolling in my games as the AI. The only way to stop them on my Sovereign difficulty is just to invade them.

Yes, I think so. There’s more opportunity to rebalance as the devs get more time to consider balance.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

Just finished my 4th full campaign with Confucius, Khmer/chola/siam. First try at Immortal level, won easily before turn 100, culture win again.

I thought moving from sovereign to immortal would be difficult, but it was a breeze actually. I even got the FLAWLESS CAMPAIGN foundation challenge, complete at least 2 legacy paths in every age !

Honestly, culture and economic victory are attainable way to fast compared to the other two, this should be getting a balance fix. I usually get them before even getting the first science milestone.

As other have said, gold is probably the better currency in the game. It's so flexible. In modern, I hard buy all my rails stations, ports and factories most of the time. So much easier and faster than hard building.

IMHO, you should not be allowed to hard buy more than one building/improvement in a settlement per turn, just like they restrict it for units.

So, now it's time for me to go for an all military campaign. I'm thinking of challenging myself by NOT buying or building a single settler during the whole game, and restricting myself to military victory in modern.

Any leader/civ suggestions from those who HAVE gone military in their previous games, that worked out well for them ?

just finished my first game. it was only gov difficulty so take it with a great of salt. Went Machiavelli, Rome > Spain> France. Having Rome's production bonus to troops in capital for every town is very strong, especially once you go to spain and start rapidly expanding in the new world. in general, the combination of Legion, to Tercio, to Guard Imperiale allows you to keep the offensive on all game long. The Guard Imperial are particularly strong: if you get enough of them (which Rome's legacy production bonus helps to keep building up your numbers) you can get plus 8 combat on them just standing next to each other. they have a ranged combat attack as well. with the ingnoring ZOC policy france gets, they are adept at overwhelming and flanking down your enemies without needing tons of cavalry. this combination would have worked much better with napoleon revolutionary than machiavelli. in any case, i amassed a huge empire as spain, and then my culture surged as france and i was able to absolutely destroy Tubman USA and songhai with african queen leader on a multi front war. Rome to spain to France feels very powerful, and i suspect even stronger with Napoleon as leader.

 

[marius_kaparius]

My experiences so far
Mississippians: Burning Arrows are great
Shawnee: The civic that avoids tile damage from disasters is good, the unique missionary is super mobile and good
Japan: Unique naval unit felt very powerful
Himiko (Friend of Wei): you only realize how good 0 influence support is when you play someone else

Aksum: One of their traditions for importing is as good as one you only get late exploration.
Shongai: I had a LOT of gold, cannot recall why, caravanserai? Tradition that unlocks treasure ship spawned them right in my capital, busted good!
Buganda: I didn’t figure out how to use the lakes well. Won the culture victory before really figuring them out
Amina: I cannot remember what her ability does, something military?

Maya: My favorite so far, the scouts are great and the science amazing.
Hawaii: Second favorite, maritime culture is amazing
Mexico: The celebrations are great but couldn’t figure them out before winning culture victory
Jose Rizal: Don’t that +%50 celebrations with him. They are too long and it keeps you from getting policies.

 

[pjotroos]

I'm on six full games now, mostly on the 4th difficulty (Sovereign), with two repeats (Hawai'i and Mexico).

It feels like the modern civs drew the short straw; by the time you get there, you're mostly done settling and the snowball is in full effect - and even if it wasn't the case, the more I've seen modern the more it feels defined by the silliness of the culture victory. You need to play for it to deny the AI victory, and then you need to actively pass on the available win condition in order to engage with any of the other tracks.

Even with all that said, Buganda feels like an incredibly weak civ. It's incredibly situational, and in the wrong age for the situations it enables - it buffs lake & navigatable river tiles, which are probably the rarest tilesets in my games so far. It also buffs pillaging, which would be fine in the earlier eras, but if I'm focusing on warfare in modern, I want to conquer more efficiently, not stop to pillage. It's also marked as culture civ, and the in-game challenge asks for a completed culture track, but it does nothing to enable it. Out of the 16 I've tried so far, this is the only one I don't see myself picking again.

As for the rest:
Aksum and Han China are both pretty good. Aksum is also quite situational, but at least in the right age for this, and if you play around it, you can end up with a really nice economy. Han has some solid diplomacy buffs that it carries into the rest of the game through legacies.
Mississipians were a sleeper hit for me. Looked just alright on paper, but their whole kit works. Burning Arrows are crazy good at controlling the battle. Potkops are well worth building in Antiquity for some serious buffs, to then build over them with no regrets in later ages. Their legacies are also solid, and they get +1 to settlement cap.

Ming and Songhai - while not as cranked as Hawai'i - are both super solid. Ming let me focus development on science, while getting all the gold and culture I need through the great wall. The wall looks great, too, if you can get a decent chain going. As for Songhai, I can only second what others said; you'll be drowning in gold. No need to prioritise anything if you can buy everything. Their unique infantry is both flavourful and quite strong.

As for leaders:
Confucius starts strong and snowballs hard. Growth is king early, Science is king late, and he adds lots of both.
Amina paired nicely with my Africa game; the +5 combat buff was effectively always on when defending, and the extra resource slots let me ramp quickly. More situational than Confucius, but very solid in the right scenario.
Lafayette's abilities are pretty lackluster, honestly. Takes a while to get his combat bonus going, and it sends you down a specific path in antiquity, so you likely won't have it when you need it the most. Same for his unique endeavor - it's very pricy, so you won't get it early (if you do at all; by the time I could afford it, I felt I had better things to use diplo points for). The passive culture and happiness were nice, at least.

 

[Navelgazer]

Even with all that said, Buganda feels like an incredibly weak civ. It's incredibly situational, and in the wrong age for the situations it enables - it buffs lake & navigatable river tiles, which are probably the rarest tilesets in my games so far. It also buffs pillaging, which would be fine in the earlier eras, but if I'm focusing on warfare in modern, I want to conquer more efficiently, not stop to pillage. It's also marked as culture civ, and the in-game challenge asks for a completed culture track, but it does nothing to enable it. Out of the 16 I've tried so far, this is the only one I don't see myself picking again.

Yeah, I've won culture games with both Buganda and Meiji Japan now, with neither of them really having their Uniques come into play at all. They may as well have been blank civs, but that's kind of the issue with Modern right now, I think.

 

[Siptah]

Mississippians: Burning Arrows are great

Sadly, yes. I hate to fight AI Mississippians because of the burning tiles! It makes capturing cities so much harder when they have even just 2 of these, because you need to be very fast or try to avoid half of the tiles from which you could attack.

 

[Giskler]

I found Tecumseh and Shawnee to be disappointingly weak because IPs just get murdered too fast for the bonuses to be of any use.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

I found Tecumseh and Shawnee to be disappointingly weak because IPs just get murdered too fast for the bonuses to be of any use.

That’s why I’m very happy about Greece not being overly dependent on IPs sticking around. It gives you the flexibility to take advantage of them when they’re there, and to make do when they aren’t.