- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 914
Since Gathering Storm and the New Frontier Pass, we saw more and more asymmetrical civs. But what are they, and what the interest of them? Also, from the current asymmetrical civs in the game, which have good designs and which seems more gimmicky?
This totally legit and perfectly superior study* will try to dive superficially into this, so, follow me in the new and strange world of Asymmetry in Civilization VI
/!\ TRIGGER WARNING: WALLS OF TEXT INCOMING
/!\ SECOND WARNING: I am no native English speaker, and while the automatic verification of Word did a lot of work for me, do not be repelled by some sentences that might appear as clumsy or badly written. I blame English language. So, if you have any complaint, please address them to Shakespeare.
1. Asymmetry: but what is this new Pokémon?
Before trying to look at asymmetrical civs, we need to define what asymmetry is in game design.
“Asymmetry” in the Civ franchise is not “two civs doing different things”. That is the basis of a well-designed civ: a civ that brings you something unique that will differentiate it from the other civs, giving it a unique flavor (but even there it is difficult).
Let us imagine a Standard Bland Civ: what a civ can do and not do, possessing the shared basis of all skills that a civ shall have to be a civ, without anything unique about it. This goes from founding cities, building buildings, training units, improving and exploiting the land, doing diplomacy (as well as warfare), exploring the map, recruiting great peoples, using great works, founding a religion…
Now, a traditional non-asymmetric design will choose one or more of these shared, basic skills and will improve it. Either by giving a bonus to something that was already done (for example Korea gaining more culture and science from Governors: a player playing Korea will not particularly change his strategy to benefit from this bonus) or by giving an advantage that only him can do (for example Hungary that can gain envoys by raising levies, something that will change the way the player is playing a diplomatic/domination game). One important thing about non-asymmetrical designs is this:
EACH DISTINCT ELEMENT OF AN ABILITY SHALL ONLY GIVE BONUSES THAT WILL MAKE THE NEW CIV BETTER THAN A SIMILAR CIV WITHOUT THIS DICTINCT ELEMENT
What does that mean? Well, an ability giving drawbacks OR giving bonuses to other civs is an asymmetrical ability.
N.B.: small asymmetrical designs, for example into the placement of some Unique Districts (like the Seowons or Acropolis that can only be built on hills) or Unique Units (a unit more expansive than its basis counterpart is not asymmetrical) are inconsequential enough not to be taken into account. We will focus here more on Civilization Unique Abilities and Leader Unique Abilities, respectively called CUA and LUA.
N.B.2: A civ that has a drawback, but this drawback is compensated by some very strong abilities, is not non-asymmetric, as it is balance. Babylon is still asymmetric, even if gaining free techs overly compensate the slow tech research.
Therefore, in the current state of the game, this is the list of Civ that will obey the Rule of Asymmetry:
These nine civs are, in my own personal and infallible opinion, the only asymmetrical civs in the game. If you disagree, you can fight me in the comments (at least wait to see my reasons for all of them, I’ll give them later).
2. But… why do asymmetrical civs?
One might ask: why do we have asymmetrical designs? After all, each time one is revealed, there is the cortege of “this civilization is so underpowered” or “again an OP civ it’s tiring”. Making an asymmetrical civilization is a delicate exercise of balance and equilibrium, and it is rarely well done. So why bother?
Well, the interest of an asymmetrical civ is to have radically different gameplays.
Sure, each civ brings new gameplays. Matthias Corvinus’ Raven King changes completely how you deal with city-States, as well as Georgia’s Strength in Unity. Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose encourages you to take a close look at appeal, and Russia’s Mother Russia attracts your eye over the usually worthless tundra tiles. However, that does not mean those abilities are asymmetrical, just that they are very well designed. Asymmetrical abilities are abilities that forces you into a different gameplay. Maoris are forced to explore before founding a city; Kongoleses are completely forbidden to the religious realm; Canadians are compelled to appear worthless against most civ…
It helps people getting out of their comfort zone.
Alexander’s Macedon is clearly a militaristic domination civ, but nothing would prevent a player to play them completely pacifically and diplomatically. Would it be stupid not to use those his conquest bonuses? It might, but each player is entitled to his own gameplay (except people exploiting the Nalanda bug, those people are objectively wrong).
TL;DR: If every civ was playing in exactly the same manner, in a way that they will not actively use their bonuses, then asymmetrical civs are civs that will purposefully have a disadvantage or completely be unable to do it.
A non-asymmetrical civilization is a civilization that a new player can manage without too many difficulties; an asymmetrical civilization is one that will give more troubles to be handle correctly by new players.
By creating asymmetrical civilizations, the developers are expanding the realm of possibilities a player can enjoy in a game, making him explore new mechanics and trying to use new things. It has no other purpose than bringing new ways of having fun to the game.
3. Observations about current asymmetrical civs, and are they well designed?
Trigger warning: we will enter the realm of my personal subjectiveness, and thus a lot of you might disagree. I still feel important to note that I read many of the Civfanatics forums content and I extended my opinions a lot, thanks to what you read. Even if ultimately I’m the one who’s right.
Anyway.
I will use one and only one unique criteria for judging asymmetrical civilizations: do they bring new specific fun to the game?
These one and only one unique criteria will then be subdivided into several sub-criteria. Those sub-criteria are:
IMPORTANT NOTE: Noting a civ as a “good asymmetrical civ” is not the same as noting a civ as a “good civ”. It just has the aim to determine is making one civ asymmetrical was a good idea or not and the civ could have been the same/better if it was not asymmetrical.
Religious convert – May not build Holy Sites or found a religion, but receives all the beliefs of any religion that has established itself as Kongo's majority religion, not just the Follower beliefs. Building a Mbanza or Theater Square grants a free Apostle of the city's majority religion.
Nkisi – Relics, Artifacts and Sculptures grant +2 Food, +2 Production and +4 Gold. The Palace has four extra slots for Great Works. +50% Great Writer, Great Artist, Great Musician, and Great Merchant points gained from all sources.
The first (and only one until Gathering Storm) asymmetrical Civilization, and, in my opinion, still one of the best. Religion has always been an odd horse, ill designed for some, with one major characteristic: without modes, all civ cannot found a religion (except in minuscule maps with 2 players but, honestly, who plays those maps?). So, having a civ unable to found a religion should not be that hard, innit? After all, in each game, roughly 30% of civs will be in this situation.
Well, it would not be a problem if the rest of Kongo’s abilities were not designed specifically around Religion and Faith.
Kongo is inherently designed towards a Cultural Victory: bonuses towards relics, sculptures and artifacts encouraged you to amass lots of them, and thus reaping the massive tourism needed for the aforementioned Cultural Victory. The four extra slots in the Palace just gives you much more slots for great works, only beaten by Kristina’s Bibliotheque. Moreover, cherry on top of the icing of the cake, +50% points for GWAM is just wonderful.
However, Kongo will run into two major bottlenecks:
So, what about the three criteria? Criteria 1 is not really fulfilled because it is easy to not found a religion, but it is still there on your head, that holy sites, faith and religions are forbidden for you, so I would say it is pretty fulfilled. Criteria 2 is, on the other hand, perfectly fulfilled, because everything is interconnected, and you cannot focus on one bonus while ignoring the rest. Finally, for Criteria 3, while the flavor might seems a little exaggerated historically speaking, we have to admit that it helped getting Kongo its unique flavor all along the game.
Overall one of the best asymmetrical civilizations still in the game.
Sahel Merchants – International Trade Routes gain +1 Gold for every flat Desert tile in the sending city. Entering a Golden Age permanently grants +1 Trade Route capacity.
Songs of the Jeli – City Centers gain +1 Faith and +1 Food for every adjacent Desert and Desert Hills tile. Mines receive -1 Production and +4 Gold. May purchase Commercial Hub buildings with Faith. -30% Production towards buildings and units.
Once again, a very good design. Here, what is the drawback that Mali runs into? Production. Production is the queen of yields in all the Civilization franchise, because whatever victory you try to achieve, you will need to, well, produce things. Impairing production then seems a perfect idea to make a weak civ that will be wiped out in the first era. Which is the case, if Moussa spawns right next to our most belligerent neighbors. However, let Moussa go to Currency, and then he is unstoppable.
What is interesting with this civilization is that, contrary to Kongo whose asymmetry is based upon a game element that can be quite forgotten, Mali’s asymmetry is not. Not only his drawbacks concern one omnipresent element of gameplay, it nerfs THE major gameplay element: production. It is, basically, the cornerstone of every civilization. The only more asymmetrical a civ could be would be to not be able to found any city (in which we find Mali’s precursor, Venice).
So, Moussa does not build, but what is the alternative? Buying, of course! That is where the bonuses kick in, because everything is design to increase the amount of the two currencies in the game: Gold and Faith. More trade routes that each gives more gold, mines giving more gold, incentive to build Holy Sites to buy Suguba’s buildings… Not only the Mali is a money machine (like some other civs: Phoenicia, Netherlands, England…), it knows how to use it efficiently. The meta (having to produce things) is completely shifted towards a drastically different one (having to buy things).
So, what about criteria? Criteria 1 is fulfilled in a major way. Start a Mali game, and you will see how long you seems to wait to have one meager builder. Criteria 2 is fulfilled too: everything works together to change completely how you play. And finally, Criteria 3 blends perfectly with Moussa being the richest man in History, controlling gold and Saharan trade.
Not only a very well designed asymmetrical civilization, but a very fun too.
Kupe’s Voyage - Starts the game in the Ocean. +2 Science and +2 Culture per turn before the first city is settled. The first settled city receives a free Builder and +1 Citizen Population. The Palace grants +3 Housing and +1 Amenity.
Mana - Starts with Sailing and Shipbuilding unlocked and the ability to enter Ocean tiles. +5 Combat Strength and +2 Movement for embarked units. Unimproved Woods and Rainforests grant +1 Production, increasing to +2 Production with Mercantilism and +3 Production with Conservation. +1 Food from Fishing Boats. Building a Fishing Boat triggers a Culture Bomb, claiming surrounding tiles. Resources cannot be harvested. Great Writers cannot be earned.
Here we began to have asymmetrical civs more clumsily designed. But it does not mean it is badly designed, far from it and au contraire. Starting in the ocean is probably one of the biggest game changing ability. The textbook maritime civilization, Maoris are well designed for a religious or cultural victory, thanks to the Marae. However, it suffers from some flaws, especially for the Criteria 3.
First, resources cannot be harvested is kind of ahistorical: Maoris were known for plundering New Zealand, bringing to extinction some species on the way, putting the Maoris in a false narrative of “the good savage in harmony with nature”. Second, not being able to recruit Great Writers seems of the utmost gimmick and, most importantly, can be easily ignored sadly. From a historical point of view, this civilization does not make real sense; nevertheless, it is counterbalanced by their game design. Everything works together to make an environmentalist civilization, incentivized to protect features and to exploit unharvestable resources.
My biggest complaint with the Maoris would be that the tree asymmetrical elements (starting on ocean/not harvesting resources/no Great Writers) have no synergy between each other, giving drawbacks in all directions. But it is still a fun civ to play, definitively forcing you in different gameplays.
So, overall, what can we say about this civ? Each asymmetrical elements does not fulfill each criteria, especially the no Great Writers rule. But you cannot forget that you start on the ocean, and not harvesting resources will become a pain in the rear. So Criteria 1 is fulfilled. Criteria 2, on the other hand, as I said, is not totally. Again, the No GW has no big incidence on Maoris. But the other two are greatly in synergy with the rest of the abilities. Finally, as I said, the historical basis for two impairment are kind of weak, but they certainly give a distinct flavor and distinct gameplay for the Maoris (except, once again, for the Great Writers).
A very good asymmetrical civ in conclusion, even if some historical elements could have been more respected.
The Last Best West - Can build Farms on Tundra tiles, and on Tundra Hills tiles with Civil Engineering. Snow, Snow Hills, Tundra Hills, and Tundra tiles cost 50% less Gold to purchase. On those tiles, resources accumulate twice as fast, Mines and Lumber Mills receive +1 Production and Camps receive +1 Food.
Four Faces of Peace - Cannot declare Surprise Wars or war on City-States. Surprise Wars cannot be declared on Canada. For every 100 Tourism earned, gain 1 Diplomatic Favor. +100% Diplomatic Favor gained from successfully completing Emergencies and Competitions.
Canada is notoriously a gimmicky, badly designed civilization. The bonuses are inconsequential or too hard to achieve. Same goes for their asymmetrical elements. It is well known that city-States are better alive than dead, and the only reason to invade a city-State would be because Matthias Corvinus is just levying them again and again. But we cannot but think that more than often players without sociopathic tendencies will just ignore or bribe city-States, so it will not change a lot of gameplays.
The no surprise wars is, once again, gimmicky. It will protect you from Cyrus (as well as making you hated by him) and from early wars of aggression in the early game, and give you a little more relief, but for a pacifist player, Canada will change nothing. It does not forces you in a particular gameplay, it only prevents you to do thing that a lot of players would not do anyway. Moreover, unlike Kongo being prevented to win a Religious victory, Canada’s abilities doesn’t prevents you from winning a Domination Victory.
Moreover, putting Canada is the position of “goody-goody pacifist civ” is just of the utmost meme. It would have been better attached to actually neutral civilizations (like Costa Rica or Switzerland) or historically pacifist ones (like the Harappans).
Is Canada a bad asymmetrical civ? Yes. Is it a bad civ? Yes again (and it hurts me saying that as I love playing Canada). The only interest in playing Canada is to paint tundra with farms and have more easily national parks. Criteria 1 is ignored, as much as the drawback; Criteria 2 is also ignored, because except slightly guiding you towards diplomacy (like the meager +1 diplomatic favor per 100 tourism), it does not synergize with anything. Criteria 3? Except making Canada a meme civilization (but not in a good sense like Georgia), the flavor is more gimmicky than anything.
Minerva of the North - Buildings with at least three Great Work slots and wonders with at least two Great Work slots are automatically themed when all slots are filled. Gains the Queen's Bibliotheque unique building in the Government Plaza.
Nobel Prize - +50 Diplomatic Favor upon recruiting a Great Person. +1 Great Engineer points from Factories and +1 Great Scientist points from Universities. Sweden's presence in the game adds three unique World Congress competitions in the Industrial Era.
Here I will start to hear complaints. “Sweden is not asymmetrical! Swedes have no drawback! What is this charade, what kind of charlatan are you?” But in my definition of asymmetry, I speak about bonuses that does not give any relative advantage to other civilizations. And World Congress competitions are for everyone. Therefore, it is a bonus for everyone, not only Sweden, with, while paradoxically being the most symmetrical bonus of all, make this civilization asymmetrical.
But let’s analyze it. Does it change the gameplay? Marginally, as the World Congress can be safely ignored, but it is still here and you have to take a part in it. It is as game changing for Sweden that it is for the rest of the civilizations in the same game.
Has it synergy with the rest of the abilities? Definitely. Without the Nobel Prizes competitions, Sweden would already produce more Great Scientists and Engineers points, would try to gain as many GWAM as possible for automatic theming, and will incidentally gain more diplomatic favor from it, and all help winning those competitions.
Has is a distinct flavor? Not as blatant as Kongo, Mali or Maoris, but still, it is there, discreetly looming over your shoulders.
Not necessarily a mediocre asymmetrical civ, neither a great. Sweden is a fun civilization, but not necessarily thanks to its asymmetry, that is why, while it is a good civ, it is not a necessarily good asymmetrical civ.
Ix Mutal Ajaw - Non-capital cities gain +10% to all yields if within six tiles of the Mayan Capital, and -15% to all yields if more than six tiles away. +5 Combat Strength for all units within six tiles of the Mayan Capital.
Mayab - Cities do not receive additional Housing from being adjacent to fresh water or coast. Cities gain +1 Amenity for each Luxury Resource adjacent to the City Center. Farms grant +1 Housing and +1 Gold.
Starting here, we enter the realm of what I call “the asymmetry appeal effect” (or AAE for short, if ever I need to use it). With the Mali and Maoris, two civs divinely designed that greatly popularized asymmetrical gameplays, it appears that the development team realized that asymmetry was a great tool to develop new Civilizations. Except that the previous civilizations were designed with a specific gameplay in mind, while the new civilizations and leaders of the New Frontier Pass seemed to have been, to some extent, be designed with the asymmetry, and not the original gameplay, in mind.
First, the LUA and CUA does not have anything in common. One is about housing, the other about distance from the capital. The LUA, while historically legitimate, seems also kind of gimmicky, because so many other civilizations could have had it based on the city-State nature of the Mayans (Greeks, Phoenicians…) which beg the question: why the Mayans in particular? The historical flavor seems quite thin. But if definitely gives the Mayans a distinct flavor.
But don’t forget that we judge here the asymmetrical civs on one and unique criteria (subdivided into three criteria): THE FUN FACTOR! And are the Mayas fun? Obviously yes! The major reason to have an asymmetrical civilization is to have a change in gameplay, and Mayas are all over the place with it! From placing your cities, looking for farms and plantations, ignoring fresh water and packing everything in a six-tiles radius make a player think twice about city planning, one of the main interest of the 6th iteration in the Civilization franchise!
The flavor might be a little off with the Mayas, but for sure, they are a fun civilization that brings twist over twist. It might even be a little too cluttered on the “bonus versus drawback” side, that is why I do not consider them a perfect asymmetrical civilization. But, again, they are fun and that is what is important.
King of the Eburones - Receive Culture equal to 20% of the Production cost after training a non-civilian unit. Melee, ranged and anti-cavalry units receive +2 Combat Strength for each adjacent military unit.
Hallstatt Culture - Mines gain +1 Culture, grant a +0.5 adjacency bonus for districts and trigger a Culture Bomb when built, claiming surrounding unowned tiles. Specialty districts do not receive adjacency bonuses from other districts and cannot be built next to the City Center.
The second one in the New Frontier Pass, and here we are in a different situation than the Mayas. The biggest flaw is, obviously, not being able to build districts adjacent to the city-Center. It might seems gimmicky too on the first look, Gauls not being especially known for their decentralized lifestyle more than any other historical civilization as far as I personally known (and it has already been stated before that I have extensive and perfect knowledge about everything in the universe, so shut up with your “historical illiteracy”). It is not forgettable per se because every player will have to deal with it from the beginning, therefore it fulfill Criteria 1.
It is, however, in very good synergy with the rest of the abilities. Culture bombing with mines (plus their extra culture) helps you get the second and third rings of tiles around a city to place your districts, so the drawback is not that crippling like the Babylonian -50% science. And, in term of adjacency, mines replace districts for districts (and since you will be encouraged to have a lot of mines, usually it will be easy to achieve). Criteria 2 is then partially fulfilled.
And yet, I cannot but feel a little underwhelmed by this ability. Gauls are fun to play, sure, but it is thanks to their cultural mines, their cultural military-industrial complex, and their oppida. I personally feel that the drawbacks of Gauls is more of a measure of balance not quite perfectly bottled with the rest of the ability or the flavor, ala Maoris, Mali or Kongo. Sure, there is a synergy between the cultural mines and the no-city-center rule, but that does seems a bit meager compared to the rest. Gauls are designed to be a turtling, militaristic cultural civilization, and those elements do not spark in mind non-adjacent districts, on the contrary: one might think that tightly knit urban districts would be better for cultural advancement and city defense.
So, as an asymmetrical civilization, do the Gauls made the cut? Barely, but still. Does that mean they are not fun to play? I would say no, because the Gauls are still bringing new gameplays and tempting you in new directions and are finally very enjoyable and an overall well designed new civilization. At least they are not boring like Gran Columbia or stupidly overpowered like Byzantium.
Plus Ambiorix’s hot as hell, so, there’s that too (one fanservice here, please).
Ninu Ilu Sirum – Upon building each type of specialty district, except the Government Plaza, for the first time, instantly receive the building with the lowest Production cost that can be built in that district. Upon building any other district for the first time, receive a free Envoy.
Enuma Anu Enlil – Eurekas instantly unlock their respective technologies. -50% Science per turn.
Were we just talking about how stupidly overpowered some of the New Frontier Pass civilizations can be? Well, without further ado, here comes Hammurabi!
Babylon can be easily forgotten and reduced to one move signature: technologies unlocked by their Eurekas. All the rest (free first buildings, free envoys, and the only Babylonian element in Babylon in the form of irrigation) are just appendixes fixed here so that the civilization does not seems too barren. It is so overpowered that the endless litany of complaints started rising before even the update was released.
However, let us try to be rational and objective here. Is Babylon overpowered? In the right hands, sure. But it requires a competent knowledge of the technology tree, something that either take time to memorize, or take time to check on the tree or the civilopedia (this is worsen with the Shuffle Tech/Civic game mode). The reduced science output is a heavy burden for the one who do not know how to negate it.
The drawback here has one and one goal only: to balance out the overpowered Eureka ability. And we have to admit that it did it quite remarkably. Sure, Babylon is more than often ahead in term of military units, but it came to a production or gold cost that might be difficult to match, scarcely helped by Hammurabi’s LUA.
But Babylon is still a lot of fun. The completely ectic jumps into the tech trees mean that no game will be the same, and Babylon is forced to explore and do a lot of things. Sure, for some, it might look like just a bunch of fetch quests to beeline, but the strategies to optimize them are resource demanding and thus more engaging.
I would say that Babylon is, as an asymmetrical civ, a very well designed one: good synergy between drawbacks and bonuses, difficultly avoidable, and giving Babylon a unique flavor and gameplay that makes it one of the most unique in the New Frontier Pass and the entire game.
Drive out the Aggressors – +5 Combat Strength for units fighting in rainforest, marsh or woods tiles. +1 Movement if they begin their turn there. Both these bonuses are doubled if the tile is your territory.
Nine Dragon River Delta - All land specialty districts can only be built on rainforest, marsh or woods tiles. Receive the following yields for every building on these features: +1 Culture in woods, +1 Science in Rainforest and +1 Production in Marsh. Woods can be planted with Medieval Faires civic.
Last of the entry (for now, we will see if the March Update civilization and the April balance patch will change some things), Vietnam has a major drawback: no specialty district shall be built on open terrain. The infamous starts on desert or snow become more crippling, and finding good adjacencies become harder. What is worse is that the bonuses to balance them can seems quite meager: Medieval Faires stay quite a late civic, and the bonuses to buildings on feature are fairly limited (and, worse, if the feature is destroyed by natural disasters, the bonuses disappear). The synergy is here, but not as potent as the other ones we might have seen.
What does that mean for Vietnam? That it is a civilization that might a more difficult start (like Mali), but the signature move of Vietnam is not in any Unique Ability, but in the Unique District than can become extremely potent with just enough city planning.
And, in my opinion, that is what Vietnam is: not a strong, easy, or overpowered civilization like Byzantium or Gran Columbia or Babylon, but a difficult one, that needs mastery over all the elements of the game to not be held behind. Moreover, those kind of civilizations are not bad per se, because Vietnam is nothing but strong in competent hands (not like Canada, which is basically a standard civilization).
Moreover, it is not as weak as one might think: Vietnam has a Tier 1*** towards woods, jungles and marshes, meaning it is nearly impossible for them to start in a featureless environment. The despecialization of the Encampment made it spammable in every city, and the Combat Strength bonuses on feature (in which Vietnam will naturally blossom) made it nearly impossible for Vietnam to be invaded. Vietnam is maybe not that strong, but clearly it is an undying civilization.
While the drawbacks seem to fall not far from the “asymmetrical civs because they are trendy” category, it is still well designed and more interesting than at first sight. A somewhat weak synergy but still present, a good historical flavor and, most of all, nearly impossible to miss. Not the best, but far from the worst.
Porta do Cerco – +1 Sight for all units. Meeting another civilization grants +1 Trade Route capacity. Gains Open Borders with all city-states.
Casa da Índia – International Trade Routes can only be sent to cities on the coast or with a Harbor, but gain a +50% increase to all yields. Traders have +50% range over water, and can embark as soon as they are unlocked.
The last of the asymmetrical (according to MY definition which is, obviously, the best and only one you should give attention to) civilization in the game, at least until the April Patch (although I think they will not add new asymmetry In previously “symmetrical” civilizations).
The drawback of Portugal is intriguing, and can be very crippling: no international trade routes on land. That means that, in order to trade with other civs, you have to wait for them to build harbor or settle on the coast (which can take a very long time, trust me). Just like Mali, Portugal might suffer a slightly slower beginning due to the low gold income until you find suitable city to trade with.
However, the bonuses you get to balance them are more than enough. Firstly, you get one of the most reliant trade route capacity enhancer, since you are bound to meet other civilizations, and if you play on huge maps, you will have the highest number of available trade routes; secondly, gaining +50% from trade route yields is terrific and can make some trade routes incredible; third, the enhanced ranged for maritime trade routes make you go over the world in no time; and finally, the Feitorias just are a cherry on the top, transforming Portuguese trade routes into behemoths of a hundred yields.
Portugal, nonetheless, is one of the heaviest map-dependent civilization. While other asymmetrical civilizations can easily circumvent their drawbacks, if Portugal is on a map with few seas, then they are basically stuck. One of the main gold income came from trade routes, and if you cannot send enough, you will struggle. And if you are on a small map, you will not enjoy enough the Porta do Cerco from João III. Let’s compare to Mali, the land Portugal: sure, Portugal gain more from trade routes and can potentially have even more of them, but can be stuck more easily because it depends on how other civilizations put their cities on the coast or not. Mali, on the other hand, is more flexible: you only need to have one desert city (upon which you have control over) to enhance all your trade routes, and even if there are no desert nearby, Mali can send trade routes to other civ, ensuring a minimum gold income no matter what.
Drawbacks that can be crippling bound with bonuses that make them worth it, changing your gameplay in a nice but not invasive manner, working in perfect synergy and wrapped in some of the nicest flavor of the game. Portugal is definitely one of my favorite civ overall, and asymmetrical in particular.
CONCLUSION
What? You just read more than 6,000 words, and you want to read additional words again? Sure, if you want, but I have to warn you, all this exercise passably exhausted me and I’m on the verge of automatic writing here, so do not expect a high quality conclusion.
So, if we take a look at all the nonsense I just wrote and that took me way too much of my time, we can try to answer the question: do asymmetrical civilizations fulfill their goal of bringing more fun?
The answer is: Yes.
Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
Wait, you want more? Well, to finish, a small TL;DR for each civilization:
Aaaand… this is the end. For real. No let me go back to my life. Why did I do that? I’m questioning all of my life choices. Was it worth it? I will never know.
(Oh, and if new asymmetrical civilizations are added, I will update it of course).
Now, this is perfectly clear and rational and cannot be questioned, but my friend** told me that this is, apparently, a forum where everyone is entitled to their wrong opinions, so if ever you want to challenge this, feel free to do it, and I’ll try to engage in civilized (pun intended) discussions.
Toodaloo!
*My lawyer** told me that I must give the following warning: I have no formation nor degree in anything close to game design or game theory, I am just a pure amateur that like to create scientific sounding papers for the fun of it, so in no way you should take my word as gospel. That’s what my lawyer** says. My personal advice is that I’m infallible and you should drink my words like it was the source of life. But you do you.
**Actually my cat
***Tiers are bias toward specific terrains or features, near which civilizations are more prone to start nearby. Mali has a bias towards desert, Canada towards tundra, Mayas near plantation-improved resources, and I have no bloody idea how tier would work for Maoris. The lower a Tier is, the more probable the civilization is to start near said terrain or feature (a Tier 1 civilization would be prioritized towards a Tier 3 or even a Tier 5 civilization). Good to know that some tiers seems irrelevant, like Sumer/Netherlands/Egypt/Hungary having a starting bias towards rivers, when in all of my games, I nearly always started near a river.
This totally legit and perfectly superior study* will try to dive superficially into this, so, follow me in the new and strange world of Asymmetry in Civilization VI
/!\ TRIGGER WARNING: WALLS OF TEXT INCOMING
/!\ SECOND WARNING: I am no native English speaker, and while the automatic verification of Word did a lot of work for me, do not be repelled by some sentences that might appear as clumsy or badly written. I blame English language. So, if you have any complaint, please address them to Shakespeare.
1. Asymmetry: but what is this new Pokémon?
Before trying to look at asymmetrical civs, we need to define what asymmetry is in game design.
“Asymmetry” in the Civ franchise is not “two civs doing different things”. That is the basis of a well-designed civ: a civ that brings you something unique that will differentiate it from the other civs, giving it a unique flavor (but even there it is difficult).
Let us imagine a Standard Bland Civ: what a civ can do and not do, possessing the shared basis of all skills that a civ shall have to be a civ, without anything unique about it. This goes from founding cities, building buildings, training units, improving and exploiting the land, doing diplomacy (as well as warfare), exploring the map, recruiting great peoples, using great works, founding a religion…
Now, a traditional non-asymmetric design will choose one or more of these shared, basic skills and will improve it. Either by giving a bonus to something that was already done (for example Korea gaining more culture and science from Governors: a player playing Korea will not particularly change his strategy to benefit from this bonus) or by giving an advantage that only him can do (for example Hungary that can gain envoys by raising levies, something that will change the way the player is playing a diplomatic/domination game). One important thing about non-asymmetrical designs is this:
EACH DISTINCT ELEMENT OF AN ABILITY SHALL ONLY GIVE BONUSES THAT WILL MAKE THE NEW CIV BETTER THAN A SIMILAR CIV WITHOUT THIS DICTINCT ELEMENT
What does that mean? Well, an ability giving drawbacks OR giving bonuses to other civs is an asymmetrical ability.
N.B.: small asymmetrical designs, for example into the placement of some Unique Districts (like the Seowons or Acropolis that can only be built on hills) or Unique Units (a unit more expansive than its basis counterpart is not asymmetrical) are inconsequential enough not to be taken into account. We will focus here more on Civilization Unique Abilities and Leader Unique Abilities, respectively called CUA and LUA.
N.B.2: A civ that has a drawback, but this drawback is compensated by some very strong abilities, is not non-asymmetric, as it is balance. Babylon is still asymmetric, even if gaining free techs overly compensate the slow tech research.
Therefore, in the current state of the game, this is the list of Civ that will obey the Rule of Asymmetry:
- Kongo
- Mali
- Maoris
- Canada
- Sweden
- Mayas
- Gauls
- Babylon
- Vietnam
- Portugal
These nine civs are, in my own personal and infallible opinion, the only asymmetrical civs in the game. If you disagree, you can fight me in the comments (at least wait to see my reasons for all of them, I’ll give them later).
2. But… why do asymmetrical civs?
One might ask: why do we have asymmetrical designs? After all, each time one is revealed, there is the cortege of “this civilization is so underpowered” or “again an OP civ it’s tiring”. Making an asymmetrical civilization is a delicate exercise of balance and equilibrium, and it is rarely well done. So why bother?
Well, the interest of an asymmetrical civ is to have radically different gameplays.
Sure, each civ brings new gameplays. Matthias Corvinus’ Raven King changes completely how you deal with city-States, as well as Georgia’s Strength in Unity. Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose encourages you to take a close look at appeal, and Russia’s Mother Russia attracts your eye over the usually worthless tundra tiles. However, that does not mean those abilities are asymmetrical, just that they are very well designed. Asymmetrical abilities are abilities that forces you into a different gameplay. Maoris are forced to explore before founding a city; Kongoleses are completely forbidden to the religious realm; Canadians are compelled to appear worthless against most civ…
It helps people getting out of their comfort zone.
Alexander’s Macedon is clearly a militaristic domination civ, but nothing would prevent a player to play them completely pacifically and diplomatically. Would it be stupid not to use those his conquest bonuses? It might, but each player is entitled to his own gameplay (except people exploiting the Nalanda bug, those people are objectively wrong).
TL;DR: If every civ was playing in exactly the same manner, in a way that they will not actively use their bonuses, then asymmetrical civs are civs that will purposefully have a disadvantage or completely be unable to do it.
A non-asymmetrical civilization is a civilization that a new player can manage without too many difficulties; an asymmetrical civilization is one that will give more troubles to be handle correctly by new players.
By creating asymmetrical civilizations, the developers are expanding the realm of possibilities a player can enjoy in a game, making him explore new mechanics and trying to use new things. It has no other purpose than bringing new ways of having fun to the game.
3. Observations about current asymmetrical civs, and are they well designed?
Trigger warning: we will enter the realm of my personal subjectiveness, and thus a lot of you might disagree. I still feel important to note that I read many of the Civfanatics forums content and I extended my opinions a lot, thanks to what you read. Even if ultimately I’m the one who’s right.
Anyway.
I will use one and only one unique criteria for judging asymmetrical civilizations: do they bring new specific fun to the game?
These one and only one unique criteria will then be subdivided into several sub-criteria. Those sub-criteria are:
- CRITERIA 1: Does the asymmetrical ability is consequential enough that the player cannot ignore it?
- CRITERIA 2: Does the asymmetrical ability has a nice synergy with the other abilities of the civ?
- CRITERIA 3: Does the asymmetrical ability has a nice flavor attached to it?
IMPORTANT NOTE: Noting a civ as a “good asymmetrical civ” is not the same as noting a civ as a “good civ”. It just has the aim to determine is making one civ asymmetrical was a good idea or not and the civ could have been the same/better if it was not asymmetrical.
KONGO
Religious convert – May not build Holy Sites or found a religion, but receives all the beliefs of any religion that has established itself as Kongo's majority religion, not just the Follower beliefs. Building a Mbanza or Theater Square grants a free Apostle of the city's majority religion.
Nkisi – Relics, Artifacts and Sculptures grant +2 Food, +2 Production and +4 Gold. The Palace has four extra slots for Great Works. +50% Great Writer, Great Artist, Great Musician, and Great Merchant points gained from all sources.
The first (and only one until Gathering Storm) asymmetrical Civilization, and, in my opinion, still one of the best. Religion has always been an odd horse, ill designed for some, with one major characteristic: without modes, all civ cannot found a religion (except in minuscule maps with 2 players but, honestly, who plays those maps?). So, having a civ unable to found a religion should not be that hard, innit? After all, in each game, roughly 30% of civs will be in this situation.
Well, it would not be a problem if the rest of Kongo’s abilities were not designed specifically around Religion and Faith.
Kongo is inherently designed towards a Cultural Victory: bonuses towards relics, sculptures and artifacts encouraged you to amass lots of them, and thus reaping the massive tourism needed for the aforementioned Cultural Victory. The four extra slots in the Palace just gives you much more slots for great works, only beaten by Kristina’s Bibliotheque. Moreover, cherry on top of the icing of the cake, +50% points for GWAM is just wonderful.
However, Kongo will run into two major bottlenecks:
- Relics are kind of difficult to manage, since you will have to rely on specific Wonders (Mont Saint Michel or Saint Basil Cathedral) solely to stock them;
- Late-game Cultural Victory rely mainly on Faith (to buy Naturalists or GWAM), a yield Mvemba a Nzinga has no reliable mean to produce without Holy sites.
So, what about the three criteria? Criteria 1 is not really fulfilled because it is easy to not found a religion, but it is still there on your head, that holy sites, faith and religions are forbidden for you, so I would say it is pretty fulfilled. Criteria 2 is, on the other hand, perfectly fulfilled, because everything is interconnected, and you cannot focus on one bonus while ignoring the rest. Finally, for Criteria 3, while the flavor might seems a little exaggerated historically speaking, we have to admit that it helped getting Kongo its unique flavor all along the game.
Overall one of the best asymmetrical civilizations still in the game.
MALI
Sahel Merchants – International Trade Routes gain +1 Gold for every flat Desert tile in the sending city. Entering a Golden Age permanently grants +1 Trade Route capacity.
Songs of the Jeli – City Centers gain +1 Faith and +1 Food for every adjacent Desert and Desert Hills tile. Mines receive -1 Production and +4 Gold. May purchase Commercial Hub buildings with Faith. -30% Production towards buildings and units.
Once again, a very good design. Here, what is the drawback that Mali runs into? Production. Production is the queen of yields in all the Civilization franchise, because whatever victory you try to achieve, you will need to, well, produce things. Impairing production then seems a perfect idea to make a weak civ that will be wiped out in the first era. Which is the case, if Moussa spawns right next to our most belligerent neighbors. However, let Moussa go to Currency, and then he is unstoppable.
What is interesting with this civilization is that, contrary to Kongo whose asymmetry is based upon a game element that can be quite forgotten, Mali’s asymmetry is not. Not only his drawbacks concern one omnipresent element of gameplay, it nerfs THE major gameplay element: production. It is, basically, the cornerstone of every civilization. The only more asymmetrical a civ could be would be to not be able to found any city (in which we find Mali’s precursor, Venice).
So, Moussa does not build, but what is the alternative? Buying, of course! That is where the bonuses kick in, because everything is design to increase the amount of the two currencies in the game: Gold and Faith. More trade routes that each gives more gold, mines giving more gold, incentive to build Holy Sites to buy Suguba’s buildings… Not only the Mali is a money machine (like some other civs: Phoenicia, Netherlands, England…), it knows how to use it efficiently. The meta (having to produce things) is completely shifted towards a drastically different one (having to buy things).
So, what about criteria? Criteria 1 is fulfilled in a major way. Start a Mali game, and you will see how long you seems to wait to have one meager builder. Criteria 2 is fulfilled too: everything works together to change completely how you play. And finally, Criteria 3 blends perfectly with Moussa being the richest man in History, controlling gold and Saharan trade.
Not only a very well designed asymmetrical civilization, but a very fun too.
MAORIS
Kupe’s Voyage - Starts the game in the Ocean. +2 Science and +2 Culture per turn before the first city is settled. The first settled city receives a free Builder and +1 Citizen Population. The Palace grants +3 Housing and +1 Amenity.
Mana - Starts with Sailing and Shipbuilding unlocked and the ability to enter Ocean tiles. +5 Combat Strength and +2 Movement for embarked units. Unimproved Woods and Rainforests grant +1 Production, increasing to +2 Production with Mercantilism and +3 Production with Conservation. +1 Food from Fishing Boats. Building a Fishing Boat triggers a Culture Bomb, claiming surrounding tiles. Resources cannot be harvested. Great Writers cannot be earned.
Here we began to have asymmetrical civs more clumsily designed. But it does not mean it is badly designed, far from it and au contraire. Starting in the ocean is probably one of the biggest game changing ability. The textbook maritime civilization, Maoris are well designed for a religious or cultural victory, thanks to the Marae. However, it suffers from some flaws, especially for the Criteria 3.
First, resources cannot be harvested is kind of ahistorical: Maoris were known for plundering New Zealand, bringing to extinction some species on the way, putting the Maoris in a false narrative of “the good savage in harmony with nature”. Second, not being able to recruit Great Writers seems of the utmost gimmick and, most importantly, can be easily ignored sadly. From a historical point of view, this civilization does not make real sense; nevertheless, it is counterbalanced by their game design. Everything works together to make an environmentalist civilization, incentivized to protect features and to exploit unharvestable resources.
My biggest complaint with the Maoris would be that the tree asymmetrical elements (starting on ocean/not harvesting resources/no Great Writers) have no synergy between each other, giving drawbacks in all directions. But it is still a fun civ to play, definitively forcing you in different gameplays.
So, overall, what can we say about this civ? Each asymmetrical elements does not fulfill each criteria, especially the no Great Writers rule. But you cannot forget that you start on the ocean, and not harvesting resources will become a pain in the rear. So Criteria 1 is fulfilled. Criteria 2, on the other hand, as I said, is not totally. Again, the No GW has no big incidence on Maoris. But the other two are greatly in synergy with the rest of the abilities. Finally, as I said, the historical basis for two impairment are kind of weak, but they certainly give a distinct flavor and distinct gameplay for the Maoris (except, once again, for the Great Writers).
A very good asymmetrical civ in conclusion, even if some historical elements could have been more respected.
CANADA
The Last Best West - Can build Farms on Tundra tiles, and on Tundra Hills tiles with Civil Engineering. Snow, Snow Hills, Tundra Hills, and Tundra tiles cost 50% less Gold to purchase. On those tiles, resources accumulate twice as fast, Mines and Lumber Mills receive +1 Production and Camps receive +1 Food.
Four Faces of Peace - Cannot declare Surprise Wars or war on City-States. Surprise Wars cannot be declared on Canada. For every 100 Tourism earned, gain 1 Diplomatic Favor. +100% Diplomatic Favor gained from successfully completing Emergencies and Competitions.
Canada is notoriously a gimmicky, badly designed civilization. The bonuses are inconsequential or too hard to achieve. Same goes for their asymmetrical elements. It is well known that city-States are better alive than dead, and the only reason to invade a city-State would be because Matthias Corvinus is just levying them again and again. But we cannot but think that more than often players without sociopathic tendencies will just ignore or bribe city-States, so it will not change a lot of gameplays.
The no surprise wars is, once again, gimmicky. It will protect you from Cyrus (as well as making you hated by him) and from early wars of aggression in the early game, and give you a little more relief, but for a pacifist player, Canada will change nothing. It does not forces you in a particular gameplay, it only prevents you to do thing that a lot of players would not do anyway. Moreover, unlike Kongo being prevented to win a Religious victory, Canada’s abilities doesn’t prevents you from winning a Domination Victory.
Moreover, putting Canada is the position of “goody-goody pacifist civ” is just of the utmost meme. It would have been better attached to actually neutral civilizations (like Costa Rica or Switzerland) or historically pacifist ones (like the Harappans).
Is Canada a bad asymmetrical civ? Yes. Is it a bad civ? Yes again (and it hurts me saying that as I love playing Canada). The only interest in playing Canada is to paint tundra with farms and have more easily national parks. Criteria 1 is ignored, as much as the drawback; Criteria 2 is also ignored, because except slightly guiding you towards diplomacy (like the meager +1 diplomatic favor per 100 tourism), it does not synergize with anything. Criteria 3? Except making Canada a meme civilization (but not in a good sense like Georgia), the flavor is more gimmicky than anything.
SWEDEN
Minerva of the North - Buildings with at least three Great Work slots and wonders with at least two Great Work slots are automatically themed when all slots are filled. Gains the Queen's Bibliotheque unique building in the Government Plaza.
Nobel Prize - +50 Diplomatic Favor upon recruiting a Great Person. +1 Great Engineer points from Factories and +1 Great Scientist points from Universities. Sweden's presence in the game adds three unique World Congress competitions in the Industrial Era.
Here I will start to hear complaints. “Sweden is not asymmetrical! Swedes have no drawback! What is this charade, what kind of charlatan are you?” But in my definition of asymmetry, I speak about bonuses that does not give any relative advantage to other civilizations. And World Congress competitions are for everyone. Therefore, it is a bonus for everyone, not only Sweden, with, while paradoxically being the most symmetrical bonus of all, make this civilization asymmetrical.
But let’s analyze it. Does it change the gameplay? Marginally, as the World Congress can be safely ignored, but it is still here and you have to take a part in it. It is as game changing for Sweden that it is for the rest of the civilizations in the same game.
Has it synergy with the rest of the abilities? Definitely. Without the Nobel Prizes competitions, Sweden would already produce more Great Scientists and Engineers points, would try to gain as many GWAM as possible for automatic theming, and will incidentally gain more diplomatic favor from it, and all help winning those competitions.
Has is a distinct flavor? Not as blatant as Kongo, Mali or Maoris, but still, it is there, discreetly looming over your shoulders.
Not necessarily a mediocre asymmetrical civ, neither a great. Sweden is a fun civilization, but not necessarily thanks to its asymmetry, that is why, while it is a good civ, it is not a necessarily good asymmetrical civ.
MAYAS
Ix Mutal Ajaw - Non-capital cities gain +10% to all yields if within six tiles of the Mayan Capital, and -15% to all yields if more than six tiles away. +5 Combat Strength for all units within six tiles of the Mayan Capital.
Mayab - Cities do not receive additional Housing from being adjacent to fresh water or coast. Cities gain +1 Amenity for each Luxury Resource adjacent to the City Center. Farms grant +1 Housing and +1 Gold.
Starting here, we enter the realm of what I call “the asymmetry appeal effect” (or AAE for short, if ever I need to use it). With the Mali and Maoris, two civs divinely designed that greatly popularized asymmetrical gameplays, it appears that the development team realized that asymmetry was a great tool to develop new Civilizations. Except that the previous civilizations were designed with a specific gameplay in mind, while the new civilizations and leaders of the New Frontier Pass seemed to have been, to some extent, be designed with the asymmetry, and not the original gameplay, in mind.
First, the LUA and CUA does not have anything in common. One is about housing, the other about distance from the capital. The LUA, while historically legitimate, seems also kind of gimmicky, because so many other civilizations could have had it based on the city-State nature of the Mayans (Greeks, Phoenicians…) which beg the question: why the Mayans in particular? The historical flavor seems quite thin. But if definitely gives the Mayans a distinct flavor.
But don’t forget that we judge here the asymmetrical civs on one and unique criteria (subdivided into three criteria): THE FUN FACTOR! And are the Mayas fun? Obviously yes! The major reason to have an asymmetrical civilization is to have a change in gameplay, and Mayas are all over the place with it! From placing your cities, looking for farms and plantations, ignoring fresh water and packing everything in a six-tiles radius make a player think twice about city planning, one of the main interest of the 6th iteration in the Civilization franchise!
The flavor might be a little off with the Mayas, but for sure, they are a fun civilization that brings twist over twist. It might even be a little too cluttered on the “bonus versus drawback” side, that is why I do not consider them a perfect asymmetrical civilization. But, again, they are fun and that is what is important.
GAULS
King of the Eburones - Receive Culture equal to 20% of the Production cost after training a non-civilian unit. Melee, ranged and anti-cavalry units receive +2 Combat Strength for each adjacent military unit.
Hallstatt Culture - Mines gain +1 Culture, grant a +0.5 adjacency bonus for districts and trigger a Culture Bomb when built, claiming surrounding unowned tiles. Specialty districts do not receive adjacency bonuses from other districts and cannot be built next to the City Center.
The second one in the New Frontier Pass, and here we are in a different situation than the Mayas. The biggest flaw is, obviously, not being able to build districts adjacent to the city-Center. It might seems gimmicky too on the first look, Gauls not being especially known for their decentralized lifestyle more than any other historical civilization as far as I personally known (and it has already been stated before that I have extensive and perfect knowledge about everything in the universe, so shut up with your “historical illiteracy”). It is not forgettable per se because every player will have to deal with it from the beginning, therefore it fulfill Criteria 1.
It is, however, in very good synergy with the rest of the abilities. Culture bombing with mines (plus their extra culture) helps you get the second and third rings of tiles around a city to place your districts, so the drawback is not that crippling like the Babylonian -50% science. And, in term of adjacency, mines replace districts for districts (and since you will be encouraged to have a lot of mines, usually it will be easy to achieve). Criteria 2 is then partially fulfilled.
And yet, I cannot but feel a little underwhelmed by this ability. Gauls are fun to play, sure, but it is thanks to their cultural mines, their cultural military-industrial complex, and their oppida. I personally feel that the drawbacks of Gauls is more of a measure of balance not quite perfectly bottled with the rest of the ability or the flavor, ala Maoris, Mali or Kongo. Sure, there is a synergy between the cultural mines and the no-city-center rule, but that does seems a bit meager compared to the rest. Gauls are designed to be a turtling, militaristic cultural civilization, and those elements do not spark in mind non-adjacent districts, on the contrary: one might think that tightly knit urban districts would be better for cultural advancement and city defense.
So, as an asymmetrical civilization, do the Gauls made the cut? Barely, but still. Does that mean they are not fun to play? I would say no, because the Gauls are still bringing new gameplays and tempting you in new directions and are finally very enjoyable and an overall well designed new civilization. At least they are not boring like Gran Columbia or stupidly overpowered like Byzantium.
Plus Ambiorix’s hot as hell, so, there’s that too (one fanservice here, please).
BABYLON
Ninu Ilu Sirum – Upon building each type of specialty district, except the Government Plaza, for the first time, instantly receive the building with the lowest Production cost that can be built in that district. Upon building any other district for the first time, receive a free Envoy.
Enuma Anu Enlil – Eurekas instantly unlock their respective technologies. -50% Science per turn.
Were we just talking about how stupidly overpowered some of the New Frontier Pass civilizations can be? Well, without further ado, here comes Hammurabi!
Babylon can be easily forgotten and reduced to one move signature: technologies unlocked by their Eurekas. All the rest (free first buildings, free envoys, and the only Babylonian element in Babylon in the form of irrigation) are just appendixes fixed here so that the civilization does not seems too barren. It is so overpowered that the endless litany of complaints started rising before even the update was released.
However, let us try to be rational and objective here. Is Babylon overpowered? In the right hands, sure. But it requires a competent knowledge of the technology tree, something that either take time to memorize, or take time to check on the tree or the civilopedia (this is worsen with the Shuffle Tech/Civic game mode). The reduced science output is a heavy burden for the one who do not know how to negate it.
The drawback here has one and one goal only: to balance out the overpowered Eureka ability. And we have to admit that it did it quite remarkably. Sure, Babylon is more than often ahead in term of military units, but it came to a production or gold cost that might be difficult to match, scarcely helped by Hammurabi’s LUA.
But Babylon is still a lot of fun. The completely ectic jumps into the tech trees mean that no game will be the same, and Babylon is forced to explore and do a lot of things. Sure, for some, it might look like just a bunch of fetch quests to beeline, but the strategies to optimize them are resource demanding and thus more engaging.
I would say that Babylon is, as an asymmetrical civ, a very well designed one: good synergy between drawbacks and bonuses, difficultly avoidable, and giving Babylon a unique flavor and gameplay that makes it one of the most unique in the New Frontier Pass and the entire game.
VIETNAM
Drive out the Aggressors – +5 Combat Strength for units fighting in rainforest, marsh or woods tiles. +1 Movement if they begin their turn there. Both these bonuses are doubled if the tile is your territory.
Nine Dragon River Delta - All land specialty districts can only be built on rainforest, marsh or woods tiles. Receive the following yields for every building on these features: +1 Culture in woods, +1 Science in Rainforest and +1 Production in Marsh. Woods can be planted with Medieval Faires civic.
Last of the entry (for now, we will see if the March Update civilization and the April balance patch will change some things), Vietnam has a major drawback: no specialty district shall be built on open terrain. The infamous starts on desert or snow become more crippling, and finding good adjacencies become harder. What is worse is that the bonuses to balance them can seems quite meager: Medieval Faires stay quite a late civic, and the bonuses to buildings on feature are fairly limited (and, worse, if the feature is destroyed by natural disasters, the bonuses disappear). The synergy is here, but not as potent as the other ones we might have seen.
What does that mean for Vietnam? That it is a civilization that might a more difficult start (like Mali), but the signature move of Vietnam is not in any Unique Ability, but in the Unique District than can become extremely potent with just enough city planning.
And, in my opinion, that is what Vietnam is: not a strong, easy, or overpowered civilization like Byzantium or Gran Columbia or Babylon, but a difficult one, that needs mastery over all the elements of the game to not be held behind. Moreover, those kind of civilizations are not bad per se, because Vietnam is nothing but strong in competent hands (not like Canada, which is basically a standard civilization).
Moreover, it is not as weak as one might think: Vietnam has a Tier 1*** towards woods, jungles and marshes, meaning it is nearly impossible for them to start in a featureless environment. The despecialization of the Encampment made it spammable in every city, and the Combat Strength bonuses on feature (in which Vietnam will naturally blossom) made it nearly impossible for Vietnam to be invaded. Vietnam is maybe not that strong, but clearly it is an undying civilization.
While the drawbacks seem to fall not far from the “asymmetrical civs because they are trendy” category, it is still well designed and more interesting than at first sight. A somewhat weak synergy but still present, a good historical flavor and, most of all, nearly impossible to miss. Not the best, but far from the worst.
PORTUGAL
Porta do Cerco – +1 Sight for all units. Meeting another civilization grants +1 Trade Route capacity. Gains Open Borders with all city-states.
Casa da Índia – International Trade Routes can only be sent to cities on the coast or with a Harbor, but gain a +50% increase to all yields. Traders have +50% range over water, and can embark as soon as they are unlocked.
The last of the asymmetrical (according to MY definition which is, obviously, the best and only one you should give attention to) civilization in the game, at least until the April Patch (although I think they will not add new asymmetry In previously “symmetrical” civilizations).
The drawback of Portugal is intriguing, and can be very crippling: no international trade routes on land. That means that, in order to trade with other civs, you have to wait for them to build harbor or settle on the coast (which can take a very long time, trust me). Just like Mali, Portugal might suffer a slightly slower beginning due to the low gold income until you find suitable city to trade with.
However, the bonuses you get to balance them are more than enough. Firstly, you get one of the most reliant trade route capacity enhancer, since you are bound to meet other civilizations, and if you play on huge maps, you will have the highest number of available trade routes; secondly, gaining +50% from trade route yields is terrific and can make some trade routes incredible; third, the enhanced ranged for maritime trade routes make you go over the world in no time; and finally, the Feitorias just are a cherry on the top, transforming Portuguese trade routes into behemoths of a hundred yields.
Portugal, nonetheless, is one of the heaviest map-dependent civilization. While other asymmetrical civilizations can easily circumvent their drawbacks, if Portugal is on a map with few seas, then they are basically stuck. One of the main gold income came from trade routes, and if you cannot send enough, you will struggle. And if you are on a small map, you will not enjoy enough the Porta do Cerco from João III. Let’s compare to Mali, the land Portugal: sure, Portugal gain more from trade routes and can potentially have even more of them, but can be stuck more easily because it depends on how other civilizations put their cities on the coast or not. Mali, on the other hand, is more flexible: you only need to have one desert city (upon which you have control over) to enhance all your trade routes, and even if there are no desert nearby, Mali can send trade routes to other civ, ensuring a minimum gold income no matter what.
Drawbacks that can be crippling bound with bonuses that make them worth it, changing your gameplay in a nice but not invasive manner, working in perfect synergy and wrapped in some of the nicest flavor of the game. Portugal is definitely one of my favorite civ overall, and asymmetrical in particular.
CONCLUSION
What? You just read more than 6,000 words, and you want to read additional words again? Sure, if you want, but I have to warn you, all this exercise passably exhausted me and I’m on the verge of automatic writing here, so do not expect a high quality conclusion.
So, if we take a look at all the nonsense I just wrote and that took me way too much of my time, we can try to answer the question: do asymmetrical civilizations fulfill their goal of bringing more fun?
The answer is: Yes.
Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk.
Wait, you want more? Well, to finish, a small TL;DR for each civilization:
- Kongo: very interesting synergy, quite avoidable drawbacks, giving a truly unique flavor => very good asymmetrical civilization.
- Mali: superb synergy, a drawback you have to work with to not die, and a perfect flavor => excellent asymmetrical civilization.
- Maoris: drawbacks and synergies somehow scattered, but balanced by the most asymmetrical start of the game, and a somewhat ahistorical but gamechanging flavor => very good asymmetrical civilization.
- Canada: avoidable drawbacks and small bonuses, gimmicky flavor and very weak synergy => why-did-they-decide-to-butcher-Canada-like-that civilization.
- Sweden: the only no-drawback asymmetrical design but with nice flavor and tremendous synergy => correct asymmetrical civilization.
- Mayas: might appear gimmicky but unavoidable drawbacks, interesting synergy, and forcing the player in new and original strategies => good asymmetrical civilization.
- Gauls: might also appear gimmicky, synergy a little clumsy, and questionable flavor but still bringing a lot of fun => mediocre asymmetrical civilization, but very good civilization in itself.
- Babylon: broken unique ability, completely erratic gameplay, unplayable in the hands of new players => very good asymmetrical civilization.
- Vietnam: surprisingly strong, superb flavor and tricky to master => very good asymmetrical civilization.
- Portugal: can be very strong but map dependent, good flavor, excellent synergy => excellent asymmetrical civilization.
Aaaand… this is the end. For real. No let me go back to my life. Why did I do that? I’m questioning all of my life choices. Was it worth it? I will never know.
(Oh, and if new asymmetrical civilizations are added, I will update it of course).
Now, this is perfectly clear and rational and cannot be questioned, but my friend** told me that this is, apparently, a forum where everyone is entitled to their wrong opinions, so if ever you want to challenge this, feel free to do it, and I’ll try to engage in civilized (pun intended) discussions.
Toodaloo!
*My lawyer** told me that I must give the following warning: I have no formation nor degree in anything close to game design or game theory, I am just a pure amateur that like to create scientific sounding papers for the fun of it, so in no way you should take my word as gospel. That’s what my lawyer** says. My personal advice is that I’m infallible and you should drink my words like it was the source of life. But you do you.
**Actually my cat
***Tiers are bias toward specific terrains or features, near which civilizations are more prone to start nearby. Mali has a bias towards desert, Canada towards tundra, Mayas near plantation-improved resources, and I have no bloody idea how tier would work for Maoris. The lower a Tier is, the more probable the civilization is to start near said terrain or feature (a Tier 1 civilization would be prioritized towards a Tier 3 or even a Tier 5 civilization). Good to know that some tiers seems irrelevant, like Sumer/Netherlands/Egypt/Hungary having a starting bias towards rivers, when in all of my games, I nearly always started near a river.
Last edited:
