Best Civ and why

[Ataxerxes]

I personally have never liked the "spiritual" trait that much; I rarely change civics and usually don't have a religion, so I never use it enough for it to match up to something like aggressive, which helps me build barracks faster and get better melee/gunpowder units! Plus, in late-game play, spiritual's double building speed ability even peters out, making it essentially useless. And adding it all up, you get what? Maybe 6-7 extra turns from no anarchy? No way, spiritual is the worst one (though I used to like it more, but now I turned warmonger )

Anyways, my favorite civ is Julius Caesar of Rome, because charismatic helps my units get upgrades faster, and organized helps me conquer more cities faster with less consequences.

My second favorite? Toku, because in late-game play, his gunpowder units get Combat I, City Garrison I, and Drill I!!!! Plus his UB is totally useful if you have no coal.

Edit: That's not including other upgrades from Barracks or West point of Great Generals, I get quite a lot of those...

I still think Spiritual is a strong trait. You might save 6-7 turns if you switched as often as you do with a normal Civ. However, with Spiritual you can change more often. Slavery is great, but after you've rushed in some cities you can go into Serfdom (weak Civic overall but better than Slavery if you're not rushing) and then switch back in time to rush again. Part is play style also - I usually adopt a religion for diplo bonuses and usually switch twice in most Civic Categories (Organized Religion - Pacifism for example).

I take it you're not playing BTS. In BTS Julius is Imperialistic/Organized (which is still good). If you're able to go on a Prat rampage Organized is very nice.

Never did care for Toku. I agree the Shale Plant and Samurai are pretty good, but I disagree on the traits. Even if I'm warmongering, I like to do it from a Tech lead and Toku has no economic trait. His Gunpowder units are great, but it takes him longer to get them. You might like Churchill - Drill IV Redcoats with 8 XP's. Admittedly I prefer economic traits (Charismatic is both peaceful and warmonger trait and is very good).

 

[thecaesar]

I take it you're not playing BTS. In BTS Julius is Imperialistic/Organized (which is still good). If you're able to go on a Prat rampage Organized is very nice.

Oooooooooops... nope I'm playing BTS, I'm just an idiot, that's all.

I always get Imperialistic and Charismatic mixed up, and not even because they're similar, just because they both came with BTS, which I just got like 8 months ago...

In which case, I guess it's not as mortal of a combo as I thought I remembered, but still, organized is useful. Apparently Napoleon, who I NEVER play because their special unit IMHO sucks, has those two traits. But still, I'm not even sure about that...

 

[Ataxerxes]

Oooooooooops... nope I'm playing BTS, I'm just an idiot, that's all.

I always get Imperialistic and Charismatic mixed up, and not even because they're similar, just because they both came with BTS, which I just got like 8 months ago...

In which case, I guess it's not as mortal of a combo as I thought I remembered, but still, organized is useful. Apparently Napoleon, who I NEVER play because their special unit IMHO sucks, has those two traits. But still, I'm not even sure about that...

Organized is very useful. And as you go up in levels it becomes more powerful. Organized is very powerful for Julius because if you go on a rampage with Prats your economy will suffer with the conquests. Organized leaders make good warmongers. Mad Scientist thinks of Asoka as a good warmonger and I usually use him in that capacity as well. He's a good Civ except for the UB.

Charismatic/Organized is a very strong combo, particularly for a warmonger. Nappy is a good warmonger although the UU is a little weak. Opinions on France's UB vary widely. It's worth noting that Nappy certainly plays as a warmonger - he's one of my six psychos.

 

[uat2d]

I thought India's UB was actually quite good, if one made it to the Industrial Ages. It's more happiness and less war weariness in a single building.

It's obviously not as good as the Ikhanda or the Rathaus, but it's nice nevertheless.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Organized is very useful. And as you go up in levels it becomes more powerful. Organized is very powerful for Julius because if you go on a rampage with Prats your economy will suffer with the conquests. Organized leaders make good warmongers. Mad Scientist thinks of Asoka as a good warmonger and I usually use him in that capacity as well. He's a good Civ except for the UB.

Charismatic/Organized is a very strong combo, particularly for a warmonger. Nappy is a good warmonger although the UU is a little weak. Opinions on France's UB vary widely. It's worth noting that Nappy certainly plays as a warmonger - he's one of my six psychos.

I've never thought of Asoka as a warmonger. I think I might try a game with him like that. It might be fun.

I think that Napoleon is one of the few AI's that is actually handled reasonably effectively by the game. I expect certain behavior from some of the AI's, but he consistently surprises me. He doesn't do everything right, of course, but he is certainly a challenge in most of the games where I face him.

 

[Iranon]

+1 to Asoka being an excellent warmonger. ORG keeps your economy from collapsing while you're abusing it. SPI lets you switch between warmongering and recovery mode, its diplomatic applications can determine which way a dogpile goes and some military-oriented civics are barely usable without it.

None of the top warmongers have dedicated military traits in my opinion.

 

[TippedScale]

I tend to like Elizabeth my self, probably not the strongest civ in the game, but if used right FIN+PHI means a ludicrous tech lead. Not to mention redcoats bonuses can really tip a war and have a huge window of relevance if you make it a point to get rifling early.

Had 10 great scientists and 2 great merchants by the mid 1600's in my last MP game, and a mix of FIN giving more commerce and an Academy in all of my commerce cities meant one hell of a beaker advantage.

 

[HorribleHarald]

Best civ? It's obviously Japan, why?
Agg/pro is OP because it gives best gunpowder units of the game. You can easily produce with vassalage or teocracy and some military instructors powerful gunpowder units. I wonder why combination agg/pro is allowed. And samurai is nice too although it requires iron.

 

[Ataxerxes]

I tend to like Elizabeth my self, probably not the strongest civ in the game, but if used right FIN+PHI means a ludicrous tech lead. Not to mention redcoats bonuses can really tip a war and have a huge window of relevance if you make it a point to get rifling early.

Had 10 great scientists and 2 great merchants by the mid 1600's in my last MP game, and a mix of FIN giving more commerce and an Academy in all of my commerce cities meant one hell of a beaker advantage.

She might not be the strongest Civ but she isn't too far off. Two excellent traits, a reasonable UB and a good UU. I can't think of too many Civs that are way ahead of her. I definitely agree with Iranon, top warmongers are those that get you the tech lead. Toku's Samurai aren't going to help him if you hit him with Cannons and Redcoats while he's still trying to get his economy in order with no economic traits.

One of the things that makes Asoka such a good warmonger, in addition to Iranon's reasons, is he starts with mining. One game I had Shaka introduce himself at turn 2. Oh, ****. Wait a minute, is that BFC Copper? Shaka had a nice capital.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

+1 to Asoka being an excellent warmonger. ORG keeps your economy from collapsing while you're abusing it. SPI lets you switch between warmongering and recovery mode, its diplomatic applications can determine which way a dogpile goes and some military-oriented civics are barely usable without it.

None of the top warmongers have dedicated military traits in my opinion.

In a serious war though, the actual military edge can break a game. "keeping the econ" only matters if you know/actually win the war.

Take, for example, a simple situation: Asoka of India vs any AGG leader. Both of you only have copper. Org is dead weight here, and SPI only saves you a turn swapping into slavery (if slavery is advisable). The AI would just throw away its axes into defensive bonuses regardless of situation, but that doesn't mean human players have to play as stupidly as the AI. Shock axes do very, very well vs plain combat I axes and are a serious pillage (aka kill-shot) threat.

This advantage, and those conferred by CHA and PRO, carry into other eras also. If you're willing to make some concessions for dedicated war, CHA can put up CR III siege with one great general. Not only does this insta-unlock HE by itself (!), but it gives you odds that are usually only seen with an era advantage.

AGG melee early pillage advantage can translate to non-resource opponents, but cr II combat I maces also hold a considerable advantage over longbows; spy or siege removal of defense will grant solid odds; with CR they'll hit non-counters like rifles.

The econ traits can help you secure an era advantage, but the true military traits actually allow for parity wars vs non-trait advantaged opposition to be very favorable.

In a lot of cases, traits are evaluated based on assumptions about bad opposition play. In reality, most of the "low tier" traits are actually very dangerous in the hands of people willing to use them. Even something stupid simple like "oh, there's 3 cover archers" can really ruin someone's day. How do you break 3 cover archers without strategic resources? With 5-6 archers, but only on flatland. Devastating...and this is part of the reason Mali is scarier in MP than Rome. If you can't hook strat resources very fast while near them and you're not playing Inca, you're dead.

 

[uat2d]

TMIT, damn, you really know how to play civ!! I'm not joking, you have so much experience, you could probably teach the devs a thing or two about the game they built!!

 

[Loz]

I think a lot of what determines the most effective traits is also the map layout and proximity of neighbours. In maps where you start very close to opponents aggresive is going to be very helpful because you're both going to be using axes and yours are going to be much better. In larger maps with more room to expand economy and expansion traits will be more effective as when the fighting starts you may well have a larger empire or a tech lead.

The same goes for unique units - sure the skirmishers and praetorians of this world are effective if you have someone to use them on, but if you start seperated by ocean or just a large stretch of land then later unique units will be more useful.

I tend to agree that some traits are underatted(e.g. aggresive) and TMIT makes some good points as to why. I'd love to see him upload a multiplayer game on his youtube channel that involved some early warfare against human opponents.

 

[Iranon]

In a serious war though, the actual military edge can break a game. "keeping the econ" only matters if you know/actually win the war.

Take, for example, a simple situation: Asoka of India vs any AGG leader. Both of you only have copper. Org is dead weight here, and SPI only saves you a turn swapping into slavery (if slavery is advisable). The AI would just throw away its axes into defensive bonuses regardless of situation, but that doesn't mean human players have to play as stupidly as the AI. Shock axes do very, very well vs plain combat I axes and are a serious pillage (aka kill-shot) threat.

This advantage, and those conferred by CHA and PRO, carry into other eras also. If you're willing to make some concessions for dedicated war, CHA can put up CR III siege with one great general. Not only does this insta-unlock HE by itself (!), but it gives you odds that are usually only seen with an era advantage.

AGG melee early pillage advantage can translate to non-resource opponents, but cr II combat I maces also hold a considerable advantage over longbows; spy or siege removal of defense will grant solid odds; with CR they'll hit non-counters like rifles.

The econ traits can help you secure an era advantage, but the true military traits actually allow for parity wars vs non-trait advantaged opposition to be very favorable.

In a lot of cases, traits are evaluated based on assumptions about bad opposition play. In reality, most of the "low tier" traits are actually very dangerous in the hands of people willing to use them. Even something stupid simple like "oh, there's 3 cover archers" can really ruin someone's day. How do you break 3 cover archers without strategic resources? With 5-6 archers, but only on flatland. Devastating...and this is part of the reason Mali is scarier in MP than Rome. If you can't hook strat resources very fast while near them and you're not playing Inca, you're dead.

Sure, Asoka doesn't have much going for him in a pure rush situation - ORG needs volume, SPI needs options.
Pure support vs. promotion freak is tricky to compare and heavily map-dependent. No amount of economy support is likely to make up for the difference between a successful and a failed rush. On the other hand, some of the best warring opportunities are elepults and a hard cannon beeline - no free promotions for you! At least none that matter.

I still think that the military-oriented traits are weak. For early war, give me a killer UU - none of them are supported by a full military trait with default leaders. For a later war, give me a civilian advantage - they're generally more powerful, more flexible and can be leveraged in advance.
Economy matters beyond securing an era advantage. If you can expand more cheaply or replace commercy stuff with production because you have an economy crutch, you can field more units. Almost everything is interchangeable, and almost anything can snowball.

 

[Bugio]

Capac is hands down the best leader fo the reasons other already said: great UU, great traits, great UB. His starting tech aren't bad but misticism isn't ideal. Most of the time isn't a big deal however.

Capac aside, there are a number of good leaders to pick out. Personally i love Gandhi. Phil+Spi is a great combo, if you play it right. Spiritual allows you to switch to caste (and later pacifism) and rush whichever great person you might need in no time thanks to Phil, this is very versatile and powerful if used right. Also it's great for diplo cause it allows you to autoaccept any request of religion/civic switch basically for free.
His UU is the best in the game. 3 movement worker is HUGE, it allows you to move into a forest and start chopping the same turn. VERY powerful for rushing military or chopping wonders.
Mausoleum comes a bit late, but is a good building, +2 happiness jail, I'll take it. And last but not least, he start with mining which is probably the strongest starting tech since it allows you to immediately research BW for slavery and chopping abuse. The other starting tech isn't good, but can't have everything.
Probably he hasn't the most straightforward advantages, but his flexibility is in my opinion unmatched.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Pure support vs. promotion freak is tricky to compare and heavily map-dependent. No amount of economy support is likely to make up for the difference between a successful and a failed rush. On the other hand, some of the best warring opportunities are elepults and a hard cannon beeline - no free promotions for you! At least none that matter.

Well, support vs promo IS a bit tough to compare, especially if you start trying to evaluate the fewer # needed if you have extra promos vs savings otherwise. Definitely map/situation dependent.

Elepult usually happens before later promos can set in, though it's worth pointing out the shock promo on accompanying axes, extra CG on protective defensive units you leave behind after capturing cities, direct hammer savings on rax, and much faster promos on elephants/cats themselves (usually 1-2 less battles!) aren't insignificant even there. Later on, CHA can and absolutely does help a pure cannon beeline (very easy to hit cr III cannons if you want them), while AGG/PRO both give your defending units better coverage against threats (especially being able to take formation vs opposing cuirasser).

Again, however, you're assuming you can reliably secure such a thing as cannons before the enemy does. Against the AI that's (usually) a valid assumption. Against humans where you have guerilla II longbows running around on your hills or them trying to fork you with horse archers/knights or surprise attack you with a 5 move gg galley (morale, navigation I, navigation II), things change. I guess we get back to whether one wants a more spectacular win or a higher-odds-in-bad-situations one. Realistically, the AI on any difficulty can be beaten with any trait combination and others better than me have proven that to be the case. Merely evaluating what's "best" from the start is a little difficult.

I think that vs consistently competent opposition you'd want a trait balance set; something that lets you punish people going too econ heavy with pillaging skirmishes (or less likely outright defeat) but not something so military focused that they can break a stalemate with a tech lead.

In the very earlygame, this has to be mali; their UU is one of the few things that can cost-effectively defeat standard attacks w/o metal, and can easily kill others. Once the other side gets metal and things progress past classical, however, mali loses its edge; medieval lasts a LONG time especially w/o tech trade. After the very earlygame mali is pure econ.

Someone like Zulu or Aztec is actually very balanced, especially Zulu. Shaka can do it all; his maintenance reduction is close to that of HRE and he has it sooner, he has a devastating early aggression unit when playing people with sense (forking means little to the AI but when combo'd with terrain move is not fun to fight PvP), and his expansive secondary trait lends itself well to setting cities up quickly (while the reduced maintenance helps them stay ahead). Monty is a bit more war-skewed.

Of course, military only means something if it is able to exist (resources) and it can reach the opponents reasonably well. In reality there will never be a "best" civ in all scenarios although some do well more frequently than others. Even so, it seems people just don't like using the benefits the military traits confer. PRO is probably the hardest to use, but even there you can easily ggfarm the AI, threaten humans very early game, make it harder to fork effectively, etc.

There are things people don't even think about usually though. Just as a quick demonstration, compare an axe attacking a hill archer with combat I, with an axe attacking a hill archer with drill I and shock. There are things like that littered throughout the eras, and they help less favored traits more than expected.

IMO there is no trait in the game that can come even close to touching the variance that civ IV grants with how people spawn relative to each other.

 

[Ataxerxes]

The best Civs and traits will vary quite a bit between Multiplayer and Single Player. I can see Protective and, especially, Aggressive being very valuable in Multiplayer on a smaller map. You often don't have time to get the economy going before war.

I admit to thinking Single Player. I haven't played multi much but human opponents are more aggressive than Shaka and it's rare to get very far in the tech tree. A human with Aggressive will (should) realize it's usually good to use the trait early.

Anyway, for single player I agree with Bugio. I'll take Capac in most cases.

 

[theskibum]

Without unrestricted, I would pick:

-Boobica of Celts: Monster infantry (AGG + CHA + cheap barracks), decent cavalry (CHA + cheap barracks), capable archers (Free guerilla + cheap barracks)
The celtic warrior retains guerrila when upgraded, and G2 is great to choke over hill ressources, or to protect stacks!
QUOTE]

The correct spelling is "Booty-Call"

 

[G-Max]

Quechas become obsolete too soon. War Chariots and Immortals are too easy to defend against. However, Rome in the proper hands will kill half of its neighbors before the Praet becomes obsolete. At that point, you control half of the world and a large army of City Raider III Macemen. Game over, man, game over.

And yes, if an early rusher can kill another civ before they ever get their culture/space/whatever victory, then that civ is better. You can't win if you're dead.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Quechas become obsolete too soon. War Chariots and Immortals are too easy to defend against. However, Rome in the proper hands will kill half of its neighbors before the Praet becomes obsolete. At that point, you control half of the world and a large army of City Raider III Macemen. Game over, man, game over.

And yes, if an early rusher can kill another civ before they ever get their culture/space/whatever victory, then that civ is better. You can't win if you're dead.

My problem with the Romans and the Incas is that it almost feels like I'm cheating when I play as them. They're good for a quick bit of fun, but I prefer having to struggle a little to win.

 

[G-Max]

That's a common sentiment... but if you want to try cheating, then try playing the Gods of Old mod, unlock any leader/civ combination, pick Qin Shi Huang as leader of the Native Americans, build Stonehenge and Church of the Tempest ASAP and Barracks in every city, and start spamming Drill I/Combat I/Enlil's Guidance super-archers while you beeline Feudalism for Vassalage and Longbows. For extra fun, see if you can get Inanna's Stronghold as well for Drill I/Enlil's Guidance/Unbridled Fury super-archers. It's laughable.