Best civ?

[Tireur isole]

Lately I've been wondering which Civ. is the best? I started out with the Romans them moved to the Persians, then the Americans, even Greece, most recently I've been playing as Carthage but I just cant seem to find one that I realy like. Any thoughts? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

[nihil8r]

CHINA

oh sweet golden dragon in the sky, china china china china china china china china

 

[nihil8r]

oh uh ... i forgot to say, there is no "best civ" ... most are very good. your play style and type of victory are going to affect some things. if you want to build a lot of cities with a good infrastructure you should try out an industrious civ. if you want to beat the pants off your neighbors make sure to be militaristic. if you want to be a republic raking in the cash go commercial. if you need help defending your cities in the ancient age be greece so you get hoplites for spearmen cost. if you need medieval attacking power choose china or japan. etc etc.

certain civs to be wary of ...

spain - great traits. but their unique unit is almost useless except to kill workers and cut resources. the only good thing about it is that it comes at the cusp of the industrial age, giving you a sweet golden age if you haven't had it. i only play spain for role playing purposes (but i do play them a lot).

korea - erm ... good traits but their crazy cannon unit won't trigger a golden age. it does allow you to use the infantry/artillery city seige strategy with musketmen, archers, and rockets, but the downside is that they can't be upgraded to missile artillery, should you ever need those.

celts - celtic swordsmen are hideously overpriced.

carthage - nummies are powerful defenders but are expensive.

france - you have to be pink unless you edit the scenario with the included, installed editor.

mongolia - no dental plan

vikings - beserkers are a waste of money if you don't take advantage of their marine abilities

england - super lame boat unit that is useless once steamboats are invented

and so on and so forth. i recommend continuing to play around with the civs. you'll find a few traits that you favor and will become good at using those, and you'll know which to avoid. (for example, i never play an expansionist civ. i kill the closest 3 civs to me anyway so techs aren't my problem )

 

[Sirp]

I wish I could say that there is no 'best civ' and all civs are well-balanced. This is kind of true, but really, the Industrious trait does outshine the other traits in almost all circumstances. So, the best civs are almost certainly the industrious ones. The other traits are fairly well-balanced, although traditionally, Egypt has been considered perhaps the 'best' civ, but this has changed somewhat since the days of yore, with other traits being improved.

Because of this, I often like to play non-industrious civs, because I think the non-industrious civs are all pretty well-balanced with each other. Being militaristic and having a good unique unit is a fairly synergistic combination - and thus the Aztecs, Japanese (and the industrious Chinese) are good choices. It's unfortunate that cultural victories are difficult in a way that makes them unbalanced and unlikely, otherwise the Babylonians would be an interesting choice. They're still a pretty decent civilization though.

But really, I like all the civilizations. They're all interesting in their way. Each with different trade-offs and merits.

-Sirp.

 

[Anti-EUA]

Tireur isole - well try to play one each time. maybe it's not the civ, it's the kind of map. i love playing on continents. my brother hates, prefers archipelago. i think the kind of map and the starting location affects more than the traits.
i personally think egypt is the best as Sirp said. but playing civs with other combinations made me see that there's no real big advantage. of course u can always play without the traits, but i personally dislike that.

 

[superslug]

On lower levels I usually go for Russia. With the expanionist characteristic, I can build a number of scouts and blitz right through the first age. Then I go into a heavy research phase until I get up to the Cossacks. I stop my research cold after I get railroads, dumping all my money into Cossack production while I run over everyone.

On higher levels, I usually play the Persians. Free sciences are hard to beat when you start behind. The Immortals are decent and perfect for specifically timing an early and effective GA. Since I usually go for pang/huge, the ability to build the Pyramids from the start is way cool.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I agree with Sirp that the Industrious civs are a breed slightly above the rest. Of the Industrious civs, I think Persia is the cream of the cream, but that depends alot on playing style. If you dislike Ancient GAs, clearly you won't value the Immortals as highly as do I. On Pangaeas (I want to pluralize that as "Pangaeae" ...), America's combo of Industrious and Expansionist does tell. China is probably the best warmonger civ.

 

[BretP]

I disagree with Sirp for two reasons. One, the industrious thing is nice, but not as valuable as a religious civ. One turn of anarchy is to important to pass up, especially if you like to switch govs. Second, I think cultural victories are fairly easy to achieve, granted I have never ventured beyond the Monarch level, most of my victories have been cultural. I have also had quite a bit of success with the Babs. However, my favorite civ would have to be the Iroquios, they are religious and expanionist ( which is often overlooked) and they have an AWESOME UU. The mounted warrior dominates the ancient era, and upgrades to knights. This makes going to war early very easy. And the reduced cost of temples and stuff helps with culture and happiness.

 

[Sirp]

BretP: Religious is very nice, but it's not as good as being Industrious.

The one-turn anarcy is good, but considering you only have to revolt once a game (Despotism -> Republic. I don't know of any good players that use any other government forms), it's not that good. If Democracy was worth switching to, then Religious would be substantially better. Since Democracy has an insubstantial advantage over Republic, the advantage of being Religious is reduced dramatically.

Meanwhile, the Industrious advantage is with you all game long. From the very start, to the very end.

Further, 20k cultural victories aren't *that* hard to get, but the cultural traits (scientific, religious), don't help that much for that. They help for a 100k cultural victory, but that's the victory type that' s ridiculously hard to get. I've done it on Emperor in a succession game, but in that game we could have won much much earlier simply by wiping everyone else out. It's not even close to meaningfully doable on Deity.

-Sirp.

 

[WildFire]

Americans, Persians, Romans, Greece, Carthage. Here is how I rank these:

Persians, The best Civ in the game
Carthage, My third favorite
Romans, played a couple times, like Legionary
Greece, Dont care for
America, I put them second to last, only above England.

 

[BretP]

Sirp,

I have not played the uper levels, nothing beyond Monarch, and I usually play on regent, but I have had the 100k cultural victory about half the time that I win. I have actually turn it off in my current game because I want to try a new victory type and find the cultural win a surprise that always ends my game sooner than I am ready for.

I was unaware that most of the best players stick with republic, why? I always switch to Demo when it is available, and then to communism when I go to war. Is republic really that much better?

 

[Sirp]

BretP,

On higher levels, the tech pace goes very fast, and the spaceship launch would have happened long before a cultural victory in most cases. Doubling another civilization's culture without going to war with them and destroying half their cities is incredibly difficult when they can build things so much faster than you.

Democracy has almost no advantages over Republic. For that reason, it is not worth converting to, and it's not even worth researching. The question is, why would you switch to democracy? It takes turns of anarchy for no substantial advantage, and has higher war weariness.

Also, communism is awful. Never ever use it. Use monarchy if anything, however long wars can be fought in Republic with war weariness in check.

-Sirp.

 

[BretP]

Thanks for the tips on government, I will have to try Republic for longer periods of time. I use communism to fight war weariness, How do you keep your people happy during long wars with republic? I am constantly struggling with that?

 

[Sirp]

Luxuries will keep people happy, as well as just using the luxury slider. Even if you pump it up by 20%, you'll still be saving money over communism.

Trade for more luxuries from other civilizations, or capture them in the war. More happiness improvements help of course.

Of course, best of all is to make your wars quick and decisive

-Sirp.

 

[BretP]

Thanks for all of your advice. What civs do you play then? My current game i am playing as the aztecs. I also want to try Persia and Japan. Any other suggestions?

 

[Lochlann]

I dunno, I definitely switch over to Democracy as soon as possible. The extra 50% worker speed is a real boon, especially when railroads become essential and pollution starts to spread. The reduced corruption also comes in handy, although that is particular to my playing style, which tends to emphasize widespread empires with self-sufficient, "complete" cities.

As for the best civ, I agree that it all depends on playing style, but I also agree that the Industrious trait is really outstanding. I used to go with the Persians almost exclusively, but I am quickly becoming enamored of the Ottoman Empire. Its traits are identical to those of the Persians (Scientific, Industrious), but its UU is--in my opinion--far superior. The Immortals are great, no doubt about it, but I always find that they are slow to build, and as I favor speed and withdrawal capability over brute strength, I rarely find myself using tons of Immortals. The Ottoman Sipahi is perfect, and perfectly placed; the period of time between Cavalry and Tanks/Infantry can be pretty substantial (in my experience at least), and the race to dominate rubber and oil reserves once they are found can make the Sipahi an invaluable unit. With an 8 attack and withdrawal/mobility, it pretty much dominates everything around at the time, and if used properly they can secure a significant advantage before Infantry and Tanks come into play. I am in the middle of my first full game with the Ottomans (Regent, Huge world, two continents, with Aztecs, Spain, Carthage, Celts, Vikings, Romans, Chinese, and others), and I am really enjoying the impact that the Sipahi have. I am a few dozen turns away from using massive Sipahi armies to monopolize all of the rubber on the map, thus virtually assuring myself of military supremacy in the future. (Kinda nice, since I'm a researcher/builder player and hate having to worry about military incursions.) This would be extremely difficult if I only had Cavalry to work with.

 

[Unregister]

I love egypt, and i forgot that the war chariot was 2.1.2. That makes me lilke them even more.

 

[Ville]

Egypt, Persia, Babylon, Ottomans, Vikings, but best of all is the mysterious Random civ

 

[bru]

I like a civ that can trigger a golden age just after I go to republic. This gives my civ the opportunity to expand very fast as well as catch up in the sciences. Russa comes to mind although there are a number of them.

 

[Jamesds]

I like Greece, any Scientific Civ is cool for me, Industrious isn't bad either. Probably my second favourite trait. Greeks have Hopilites, 3def, good for early wars, not that I ever do have any early wars! Light Green is a nice colour too...but that's not the point.