Civilization elimination thread

[SammyKhalifa]

Just like with Greece, too many people just don't like civs that can really beat you. They apparently want passive opponents.

Um, and they're not fun to play. It might be hard for some to believe that not everyone is a min/maxing powergamer.

 

[Buccaneer]

Um, and they're not fun to play. It might be hard for some to believe that not everyone is a min/maxing powergamer.

By making the Civ5 model a much better "powergame" (the potential is there), it will make a better game for all playstyles - just like BtS had (despite a lot of extranneous stuff).

 

[SammyKhalifa]

By making the Civ5 model a much better "powergame" (the potential is there), it will make a better game for all playstyles - just like BtS had (despite a lot of extranneous stuff).

Yeah, I agree. I just didn't have much fun playing with Austria because they seemed too strong. And when they're the AI, at least in my games they've never seemed to do anything.

I played one half of a game as Austria, got pretty dominant relatively early, decided that I knew how this was going to go now and restarted as someone else.

Austria can buy a full-blown developed city for the same cost it usually takes to buy a settler. Their ability is a really neat idea, but right now it's not working right inside the game. That makes them not a good civ even if they're powerful.

 

[Dogmouth]

The fact that Austria didn't make it into the top 10, and especially the fact that it got 2nd to last, is ridiculous. Their UA allows them to buy city states! Did you not hear? THEY CAN BUY CITY STATES. Their UB is pretty sick and their UU is fantastic, and THEY CAN BUY CITY STATES. I think that Maria Teresa was a stupid stupid leader choice and there are several cooler leaders, and a coffeehouse is kind of silly too (not too silly, it's an Austrian cultural icon) but I mean if you downvoted them because of that it's pretty shallow. And THEY CAN BUY CITY STATES.

They're a poorly constructed civ because their UA is too good. That's not because I don't like playing against them (the AI does nothing useful with them); it's because being able to buy great cities, luxes, and 3-5 modern units for 500 gold is ridiculous, and that makes them unplayable for me and for anyone else who doesn't want the game to come with a giant WIN button.

Being powerful isn't the same as being "good." If the programmers created a civ with a UA that gives them an extra starting settler and 100 free bpt, would you congratulate them for a job well done? No, you would rightly think that the civ was a horribly constructed, boring, mess. Austria is a boring mess that was poorly thought out.

Edit: For the record, I don't consider playing Austria to be anything remotely like powergaming or min/maxing. When you play Austria, you're just playing an easy game -- nothing more and nothing less. The fact that diplo victory is harder is kind of irrelevant, because diplo is a stupid victory condition anyway.

 

[Dogmouth]

Just like with Greece, too many people just don't like civs that can really beat you. They apparently want passive opponents.

Starting near an aggressive opponent is usually an advantage. They'll lose the early war, make peace for cash and luxes, and be unable to settle due to the hammer and gold hit from losing the war. I doubt that many people downvoted Greece because they're too aggressive. More likely, people agree with Phil's opinion of their UA -- it's no longer a good UA now that there are so many options for increasing CS influence. The hoplite is good, but it doesn't retain any promotions and it's almost too early. The companion cavalry are really good, but that's not enough to make Greece top tier.

 

[maurcus]

I personally would rather have a civ with decent UA,UU,UU/UB and plenty of flavor than one with a ludicrously powerful UA,UU,UU/UB and no flavor whatsoever. for me flavor is 3/5 of the fun. and the game is all about the fun.

 

[Cromagnus]

I wish I had found this thread earlier. I agree about flavor. I tend to pick civs for that reason. But it can be downright frustrating at times. For a while I was struggling to make things work with civs that don't have the obvious power combos, and I would keep playing them because I liked their "flavor". Then, recently I decided to try playing the Huns for the fun of it. It was like switching to easy mode. Wow. Without fail, every single game I dominate, even if my starting city is low production. Horse Archer/Battering Ram rush is just so... easy. Maybe it's broken, but after all that struggling, it was actually fun to feel OP. For a while. Until it got boring because it was too easy.

Time for a new challenge. Maybe I'll start only playing the civs that got eliminated in this thread. ;-D

 

[maurcus]

technically all but one civ got eliminated

 

[Rooftrellen]

Um, and they're not fun to play. It might be hard for some to believe that not everyone is a min/maxing powergamer.

China and Arabia both made it really far, and both are terribly boring. Greece is actually pretty fun for the same reason as Persia (though for me personally, I use Greece better) or Sweden, you are pushed two directions at once and you get to balance what to do.

You have to be a min/maxing powergamer to enjoy a couple of nice UU's for early war and a UA just made for late game diplomacy?

Then again, I find much more fun in playing (and replaying) civs that can do many different things. I won't often like to play with civs like China, Songhai, or Arabia that are so centered on one aspect (and often just one way to do what they do well).

There's a lot of fun in creativity, and Greece allows for lots of it.

 

[Gucumatz]

Could you explain by the way how you feel each of those civs are only focused on one aspect they do well? Curious to see perception vs various realities on these civs

 

[crawf0rd]

I personally would rather have a civ with decent UA,UU,UU/UB and plenty of flavor than one with a ludicrously powerful UA,UU,UU/UB and no flavor whatsoever. for me flavor is 3/5 of the fun. and the game is all about the fun.

Exactly how I feel. I despise civs that are a one-man show (yes you, Mongols). I love the Siamese, Iroquois, Spanish, and Mayans for the fact that they have (for the most part) equally balanced Uniques that tie together but serve their own purpose.

 

[Cromagnus]

technically all but one civ got eliminated

Sorry, *eliminated early*. I mean the consensus "bad" Civs. But yeah, I see your point.

 

[Rooftrellen]

Could you explain by the way how you feel each of those civs are only focused on one aspect they do well? Curious to see perception vs various realities on these civs

For all the civs I mentioned:

China - GG's lend themselves to war, obviously, and the CKN is a destructive force to be reckoned with, unless you can get enough damage in it's face to make it move. The Paper Maker is a library that, basically, gives you 3 gold (not exact but a good generalization). Since it's something you want in most cities, that means more money, which is flexible enough, but I feel like this, specifically, was chosen because puppets LOVE to make libraries, making them more profitable quickly.

Arabia - Money money money money. Go grab as many city spots with luxes as possible, sell off duplicates the Bazaar gives, and also get more cash from your low pop cities (you grabbed lots of land for lots of different luxes) connected to your trade routes. They could almost be good for war, but if you decide to let your camel archers loose, you stand to lose at least one trading partner.

Songhai - It's all about momentum. Songhai starts by taking out the barbs, getting an army, taking cities, getting more money, taking capitals, and winning. Their UA screams it. Their UU is a knight that can take cities pretty darn well, adding to it, and their UB is a maintenance free source of both faith and culture which are great to have as you take more cities (so you can spread a warmonger friendly religion to your newly acquired cities and they are faster to pay for the increased culture cost of policies). They're good, but they are really a bulldozer only (compare to Mongolia, for instance, who might take ton of cities but is also generally happy blazing though enemies to the capital as well and has the option of hitting enemies indirectly before war by taking a CS easily...choices).

Greece -They are good at war early and can go for a diplomatic victory easily late. They have a nice balance of when they can take advantage of their UU's and UA, going to war early can produce GG's that can be used for war later, they can do diplomacy later too, as I said, and their UA actually makes culture and space victories easier. They can easily go wide and conquer the world or go tall, taking advantage of the indirect happiness, culture, and military bonuses their UA gives them, all depending on how they want to use it.

Persia - The UU and UB say go wide, but the UA says go tall. In the end it becomes an interesting balance of wide and tall, war and peace, in order to take advantage of a happiness giving UB and one of the best UU's in the game, a warmonger's dream, and souped up golden ages (which also become a warmonger's dream) that are going to require happiness or GA's to activate. Game to game, I don't think anyone makes as many choices based on the current situation as Persia.

Sweden - Their UU's are absolutely made for GG's, since one heals while attacking to make them and the other pairs with them decently well. Add in a UA that gives more GP...so long as you have friends, and each game is interesting. Besides the interesting situation of balancing war and friendships, they, like Greece have many options due to getting a bonus in getting and keeping CS allies. Outside of gold, influence is probably the most flexible thing in the game.

 

[Buccaneer]

All (or most) civs have their strengths, nothing wrong with that. You can win any victory condition with any civ on any map but some would be harder than others. There are two points. First, the intent of the civs with a strong (early-mid) UU is not to win by domination/conquest but to you give the space and puppets so you can win by other means. Civs such Arabia and China are great at doing just that. Second, I was more focusing on how an opposing Civ can use their strenths (and personality) against a human player. Some of the eliminated civs make very good opponents and that means more than how a human player would play them (considering some players only sees one dimension of certain civs).

 

[PhilBowles]

Greece -They are good at war early and can go for a diplomatic victory easily late. They have a nice balance of when they can take advantage of their UU's and UA, going to war early can produce GG's that can be used for war later, they can do diplomacy later too, as I said, and their UA actually makes culture and space victories easier. They can easily go wide and conquer the world or go tall, taking advantage of the indirect happiness, culture, and military bonuses their UA gives them, all depending on how they want to use it.

Except for early war, Siam is a better option for every one of those reasons - with the additional bonus of the flexibility allowed by a culture boost from universities, and a jungle start bias. Greece can be seen as a flexible civ not because it can tailor itself to a lot of victory conditions well (as Siam does), but because it doesn't really do anything terribly well so you aren't tempted to play in a specific style that maximises their effectiveness.

 

[GreekIrish]

Well that was a nice popularity contest. A lot of solid feedback for the most part, but too much "This civ doesn't interest me, so downvoted"

 

[maurcus]

the thing you have to remember is that every civ player has his/her own strategy to play with so you have to remember that any civ that doesn't agree with that strategy would get down-voted. my personal strategy is build up infrastructure until industrial age then grab autocracy and conquer the world and as such the swedes are great.

 

[Yzman]

Except for early war, Siam is a better option for every one of those reasons - with the additional bonus of the flexibility allowed by a culture boost from universities, and a jungle start bias. Greece can be seen as a flexible civ not because it can tailor itself to a lot of victory conditions well (as Siam does), but because it doesn't really do anything terribly well so you aren't tempted to play in a specific style that maximises their effectiveness.

I disagree, Greece is great at getting CS allies. I allied every CS easily and won diplo on an immortal game.

 

[Rooftrellen]

Except for early war, Siam is a better option for every one of those reasons - with the additional bonus of the flexibility allowed by a culture boost from universities, and a jungle start bias. Greece can be seen as a flexible civ not because it can tailor itself to a lot of victory conditions well (as Siam does), but because it doesn't really do anything terribly well so you aren't tempted to play in a specific style that maximises their effectiveness.

Siam is not better at a diplo victory than any other civ. I don't understand why people think so. They get no extra cash to spend on keeping CS's, no benefit to keeping a CS ally, no benefits to faith generation to get CS's the same religion...

Even early, it might be a toss up between Siam getting bonuses from CS's and Alex keeping them longer for more bonus after doing the quests, not terribly unlike the Korea vs Babylon discussion of the fast burst or the slow burn of science.

Greece is probably slightly better for science. The wat gives no science bonus (I just checked, on the buildings section for CiV on civfanatics, it doesn't say the Wat gives +2 per jungle...I think that's inaccurate though), and Greece can get more from the social policy that makes CS allies give science, due to the UA.

I don't understand the purpose of the comparison anyway, since I'm not claiming Greece is stronger than Siam (nor am I now claiming they are weaker), but that Greece is a fun civ. A civ that has warriors with 500 strength and 20 movement would be powerful but boring. If this thread had been about the strength of the civs, Austria would have been the winner by 200 points.

 

[PhilBowles]

Siam is not better at a diplo victory than any other civ. I don't understand why people think so. They get no extra cash to spend on keeping CS's, no benefit to keeping a CS ally, no benefits to faith generation to get CS's the same religion...

All of which is true of Greece. The difference isn't that Siam is better for diplo victory, it's that it rewards you for playing diplomatically, and simply by giving you extra bonuses for having CS allies, it improves your game position for any victory condition.

Even early, it might be a toss up between Siam getting bonuses from CS's and Alex keeping them longer for more bonus after doing the quests, not terribly unlike the Korea vs Babylon discussion of the fast burst or the slow burn of science.

No, it isn't close. Greece's benefit is only of value when you're close to losing friendship/allied status, which very rarely happens if you're completing quests. Losing influence half as fast is not equivalent to being friends/allies for twice as long. Even if Greece does get an early game advantage somehow, as soon as Patronage hits and Siam stops losing influence that would take it below friendship status, any minor advantage the Greeks have would vanish.

Greece is probably slightly better for science. The wat gives no science bonus (I just checked, on the buildings section for CiV on civfanatics, it doesn't say the Wat gives +2 per jungle...I think that's inaccurate though)

It is inaccurate - I'd thought the same in vanilla, but it was just an omission from the entry. And the G&K Civilopedia restores the reference to +2 science from jungles. Which, incidentally, Siam is much more likely to start close to.

, and Greece can get more from the social policy that makes CS allies give science, due to the UA.

Only assuming you aren't completing any other quests or making any effort to gain influence - and what would be the point of that if going Patronage? As I noted, it's very rare to lose alliances with city-states through natural decay in G&K. Even if you don't incidentally fulfill quest objectives, you'll lose an alliance to another civ that's increasing its own influence long before yours drops close to 60. So if you don't make active efforts to keep your city-states, you're not going to keep them as Greece any more than you are as Siam.

I don't understand the purpose of the comparison anyway, since I'm not claiming Greece is stronger than Siam (nor am I now claiming they are weaker), but that Greece is a fun civ. A civ that has warriors with 500 strength and 20 movement would be powerful but boring. If this thread had been about the strength of the civs, Austria would have been the winner by 200 points.

Wasn't your claim that it should have been in the top 10? Certainly fun plays a part in whether a civ makes it that far - however there was no suggestion even by its detractors that Denmark is not a fun civ to play. It still got eliminated very early. Though personally I just can't see what would make Greece fun since it doesn't do anything distinctive. For the sort of game you'd want to play with them I can have fun with Siam (decisions to make about which CSes to ally with to maximise my UA benefits) or Sweden (full diplo experience maximising both DoFs and CS alliances, and selecting which CSes to target so that my GPs don't go to waste). Greece seems to have one of the game's most boring UAs, in fact - not only does it not do a lot, but even though it takes a small amount of work to use, it works equally on any CS without giving you any incentive to make strategic decisions regarding your choice of friends/allies that you wouldn't make anyway, and its effects are entirely passive once they come into play.