Civilization elimination thread

Not really true. A free GS (settled as an Academy) at Writing is like double :c5science: in the early game, and continues to generate its benefit for he entire game. Getting more GS faster throughout the game is a snowball effect which helps out any strategy you might use. I can understand if you say Babylon is overpowered or Babylon is boring to play because they always have a tech lead. Saying that their UA is only good in certain situations make me ask the obvious question. What situation do you want to have less :c5science:?

You might be right. The UA of Babylon is helpful IF you want a science victory. Sometimes I prefer gold rather than a boost in science....or maybe last time I played with Babylon I just don't know how to benefit from the GS given.
 
Arabia 28
Aztecs 20
Babylon 21
Byzantium 20
Carthage 24
China 25
Egypt 8
England 19
Ethiopia 16
France 13
Greece 21
Inca 25
Iroquois 10
Japan 18
Korea 24
Maya 27
Mongolia 13
Netherlands 22
Ottoman Empire 16
Persia 17
Roman Empire 22
Russia 21
Siam 17
Songhai 2
Sweden 7

I find the Iroquois don't really get enough credit, so I up-voted them. I really like the synergy between the UU, UA and UB as more forests means better defensive/offensive strengths, more roads, and more production. I find the Iroquois' UA to be on equal standing with Incan's UA (whom I believe are one of the top-tiered civs in the game) if there is enough forests.

I down-voted Sweden because I find DoF rare as it is and diplomacy to be somewhat unpredictable. The GP gifting to city-states is marginally useful and to make it useful you'd need city-states that: a) is useful towards your victory condition, because finding a city-state that doesn't really help your agenda is kinda pointless b) find that city state early enough. Also, I'd normally want to use that GP towards my victory goals rather than give them away. The only GP's I would gift are GG, GAdmiral and GProphets (with only 1 spread left on them). The UU's while good come way too late to really help me dominate and hence not as strong as other pairings like Greece. In fact with all their similarities, I find Sweden to be a much weaker version of Greece.
 
Arabia 28
Aztecs 20
Babylon 21
Byzantium 20
Carthage 24
China 25
Egypt 8
England 19
Ethiopia 16
France 13
Greece 21
Inca 25
Iroquois 10
Japan 18
Korea 24
Maya 27
Mongolia 11
Netherlands 22
Ottoman Empire 17
Persia 17
Roman Empire 22
Russia 21
Siam 17
Songhai 2
Sweden 7

I much prefer more traditional form of land combat, so Mongolia really isn't suited to me.

The Ottomans are fantastic even if the map they're on isn't very coastal the Janissaries more than make up for it.
 
I can destroy the Songhai, but I also had success with them in my games. They can get a lot of gold even on Deity if you go hunt out barbs and play on the offensive. I think there is more to them than meets the eye.

Returning to the Songhai for my next Deity game is my plan, as it happens...

Sweden goes down. The UA is weird - if you have useless GP's you can gift them and gain some alliances with City States. However, you can easily get couped on the next turn, and boom goes the alliance... I'd love to see Sweden play a huge map with max civs, but that happens so rarely, and lasts so freaking long :(

The two elements of the UA aren't intended to work in isolation, although the UA is good enough that they can do.

I was on a Large rather than a Huge map in my last Sweden game (random map size, Immortal), and Austria ultimately ended up eating all the CSes I didn't ally, but I had 8 CS allies for most of the late game, only losing one to a coup on the pre-UN vote turn (which wasn't critical - thanks to Austria I only needed 9 votes to win by that point, and had the liberated Songhai, the UN and game-long ally Korea to call on). With most civs I can maintain a select few alliances, but having the ability to generate and gift GPs - and with a UA that makes it prudent to make as many allies as possible to farm the maximum number of GP gifts from Patronage - allowed me to hold onto many more CSes for longer, and more reliably, than I've experienced with other civs.

I down-voted Sweden because I find DoF rare as it is and diplomacy to be somewhat unpredictable. The GP gifting to city-states is marginally useful and to make it useful you'd need city-states that: a) is useful towards your victory condition, because finding a city-state that doesn't really help your agenda is kinda pointless

The only CSes that don't help any victory condition are religious (if you don't have a religion - but even then if you accumulate enough faith you can spend it on GPs in the late game) and mercantile (because while excess happiness is always useful, it's very often not worth the investment at least in the early game). There aren't really situations in which you can't use extra food, culture, or units to good effect. Nor, with the way CS bonuses scale by era, are CS bonuses only relevant in the early game.

In fact with all their similarities, I find Sweden to be a much weaker version of Greece

I have to say I find this bizarre. Greece has simplicity in its favour - its UA doesn't need to be worked at all - but on the other hand, it no longer actually does anything. There's no way in which being able to instantly gain 90 influence is weaker than gaining 2 rather than 1 influence a turn until you hit the resting influence limit. Unless it's changed in G&K (and the wording of the UA hasn't), Greece doesn't give you extra influence, it just has a very trivial effect on the rate at which you lose influence (or regain it up to the resting point following war, trespass, election-rigging etc.). An effect that is now much weaker than it was in vanilla as influence is easier to come by. Whatever the pros and cons of Greek UUs vs. other civs, as a diplo civ it's inherently inferior to Siam and Sweden - and by a long shot.
 
You might be right. The UA of Babylon is helpful IF you want a science victory. Sometimes I prefer gold rather than a boost in science....or maybe last time I played with Babylon I just don't know how to benefit from the GS given.

science benefits every aspect of the game. go warmongering with better units, get culture buildings faster, get to the wonders you need quicker, even get +gold buildings/wonders faster. it isnt just for a science vic.

techs are easily the most important resource in the game. if gives you access to everything you choose to build and every benefit that isnt your UA.
 
France: I have nothing wrong with France's ability from a gameplay or strategic standpoint but I find that the ability and the two unique units do not really fit from a flavor perspective. France's height in terms of power is the medieval, rennaissance, and the industrial eras; why should its ability be strongest in the ancient era? Furthermore, two unique units focuses France on conquest, which fits Napoleon's era certainly, but these UUs have nothing to do with France's culture, which I feel should be much more important. France should have a UA having to do with culture in the eras in which its culture flourished (rennaissance and industrial) in terms of art: maybe having to do with great artists? Free great artist at a certain tech or +50% artist production like Babylon's? And maybe a UB like a pastry bakery would be cool instead of two military units.

I agree that it is odd for France to flourish during the Ancient/Classical era, as France as a "nation" was not in existence until 500 AD, when Clovis united the Frankish tribes. But France has been powerful ever since, and their borders never really infringed on, so I can see why they get an early culture boost. A culture boost that started in the medeival era would not be so good.

However I disagree that French culture should be more important than French conquest. Until probably the Bourbon period, war was what the French were best known for, moreso than their own unique art/culture.
 
I have to say I find this bizarre. Greece has simplicity in its favour - its UA doesn't need to be worked at all - but on the other hand, it no longer actually does anything. There's no way in which being able to instantly gain 90 influence is weaker than gaining 2 rather than 1 influence a turn until you hit the resting influence limit. Unless it's changed in G&K (and the wording of the UA hasn't), Greece doesn't give you extra influence, it just has a very trivial effect on the rate at which you lose influence (or regain it up to the resting point following war, trespass, election-rigging etc.). An effect that is now much weaker than it was in vanilla as influence is easier to come by. Whatever the pros and cons of Greek UUs vs. other civs, as a diplo civ it's inherently inferior to Siam and Sweden - and by a long shot.

Actually, as MadDjinn pointed out in one of his videos on G&K, with Greece you can get to the point where you have no CS influence loss at all. That's not too trivial.
 
Korea with 4 cities all with amphitheaters running just that 1 artist specialist or markets running the 1 merchant specialist each will match Babylon's early academy BPT. Since amphitheater's and markets are both on the way to education, once Korea has both these buildings in 4 cities they will exceed Babylon's BPT and likely get to education first. Then once the universities are up, switching those 2 specialists to the universities and even though Babylon will produce a few extra GS's, Korea will still be in the tech lead. This in turn means Korea will be getting their other science buildings unlocked sooner, which will further increase the gap.

Then there's the tech boost when building science buildings in the capital. The smart player will make sure those buildings are up in the 2-4th cities first and maximize their BPT for the 8 turns prior to the capital completing its science building.

With Korea, you don't want to fill all your specialist slots all the time. Only fill them with a tech boost from building a science building in the capital, a RA is nearing completion or for the 8 turns prior to your bulb fest in the end game. The rest of the time only run your scientists for the GS generation and so you can grow the cities. The side benefit is more gold and culture so you can afford the RAs and get your SP's faster.
 
Arabia 28
Aztecs 20
Babylon 21
Byzantium 20
Carthage 24
China 25
Egypt 8
England 19
Ethiopia 16
France 13
Greece 21
Inca 25
Iroquois 10
Japan 15 (-3)
Korea 24
Maya 27
Mongolia 12 (+1)
Netherlands 22
Ottoman Empire 17
Persia 17
Roman Empire 22
Russia 21
Siam 17
Songhai 2
Sweden 7

This is a really tough thread to deal with objectively...many of the civs I've never tried. Of the ones I have played probably Japan is my least favourite, but that isn't really saying much... :)

Anyway...I think the Mongols are a fun civ to play...I don't know if they are my favourite, but the "hate" here surprises me. Those Keshiks are really great to deploy, particularly on a continental type map. Even if you are playing for victories other than domination they can keep the troublesome neighbours at bay... Also I kind of like Egypt....though I think they probably are more fun to have as an adversary...
 
Japan 15 (-3)

This is a really tough thread to deal with objectively...many of the civs I've never tried. Of the ones I have played probably Japan is my least favourite, but that isn't really saying much... :)

Pssst. :) Downvotes only get -2, not -3. :D

Corrected values are:


Arabia 28
Aztecs 20
Babylon 21
Byzantium 20
Carthage 24
China 25
Egypt 8
England 19
Ethiopia 16
France 13
Greece 21
Inca 25
Iroquois 10
Japan 16 (-2)
Korea 24
Maya 27
Mongolia 12 (+1)
Netherlands 22
Ottoman Empire 17
Persia 17
Roman Empire 22
Russia 21
Siam 17
Songhai 2
Sweden 7
 
Arabia 28
Aztecs 20
Babylon 21
Byzantium 20
Carthage 24
China 25
Egypt 8
England 19
Ethiopia 16
France 11 (-2)
Greece 21
Inca 25
Iroquois 10
Japan 16 (-2)
Korea 24
Maya 27
Mongolia 12 (+1)
Netherlands 22
Ottoman Empire 17
Persia 17
Roman Empire 22
Russia 21
Siam 17
Songhai 3 (+1)
Sweden 7

- France: I find Napoleons leader scene surprisingly uninspiring (thought the text for his backstabbs are kind of funny), I find that even if the +2 culture some how invites you to play a wide for a CV is it still to generic to be interesting. The Musketeer just feels like an odd gimick (and a bit OP) and the foreign legion has he oposite problem, intresting flavor wise, but not how it works (and what does its symbol mean, is it a train or what?).

+ Songhai: Because Civ needs more Sub Saharan African civs, and Songhai is an excellent choice, free extra culture temple makes them competative in early culture race, and anti city knights synergies nicely with their UA.

They are not the best civ but they deserves a better place than the bottom!
 
Arabia 28
Aztecs 21
Babylon 21
Byzantium 20
Carthage 22
China 25
Egypt 8
England 19
Ethiopia 16
France 11
Greece 21
Inca 25
Iroquois 10
Japan 16
Korea 24
Maya 27
Mongolia 12 (+1)
Netherlands 22
Ottoman Empire 17
Persia 17
Roman Empire 22
Russia 21
Siam 17
Songhai 3
Sweden 7

carthage... as already said i feel i play with standard units... if there is a usefulness to their UA or UU i missed it... in my last game i conquered most of the worldand build 3 ports ... ( 1per continent ...)
aztec... always my favorite at least there is an use to the swarm who keep getting thrown to you ;) get the pantheon where you get faith when unit destroyed near your city and you progress in faith and culture even when mosy of you neighbour decide as usual to destroy you
 
Arabia 28
Aztecs 21
Babylon 21
Byzantium 20
Carthage 22
China 25
Egypt 8
England 19
Ethiopia 16
France 11
Greece 21
Inca 25
Iroquois 8 (-2)
Japan 16
Korea 24
Maya 27
Mongolia 12
Netherlands 22
Ottoman Empire 17
Persia 17
Roman Empire 22
Russia 21
Siam 18 (+1)
Songhai 3
Sweden 7

I could never find a great use for the Iriquois' UA, but they can be flexible.

I've been playing as Siam, and their UA can be very rewarding, and they're a "tall" empire must-have.
 
Arabia 28
Aztecs 21
Babylon 21
Byzantium 20
Carthage 22
China 25
Egypt 8
England 19
Ethiopia 16
France 11
Greece 21
Inca 25
Iroquois 8
Japan 16
Korea 24
Maya 27
Mongolia 12
Netherlands 22
Ottoman Empire 17
Persia 17
Roman Empire 22
Russia 22
Siam 17
Songhai 3
Sweden 7
After playing a game as Iroquois I found them to have a few problems. Once you start expanding and conquering you might (I did) have trouble making use of the whole forest thing. though the UU is good while it lasts. out of those I have played on this list he gets the down.
After Playing a Russia game I fell in love the multiple iron and horses makes conquering in the early game about skill not luck because even if you only find a 2 iron mine, that four swords and horses are in abundance, the krespost means that your culture borders have an easier time naturally expanding into those resources. A horse unit lets you take advantage of the excess horses and its good, while extra uranium means that your enemies look like the desert out in New Mexico and have GDR`s running around. A well balanced, carefully crafted civ
 
I agree that it is odd for France to flourish during the Ancient/Classical era, as France as a "nation" was not in existence until 500 AD, when Clovis united the Frankish tribes. But France has been powerful ever since, and their borders never really infringed on, so I can see why they get an early culture boost. A culture boost that started in the medeival era would not be so good.

However I disagree that French culture should be more important than French conquest. Until probably the Bourbon period, war was what the French were best known for, moreso than their own unique art/culture.

I don't exactly mean a culture bonus that starts in the medieval age literally but one that would really start working at its most powerful at that time (at perhaps approximately that 500 AD date you gave for the unification of France). For instance, Korea kicks in at the late medieval/early rennaissance when you get universities up, or Babylon, which begins working at writing, but really kicks in when you get universities. That's just an example, though.

Well, I didn't mean necessarily that French should completely eclipse its conquest capabilities, but that the current mixture of TWO unique units instead of one unit and a unique culture building doesn't really reflect its legacy as a cultural power (I'm thinking primarily of the art created during the Impressionism/Post-Impressionism era, which fits I think very well with great artists). Perhaps a mixture of culture and war makes the most sense somehow?

BTW, what is the Bourbon period? When is that, exactly? I admit I'm not well-versed in French history.
 
Arabia 28
Aztecs 21
Babylon 21
Byzantium 20
Carthage 22
China 24
Egypt 8
England 19
Ethiopia 16
France 11
Greece 22
Inca 25
Iroquois 8
Japan 16
Korea 24
Maya 27
Mongolia 12
Netherlands 22
Ottoman Empire 17
Persia 17
Roman Empire 22
Russia 22
Siam 17
Songhai 3
Sweden 7

I find the whole Chinese strategy to contradict itself a little bit. Granted paper makers are nice, but they are off the path of Chus if you beeline them. The great general generation is meh, not really extremely useful.
I find the Greeks to be the most flexible civ. You can go culture allying all the Cultural CS. You can do the obvious diplo. You can even go domination with your and other civ's UUs. Very good civ.
 
I don't exactly mean a culture bonus that starts in the medieval age literally but one that would really start working at its most powerful at that time (at perhaps approximately that 500 AD date you gave for the unification of France). For instance, Korea kicks in at the late medieval/early rennaissance when you get universities up, or Babylon, which begins working at writing, but really kicks in when you get universities. That's just an example, though.

Well, I didn't mean necessarily that French should completely eclipse its conquest capabilities, but that the current mixture of TWO unique units instead of one unit and a unique culture building doesn't really reflect its legacy as a cultural power (I'm thinking primarily of the art created during the Impressionism/Post-Impressionism era, which fits I think very well with great artists). Perhaps a mixture of culture and war makes the most sense somehow?

BTW, what is the Bourbon period? When is that, exactly? I admit I'm not well-versed in French history.

From about 1600 until the French Revolution, the Bourbon family ruled France. Louis XIV, one of the French leaders in Civ IV, was the most famous of the Bourbon's. He is also sometimes called the Sun King. I don't know too much about French history specifically, but I know a little about Western European history in general.

On the whole I agree with you. But I guess the developers are in a tough spot, since France has been so successful militarily at so many times. Clovis, Charles Martel, and then Charlemagne. Later Napoleon and later still an enormous colonial empire. At the same time, they've been cultural leaders, both in art and ideas, for a very long time. As much as we in America like to take credit for Democracy, modern democracy was born in France. And as you mentioned, they've made more than their share of contributions to the arts.

But as much as I like historical accuracy, I guess I like how they did it because I've had good success with France :p That +2 culture right away allows quick access to social policies which makes them a great starter. And then once that benefit dies down you get Musketeer's, and then once Foreign Legion's come around you should be well on your way conquering people and that 20% Foreign Lands Bonus is huge.
 
I find the whole Chinese strategy to contradict itself a little bit. Granted paper makers are nice, but they are off the path of Chus if you beeline them. The great general generation is meh, not really extremely useful.

Paper Makers replace Libraries, and I don't know many people that skip those before machinery.
 
Paper Makers replace Libraries, and I don't know many people that skip those before machinery.

Yeah. Even if the UB and UU are on two different "lines", you'll eventually (or soon) get them anyways, so what difference does that make?
 
Back
Top Bottom