Civilzation you hate most

What civ do you hate playing against most?

  • Americans/Native Americans

    Votes: 6 3.2%
  • Mongols

    Votes: 2 1.1%
  • Arabians

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • Carthaginians

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • Zulus

    Votes: 26 14.1%
  • Aztecs/Mayans/Inca

    Votes: 33 17.8%
  • Holy Romans

    Votes: 5 2.7%
  • Turks

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • French

    Votes: 7 3.8%
  • Germans/Dutch

    Votes: 2 1.1%
  • Koreans

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • Babylonians/Sumerians

    Votes: 7 3.8%
  • Spanish/Portuguese

    Votes: 18 9.7%
  • Russians

    Votes: 9 4.9%
  • Malinese/Ethiopians

    Votes: 12 6.5%
  • Egyptians

    Votes: 2 1.1%
  • Chinese

    Votes: 2 1.1%
  • Japanese

    Votes: 21 11.4%
  • Celts

    Votes: 2 1.1%
  • Romans

    Votes: 5 2.7%
  • Vikings

    Votes: 2 1.1%
  • Greeks/Byzantines

    Votes: 4 2.2%
  • Indians/Khmer

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • Persians

    Votes: 1 0.5%
  • Can't Remember the other one!

    Votes: 8 4.3%

  • Total voters
    185

lutzj

The Last Thing You See
Joined
Mar 6, 2006
Messages
1,693
Location
New England
Charlie is a new additon on the list of people you may hate, just wanted to see is Monty and Shaka still have as many enemies.
 
Ugg, Russia. Especially under Cathy.
 
The zulu are bad usually because they build 4 things and four things only. Settlers, workers, barracks, military. They don't seem to build anythign else like libraries, they will murder you if you don't slaughter them as soon as you see them. The longer you let them have a foothold the worse they will be.
 
Isabella.
I like her and I want not to harm her.But I have to kill her.
 
shouldn't American/NA, Mali/Ethiopia, etc. be seperate choices? and the ottomans are really turks...

i hate playing against AIs that end up being total milquetoasts, like Roosevelt or Charlie.

at least with monty or shaka you can expect them to be aggressive gits, even though the AI is not very effective tactically or strategically. mansa and the techwhores not only provide a challenge in space race, but valuable trade partners in attaining the victory sooner.

cathy, hannibal, zara, and joao tend to be my most interesting opponents overall.
 
I voted Russia too. I feel like every leader from Russia is insane, especially Stalin and Catherine, but I never really trust any of them. They're unpredictable and crazy.
 
Native America. Land-grabbing and exceptionally difficult to rush at any point really. Ugh.
 
Meso-americans and the ruskies. Meso-americans because there agressive and scary! (Quechas and Jaguars eeeek!) and ruskies cause there jus crazy!
 
I was thinking of Arab to thought jus cause they get RLY good tech traits.

EDIT: sorry for double post!
 
Why "Spanish/Portuguese"?

Joao II and Isabella have different personalities and traits, Portugal and Spain have different unique units and buildings... and different playing styles!

Am I the only one who thinks that this thread makes very little or no sense at all? :crazyeye:
 
I voted Russia too. I feel like every leader from Russia is insane, especially Stalin and Catherine, but I never really trust any of them. They're unpredictable and crazy.

I've never had a problem with Peter. For some reason I tend to get Stalin or Catheriine in BTS unless I specifically select Peter.
 
Is there a limit on the number of poll options or something?

that's the reason for the Spainish/Portuguese, etc., I admit that I may have ,ade a few mistakes with the pairings, but with the new civs in BTS i am forced to do that kind of thing or else go over the 25 options-per-poll limit. It's a necessary evil though, prevents polls with 100's of options:rolleyes:

The zulu are bad usually because they build 4 things and four things only. Settlers, workers, barracks, military. They don't seem to build anythign else like libraries, they will murder you if you don't slaughter them as soon as you see them. The longer you let them have a foothold the worse they will be.

they can do that too, thanks to their UB. it lets them continue to tech a a decent rate ecen while they expand/conquer like crazy. Shaka's traits don't help the situation either.:(
 
France, especially under Napoleon. I swear, if you don't wipe him out, he just keeps on attacking you. You beat him into the ground and, out of laziness, let him live, and he will crawl back up like a bloody zombie.
 
France, especially under Napoleon. I swear, if you don't wipe him out, he just keeps on attacking you. You beat him into the ground and, out of laziness, let him live, and he will crawl back up like a bloody zombie.

that's eerily historically accurate
 
If I lose, it's in the early game, when I'm obsessively building basic infrastructure (granary, barracks, courthouse, monument, forge) and ignoring my military. Thus, the early rushers are my bane. Alexander, Montezuma, Shaka, Ragnar, etc. The guys who take time to reach the boiling point aren't usually a problem. They're dead before they become a problem. I just need a few dozen turns to satisfy my builder compulsions...

When I'm playing with a leader who has a strong, ancient/classical UU, I sometimes become crazier than Monteuma, but I generally prefer to do my warring in the later eras.
 
Shaka is just annoying, he is like a smarter more sane version of Monty as he attacks with not obsoleted forces. His millitary force is insanely high now matter what kind of land he is given! He can build units even if his land is some icy tundra with no hills! The faster I kill him off, the better life is for everyone
 
Cathrine. I've never forgiven her for turning on me when we were supposed to be friends and brother and sister in the faith.
 
Carthage...I can never keep up with Hannibal's score :crazyeye:
 
Top Bottom