Civs that Give You Fits

[CivMcNut]

I was chugging along winning game after game at a difficulty level right for me until I came along with Portugal. That civ gives me fits. They do get a nice UB if you're playing with a lot of coast, but apart from that, their only leader Joa, has the the traits of expansive and imperialistic, which are great for early REXing, but hardly good if you want something that helps you win in the end game.

First time I played with them was an archipeligo where I lost to Ghandi by 9 turns (his culture to my space ship). Since then I've had two maps where I uncharacteristically gave up and restarted after playing awhile. My current game with them just seems to have settled into a middle ages funk.

I guess my question for discussion is, has anyone else had some similar experiences where they just couldn't really figure out how to play a certain civ very well on a difficulty level (but otherwise did fine with other civs). I'm guessing a lot of it has to do with playstyle, and what you enjoy doing.

 

[madscientist]

There are two that come to mind (I have not played Joao myself yet).

1) Charlemange. Prot/IMp. No fast buildings (except walls and castles), a UU that's OK, weak starting techs in Myst/Hunting, and one of the better UB's. The think is to get through the game where you can leverage the UB with a vastly growing empire. A tough guy to start with, but OK once the UB kicks in.

2) Boudica: Same techs as Charles. No helful fast building except for the barracks. Easy to want to start slamming people with an early rush, which is very difficult. Week UU/UB. When not warring pretty much stagnant. The key to her is founding a shrining an early religion to pay for your military costs.

Honorable mention: Wang.

 

[CivMcNut]

Funny your top two are ones were the first two I played and had a pretty good game with. Boudica is nice for a military style win. I like having units with cheap promotions and start out with combat I, that's a pretty good combo, you're right though that unique building and unit are for the birds. A swordsman with a hills upgrade won't get you squat a lot of times unless you're playing on a highlands map or something like that.

I think I won diplomatically when I played Charlemagne. He's better suited to turtle I suppose, but one thing is he can defend with fewer archers/gunpowders given those promotions, and leave more of your troops to go out and go on the offensive. I liked that UB, it's the best one I've seen yet. That imperialistic trait is one of the ones Joao has, I don't like it. I'd rather have philosophocial and have great people emerging quicker than a general. Faster settler production only helps the early game out.

 

[Catan_Settler]

Montezuma, when he's my closest neighbour.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I can't seem to do ANYTHING with Ghengis.

On the flip side, a far-spawned HC is a nightmare. I hate the incan garbage AI. They ALWAYS seem to be score leader out of the AI, whoring wonders and using his trait to gain a massive tech lead if left untouched. Problem is, when you start in the ancient ages and he's across continent (or on a different one), he's not going to be touched. Comically, the ai always founds an early religion with him and spreads it around so he gets like 2-3 allies too. Joy!

 

[bioelectricclam]

I hate playing against Mansa Musa: he always peace-mongers with the Apostolic Palace (usually when I'm the one who founded the religion and built the wonder) and rapid expands all over the map.

 

[theskald]

On the flip side, a far-spawned HC is a nightmare. I hate the incan garbage AI. They ALWAYS seem to be score leader out of the AI, whoring wonders and using his trait to gain a massive tech lead if left untouched. Problem is, when you start in the ancient ages and he's across continent (or on a different one), he's not going to be touched. Comically, the ai always founds an early religion with him and spreads it around so he gets like 2-3 allies too. Joy!

Oh man, I thought that only kept happening to me! I find that the only way to stop him is to scare him by expanding very near him and building up an army, even if you don't intend to use it. Other than that, forget it, the guy is worse than Musa, at least for me.

One I just can't figure out is Maya. I would say Charlemagne, but my current game with him is actually going quite well (thanks only to the Rathaus, -75% maintenance is huge). BUt Maya I definitely don't get, unless my opponent makes nothing but horse archers and only horse archers.

 

[Shadzy19]

As civs im playing I really really dont understand how to use SB, crappy UU , UB traits and starting techs.

Civs I hate to play aigenst is mainly Gilgamesh , protective + creative is a nightmare to attack both early and late and he always gets a huge empire.

 

[lordqarlyn]

The Zulu's always seem to love picking on me, and they do an excellent job at it too.

Napoleon (but not the other French leaders) seems to enjoy being a backstabber.

 

[Verge]

van Oranje grinds my gears. He aims for victory consistently, comprehensively, and effectively.

 

[Philippe_Fantus]

Evil opponents:
Montezuma, for always declaring war .
Huayna Capac, for reasons stated above and he is strong in culture too.
Mansa Musa, for always being the leader in the tech race.
Gilgamesh, just because I don't like his guts in the endgame where he gets real big in your face with his animation .

 

[Monkeyfinger]

A tech whore by itself isn't scary. I hate mansa musa because of how he tends to drag people up to his level. He'll hand his technological bounty to the likes of Shaka and I'll get real pissed off. Hate that stupid crap.

 

[Sjaramei]

I can play all civs reasonably well now regardless of traits UU/UB's etc, but civs that starts with hunting/mysticism gives me fits. The start is so slow compared to the others, and worker 1st doesn't work very well. (It will be unemployed a lot sadly)
The main problem is with heavily forested starts. Having to tech Bronze working and agriculture just to get some farms up is evil. (even worse if your main food resource is cattle etc) I regen a lot more with these guys just to get a start where I don't get mad during the first turns

(This sucks, cause some of the best warmongering trait combos belong to these guys, Cha/Spi is so awesome to play midgame )

 

[Monkeyfinger]

I keep forgetting that I'm unusual in having seen the topic describing what bug causes those forest starts, and having fixed it in my game.

 

[madscientist]

I think the OP meant leaders you start with, not neighbors.

The one neighbor I detest is Suryamanan. He is nuts, creative, and militarily agressive. I have had him send a stack against me from halway across a Pangea map.

 

[oyzar]

I keep forgetting that I'm unusual in having seen the topic describing what bug causes those forest starts, and having fixed it in my game.

Modding the gamefiles directly is unfortunate when you play multiplayer as the game gives warning about players with different game files(after all it is possible to mod better condition for oneselves and hence abuse it as cheating). There are a ton of bugs with the game and the fact that fraxis don't fix it is really unfortunate.

 

[bestbrian]

I've had a tough time playing Brennus; I just don't "get" him. Had ALOT of fun playing Shaka. Absolutely HATE Catherine (my current game, someone killed her off before 3000 BC - YES!). Monty is an absolute clown and Napolean is a world-class backstabber. But the one I find most annoying, and the reason, is in my sig.

 

[AmazonQueen]

People I dislike playing - Joao, SB, GK
Joao I've never managed to utilise him effectively, SB is boring, and if you want to play a warmonger there are much better leaders than GK for the purpose

 

[Xurr]

Mine is Hammurabi simply because he won't shut up. He'll ask to trade/ cancel a trade every turn or every other turn.

 

[Refar]

Zara Jakob. That grunting he gives you as greeting makes me really mad.