ashendashin
King
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2016
- Messages
- 989
They always do well in my games, but maybe it depends on the map.
General Leader Discussion
- Thread starter Funak
- Start date
Dawnpromise
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2016
- Messages
- 422
It has to do with how the AI runs them. They tend to favor rapid peaceful expansion and science. I have never seen them start a War, and most civs don't want to to fight them due to their technology lead and size so they spend most of the game playing city builder.
Strigvir
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2013
- Messages
- 1,299
Having forest start bias and free pass in the forests is pretty good for AI, since it stalls early war attempts before they get to UU. They don't provide anything interesting for the player however.
I had an idea to replace UB with UI which uses the forest graphics and benefits from forest-related bonuses with some position limitations, so they wouldn't depend on a terrain feature which dwindles heavily in the course of a game.
Starrynite120
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2015
- Messages
- 472
I have a very different experience. Whenever I'm near them I prepare for an invasion, because they tend to declare war on me. Once they did before turn 100.
Dawnpromise
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2016
- Messages
- 422
In my experience they usually end up being REALLY friendly, as end they end up friends forever with every civ who isn't militarily inclined. They only seem to declare war on people settling up land they want. I tend to favor tall play so I rarely provoke them.
I've experienced this, too.
In fact, it's almost impossible to defend against them if they attack your city that has a natural wonder nearby. The combat bonus for being near a natural wonder should really only apply if that NW is within your own borders...
It'll be theirs soon don't worry.
Gokudo01
Emperor
you are seriously thinking about nerf polynesia ? is it a cool feature ? Polynesia, the wonder crusaders ?
No, the natural wonder will be in their borders soon (through war) so soon the rules concern will be irrelevant.
G
LukaSlovenia29
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2016
- Messages
- 1,500
It's been around 5 months since we last did some general leader ranking - how have all the changes impacted your ranking of civs?
Just for fun, I compiled a ranking from this community survey (created by Grabbl):
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/the-vox-populi-player-statistic.620720/
Each time a civ received a vote for strongest Player or AI civ I added +1, while each vote for the weakest Player or AI was worth -1. Elite tier (S, S+) is a score above 30, A+ is 20-29, A is 10-19, etc. all the way down to C which is -40 or below. The results are
S+ Poland, Mongolia
S Ethiopia, Songhai
A+ Aztec, Zulu, Inca, Carthage, Maya, Rome
A China, Arabia, Iroquois, Greece, Celts, Shoshone
A- Babylon, Indonesia, Huns, Korea, Egypt, Polynesia, Russia
B+ Sweden, Persia, England, Byzantium, Ottomans, Brazil
B Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Japan, India, America, Denmark
B- France, Siam, Assyria, Spain, Morocco, Portugal
C+ --
C Venice
There was also a question about how interesting each civ is to play. I checked which civs are in the top 30% or bottom 30% by strength, and also top 30% or bottom 30% by how interesting they are to play. Results:
Strong and Interesting
China, Mongolia, Rome, The Inca
Strong but Uninteresting
Ethiopia, Poland, Songhai, The Zulu
Weak but Interesting
India, Japan, Venice
Weak and Uninteresting
France, Morocco, Siam
Some unique results:
- Venice was voted both by far the weakest yet also the most interesting to play!
- Korea received zero votes for most interesting civ even though they can win games.
- Mongolia & The Aztecs were the only two to receive zero votes combined for weakest civ.
- Nobody pays much attention to Persia. They only received 17 votes in all 5 categories combined.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/the-vox-populi-player-statistic.620720/
Each time a civ received a vote for strongest Player or AI civ I added +1, while each vote for the weakest Player or AI was worth -1. Elite tier (S, S+) is a score above 30, A+ is 20-29, A is 10-19, etc. all the way down to C which is -40 or below. The results are
S+ Poland, Mongolia
S Ethiopia, Songhai
A+ Aztec, Zulu, Inca, Carthage, Maya, Rome
A China, Arabia, Iroquois, Greece, Celts, Shoshone
A- Babylon, Indonesia, Huns, Korea, Egypt, Polynesia, Russia
B+ Sweden, Persia, England, Byzantium, Ottomans, Brazil
B Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Japan, India, America, Denmark
B- France, Siam, Assyria, Spain, Morocco, Portugal
C+ --
C Venice
There was also a question about how interesting each civ is to play. I checked which civs are in the top 30% or bottom 30% by strength, and also top 30% or bottom 30% by how interesting they are to play. Results:
Strong and Interesting
China, Mongolia, Rome, The Inca
Strong but Uninteresting
Ethiopia, Poland, Songhai, The Zulu
Weak but Interesting
India, Japan, Venice
Weak and Uninteresting
France, Morocco, Siam
Some unique results:
- Venice was voted both by far the weakest yet also the most interesting to play!
- Korea received zero votes for most interesting civ even though they can win games.
- Mongolia & The Aztecs were the only two to receive zero votes combined for weakest civ.
- Nobody pays much attention to Persia. They only received 17 votes in all 5 categories combined.
Last edited:
tu_79
Deity
Siam is seriously underrated. Just don't play at the highest difficulties and watch.
I don't think the poll reflects more recent changes. Siam and India are both very good civs (I voted for both in my top 5). The Aztec are much weaker than they used to be, an update took away 1/3 of their yields for kills. AI Mongolia used to be terrifying because he could tribute so easily, but its not the case anymore. Similar with the Maya, on high difficulties the Mayan AI was just insane, but after the Kuna moved he is a fair civ.
I think Ethiopia is really weak after the monuments update.He hasn't done well in any games I played this patch and his abilities just seem awful to me. In particular, he is outclassed by India or the Celts.
I think Ethiopia is really weak after the monuments update.He hasn't done well in any games I played this patch and his abilities just seem awful to me. In particular, he is outclassed by India or the Celts.
Gokudo01
Emperor
About Ethiopia, I've got the same feeling, no more super run away since the last change to policy cost + monument. ( reminder : monument has been tweaked from + 1 culture to + 2 but Ethiopian unique building which was already at +2 has not been changed )
The only way I'd change venice would be to make it so they had some buff on the distance they could make a trade route from their cap. I guess I play different sized maps/less Civs than most people, but I have had games where I have been unable to trade with anyone when I get to trade, and that kind of sucks. Plus as 'the trading Civ' it would be nice.
It is a decent buff, but is it the kind of buff that would make them overpowered? I dunno.
Venice is fine really I don't know why people kept complaining. Now with the medieval policy tree, they are actually interesting to play as now since you don't have to rely on Statescraft since you usually don't even found religions or have enough strong cities to benefit from Aesthetics.
Artistry and Fealty creates great bonuses for Venice already much better than the respective Aesthetics and Piety. Although they took a big nerf in one of the patch that make culture and science rate in puppeted cities go from 75% to 60%. They make up for it in that social policy cost do not go up as they conquer more. THIS IS HUGE and promotes a stronger and more viable strategy as Authority Venice.
Artistry and Fealty creates great bonuses for Venice already much better than the respective Aesthetics and Piety. Although they took a big nerf in one of the patch that make culture and science rate in puppeted cities go from 75% to 60%. They make up for it in that social policy cost do not go up as they conquer more. THIS IS HUGE and promotes a stronger and more viable strategy as Authority Venice.
LukaSlovenia29
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2016
- Messages
- 1,500
It's been a while since this thread was active, with many changes implemented since then.
Taking that into account, what are, in your opinion, generally the 5 weakest civs for humans to play with on Pangea/Oval map, standard size&speed and standard settings (+ no events or ancient ruins)?
My thoughts, considering I'm usually playing on Immortal and sometimes on Deity (I'm omitting Venice because it's such an outlier in so many ways):
1. Austria (imho the weakest bonuses to its early game)
2. Germany (also generally starts with little bonuse to its early game)
And that's where my list ends, as I have no idea how to rank the rest of the civs. (I'm omitting Venice because it's such an outlier in so many ways) The rest of the civs all seem to have something to lean on in the early and early-mid game that enables the human player to carve out a decent position to carry into the mid game.
Your thoughts?
Taking that into account, what are, in your opinion, generally the 5 weakest civs for humans to play with on Pangea/Oval map, standard size&speed and standard settings (+ no events or ancient ruins)?
My thoughts, considering I'm usually playing on Immortal and sometimes on Deity (I'm omitting Venice because it's such an outlier in so many ways):
1. Austria (imho the weakest bonuses to its early game)
2. Germany (also generally starts with little bonuse to its early game)
And that's where my list ends, as I have no idea how to rank the rest of the civs. (I'm omitting Venice because it's such an outlier in so many ways) The rest of the civs all seem to have something to lean on in the early and early-mid game that enables the human player to carve out a decent position to carry into the mid game.
Your thoughts?
tu_79
Deity
The early game only matters when you start next to a warmonger. In such cases you are almost forced to pick Authority just to survive.
I was playing Austria a few months ago and it really is strong.
The weakest civ I've played, I'd say it's Babylon. But that was before the extra culture on walls. Don't know right now. I've also struggled with France, but that could be caused by having a strong defensive neighbour in the only place I could expand. And I feel a bit ashamed, but I wasn't able to make India work lately, since the changes to happiness.
They are definitely hard to play early on, but you are pretty much forced to play Authority with them and it is going to be okay. Their late-game bonuses negate weakness of Authority.
I mean usually you take Authority to crush someone's face and this is you game-starting advantage. Usually if you took Authority and didn't capture your neighbour - you are screwed because Authority is a peace of crap starting from Medeival. But with Germany and Austria you take it to defend and survive, you do not go for conquest, you develop your early infrastructure using those free hammers. This carries you through early game and after that your bonuses are insane and you do not need early-game advantage that you lost because you didn't war.
Speaking of weakest civs i haven't played much lately, but i always hated Russia
