CanadianGloworm
Chieftain
Is there a Civ better than the rest?
What Civs do you enjoy playing as?
What Civs do you enjoy playing as?
Is there any 1 civ better than the rest
- Thread starter CanadianGloworm
- Start date
Malys Faisent
Croissant King
Depends on playstyle I think.
I like playing the French and building or conquering a large, bloated empire.
I also like playing the Babylonians and having so much culture that no one is even close to my standing.
And the Persians, wiping anyone out that is even close to me before AD.
Lastly the Greek, going massive turtle shell hoplite and being rude as all hell to everyone.
By and large I don't think that there is any one 'best' civ overall. However there are 'best' civs for certain styles of play...
I like playing the French and building or conquering a large, bloated empire.
I also like playing the Babylonians and having so much culture that no one is even close to my standing.
And the Persians, wiping anyone out that is even close to me before AD.
Lastly the Greek, going massive turtle shell hoplite and being rude as all hell to everyone.
By and large I don't think that there is any one 'best' civ overall. However there are 'best' civs for certain styles of play...
I actually agree with your assessment of the best civs to play. How strange.
Malys Faisent
Croissant King
Do you disagree with a bunch of other stuff I've babbled about?
Not that I have noticed. I just find it strange when I COMPLETELY agree with anybody about anything.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
So far, I've grown partial to Greece, which I've played three times. I prefer having either religon or science to allow for early culture points, but the real Greek appeal is that damn hoplite, which I've found to be a cheap antidote to AI expansionism when parked on distant mountain ranges or used to escort settlers.
Granted, I've only played five other civs (Russia, Germany, Rome, Aztecs and Japanese), but I've also noticed that Greece has never done badly as an AI player in any of those games. On the other hand, Rome and Egypt seem to keep getting their asses kicked.
Might try Bablyon next.
Granted, I've only played five other civs (Russia, Germany, Rome, Aztecs and Japanese), but I've also noticed that Greece has never done badly as an AI player in any of those games. On the other hand, Rome and Egypt seem to keep getting their asses kicked.
Might try Bablyon next.
Malys Faisent
Croissant King
"Great (or perhaps equally insane) minds think alike"
K
knowltok
Guest
One thing that I have heard about that no one has mentioned when comparing civilizations is their starting proximity. I have heard that civilizations have groups and start near others of their group. To my experience this is true. The Russians, Germans, French, and English start together. Americans, Iroquis, and Aztecs. The complete breakdown is done by color code on the official civ site in the developer update area. I haven't thought through it yet, but I wanted to get the idea out there. I think people have been comparing the civs in a vacuum so to speak. I think it may be important to think about who you will be starting close to.
I've played the english in the last 2 games, cause of commerical (less corruption and extra commerce in city squares) and expansionist (scout). I always end up near Germany, and since we become the 2 most powerfull nations and allies they help me conquer the world!
Buecephalus
Bolo Mark XXV
I would echo the sentiments above and add that the Babylonians are a lot of fun to win a cultural victory with. They discover things quickly and absorb other cities like Bounty paper towels. "Babylonia, the quicker-picker upper!"
And yes, the Greeks and Persians special units rock. Send a swarm of Immortals down on somebody and they'll be begging you to leave them alone!
Do or do not, there is no try.
And yes, the Greeks and Persians special units rock. Send a swarm of Immortals down on somebody and they'll be begging you to leave them alone!
Do or do not, there is no try.
K
knowltok
Guest
OIS:
Were you able to get any benefit out of the man of war? I haven't played the english yet, but my estimation is that it is one of the weaker unique units.
Were you able to get any benefit out of the man of war? I haven't played the english yet, but my estimation is that it is one of the weaker unique units.
Malys Faisent
Croissant King
I think that this is generally somewhat true, but it is not always so. Certain nations are more likely to be near each other, but its not automatic. My current game the French, English, Germans, and Russians were all separated by at least one other nation, same with the Americans, Aztec, and Iroquios. Its actually kind of interesting since these nations have all somewhat allied with one another.
OneInTen
Darkness bound
I was playing a 16 div game, and when I retired (each move was just taking too damn long so I got sick of it), the Egyptians were slightly ahead of me (the French) on points, and it was a sizable gap to third.
The Romans on the other hand were running dead last as you predicted.
Arrian
Warlord
While it doesn't happen EVERY time, the game is coded to place you next to civs that historically bordered yours (Russians/Germans, English/French, etc.).
This can be important. I tried the Russians twice on Regent level and Bismarck was rude, nasty, and demanding right from the start. Oddly, the Zulus are coded to pop up near the Babylonians, and just as oddly, I've only had trouble with them once out of three games.
The Iroquois start near the Aztecs and Americans... which could be a pain due to the Jag warriors, but keep in mind that the Sioux, oops I mean the Iroquois, get the Mounted Warrior, which is infinitely superior to the Jag. I had GREAT success with that little unit and conquered so much territory early on that I was set for the rest of the game, give or take a small speedbump here and there (oh, sorry Hammurabi, was that you?).
I have yet to play the Chinese or Japanese, but I can imagine dealing with hordes of samurai or riders would suck.
Ok, I'll stop rambling now...
-Arrian
This can be important. I tried the Russians twice on Regent level and Bismarck was rude, nasty, and demanding right from the start. Oddly, the Zulus are coded to pop up near the Babylonians, and just as oddly, I've only had trouble with them once out of three games.
The Iroquois start near the Aztecs and Americans... which could be a pain due to the Jag warriors, but keep in mind that the Sioux, oops I mean the Iroquois, get the Mounted Warrior, which is infinitely superior to the Jag. I had GREAT success with that little unit and conquered so much territory early on that I was set for the rest of the game, give or take a small speedbump here and there (oh, sorry Hammurabi, was that you?).
I have yet to play the Chinese or Japanese, but I can imagine dealing with hordes of samurai or riders would suck.
Ok, I'll stop rambling now...
-Arrian
Ditto on all the commentary about how wonderful the Greeks are. Also, being Commercial seems to help 'the corruption problem,' and the fact that you can build libraries faster helps your culture.Hoplites rule!
For the rare game in which I want to do military conquest, the Aztecs are a good choice for an earlier win... with a fast unit, and Militaristic, they can expand fast and keep rolling over AI civs at the point in which my Greek games are usually going 'turtle civ' building city improvements.
LeSphinx
Bachogwa
For me, there is no best civ than other.
There are different civ which may be used differently according to
the style of play you like.
Go for Cultural War or Space race will be easiest for me with the French or the Babylionans.
That is why is a great game!
According to my way of playing, I will play (Space Race, Cultural View and Diplomatics), some civ are best to play with.
LeSphinx
There are different civ which may be used differently according to
the style of play you like.
Go for Cultural War or Space race will be easiest for me with the French or the Babylionans.
That is why is a great game!
According to my way of playing, I will play (Space Race, Cultural View and Diplomatics), some civ are best to play with.
LeSphinx
Sam_Catchem
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2001
- Messages
- 350
I don't think there is one great civ. They are all great. I think it is just a matter of style. I have heard such a wide range of opinions..and everybody seems to come up with different reason for this and that. That is what is cool about this game...finding your style..playing it your way...or trying to figure out how to play it another. It is so danged flexible..no one way to win..many ways to lose. That is what is so cool...you can win with any civ...it is all how you play it. very very awesome...I have fun trying different things. I haven't had this much fun with a game since..well..civ2. I usually cannot play many games..because they become boring after little play....this one has got huge replayability.<--is that a word?
Anyways..no..no greatest civ. I intend to play the hell out of all of'em!
Anyways..no..no greatest civ. I intend to play the hell out of all of'em!
ChickinSht
Small woodland creature
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2001
- Messages
- 74
India. Why? So you don't have to put up with all thier crap. In all the games I've played, India has always been extremely agressive, expansionistic to an extreme (more than other AI players) and in the top 3, except in my most recent game when I started right next to them and was able to almost completely contain any expansion from the start.
)Similar threads
