Least versatile civ

[ahawk]

Alright, well, I started a thread a little ago about the MOST versatile civ and found that there are many we all might consider versatile, depending on how you define 'versatile' itself.

Again, to me, 'versatile' means rarely having to re-roll a start. With random map settings, the least versatile civ will be the one needing to re-roll often to get a particular map type and/or size or start location.

Thus, it may be much easier to debate what civs are the LEAST versatile (at least in single player).

The obvious starting ground is going to be with naval-oriented civs: England, Ottomans, Polynesia, and Denmark.

Of the primarily naval civs, I'd consider the Ottomans the worst. The Ottoman UA is pretty much worthless, as there's not a substantial benefit to having a huge navy of galleys, other than to blockade and take out the occassional embarked units. This is incredibly not-versatile, meaning the UA is worthless on anything but archapeligo and very sea-based games. Beyond the UA, the Ottoman UUs (a musketman replacement and a lancer replacement with extra speed and sight) are not phenomenal, either. Aside from the natural aversion to muskets, the Janissary is the same as a musket on defense, and can be upgraded with just a tech or two more than the originally required tech. And the Sipahi is situational, too, since single-player games rarely feature as much mounted combat as multiplayer would (even in MP, a very hilly map would limit the Sipahi). Moreover, the situation best for the Ottoman UA (great amounts of sea) would be the situation worst for the Sipahi (vast open land), meaning the Sipahi and the UA have absolutely no synergy.

England has some of the same problems, but +2 movement means at least exploration is easier, and the Longbow is not a bad UU. Also, at least they have a naval UU to better utilize their naval UA, unlike the Ottomans.

Denmark has great synergy between UA and UU (Berserker), but again relies on the map having to be very sea-oriented. In a high sea archepeligo situation, Denmark (and the Polynesians) can quickly start mayhem, but Denmark (unlike Polynesia) has to wait to research the proper techs to embark, making an early game high-sea rush not quite as practical for them. The Ski-Inf is obviously situational, too, needing snow and/or hills.

Polynesia is probably the strongest of the four naval civs. The unique improvement can aid with culture and combat, the UU is useful, and the UA, though still situational, lets you explore easier on almost any map.

Another fairly situational civ (at least IMO), is India. The UA means smaller maps are probably better suited to India (duel and tiny in particular). The UU is alright, but aside from not needing horses to build, the War Elephant is nothing too special when considering a spearman is still going to be a huge deterrent despite the enhanced combat strength. The UB is good for the 2 culture points it adds, but having to wait until Flight for its gold bonus means its not a phenomenal UB until rather late.

Again, all just IMHO. I'm interested to see who else you all would include (Mongolia maybe, probably Japan). I'm all ears.

 

[Cheeseisgood]

Least versatile? I'd say one of the terrain orientated Civs. I find that Incas, Aztecs and Iroquis (spelling?) are pretty frustrating to play as I don't like having to micromanage the type of terrain that's around me. I don't like having to designate which patches of forest/jungle are chopped and which stay, and trying to settle the Incas by mountains/hills often proves to be an annoyance which forces me to reroll.

 

[GenjiKhan]

Spanish is also a least versatile civ,because their start bias isn't near a natural wonder,which is critical for their success . I would Include Germany and Songhai,but their abilities are very useful when you get Honor and if you're playing at sea maps,then you'd just need Optics and probably Astronomy .

 

[ahawk]

Least versatile? I'd say one of the terrain orientated Civs. I find that Incas, Aztecs and Iroquis (spelling?) are pretty frustrating to play as I don't like having to micromanage the type of terrain that's around me. I don't like having to designate which patches of forest/jungle are chopped and which stay, and trying to settle the Incas by mountains/hills often proves to be an annoyance which forces me to reroll.

Usually, but not always, if you have start-bias enabled (under advanced set-up, defaulted to enabled), you'll get the proper land for your civ 75% or so of the time. This way Arabia tends to be on or near deserts (to eventually get oil), Inca get hills, Aztec get a lake or two, Iroquois get forest, and so on and so forth. It may not always happen, especially if your map type would stand in the way (obviously England won't be on or near a coast if the map has no water), but it's a default feature.

But I agree that those you listed are at least more limited than, say, Babylon (whose UA has nothing to do with terrain, their UB has nothing to do with terrain, and the UU is just an excellent all-around UU).

 

[ahawk]

Spanish is also a least versatile civ,because their start bias isn't near a natural wonder,which is critical for their success . I would Include Germany and Songhai,but their abilities are very useful when you get Honor and if you're playing at sea maps,then you'd just need Optics and probably Astronomy .

As soon as I posted, I starting read down the list of civs and thought about Spain, and I think you're right. A UU that has the ability to settle cities on other continents is highly situational, and the UA depends too much on the (often random) placement of wonders all around the map.

Germany can field larger armies for less, which is always useful, even without barbs.

The Songhai I might agree again, though. Embarked units being able to defend themselves is not very useful unless playing Multiplayer (weak naval AI to blame again) and getting triple gold for barb encampments will depend not only on map placement, but also on what neighbors you have (Germany and Songhai would probably be interesting neighbors, in that respect).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Of the primarily naval civs, I'd consider the Ottomans the worst. The Ottoman UA is pretty much worthless, as there's not a substantial benefit to having a huge navy of galleys, other than to blockade and take out the occassional embarked units. This is incredibly not-versatile, meaning the UA is worthless on anything but archapeligo and very sea-based games. Beyond the UA, the Ottoman UUs (a musketman replacement and a lancer replacement with extra speed and sight) are not phenomenal, either. Aside from the natural aversion to muskets, the Janissary is the same as a musket on defense, and can be upgraded with just a tech or two more than the originally required tech. And the Sipahi is situational, too, since single-player games rarely feature as much mounted combat as multiplayer would (even in MP, a very hilly map would limit the Sipahi). Moreover, the situation best for the Ottoman UA (great amounts of sea) would be the situation worst for the Sipahi (vast open land), meaning the Sipahi and the UA have absolutely no synergy.

IMO your issue with the ottomans is taking the abilities at face value instead of looking to how they progress.

A large stack o garbage can be upgraded somewhat cheaply; this includes the barb galley nonsense you grabbed early on. This kind of naval pressure is difficult for the AI to match and adds extra oomph hitting cities for the entire game.

His UUs are interesting also. At least 1 siph is useful for sight + pillaging, but its the musket replacement that really shines. It's just so-so as a janissary, but when you upgrade it? Yeah, it keeps getting its bonuses, and an insta-heal after everything you kill is no joke.

England has some of the same problems, but +2 movement means at least exploration is easier, and the Longbow is not a bad UU. Also, at least they have a naval UU to better utilize their naval UA, unlike the Ottomans.

Murderbows are crazy sick, and when you can't use them you probably have water.

Denmark is indeed situational.

Polynesia is good on pretty much everything except pangaea and not bad there. Meeting civs earlier = earlier RA, more gold from city states, etc etc.

Another fairly situational civ (at least IMO), is India. The UA means smaller maps are probably better suited to India (duel and tiny in particular). The UU is alright, but aside from not needing horses to build, the War Elephant is nothing too special when considering a spearman is still going to be a huge deterrent despite the enhanced combat strength. The UB is good for the 2 culture points it adds, but having to wait until Flight for its gold bonus means its not a phenomenal UB until rather late.

UA is top tier and the UB is decent. Not sure how you'd hate on this guy. He expands better than you think.

I'd probably put luck-box needing spain at #1, followed by Denmark.

 

[fmlizard2]

Nah, Spain is still versatile. No matter what (assuming you bother to explore) they still get +6 and 600 in the first half of the game that nobody else gets. It is very rare that I play a Spain game and don't sight 1-2 NWs first, getting me another 500-1500 free early . That's a lot of RAs/alliances/buildings/whatever that gets any game off on a good foot. Hell hath no fury like Spain when it finds early El Dorado or GBR for 1000 and a free army on turn 12 or something.

Plus, their UUs are both solid. They work in harmony...Tercios crushing mounted units and Conquistadors busting up ranged units and sacking cities with their no penalty vs. cities trait. Neither UU depends on any sort of terrain type to be successful. Your most critical combat time in a game tends to be right when these units rule the world...the time when an early infrastructure start (NC, GL, etc.) can make its first realistic conquest run.

And, of course if you find a strong NW near your borders...well, then you might have the strongest Civ in the game...

My vote for least versatile would be someone like the Mongols or Japanese, which pretty much have to be a conquest force.

 

[qalsip1977]

I don't think a Civ's UA/UB/or UU should be the deciding factor of versatility. For instance, take Egypt for example, are they a less versatile Civ if you aren't planning to build many wonders? Not a chance! Their UU isn't that amazing, but their UB is pretty nice, and in the end they're a pretty well rounded Civ. The only reason I'd reroll them is if I actually WERE going culture/wonders and didn't get marble.

All of that being said, I think it's the Civs that are more military in nature that are the most limited, because if they don't have the resource they need (e.g. Mongols without horses) they pretty much need to reroll because their main UA/UU is crippled or because they just can't get the resources they need to make any sort of decent military unit at all.

Ottomons is definitely a good one to consider being the least versatile. I NEVER play them because I just can't see something they are good for that another civ wouldn't be better suited for. Nothing about their UA/UU/UB is exciting to boot. Just my .02

 

[chazzycat]

Ottomans and England are a bit more versatile than you give credit for, because of the jannissary and longbow. These are both solid units that help strengthen their land armies, to complement strong navies. Not saying they are the best civs by any means, but somewhat versatile.

Polynesia has the ability to meet other civs, ruins, and city states very quickly. This gives them an early gold advantage that can be used in many different ways, so again I disagree that they are not flexible. Only on Pangea they are bad.

Mongolia is really the least flexible in my eyes. Sure, totally dominant. But doing anything other than chivalry rush-->keshik domination is pretty much ruled out. They are quite one dimensional. It's good that they are so amazing in that one dimension...

Spain as well. Their only strategy is to settle natural wonders. But getting an early one will give a nice gold boost, so I would say they are slightly more versatile than Mongols.

The Danes would be another one with a very one-dimensional strategy.

 

[MadDjinn]

Looks like the OP has a hate on for water maps, so dislikes the 'naval' civs.

Least versatile, according to your own definition -

Mongols.

No horses, reroll. There's no point in playing Mongols if you can't have Keshiks.

 

[Bamboocha]

Looks like the OP has a hate on for water maps, so dislikes the 'naval' civs.

Least versatile, according to your own definition -

Mongols.

No horses, reroll. There's no point in playing Mongols if you can't have Keshiks.

While what you say is true, you will almost never have no horses. If there aren't any horses in your starting area, find a spot with an abudence of horses and found your second city there .

 

[Olleus]

But I haven't yet played a map where horses weren't within reach of a second city, and steam tells me I have 200h on the game.

Rome, actually, is not versatile at all. If you dont have iron (reasonably common thing to happen) or only have 2 or 4 units of it then both your UUs stop existing. The UA is still good, but it depends on having a lot of cities for it to be leveraged. Without those early UUs, its much harder to get enough cities for it to really work.

 

[DaveMcW]

My best Mongol game had no horses, but I bought some and dominated anyway.

Rome is the worst.

 

[vexing]

polynesia seems pretty clearly the loser to me. playing on a map with no water they only have their uu, which isn't great.

england and ottomans are in a similar boat but better have better uus. it's debatable but i'd take janissary over longbow. instant heal on a killshot + 25% offense is insanely powerful. longbows do have the benefit of being upgradeable to. you could potentially have a scout turned archer nearing logistics by the time you get machinery.

denmark is the best of the lot; they at least gain an advantage even with 1 tile lakes, and their UUs are both good.

 

[fmlizard2]

My best Mongol game had no horses, but I bought some and dominated anyway.

Rome is the worst.

The same logic you use for Mongolia and Horses is true of Rome and Iron. It is a problem you can buy your way out of in several different ways.

If you are, say, the Iroquois, and you spawn in desert...then you are hosed. You can buy Iron. You can't plant trees. Even though planting trees would be cool

 

[DaveMcW]

The problem is if you wait for other civs to connect iron, Legions are halfway obsolete.

 

[RenegadePeon]

Maybe I'm just unlucky, but I've quite a few multiplayer games where I didn't have horses.

 

[ahawk]

Looks like the OP has a hate on for water maps, so dislikes the 'naval' civs.

The only reason I hate water maps is that I play predominantly single-player, and naval AI is awful and easy to exploit.

In the OP I think I had said this is from the angle of single-player.

In multi-player, naval civs have to be treated much differently, and in multi-player I agree with many of you that Ottomans wouldn't be quite so bad (and I admit Janissaries aren't so bad even in single-player, given the gold to upgrade).

 

[ahawk]

Thus, it may be much easier to debate what civs are the LEAST versatile (at least in single player).

There we are. Thought I'd said in single player (had to check though )

 

[vexing]

If you are, say, the Iroquois, and you spawn in desert...then you are hosed. You can buy Iron. You can't plant trees. Even though planting trees would be cool

iroquois doesn't absolutely require forests. ironless swordsmen a pretty decent uu.