Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Jatta Pake, Aug 1, 2013.
Iroquois so boring.
Yeah, and calling warmongering UA "The Art of War" is slap in the face to Sun Tzu.
anyway, I always found Chinese UA terrible, even pre-BNW when warmongering wasn't a big deal. Chinese people were always so innovative, they should be a tech civ, not warmongers... or at least some hybrid of tech\culture hybrid civ with strong offensive\defensive units (aka CKN).
and Paper Maker nerf... Still ok, but not that OP like it was at first.
Calling China "pacifistic" is pretty rich...I mean, sure, they weren't charging off conquering everyone in sight like, say, the Mongols, but nor were they a nation of Ghandi's. Much like most other nations, they did some conquering, had some internal wars, and had some periods of peace.
And frankly, I'd say associating Sun Tzu with warmongering is more of a slap in the face to warmongering. I mean, TAoW is a decent primer, but anyone serious about war will be way beyond such an introductory text.
While I'm absolutely fine with non-synergic civs (each unique doesn't help the others), I have to admit I don't really enjoy the extreme examples of it like Indonesia. I haven't played much with them though, so in practice maybe I would grow to like them.
Edit: Oh yeah, Spain. Not a fan of that style. Maybe if they took away the double-yields from NWs and kept the extra gold (and happiness? Forget if they get extra there), and added some other exploration bonus.
Edit2: Also Korea, and Babylon, and any other civ I forgot that has a large, or even moderate science bonus (though I might give a pass for China's Paper Maker). For Babylon, I would stress their defense a little more (something more creative than adding defense to the wall UB, not sure what), and only give a very small science edge - so they would be a build civ. For Korea, not sure how to make them feel different from everyone else but I would take away the majority of their science bonuses. Oh, Korea's known for scientific advancement? Yeah, so is almost every prosperous civ in history. Seemed like a DLC cash-grab if you ask me, giving them all those science bonuses.
Edit3: Oh! Oh! Iroquois. It's might be just me not being great with them, but they feel like Spain-lite. They have a tree bias, but that really says very little about how many trees will be near their starting point, and Every. Last. Thing they have is dependent on it. I even played an Aboreal after being fed up with them, and, well, I could do well there obviously, but it still wasn't much fun for me.
I used to think that way, but had an enjoyable game with them in the late G+K era where I built up a nice army getting gold from barb camps, then gradually took some cities with lots of river around them over the course of the game, eventually winning with... Space or something. After that game I like 'em.
However, it's kind of dependent on having neighbours with lots of rivers. If I hadn't had that game, I'd probably be mentioning them here myself.
Wondering how many of the Songhai haters are basing this on experience or how the AI performs with them. More than any other leader IMO, the AI does horrible with Songhai, they're always, ALWAYS broke, removing trade opportunities, which makes them an annoying AI civ but has no bearing on how it is to play them.
I'm not saying I'd put them in the top 5, but there are a lot of civs that feel like a generic civ, (so little advantage is derived from their UA, UB, UU, etc. that they may as well not have any) such as Ottoman, Japan, Denmark, and situationally England, Indonesia and Byzantium, as well as some civs that arguably are worse than a generic civ (Iroquois and India.)
The Songhai UB essentially adds 2 culture per city, and with the change in the culture system in BNW (culture buildings only providing 1 culture until you burn a GP on it), this has a pretty strong effect of tile acquisition, particularly outside of your capital, and more importantly social policies, and the free maintenance is a blessing as the early game economy also took a hit in BNW. For this building alone, I'd rank them above any of the aforementioned civs. The UU admittedly is lukewarm at best, but I'd still prefer the slight advantage of removing the city attack penalty over the majority of the "trade-off" UUs (cataphract, for example). And the UA further helps the early economy with barbs and leads to some pretty serious gold when you start stomping people. What's more, I find the promotions of the UA to be more noticeable in ground-game combat than naval; enemies suffer a penalty attacking across rivers, you don't. Using rivers you can not only hold your own but move forward against units a tech era ahead of you.
I dislike seafaring civs, i play mostly pangeas, apart from those i find Poland boring, yes their ua is very very strong but apart from that ub and uu aren't great, it could be that im just fed up with them as i won only with them on diety so far.
I think Indonesia is more or less a CIV you should only pick when you know the circumstances of the map. They have the same problem like Polynesia, Carthage & friends.
...apart from that, the fact that the Candi no longer requires fresh water has bumped them quite a bit, imho. I recently played a few games with them and having those guaranteed luxuries is really, really powerful on a water map.
siam is good, but I never have motivation to play as siam.
Actually Mongols weren't all about war. Genghis Khan was a feared leader, but he was also a good diplomat and made great infrastructure, economic and cultural improvement to his empire.
Think of them as "Rome from Asia". Both empires liked to build and improve but also beat up every neighbor they had.
even The Huns weren't all about war. Attila in particular was also a great diplomat. He besieged Constantinople several times, but never bothered to conquer it. They offer him gold as peace tribute and he goes "Ok, that will do. brb next year."
We know them as "warmongering" civilization only because Romans demonized them.
I can understand people saying they don't like spain because it's luck dependant (and I hate it sometimes), but saying their UUs are bad... Conquistador one of the best cavalry UU and Tercio is the only one besides Impi that can upgrade with a bonus against horse and has more attack than the normal one.
Of course is an opinion but that statement was like, I don't get a NW I don't have UA and no UU.
I don't like playing the Huns, Mongols or Zulus, I don't like warmonger style and I don't play well with them. I prefer expanding my empire peacefully and then conquer some territories, not starting conquering everything.
You reffer to some civs as warmonger because that civ was fighting wars more often that others. What you say about Attila and Genghis is a common thing if you wish to talk about emipres, otherwise they would be simply barbs.
I'm refering as Civs in the game, their entire playstyle is pure domination. This is why I don't like them so much. I don't mind if the civ has 2 UU or it's a bit offensive but that 3 civs for example they are made only to conquer conquer and conquer and I don't like that kind of playstyle.
Sorry Lights, i posted to njmfff. As to You I agree, while I don't mind warring alot (Asyria) I can't understand Mongols bonus towards CS killing, and Huns city razing. As for Zulus You don't have to be agressive, those cheaper units (cheaper units=more units) help You be safe from AI as AI compare number of soldiers and in case of war you gain faster promotions to help you even more with Dfend.
I never understood the Mongol ability at first, until I realized, CS were the key to those pesky patronage using AI.
The Huns though...ya, so what's the explanation/strategy for faster raze times? I can only think that it's great at countering high pop civs.
hmm, I think Huns city razing is well translated from real-life Huns. Attila did like to pillage and raze cities. and dunno, I kinda like their UA even now in BWN. Free tech is nice, and you can immediately get caravans, plus bit of extra production. Later on, city razing at double speed is very useful, when you want to quickly clear out AI useless cities that have high population (less turns to burn them down = less unhappiness for shorter time on your empire).
Mongols... I agree. +1 move to mounted unit is great, but bonus damage to CS isn't that useful anymore due to diplo hits.
and Zulus... if I remember correctly, Zulu AI was very aggressive in cIV, so no surprise there, they remained aggressive in ciV... and I kinda like them. In BWN, most civs will turtle, so Zulu will make game more interesting, because he'll attack like mad dog. I prefer to put him in my games, because I know things will get interesting at one point. (you could say same for Japan, because Oda loooves to conquer weaker civs)
Lights@ Conquistadors are great if you play any map with water and lot of continents\islands, because they are basically settlers who can defend themselves from barbs. Otherwise, they are mediocre units. Tercio is ok I guess, that extra bonus toward mounted units is kinda like having free promotion.
Spain's UA is fun. Yeah, it's a random luck factor, but it encourages you to explore the map in order to find NW... and I think it translates great to Spanish exploration history... and two UU will ensure that you can get those NW, if it means by force.
If you raze cities faster you can send your horde to the next city much quicker than any other civ.
People seem to forget that Scourge of God has a few non-war related advantages, namely free Animal Husbandry and +1 production from pastures. These things paired with the potential to sack a capital in the first five turns with a good ruin pop are what really makes the Huns strong.
They have a completely useless UB, their UU is borderline useless (Oh look.. a chariot archer with the same attack strength as CBs... a unit which I always get anyways. Oh.. and their cost has been increased so that now they're about as expensive as CBs. And the chariot archers don't have an upgrade that keeps their promotions. I think I'll stick with CBs, thanks.)
And their UA is just... ugh. It's much harder to found new cities, but your existing cities don't have any inherent growth bonuses, so you end up growing much slower than a real civ.
Don't know why but Siam. also, don't like america too.
Separate names with a comma.