Most Disliked Civ to Play

[newarkinvaders]

America should have some cultural bonus instead of what it has now . Culturally they are the blue jeans and pop music that is often quoted .

 

[Tiggurix]

India gets the vote from me. Not only is it a boring UA, it's the only one with an unreasonable downside as well (aside from Venice, but it in that case it's justified), and on top of that, it really does quite a disservice to a country with such a long and rich history as India.

I do like those War Elephants, though, even though they're kinda underwhelming when compared to the Horse Archers.

 

[VainoValkea]

India gets the vote from me. Not only is it a boring UA, it's the only one with an unreasonable downside as well (aside from Venice, but it in that case it's justified), and on top of that, it really does quite a disservice to a country with such a long and rich history as India.

"Unreasonable downside"? India's UA isn't half bad because happiness is one of those things you always want to have and without that "unreasonable downside" it would be nothing but overpowered.

 

[Tiggurix]

"Unreasonable downside"? India's UA isn't half bad because happiness is one of those things you always want to have and without that "unreasonable downside" it would be nothing but overpowered.

The problem with that downside, though, is that it encourages tall empires very strongly, and penalises wide ones. A civ should always have a reasonable choice between the two options, something that Venice, for instance, has, even though it has to take rather roundabout ways to become wide. And, again, it's a very boring UA, one way or the other. I'd have preferred something to do with religion. The ability of the Indonesian Candi is something I could see easily being refitted for India, for instance.

 

[VainoValkea]

The problem with that downside, though, is that it encourages tall empires very strongly, and penalises wide ones.

No, it doesn't. India's UA is awesome for wide. That's when you need that reduced unhappiness the most.

 

[Staal]

I have never played Spain because there I have never in the past had a Natural Wonder in my borders, or at least not at the beginning of the game. Seems like a totally wasted UA. Do they have a start bias to have on close by?

Although that said I happily play with Japan/America etc because those things don't particularly bother me. Odd that it has kept me from Spain.

 

[Tiggurix]

No, it doesn't. India's UA is awesome for wide. That's when you need that reduced unhappiness the most.

Ok, fine. But I don't really care about its power level. I want it to be changed regardless, for reasons already mentioned.

 

[VainoValkea]

Just don't talk about "unreasonable downsides" when you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[livsbrand]

India get negative happiness for cities below 6 pop which clearly goes against any early expansion plans. Horribly unappealing to me, sorry. I don't have a problem with not wanting to play every civ though, so I don't think it "needs changing", it's just I'm not gonna play them.

 

[VainoValkea]

India's UA goes against going wide very early on, but it really doesn't limit wide play. The only strategy it actually penalizes is a spam of very small cities (below size 6) which isn't really viable with any other civ either, because of the science penalties.

 

[Tiggurix]

Just don't talk about "unreasonable downsides" when you don't know what you're talking about.

It has to be pointed out, though, that going wide with India quite obviously goes against the intention of the UA, and that, not only can you go wide with India, but it's an effective strategy (according to you, at least), is a clear sign of bad design. That, in itself, is reason enough for it to be scrapped.

 

[VainoValkea]

Nah. It's been that way since vanilla. If it really wasn't supposed to be that way, it would've been changed. That "intention" is therefore just your invention, not the devs'.

 

[Tiggurix]

Nah. It's been that way since vanilla. If it really wasn't supposed to be that way, it would've been changed. That "intention" is therefore just your invention, not the devs'.

That's like saying that bugs are always meant to be there, because if it wasn't meant to be that way, the developers of the software in question would have fixed it by now. The developers could have overlooked the issue in favour of more pressing concerns. And do you really not believe that my interpretation of the developer's intentions is correct? The "Bollywood" achievement on Steam certainly seems to suggest otherwise, as the Steam achievements are generally meant to fulfill a condition that plays to the civilisations' in question strengths.

 

[VainoValkea]

Yes, I do believe you are doing a miserable job trying to interpret what the devs mean. Comparing the UA to a bug is just ridiculous - do you know how hard it is to hunt for a bug in a software, and how easy it is to change a UA if they decided that it didn't work as intended?

Seriously. By that logic you could claim that every civ with a unique building is meant for wide play only because "you only get a few of them when playing tall".

 

[Merciorum]

People who hate on Indonesia haven't been playing them enough. Especially on an Archipelago. I disliked their power too until I played them, and they're one of my favourites now.

I will always avoid America and Japan (until it gets changed). Assyria I have been avoiding, but it looks intriguing for a warmongering game, which I'm trying to get into (as I have up until now almost exclusively gone for the other victory types).

 

[veljko]

Denmark, definitely

 

[njmfff]

Spain is either good game or either mah game.

Played one game as Spain where I got close to El Dorado, and CS had Fountain of Youth.

Settled near El Dorado, stole FoY with Great General. After that, it was easy game.

as for me, I have to go with Sweden. No real hate, I just never found their UA useful and their UU come so late in the game that I will rarely ever use them.

and I am not sure how much I would love America in BNW. Their bombers were great because you could take bombardment I and II, fallowed by logistics, and once they upgrade, they will get free Siege. But now, with req for logistics being either Bomb3 or Siege3, I don't see them that useful. Minuteman is also mah, ok unit, but that's it.

 

[Belzek]

Polynesia, primarily (and completely unreasonably) because he just looks like an idiot.

 

[Imalich]

That's quite a list, actually. The top scorers would have to be Japan then America. They are just too bland. Although I would have to say that Denmark, Germany, Siam and post-BNW Netherlands also go on this list.

I actually dislike any civilization that has only one victory path open to them, and tend to favor ones that have more adaptability (like faith civs, scientific civs, money civs, city-state civs and multi-bonuses ones - like warmongers civs with a good faith or culture based ability or building and such). And when your only option is warfare, it just becomes that worse scenario.

Netherlands is the exception. It was a decent civ pre-BNW, but was hit too hard in the expansion. I think most would agree some tweaking is in order.

Polynesia, primarily (and completely unreasonably) because he just looks like an idiot.

And this. But that's mostly my problem, not the developers.

 

[rondiggity]

Germany is an automatic re-roll for me. England is kinda so-so, depending on how recently I played a naval game.