Most underrated civ?

[madviking]

Whats the most underrated civ?

Mine is Mayans, the trait cimbo is disigned for you to build, build, build!
Post what civ it is and why it should be respected more.

 

[Tomoyo]

I think the Maya are overrated, actually. Industrious isn't really that good and the UU is helpful at best.

I think England is the most underrated. I suppose it's bad first impressions... (In vanilla, they were absolutely horrible)

England's traits are Seafaring and Commercial. Commercial is the one of the best traits because of the reduced corruption - it could give 25% more productivity and gold. Seafaring is the best trait on archipelagos and decent on continents. That extra gold doesn't hit the Despotism penalty. Also, they have the ideal starting techs. Alphabet, the expensive one, and pottery, the one needed for Granaries.

 

[WackenOpenAir]

Iroquois.

Even though many people think they are the best, they are still underrated. They are even more the best than people seem to think.

-best starting techs
-best UU
-best trait (agricultural)
-arguably second best trait (commercial)

 

[Own]

This isn't BEST civ. It's most underrated. I think it's Portugal. Though the trait combo is horrific, one good for pangea and one good for archi, their UU on archi huge 80% water is incredible. You can get contacts without others getting them first, has 2 attack for decent sea-ruling. You can actually launch a sea assult before galleons.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Portugal...yes, there indeed is something they do quite well. Huge maps with lots of water, and preferebly less opponents so to be sure to get enough Goody Huts. Hey, nobody ever said Prtugal would be complety useless. But, they still remain the worst of the worse. .

England is a good candidate. In C3C, it is a 1st tier Civ in my very own opinion; while most pple have accepted they are no longer that bad, England is still seen as a mediocre widely.

Hittites are the most underrated for me, though. They are by no means as bad as Zulu or Portugal (except for that special cases, like MP and huge water maps ); IMHO a pretty solid Civ, with good starting techs and a useful trait combo. Bad UU, though.

 

[Own]

I managed to, on Sid capture a couple cities in the AA with 3man chariots. But, then, pikemen and medieval infantry came out, so I had to stop.

 

[Reprisal]

The good thing about 3MCs are that they are fast units, and if you're being attacked by other fast units, they can't wittle you down and run away. They either win, or die. This can be good if you have a walled-town or just a city on a hill, even better if you have them attacking over a river or something. Not great, but being able to have your city defenders be units that can also attack (and later be upgraded to Knights and Cavalry) can be a good thing.

- Rep.

 

[greekguy]

I say Korea. I don't hear a lot about them, yet they have the same traits as Greece and everybody loves them. Their UU is also great.

 

[madviking]

Are Spanish underrated?

 

[BobCW]

I'd say that Rome gets a worse rap than it deserves. The traits do have a bit more synergy than I think most people assume. Commercial means that Rome has more shields (due to lower corruption) for making units, and more gold to support a large army. Militaristic is the perfect trait for expanding your empire over large spaces through military force, which works well with commercial, making conquered cities over a large space more productive. Rome isn't the best warmonger or peaceful builder, but it's certainly one of the better civs, IMHO, for fighting, and can generally enter into extended periods of peaceful building. This duality is partially possible due to the awesome Roman UU, the Legionary, which are both great defenders and respectable attackers, in both the ancient and middle ages.


Rome's real problem is that it's not any good in the early expansion phase of the game. I have yet to play a game with Rome in which I didn't have to start an early war to gain some space for my empire (I generally play huge pangea maps with 80% water on monarch level, with eight-twelve opponents). Unfortunately, this means that Rome is often lacking in culture in the early game, gets a golden age often before monarchy / republic, and is behind in techs. If you can survive the early stages of the game, however, I've found Rome to be a respectable civ.

 

[Empiremaker]

Aztec. Agri is so powerful, but militaristic is a poorer trait. Combined you have a large empire with most of the map knowen from 1/1/2 Jags. Unlike scouts Jags can survive barbs, which is worth 5 shields. The 5 shields is also worth the movement point from warriors. The large empire can produce many units from cheap barracks, and units will promote quickly generating leaders, with armies you can. Then you will have a huge empire, ripe for elimination for other civs.