Most underrated civs

[beetle]

...then just send in two siege towers, and Austria was bottom military, but his blocking scouts and comp bows made mincemeat out of the towers and I retreated with the army.

Well, part of that is MP vs SP. The AI is not smart enough to block an ST with a Scout!

Did you actually loose a ST? I should think they hold up to CBs no problem. I am not surprised you were forced to retreat, no shame in that when facing a human opponent!

In my experience, the bare minimum number of ST is three. For the GotM, I will be waiting until I have four for my late push. You need at least one spare so the one in front can retreat for the next assault. You need to keep two on the front line all the way to the city -- so they can buff each other.

But is it not an odd and wonderful feeling to be using siege units to screen archers?

Also, even if your first push is not too successful, be sure to get Cover II on the ST (which is not hard, just put them near barbs, or build a barracks). It is pretty rare to have Canons and Arty with Cover II (since it normally comes with a high opportunity cost) but it is actually quite helpful against city garrison and frigates (and later, my bane, planes).

 

[Japper007]

The Mighty Aztec!

So very underrated, their UB is available very early and an amazing boost, their UU's only outmatched by pathfinders in the scouting face, and to top it all of their Unique Ability never runs out of steam because it scales with combat strenght. In a war against the Deity AI you can get 100+ culture per turn just of killing units (killing a single Infantry unit yields 70 culture).

Their only drawback is their jungle start, but I dont think it's as bad as people say it is, and you can move that settler to a better spot too.

Also Gandhi, mostly because people dont understand how his UA actually works. If you play it right you never need a happyness-building in your whole empire.

 

[inthesomeday]

I love the Aztecs, they're my favorite civ and I think objectively they're top tier for the growth and early culture.

India, however... Gandhi's UA means you have to go with tradition every single game, there's no choice. So even if my land is expansive and great-- doesn't matter, time to click tradition. Even on top of that, the happiness cripples your early expansion even as tradition. Four cities are worth 24 unhappiness instead of 16. That's two extra luxes. Yes, it becomes a positive after pop 6, but for every city to reach pop 6 happens a bit too late for it to really be a net gain overall in the entire game, at least in many of the games I play. Early unhappiness like this is just unbearable.
Then they have a castle replacement, which is essentially a moot point because castles/defensive buildings after walls are roughly a worthless building usually (why not just build more units? They protect the city too, in addition to dealing damage to attackers and even being themselves capable of an attack). The chariot replacement I'll admit is pretty fantastic, but in the face of one arguably detrimental unique and one completely irrelevant unique it really doesn't make up for the civ.

 

[adsin15]

I love the Aztecs, they're my favorite civ and I think objectively they're top tier for the growth and early culture.

India, however... Gandhi's UA means you have to go with tradition every single game, there's no choice. So even if my land is expansive and great-- doesn't matter, time to click tradition. Even on top of that, the happiness cripples your early expansion even as tradition. Four cities are worth 24 unhappiness instead of 16. That's two extra luxes. Yes, it becomes a positive after pop 6, but for every city to reach pop 6 happens a bit too late for it to really be a net gain overall in the entire game, at least in many of the games I play. Early unhappiness like this is just unbearable.
Then they have a castle replacement, which is essentially a moot point because castles/defensive buildings after walls are roughly a worthless building usually (why not just build more units? They protect the city too, in addition to dealing damage to attackers and even being themselves capable of an attack). The chariot replacement I'll admit is pretty fantastic, but in the face of one arguably detrimental unique and one completely irrelevant unique it really doesn't make up for the civ.

People hate castles but i always build them. defensive buildings cost no maintainance and improve your cities ranged attack strength considerably. The ai never build Neurwenxhinstein so you automatically get 3 gold, 2 culture and 1 happy from all castles as long as you got a mountain.

 

[Iamteehee]

Sure Neusthingy is nice but the castle replacement doesn't really change my decision to build castles. If I want defense, I'll build units. If I built the thing, I'll build a few castles regardless of whether or not they are Mughal Forts.

 

[Captain_Wozzeck]

The siege tower can be cool, and I've managed to use it for rushes before. Its problem is that it's a melee siege unit, and just like the battering ram its main purpose ends up being to soak fire. Which is a great purpose, don't get me wrong, it's just that on its own it isn't all that good. I recently rolled Assyria in a pub online game and using the siege tower I managed to scare my Austrian neighbor off of a really good settle and managed to pick up 2 luxes, a river, and a labyrinth of hills perfect for mining. However I tried to archer rush, confident I could build an archer or two out of each city for ~6 archers and then just send in two siege towers, and Austria was bottom military, but his blocking scouts and comp bows made mincemeat out of the towers and I retreated with the army. That game I received next to no bonus from my civ, besides bullying a settle in a bunch of hills, something that could have been done with a scout.
It's just that Assyria's bonuses to me don't seem to be very useful; the Royal Library is really useless, the siege tower is very situational, and while I expect the UA is useful for very early war where it's possible to barrel down the bottom of the tech tree and still be competitive-- or arty rushes, maaaaaybe xbow rushes-- these kinds of rushes are also very situational in their practicality.

I think one of the reasons Assyria is so under-rated is because the UU is situational and the UB is basically not worthwhile (ok, you don't have to build amphitheatres, but this is hardly a game-changer). The point I was trying to make is that the UA is exceptionally strong on Deity to make up for it.

I find the siege tower is useful in about 50% of deity games. If the AI has pikemen by the time you attack, they can smash them up pretty well. Otherwise you can usually use them to claim a capital before they're irrelevant. I would say though that I tend not to rely on them heavily, as they don't really have an upgrade path. I'd still rather be focusing on range and getting promotions stacking

 

[beetle]

I think one of the reasons Assyria is so under-rated is because the UU is situational and the UB is basically not worthwhile (ok, you don't have to build amphitheatres, but this is hardly a game-changer).

Yes, but you are building Libraries anyway. Think of the UB as being a UA that gives +10 xp for all trained units. A middling ability for sure, but okay.

I would say though that I tend not to rely on them heavily, as they don't really have an upgrade path.

The upgrade path is okay, and much better than the units that upgrade from range to melee. I think you should build as many ST as you like to have Arty. The seige line, unlike the ranged line, stays useful all game long. The upgrade cost at each step, from ST to Trebuchet to Cannon to Artillery is also modest (140 gold, as I recall). The range line, in contrast, is more than 50% of that: 220 gold from XB to Gat and Gat to MG -- even as those units be come less useful!

 

[inthesomeday]

Yes, but you are building Libraries anyway. Think of the UB as being a UA that gives +10 xp for all trained units. A middling ability for sure, but okay.


The upgrade path is okay, and much better than the units that upgrade from range to melee. I think you should build as many ST as you like to have Arty. The seige line, unlike the ranged line, stays useful all game long. The upgrade cost at each step, from ST to Trebuchet to Cannon to Artillery is also modest (140 gold, as I recall). The range line, in contrast, is more than 50% of that: 220 gold from XB to Gat and Gat to MG -- even as those units be come less useful!

But it doesn't give 10 XP to all units because you need a great work of writing in it, and there's almost never spare great works in my empires. Either I'm playing a tight tourism game where I need every single great work to theme and produce at least 3 tourism, or I'm playing a standard game where I'm saving all GWs to bulb later and finish out rationalism when a key tech is available. I have never put a great work in a royal library, and even if I did it wouldn't be enough experience to add another promotion than usual right out of the gate.

As to siege, I find myself not actually using non-arty siege units pretty much all game until I get to the artillery line, and even then they're only for very specific timing before planes but after crossbows. And I suppose melee siege in the ancient era is when I find myself building siege but the siege tower just isn't as good as the battering ram, and for both units again the timing is too narrow for it to be that consistent or strong of a bonus.

 

[beetle]

But it doesn't give 10 XP to all units because you need a great work of writing in it, and there's almost never spare great works in my empires.

Tourism game or not, I always build the Writers Guild as soon as I can manage and always theme Oxford ASAP.

With those habits, having a place to stuff two Great Works of Writing (GWW) early is helpful. Typically, I have a Great Writer sitting around for a 100 turns while I wait on Oxford for Radio. (Since I do not start on Amphitheaters until then.)

But even without those habits, and feel free to explain why they are terrible, a single GWW is all you need to give 10 XP to all units! It just takes some micro, not bad at all. Move the GWW into which every city will finish spawning a unit next turn. Next turn move the GWW back to Oxford or Globe Theater or the next city spawning a unit. Sure, with a single GWW, that means only one unit spawning per turn. So queue juggling. It really should not impact your army size. The cost is two points of tourism (and ten seconds of your time, which can be harsh for MP).

...and even if I did it wouldn't be enough experience to add another promotion than usual right out of the gate.

People do not build Military Academies for that reason. Quite short sighted IMHO.

As to siege, I find myself not actually using non-arty siege units pretty much all game until I get to the artillery line, and even then they're only for very specific timing before planes but after crossbows.

The ranged line is easier, so playing Assyria might pull you out of your comfort zone. But it is nice to change things up a bit too. Cannons are okay. Arty with Cover II and you may not need planes!

And I suppose melee siege in the ancient era is when I find myself building siege but the siege tower just isn't as good as the battering ram, and for both units again the timing is too narrow for it to be that consistent or strong of a bonus.

The best thing about the battering ram is that it comes early. But ST is 12 strength versus the BR 10. So ST can survive a bit longer. I agree, the timing is too narrow, especially at Deity. Having just looked up that catapults are 7 and Trebuchets also just 12, for the GotM, I am going to try keeping ST around until time to upgrade to Cannon. I think the buff to nearby units and the defensive terrain bonus might keep them alive. I never have been able to take cities with Trebuchets!

 

[Sclb]

With those habits, having a place to stuff two Great Works of Writing (GWW) early is helpful. Typically, I have a Great Writer sitting around for a 100 turns while I wait on Oxford for Radio. (Since I do not start on Amphitheaters until then.)

It is optimal to save all GW to bulb for culture. Great works are never worth it unless you're playing a tourism game especially on high difficulty such as deity. Save all GW to bulb after at least 8 turns of WF. Personally even for CV, I usually don't create writing GW unless I have left over GW from very late game for some additional theming.

Assyria's UU is next to useless on deity due to the narrow window of opportunity. Usually you only have time for 1, maybe 2 capitals if you're lucky. Upgrading them is a waste of gold since they're weak when upgraded. Keeping them until artillery just drains your gold, it's better to just delete or donate them. The best thing about them is clearly their UA which is always useful especially when you go domination on high difficulty.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I actually prefer a tundra start over unforested grasslands and/or plains. You only need like three tiles for the pantheon to catch you a religion, so that is really quite manageable.

that's funny, because to me plains starts are by far the best starts in the game, with grasslands clocking in at second.

desert is really only good with plenty of hills and river tiles, tundra is pretty much never good even with lots of forest, hills and river.

plains have the added bonus of spawning the most horses, the most impactful source of early gold imo, spawning lots of pasture resources which are the best tiles to work early game, having the highest chance to spawn salt and having a great mix of food and hammers.

meanwhile tundra has deer, which you need a trapping for (bleh) and terrible luxuries like furs (bleh).

grasslands are excellent for growth but leave a city lacking in lategame production if you don't have lots of hills.

 

[IkM]

While it might be a bit of a stretch to say most useful in the game, I am partial to the Sipahi. I think a lot of people discount it because it's a lancer, but it's a really useful support unit.

The free pillaging and 5 movement is a guaranteed way to annoy people in multiplayer too

Also, it has a pretty icon

Haha they're terrifyingly annoying in MP Just pillage, pillage, pillage run lol. Steal their workers. And yes, their icon looks cool

Btw, that's the fact. Many people don't know how to use them. You may think I'm exaggerating but I'm conquering cities with a Sipahi, a melee unit(love if it's Janissary or upgraded from Janissary ) and 2 or 3 artillery, more easily than I do as Mongols.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I am so freakin happy that other people are commenting on that icon, too. It's always been my favorite of all the icons in the game! It's just so incredibly aesthetic, simple, a great design.

I always go Taoism for the same reason. I just like seeing it on my cities

 

[noto2]

Assyria is an insanely powerful civ on higher difficulty levels... but is it underrated? I've always thought of it as at least upper tier. It is difficutly level dependent. I'd imagine on Prince or Monarch it's only a mediocre UA, but on Immortal + it's absolutely phenomenal. The AI are always ahead in tech anyway, so you can build a small/tall empire that is production/warfare focused, and go conquer the world, always able to maintain tech parity due to the UA.

I'd have to agree the Aztecs meet the definition of this thread. Their UA and UB make them quite good, and I rarely see people mentioning them as one of the good civs.

 

[Kriogen]

Assyria is an insanely powerful civ on higher difficulty levels... but is it underrated? I've always thought of it as at least upper tier. It is difficutly level dependent. I'd imagine on Prince or Monarch it's only a mediocre UA, but on Immortal + it's absolutely phenomenal. The AI are always ahead in tech anyway, so you can build a small/tall empire that is production/warfare focused, and go conquer the world, always able to maintain tech parity due to the UA. ...

While you get less out of UA on Prince (lower diff levels), Siege Tower lasts for much longer. It kinda evens out.

 

[Red Menace]

I would say the Inca are underrated because saying any civ is above them is wrong.

now for a really underrated civ I would say Denmark, they may not be great but seriously I had probably my best domination game ever as Denmark, this is after they patched the Berserker to come at metal casting those guys just destroy everything plus the UA is really good in combo with Honor.

I'd have to agree the Aztecs meet the definition of this thread. Their UA and UB make them quite good, and I rarely see people mentioning them as one of the good civs.

UA is outstanding, But the Floating Garden is so good its outrageous, by far the best food producing building, and i would say best UB but I like production buildings better.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I would say the Inca are underrated because saying any civ is above them is wrong.

Wait... I just finished my first game as the Inca on Immortal. Why would you say this? I liked the terrace UI okay, but I only built like 5 or 6 of them and that just helped with the horrible food start that the Inca start-bias gave me. The UA is pretty good to save some worker turns but nothing game defining. Their UU is nearly useless unless going for an extremely early war. And even then a melee unit can kill them more easily since they are weaker to melee attacks. I didn't see one retreat the entire early game with the UU. Maybe I just don't know how to use them right so they were basically just archers to me.

Did I miss something in my game? I mean, I did win a space victory but it wasn't particularly fast (low food area). What makes you love them so much?

 

[inthesomeday]

The Inca are in the top 7 or so best civs in the game. The UA means an absurd military advantage on any map where there's ever land war, and greatly increases your efficiency, as well as saving tons of gold on city connections. Definitely a wide civ, so the bonuses aren't as good tall, but wide Inca is one of the best. The slinger is a crippling detriment, but the terrace farm means massive growth and hammers in new cities unavailable to any other civ.

 

[Red Menace]

Wait... I just finished my first game as the Inca on Immortal. Why would you say this? I liked the terrace UI okay, but I only built like 5 or 6 of them and that just helped with the horrible food start that the Inca start-bias gave me. The UA is pretty good to save some worker turns but nothing game defining. Their UU is nearly useless unless going for an extremely early war. And even then a melee unit can kill them more easily since they are weaker to melee attacks. I didn't see one retreat the entire early game with the UU. Maybe I just don't know how to use them right so they were basically just archers to me.

Did I miss something in my game? I mean, I did win a space victory but it wasn't particularly fast (low food area). What makes you love them so much?

The Inca are in the top 7 or so best civs in the game. The UA means an absurd military advantage on any map where there's ever land war, and greatly increases your efficiency, as well as saving tons of gold on city connections. Definitely a wide civ, so the bonuses aren't as good tall, but wide Inca is one of the best. The slinger is a crippling detriment, but the terrace farm means massive growth and hammers in new cities unavailable to any other civ.

No you don't understand, I'm saying that because the Incas aren't rated the best civ in every chart, top 7 you see that's not right it should be 1st.

The Inca are the best Civ I have slightly rendered proof.

Spoiler :

I'm aware building 3 wonders at the same time is bad but when your winning this much you might as well.

 

[inthesomeday]

Oh god I love those terrace farms dude look at those desert terrace farms yield icons pls