I will respond, and moving on, I would appreciate if this thread wouldn't get derailed into off-topic. Discussion about other lists belong in their own respective threads. I would also like it to be noted that it was never my intent here to discuss other lists or other people (I even stated so in the very opening post). I would hate to be seen as the bad guy here for simply wanting to state some opinions about civilizations in the game that we all enjoy so much.
I would be very interested to hear your explanation for this assertion.
I want to make it clear that I welcome constructive discussions with anybody and encourage mutual respect even if sometimes egos can get heat up. And that there's no need for any of us to take anything personally or hold grudges. But I am also not one who sugar coats things and sometimes I get perceived as harsh or unpolite. As the saying goes, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. If something is bad, I will call it as such.
Similarly, I do not respect anybody who shuts down debate like the person in question does, who calls anybody who disagrees with him "Whiners"
and says that if you don't agree you must ignore his thread and his list, who reports people and tries to shame them (and get warned by mods for it). It's a very bigoted, mindset. I prefer being civil over this, I do not respect this type of attitude and I am not ashamed to say it, hopefully there is still enough free speech here that I'm not breaking any rules for even mentioning this, only referencing facts
and explaining myself, after all.
For the record, I am more than willing to recognize when I am wrong on something. It's called being an adult who makes progress through life.
As we learn more, we can and should change our views and opinions accordingly as new evidence or data arises. I was underestimating Germany, I was wrong, happy to stand corrected, and I might also be wrong on a few others, even though I am confident that not by that much. I thank Nizef for that.
Now, onto some concrete examples, person stresses that "Ease of winning" is what is measured.
But then goes around and rates Venice with a negative score ( -7 ) Except that...Venice is super easy to win compared to a civ with no bonus. The most annoying drawback I can think of is that if you have Mt.Sinai or FOY or whatever in 8 tile range to you, you can't take it to boost the strength of your empire, and the Great Galleass leaves a little to be desired. The shared great person pool for engineers, scientists and merchants is a bit conflicting in that you want Merchants but you also delay the others by doing this. However even so, Venice remains preferable to a civ with no bonuses. If we disagree on this then I don't really know what else to say except that it is best to agree to disagree and move on, as there doesn't remain room to argue one way or another. Simple. I hold that being able to outright puppet a CS and get hold of all their belongings is very powerful, and compensates the drawbacks by a wide margin. Others can feel free to disagree.
A few others I wrote just skimming around.
> I refuse to take anybody seriously if they rate Winged Hussars and Caroleans with 1/5.
> Anybody who complains that getting a Religion on Deity is hard betrays the fact that they have not really mastered the game and should probably not be making guides. When you struggle to get a religion even with the Celts, you are not a good Deity player.
> Doesn't know the difference between melee unit and gunpowder unit and he spreads misinformation as a result. Riflemen obviously aren't melee units. They are a gunpowder unit with a melee attack. Game source files XML units confirms this.
> Decides randomly that conquering CSs is suboptimal play and trashes Mongolia UA as a result.
> Describes Polders as rubbish
(he actually uses this word to describe it, yes) and gives Kasbahs 0/5, which is also fascinating (in a bad way).
> Doesn't get any of Assyria's bonuses and as a result thinks that it's a weak civ. I mean, tech stealing by city capture is almost enough on its own, the other bonuses are cherry on top.
> Absolutely trashes Austria, calls UA "underpowered".
> Gives Carthage Elephant rating 0/5
> Gives War Elephant 0/5... no comment. They're not even melee-attacking units so there's no excuse this time.
> Gives Cataphract -1 out of 5. Yes, like, it's only a horseman who shares all the advantages of melee units, after all. /S
> Doesn't understand Portugal Feitoria, trashes it, gives it 0/5 and calls everybody bad players if they use it.
> Doesn't use Kris Swordsman but rates them as 0/5 anyway because he never experienced Restlessness, Ambition or Invulnerability.
> Absolutely trashes Byzantium and Iroquois beyond any sensible commentary.
I hope this is satisfactory, I will say no more on this subject.