Overall Civ Elimination Thread

[Mesix]

Siam is the only civ which can get 4 free Universities (UB) with the Legalism social policy.

 

[cpm4001]

Siam is the only civ which can get 4 free Universities (UB) with the Legalism social policy.

I thought for some reason that Wats can no longer be obtained that way...
No matter, I still fail to understand why you'd want to waste a bunch of Social Policies holding off on Legalism just to get free Wats - though in the long run you'd actually be saving money on maintaining the Wats, you're still going to have to shell out valuable Production getting Monuments and Amphitheaters up-and-running.

 

[ixias]

Erm, yeah, the UU sucks, the UA is way overrated, and the *UB is a piece of junk. Siam is awful.

The UU isn't bad, but it still is weak to Pikes. Where I really have to disagree is the comment on the UA. It's fairly easy to maintain friendship with multiple CS through quests and whatnot. Investing a bit into Patronage (which you should be doing as Siam) makes this even more effective. Getting extra Faith and Food is nice, but with BNW reduction to culture buildings, the extra culture is terrific. The UB is something that will be built in every city, can be obtained using the "Legalism Trick" or purchased with Jesuit Education. Again, the added culture is very relevant now that culture buildings hardly produce any without a great work.

 

[Merciorum]

Arabia - 17
Aztec - 9
China - 18
England - 11
Ethiopia - 10
Germany - 15
Inca - 18
Korea - 22
Maya - 26
Poland - 22
Portugal - 13
Siam - 4
Zulu - 16

While the lack of Babylon has turned this entire thread into a bunch of meaningless nonsense, I'll still play along.

Siam- Seriously, you can't eliminate Siam too. That's just absurd. Their UA is phenomenal, even if it does take a little work to get going. Their UB is great, and their UU, while a questionable concept, is admittedly powerful. No, Siam are one of the best in the game, hands down.

Zulu- They're good, but they pigeonhole your entire victory-plan too early. With most of the other civs, their uniques can be used for multiple victory types, but the Zulu are completely about war. Still, they are very good; it's really getting hard to choose between the remainders.

Anyway, I just want to say how disappointed I am in you all that Babylon is gone . Very silly people who clearly have never played them. They don't look great on paper, I admit it, but they are actually devastating. Like Morocco in that regard, except Babylon are even better.

Though, to be honest, this thread messed up right at the beginning when Venice was knocked off fourth, despite being by far the most powerful civ in the game.

 

[Sir Parker II]

Arabia - 17
Aztec - 9
China - 18
England - 11
Ethiopia - 10
Germany - 16
Inca - 18
Korea - 22
Maya - 26
Poland - 22
Portugal - 13
Siam - 4
Zulu - 13

 

[ixias]

Arabia - 17
Aztec - 9
China - 18
England - 11
Ethiopia - 10
Germany - 16
Inca - 18
Korea - 22
Maya - 26
Poland - 22
Portugal - 13-3=10
Siam - 4+1=5
Zulu - 13

I've already given my reasons as to why Siam should stay. Plus they hold a special places heart since they were the first Civ I played.

Portugal gets my hit today. I don't think they offer as much as the remaining other Civs. Sure getting more gold is nice, but I think Arabia does that better. The UU and UI aren't bad, but they don't do anything to excite me. If all CS had a different luxury, then it could see keeping them around. I've seen it happen where 4 CS have the same lux and that's it.

 

[nationstate]

Arabia - 17
Aztec - 9
China - 18
England - 11
Ethiopia - 11 Great on deity to get religion, and when AIs have more cities than you
Germany - 16
Inca - 18
Korea - 22
Maya - 26
Poland - 22
Portugal - 7 UA,UU and UI are only useful for gold and economy.
Siam - 5
Zulu - 13

 

[Sake]

Arabia - 17
Aztec - 9
China - 19 - One of the best UU's in game that gets really fast xp, library that gives you early gold (which is just what you need in BNW) and extra gg bonus? Face it, China is one of the best warmongers in the game, at least in land maps. Swarming gg's might be a problem, but you can use citadels much more aggressively, grab a strategic resource just outside of your borders etc.
England - 11
Ethiopia - 11
Germany - 16
Inca - 18
Korea - 22
Maya - 26
Poland - 22
Portugal - 4 - Not a bad civ, but doesn't really have anything outstanding to put it ahead any of the other civs on the list. UU is just caravel with +1 movement and one-time gold gain, it can explore faster and give you some gold but i don't really build more than 2 caravels/game anyway. UI can give nice happiness, but if you are going for diplo (you know, you're playing Portugal, after all), you should have CS's as allies anyways. Not to mention workers take ages to get to some CS spots. UA is probably best part of the civ, and while extra gold is nice, it's doesn't bring this civ over the others.
Siam - 5
Zulu - 13

 

[Navelgazer]

Arabia - 17
Aztec - 9
China - 19
England - 11
Ethiopia - 8 - Very powerful civ (like all the remaining ones are) which I just didn't enjoy very much. I know people have found ways to use the UA and still expand, but I didn't, and it led to the most boring game of this that I've played so far.
Germany - 16
Inca - 18
Korea - 22
Maya - 26
Poland - 22
Portugal - 5 - Very powerful and synergized. The Nau makes caravels very worthwhile and, more importantly, helps Portugal to found the WC. The Feitoria keeps happiness up (as well as earning CS love - remember that you just have to get the resources connected to your empire) and the UA lets the money roll in like crazy. Probably the best diplo civ there is, and well-suited to changing strategy for other victories because of all the money.
Siam - 5
Zulu - 13

 

[Crafty Bison]

The UU is amazing when it comes to defense or offense (free Drill I promotion? Yes, please!), the UA keeps you safe when you're small so you can expand, and the UB is amazingly good.



Erm, yeah, the UU sucks, the UA is way overrated, and the *UB is a piece of junk. Siam is awful.

A nice calm and reasoned response. Usually I mix up my votes but I'll have to keep going with these ones, it's way too fun .

 

[Vraslosken]

Arabia - 17
Aztec - 9
China - 20 War civ numero uno. Very synergetic.
England - 8 Too shippy.
Ethiopia - 8
Germany - 16
Inca - 18
Korea - 22
Maya - 26
Poland - 22
Portugal - 5
Siam - 5
Zulu - 13

 

[Sagax]

Arabia - 18 - bathing in cash, happiness and oil if managed correctly. Feel free to choose whatever victory you want.
Aztec - 9
China - 20
England - 8
Ethiopia - 8
Germany - 16
Inca - 18
Korea - 22
Maya - 26
Poland - 22
Portugal - 5
Siam - 5
Zulu - 10 - I guess at this point flexibility starts to outweigh specialty (except for the almighty Science). Zulu is a GREAT warmonger and fun to play, but most other civs remaining here are not that one-sided and provide much more space for Plan B.

EDIT: edited China and England with Vraslosken's post (we posted at the same time....)

 

[cpm4001]

A nice calm and reasoned response.

Oh it was reasoned, all right . Didn't realize I was kicking up a firestorm of people who like Siam, though...

 

[orasis]

Arabia - 18
Aztec - 9
China - 20
England - 5 Heavily map dependent. The Longbow man is a useful unit but not a game breaker imo. Ship of the Line is nice, but, only if you can build it in the first place (map or resources) and by the time you are able to build the +1 sight doesn't have much use. Extra spy isn't a big bonus either.
Ethiopia - 8
Germany - 16
Inca - 18
Korea - 22
Maya - 27 A very good civilization, almost on the verge of being overpowered.
Poland - 22
Portugal - 5
Siam - 5
Zulu - 10

It was between Portugal and England but I had to go against England since the NAU is better than the Ship of the Line (Gold, glorious gold!), more gold from trade routes and Feitoria's are much more useful than 2 extra naval movement points... especially if you never get to build a Navy at all.

England can be great but if you get a bad start, or boxed in, or have your coastal cities stolen... you don't have much to fall back on and an extra spy isn't going to do much about that.

 

[Josh123914]

Arabia - 18
Aztec - 9
China - 20
England - 5
Ethiopia - 8
Germany - 16
Inca - 18
Korea - 22
Maya - 27
Poland - 22
Portugal - 6 Easily one of the most versatile civs in the game. I hope it stays longer. Assuming you can keep the peace (and even then there's your CS buds) you have one of the strongest economies in the game. The Nau is a naval unit that actually BENEFITS the civ, instead of being used primarily as a warfare boost like many UU's end up being, and once you get Feitorias up, they guarantee you getting regular golden ages in the game from all the extra strategic and luxury resources you get, AS WELL AS a fort, where you can garrison a unit in to protect said CS from invaders.
Siam - 2 - Sorry Siam, but your UA feels like Greece-lite (and they're gone) and although your meant to go for diplo victory, you have to work at it really hard at your GPT for them to operate properly.
Zulu - 10

 

[striker4life360]

Arabia - 18
Aztec - 9
China - 20
England - 5
Ethiopia - 5 - If a top 3 UA doesn't save a civ than the Ethiopia UB surely wouldn't
Germany - 16
Inca - 18
Korea - 23 - Although the Babs' are gone, the race for space will still go on.
Maya - 27
Poland - 22
Portugal - 6
Siam - 2
Zulu - 10

 

[greygamer]

While the lack of Babylon has turned this entire thread into a bunch of meaningless nonsense,

It became meaningless some time ago, for me when Egypt was eliminated early. Reasons given, if you lose a city you give gold to the AI and not understanding how to get best use out of the UU. Those drawbacks are probably only in there because otherwise Egypt would be OP. Likewise the 'weak' UU/UB for Babylon. China better at war then the Mongols ...really, etc.

It is just a popularity contest (or social game), pure and simple.A few have tried to explain why some of the eliminations were ...misguided. But it seems that is now off-topic so just a popularity contest really

For those that did give a little detail as to why some civs were better than the voting suggested a big thanks. However I'm not really interested in who wins this competition anymore. Probably Poland because it's UA is easy to use.

I'm not angry, ...just disappointed

 

[Navelgazer]

I'm pretty sure it's not pretending to be anything other than a popularity contest, just an odd one that will tend towards the least controversial instead of the best or best-loved. Which is how Venice, one of the most popular civs based on polls, was first to go (or almost first - I can't recall exactly.)

 

[Soffacet]

It became meaningless some time ago, for me when Egypt was eliminated early. Reasons given, if you lose a city you give gold to the AI and not understanding how to get best use out of the UU. Those drawbacks are probably only in there because otherwise Egypt would be OP. Likewise the 'weak' UU/UB for Babylon. China better at war then the Mongols ...really, etc.

It is just a popularity contest (or social game), pure and simple.A few have tried to explain why some of the eliminations were ...misguided. But it seems that is now off-topic so just a popularity contest really

For those that did give a little detail as to why some civs were better than the voting suggested a big thanks. However I'm not really interested in who wins this competition anymore. Probably Poland because it's UA is easy to use.

I'm not angry, ...just disappointed

One line of reasoning that's been given quite a few times in this thread that is particularly irking is the "all they have is one thing" line, when referring to civs that have one extremely good perk, balanced by the drawback of several less useful or even useless perks. It's as if they can't conceive of the possibility that that one thing could be better than all the rest of a 'balanced' civ's bonuses put together. I.E. Babylon (UA) and now Ethiopia (UB). Very frustrating.

Btw as someone who only recently discovered the thread, I'm unfamiliar with the rules. From what I gather it's +1/-3 per post. Can anyone participate? How often are you allowed to post?

Thanks,

 

[Navelgazer]

Soffacet: My understanding is that anyone may participate, and that there's a 24-hour period between votes.

Also, I see that the OP clarified early on that he was walking about power-rankings for this, but that's been far from universally-applied. Thus some people love a civ like Babylon, which has one very powerful thing. Others find that sort of civ to be one-note and boring. Some people like civs that force them into playing things differently (like Venice, India, Ethiopia, Byzantium) and others hate those. For some people power more or less equals "fun," and for others it doesn't. Some people are assuming pangea, while others assume archipelago or continents. Some people play on Diety, others on Prince, etc.

So there's a lot going on here. I'm personally most frustrated by the arguments against naval civs for being focused on naval stuff, becomes it seems to me like a weird sort of powergamer logic that discards a major part of the game (which is also for me the most engaging part, so I'm biased) but if that's how someone likes to play, more power to 'em.