I'm new at writing here, but I'm an old hand at Civ III (which I find to be the crown jewel of the Civilization series) and have followed this awesome forum for years. The Civ reviews by Ision, Zardnaar, and the others are one of the high-points and I often found them to be immensely insightful. However, I also disagree with some of the points they made in their reviews. They rate some Civs fairly poorly because they seem to have overlooked some exploits and synergies they offer. To balance their viewpoint with another one, to invite comment and discussion, and to give myself a repository for my own thoughts, I decided to post my own set of Civ reviews. To give you an understanding of where I'm coming from with my analyses, I will give you the settings I usually play: C3C, largest map size, roaming barbarians, 16 Civs, Emperor difficulty, culturally linked start locations, no respawn, Histograph, Space Ship, and Diplomatic as victory conditions, all other settings according to my mood. I like to play for ****s and giggles and I like long and epic games. I want to have fun and cool civilization development stories, I do not care about winning as fast as possible or high scores. That is the perspective I'm going to write from. This also means that I will try to bring out the best in each Civ and why I will not use a Tier system, as Ision and Co. did (that's good if you want to look at performance, but I want to look at versatility and fun). My viewpoint sometimes results in an unusual playstyle, but often one that results in a special "feel" when playing the Civ in question, which is often close to the actual history of a Civ. To emphasise how such unusual builds can work (at least up to Emperor difficulty, everything above I find boring as hell, it's just mechanics), I will probably include examplary game descriptions or uploads, at least occasionally or on demand. Accordingly, I will begin with a Civ that has been rated very, very poorly by Ision (3rd Tier, although not even properly reviewed): the Vikings.