The worst civs (this one will be full of arguing)

[newfangle]

We all can argue until the doom of man about which civs are superior (Persia, Babylon, Greece for me, a passive science kinda guy). But what about theeeee WORST civs. For the sake of reducing flames against me, I won't comment about which ones are the worst, I'd rather someone else start off.

just kidding, I think Iroquios and Zulu are the worst, seeing as how they aren't even civilizations (no cities- not that they're savages). But I suppose my favorite civs would be considered the worst for an aggressive player.

 

[Stormbringer]

What do you mean the worst?
Civs that we do not like to play against or civs that we do not like to play as?

 

[Sodak]

In game terms, the Iroquois are an excellent civ to play as. I've yet to try the Zulu...

 

[Dell19]

The Zulu seem to be pretty good in the early game as their UU can retreat and since they have them in huge numbers, its difficult to kill them...When the computer controls them, the greats tend to do poorly but like all the civs, if your strategy complements the civ then it will be good for you.

Technically the Americans or the English should be the worst civs because their UU are not very useful but they still do well...

 

[newfangle]

I hate playing as the Iroquois. Expansionist and Miliartistic almost cancel each other (or is it the Zulu with these civ-specific attriubutes, sorry i cant remember)

 

[konigstiger]

Originally posted by newfangle
We all can argue until the doom of man about which civs are superior (Persia, Babylon, Greece for me, a passive science kinda guy). But what about theeeee WORST civs. For the sake of reducing flames against me, I won't comment about which ones are the worst, I'd rather someone else start off.

just kidding, I think Iroquios and Zulu are the worst, seeing as how they aren't even civilizations (no cities- not that they're savages). But I suppose my favorite civs would be considered the worst for an aggressive player.

Zulu for me. At least Iroquis have mounted warrior

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by newfangle
We all can argue until the doom of man about which civs are superior (Persia, Babylon, Greece for me, a passive science kinda guy). But what about theeeee WORST civs. For the sake of reducing flames against me, I won't comment about which ones are the worst, I'd rather someone else start off.

just kidding, I think Iroquios and Zulu are the worst, seeing as how they aren't even civilizations (no cities- not that they're savages). But I suppose my favorite civs would be considered the worst for an aggressive player.

I disagree regarding the Iroquios. I think their UU is pretty powerful during early wars.

Bill

 

[Jason Fox]

Originally posted by newfangle
I hate playing as the Iroquois. Expansionist and Miliartistic almost cancel each other (or is it the Zulu with these civ-specific attriubutes, sorry i cant remember)

The Iroquois are expansionistic and religious. I like playing them, and the Mounted Warrior is an excellent UU, early, cheap, fast and effective.

I hate playing against the Aztecs and the Persians. I hate playing as England.

 

[BiatchGuy]

I haven't played as all the civs yet...


I didn't have much luck with the English, but that was because it was the first game I played on a new difficulty level. Same goes for the Indians. I'll have to give both of those a second chance now that I'm accustomed to Regent.. or maybe even when I move up.

and as for the Zulus.. the Impi kinda sucks, I think. It's not a great offensive unit. Good on defense though, but doesn't that retreat ability become pointless if you're using them to defend?

 

[sappling]

I think US and England are the worse to play as their attributes stink and UU are horrible.

I think it is easiest to play with the persians and indians. I have played every civ and like the persians, babylonians and indians best.

 

[Fez_Monk]

The Zulu are harder to win with, than the Persians or Greeks, but if you have a good strategy, then you can win with any civ. The Zulu aren't a passive builder science civ they are a strictly military one, good for larger maps with lots of huts. Use the expansionist trait to get a bunch of early tech from goody huts, so you get a tech lead, and use scouts to find your rivals quickly. Then, build hordes of horsemen and Impi[Use the Impi to defend the horsies; Impi will prevent enemy retreat cuz he is a fast little guy ] and maybe some catapults[you have to use LOTS of catapults ffor them to have an effect] and conquer your rivals. Who cares about building wonders? Just conquer them. [Culture can be a problem, but captured workers,courthouses, and the Forbidden Palace can help with production]. If you build a huge early lead, you'll walk away with the game. Zulu are perfect for either conquest or domination victory.

 

[Fez_Monk]

Americans are the worst. Their UU is useless, and their civ traits aren't really made for any type of victory. If only the expansionist trait had more going for it. I guess on larger maps they might do better, but that can't help the fact that they have no cultural or military advantages[in other words, they suck.]

 

[saintides]

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX


I disagree regarding the Iroquios. I think their UU is pretty powerful during early wars.

Me too. That is actually my favorite civ to play right now. I kick butt with them. I am an early war kind of player though (always pick on a neighbor or two). Horses are usually always around somewhere. I'm not sure how many times I had 40 or so mountys and just rock n rolled all around me. By time calvary comes around I have plenty of units to upgrade.

The only thing I don't like about playing them is the early GA.

 

[Sixchan]

I agree about the Americans being bad, but since I regularly play on island or watery maps, I like the English.

 

[Immortal]

I think the Americans are the worst civ in the game. I find it very difficult to attain victory on Emperor with the americans while I can with all the other civs (Im assuming so, Ive only played with 4 on emperor).

 

[Tweedledum]

I guess a lot depends on what sort of maps you play on and what approach you want to use
For me? The English are the worst (although it pains me to say it...!) - UU is utterly useless and the attributes stink. At least the Americans are industrious (I think)
The best? The Persians: Scientific, Industrious and the Immortals get to slice'n'dice your neighbours. What could be better?

[OK, maybe, but Elle MacPherson is not going to do it - at least not to me...]

 

[Fez_Monk]

With lethal bombardment in the the new patch, I might play as the English. It won't help the Americans, their UU comes way to late to be of any use.

 

[God]

America has good traits; Industrial and expansionist. England has commercial and expansionist and has the Man'O'War. I would say England is the worst.

I haven't played as France as yet but they seem pretty crappy too. UU is not too good except a kind of decent GA timing. Commercial horrible trait. Industrious helps it a bit but does not bring them up in the rankings. I have played as India in GOTM6. As usual commercial is crap although religious is good. Elephants lead to nice GA but are kind of pointless because you should have iron by then. Greece has commercial and an ok UU. Very good defense but they suck otherwise. Early GA.

Most of the other civs are pretty good. Some better than others but all decent and better. If America had a better UU like Minute Man or something it would be alot more powerful.

 

[Fez_Monk]

Actually, this whole thing is subjective, because different people have different ways of playing the game. I just got a culture victory playing as the Greeks. I haven't played as the Indians yet. But it really boils down to how you play the game.

 

[Sanaz]

England is definitely the worst. Industrious is useful for early development(France and America), but not as good as religious, militaristic, and scientific civs. But England is only good to expand your empire when you crush them - I always try to.