What are Your Bottom 3 "Least well-Designed Civs"?

Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by pineappledan, Jun 6, 2021.

  1. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    6,669
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    Positivity is great and all, but what are your thoughts on the civs that just don't hang together that well?

    Do you have thoughts on what your least favorite civs are from a pure design perspective? in other words:
     
    Bryan317 likes this.
  2. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    8,465
    So in looking over the civs, there is only one that I think is truly "flawed" in terms of its of its design, aka I do not think the design is actually working.

    Shoshone - I feel a lot of it conflicts with other aspects of the game. The land grab gives you no innate benefits, and actually works against things like the Expanse pantheon (the fact that the guy with the "Great Expanse" ability never wants the Expanse pantheon....that tells you something right there). I feel like America, Russia, Spain, and Portugal all do the land grab better. Further, turning off ancient ruins is a decently common lever that people use....which completely nerfs one of their core abilities. Its UU and UI are "ok", but nothing exciting or interesting.


    For my other two...

    America - The base bonuses are just so bland, as an American of course I want my home civ to be cool, but America plays very generically. Also, its late game UB seems in contrast with the rest of its play style....it has this land taking focus early on but then suddenly pivots into a hard CV push strategy out of nowhere.... it feels very odd. The recent purchases changes have helped a bit, but it still feels off.

    Indonesia - So I was tempted to go with a war monger here like the Huns....but I am very biased against warmongers in general so that didn't feel fair. I chose Indonesia because on paper I feel like I should like this civ. Bonuses for going wide, luxs to help with happiness, some cool WLTKD bonuses, a melee UU (I just really like melee units for some weird reason) what's not to like. But....I just do not enjoy playing Indonesia at all, something about it just comes as incredibly bland in play.
     
  3. Grassland Farm

    Grassland Farm Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2011
    Messages:
    249
    Location:
    Le mighty motherland France
    America's problems with its theme have been discussed to death on the right thread so I'll avoid talking about em too much!

    So, two things. I actually like it when Civs don't "flow together" that much - if everything synergises too much then you get shoehorned into a playstyle and there's less room for choice. For instance Zulus can pretty much only do warmongering. It's fine, but for instance Mongols is also a heavy warmonger who still has an interesting niche with the Ger's yields and border growth.
    However sometimes a kit just doesn't have enough cohesion or "oomf" to feel good:
    I'd say Siam is just weird with its building. Its strong UU also comes at a time where you'd rather spam Envoys I guess. There's ultimately no synergy aside from UU helping you not die in wars where you help your citystates I guess.
    Ottomans could use just an inch more coherence in the kit.


    Everything else is fine honestly... Maybe Mayans but I feel like their chaotic kit gives their charm. More GPs makes you wanna go Tradition, but then you don't have enough workers to build Kunas, Progress makes nice Kunas but you might be defenseless in spite of the Atlatls, Authority somewhat works but makes it awkward to spend those GPeople!
     
  4. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    6,669
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    My Bottom 3:

    Spoiler France :

    • I personally think the French UA is overtuned. It gives an enormous amount of yield potential on city capture while also making city capture easier (the % CS applies to cities, and indeed that is where it is most useful). So it targets a specific game aspect (city conquest) and makes it both easier AND more rewarding, while similar UAs only do 1.
    • It gives both per-turn and instant yields off the same city capture trigger, so it feels like it's doing too much. The instant yields also overlap heavily with Japan's UA, which gives the same kind of reward (GWAMs) using a more unique, but still war-related, trigger: GG and GA birth.
    • The UA gives 40% :c5production::c5culture: to all cities every turn for every 2:c5citizen:population in the captured city. This feels like the civ should have some :c5goldenage:Golden Age play, because those are the same yield types you get from GAs in all cities, but it doesn't play out like that at all. There's a thematic disconnect, because in practice, the constant warring makes you unlikely to keep a happy empire that is building :c5goldenage:GAPs, and GAs on top of the city capture don't actually matter, because while 60% is better, they don't actually synergize or add multiplicatively, even though it feels like it should somehow. This is why I have actually taken this exact bonus and given it to the Goths, because that civ has a unique GA trigger; it feels more thematically whole there.
    • I have given some proposed changes to France, such as bringing back their vanilla theming bonus, but making it global and apply to the extra yields table that VP gives theming beyond the base :c5culture::tourism: from BNW

    Spoiler Germany :

    UA:
    • Realpolitik doesn't feel like it rewards friendship enough to be worthy of the name. The impression I get is that Realpolitik is about maximizing payout with CSs while minimizing effort. Germany should be able to "cut its losses" in the event that they get into a Influence competition with another civ, where they each run their influence on a single CS into the thousands to outdo each other. Realpolitik should be about getting those easy, 60-200:c5influence: influence CS that other civs are ignoring, and wringing some reward out of friendships with the rest while the other Major civs waste their energy
    • This UA is such a missed opportunity, because no other Diplo civ has friendship as a core piece of its bonuses, but Germany doesn't do enough with it.
    • The Golden age points per CS friend/ally are pretty meh. They don't combine with anything else in the kit, and Germany doesn't feel like a golden-age civ. It just feels like more yields for the heck of it, but I think it cuts into the flavor of more dedicate GA-oriented civs like Persia or Brazil. GAP are a comparatively rare yield, but why are they Here, on Germany's UA?
    • Germany gets 1 extra WC vote for every 3:c5citystate:Allies it has. I think this should be more like 1:c5citystate: for every 4 Friends or Allies.
    • Lastly, I think Germany would really benefit from some sort of CS influence punish mechanic that degrades enemy civs' :c5influence:influence if Germany is competing for that city-state, Something that Germany doesn't have to work at (minimize effort. Realpolitik). Like other civs' CS influence degrades at double the normal rate if Germany is the Contender.
    UU:
    • The Panzer is just so ridiculously late. It's so late it even got brought forward so it's an absurd anachronism for its unlock tech, only 1 tech after another unit in its tech line, and it's still too late. It is such a terribly awkward thing having this 1 civ that has a Modern/Atomic UU a full era after every civ is already done with their UUs

    Spoiler Ottomans :

    I will preface this by saying that I know these will feel like really minor gripes, but it really kills my enjoyment of this civ.
    • 'Tanzimat' is just not a very good name for the UA, IMO
      • First off, this campaign didn't really have much to do with trade.
      • Ultimately, Tanzimat didn't work. It was an attempt to modernize the army and institutions of the empire and try to foster some cohesive identity and popular mandate for the empire from the population in an effort to avoid instability and demands for more substantive political reform. These policies failed utterly, first with the losses of the Crimean War undermining the Tanzimat's attempt to avoid constitutionalism, because further reform was demanded in their peace terms with the European powers. Then it failed in its ethnic goals with the breakaway of many non-Muslim majorities and growing nationalism within the Greek, Armenian, Baltic Slavs, and even the Arabs that went unabated for the next century, ending with the Ottoman Empire's complete dissolution less than 100 years later.
      • Tanzimat was implemented in the 1830s. That's 300 years after the peak of Ottoman power, well into its waning relevance and "Sick Man of Europe" period.
      • Suleiman was the leader at the Ottoman Empire's greatest extent, and he is also recognized as one of their greatest rulers specifically because of his legal and political reforms. He oversaw the full implementation of a law code to cover matters not prescribed by the Quran: the Kanun. For his efforts, Suleiman is called Kanuni ('the Lawgiver') in the Muslim world. So why not make "Kanuni" the name of the UA?
    • The UA is focused on trade, but the UU and UB are hardcore war bonuses. These two are in conflict with each other for a couple reasons:
      • War time is a bad time for trade routes, because they get pillaged. The UA makes internal TRs a source of :c5culture:culture and :c5gold:gold, which is great, because you otherwise wouldn't be able to risk many international TRs for those yield types.
      • constant warmongers have a problem with happiness, and the UA gives purely economic bonuses, but through instant yields which don't contribute to happiness at all. So the UA in no way supports or is supported by the UB/UU, and in fact is set up in a way that specifically avoids, and even is hindered by the rest of the kit. This is a missed opportunity, because the Kanun and the Tanzimat reforms were about integrating and improving the cohesion of the empire through updated and uniform codes of law. So why doesn't the UA contribute at all to happiness?
      • Proposal: Just add +1:c5happy: happiness or some %:c5unhappy:Needs reduction to the target of an internal :trade:TR. You could also add +1:c5happy: happiness to origin cities of International TRs for symmetry, but that's less necessary :trade:TR.
     
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2021
    Legen, dylansan, tu_79 and 4 others like this.
  5. Grassland Farm

    Grassland Farm Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2011
    Messages:
    249
    Location:
    Le mighty motherland France
    Yeah during a brainstorming I also considered having Ottomans get %needs reduction from the city that sends the traderoute out, so you'd be encouraged to snipe unhappy cities and keep expanding.
    And while it's not the "fault" of either individual civ, I do agree the overlap between Japan and France is very awkward
     
  6. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    8,465
    A simple +1 happiness to the target of your ITR is solid, I like it. Its especially potent early game because I find the targets of my food ITRs early tend to grow and hit their happiness wall well before the TR finishes, so it feels a lot of the food is "wasted". The +1 happiness keeps the food relevant a bit longer.
     
  7. CrazyG

    CrazyG Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    5,768
    Location:
    Beijing
    There are a few civs I dislike but I've always just played the other choices, there are 43 options. If asked:

    Spain: I really dislike the Haciendia, it's needlessly complex for a very run of the mill effect, and I hate the UA, you get way too much faith in later eras. Faith buying ships is fun though.

    Design-wise I dislike Mongolia, your chariots won't ever take a city, but they won't get damaged either, it's just an invitation to farm XP and give yourself carpal tunnel.

    Indonesia: at some point his monopoly bonuses got changed and it made him a lot less interesting. He used to have 3 hidden UA's from the 3 monopolies, but now it's just yields on the tiles and 6 happiness. He's also very weak, I might put him as #43 on a tier list.
     
  8. Guynemer

    Guynemer King

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Messages:
    837
    I personally find Poland very bland.
     
  9. pineappledan

    pineappledan Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    6,669
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Alberta, Canada
    That's 2 votes for Indonesia, ouch!

    I play with 4UC, and I think the extra components improve that particular civ more than many of the others. It brings back a lot more island/coastal flavor to the civ, while doubling down on them being able to make basically any patch of land useable.
     
    SwirlSlayer and Bryan317 like this.
  10. Bryan317

    Bryan317 Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    317
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm shocked about Indonesia, I guess I'm going to have to do another run. I had a blast with them. Didn't they used to have a possibility of getting a negative promotion for their UU? I seem to recall that got fixed and you only get good promotions now, but even with negative promotions I had a really fun time using that Civ. But are they "good"? Guess I need another look at them...
     
  11. KittyKat3120

    KittyKat3120 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2018
    Messages:
    112
    Is this secretly a thread by pineappledan to evaluate civ for his vp tweaks mod 0.0.

    For me, idk why I always felt babylon is quite bland, his UA to me is bland, a free great scientist at writing, easier great scientist, and cheaper investment are good but are quite bland to me. His UU is great with the indirect fire though I am not sure why it was given it (to have a unique promotion I guess? But I am not sure why this promotion). The only thing I feel its great and thematic is the walls of babylon. But overall quite a bland civ with bonus in the early game to help kickstart and defend a long turtle of great scientist/ science game.
     
  12. phantomaxl1207

    phantomaxl1207 King

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2010
    Messages:
    871
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Indiana
    Korea: You get science and more science, not much else. Also, specialists are expensive to run early on.
     
  13. youngsteve

    youngsteve Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    378
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    England
    Assyria I find the worst, as it never does anything. Probably not helped by their UU which I never see them use.

    Byzantium is another one that does little, remains small, & always seems to get gobbled up by other civs.

    Ameica I have played alot recently, & although its UA & UU are very good, the UB I find lacklustre, & very late. Whereas the UA & UU fit into Americas frontier & expansionist history, the UB & game encourages you to go down the culture/tradition route which has nothing really to do with them. I see people playing taking tradition/artistry/rationalism, which fits in with how they are set up, but completely at odds with their history.
     
  14. General_Drax

    General_Drax Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2019
    Messages:
    274
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Bologna, Italy
    Venice.

    I'm italian and really I'm sorrow how this civ offer nothing. Just a unpleasant way to play on a niche mode. At least we have Rome. Hands down best one for me overall.

    Germany.

    UA can be negated conquering CS (same as Siam, Greece, Austria, etc). UB and UU are coming too late to make a difference. Germany AI get smashed so easily. It's like playing vs one less enemy/contender.

    Polynesia.

    Without 4UC is borderline unplayable. So weak and difficult to stabilize. If you have a warmonger civ near you you'll have an hard defensive play ahead.
     
  15. SpankmyMetroid

    SpankmyMetroid Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Messages:
    296
    I gripe about them on the discord once in a while, but Iroquois. While they have a very nice early game if they have a neighbor or two that spawns in their forest/jungle patch, they’re just kind of boring the rest of the game once civs start chopping down their trees and have no other benefits for the rest of the game with their UA, except... the 20% combat bonus three tiles from a NW is a joke and almost never relevant. They’re just boring to play after their swordsman rush as there’s nothing to look forward to, they’re just done getting and using tools by classical/medieval and you’re playing a civ with very slightly better yields to trees for the next 2/3 of the game. If I’d rework them I’d give them a bonus or two to their UA just so they have something to either look forward to or to exploit through the rest of the game. Maybe give slightly more yields to trees as eras progress like Inca’s mountains (perhaps only on natural, umimproved tiles so the yields don’t get too crazy). The NW UA should have a larger range (maybe 5 tiles but should scale with map size) and be higher closer to the NW (10% 5 tiles away up to 50% if parked right on it). Make it dangerous to settle NWs if Hiwatha’s in the game.

    While I’m on it the AI also has a huge problem with their ironless swordsman since they have no means to upgrade them if they get unlucky with iron, unless they can skip the longswordsman and go right to gun units (but I don’t think that’s possible).
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2021
    KaoticKanine and Kim Dong Un like this.
  16. InkAxis

    InkAxis King

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2020
    Messages:
    648
    Gender:
    Male
    some hot takes here :lol:

    Seems very unique, the only civ with this kind of bonus and an infrastructure/science game, also very flexible. Also not sure what you mean about indirect fire, a very good promotion and situationally one of the best?
    These two I think you misunderstand, we are not talking about how strong they are for the AI. And Byzantium in human hands is quite strong.

    The Moai give +20% strength to units within 3 tiles, which is pretty string early on for defense. But as for design I think they are one of the most interesting civs with a very unique playstyle, though they can be hard to get a handle on. I think it was CrazyG that liked them a lot.

    But otherwise I mostly agree. Iroquois, the natural wonder bonus seems a little out of place, honestly most terrain based civs are good in theory but their design can be screwed by RNG unless the terrain is super common.
    Other civs just get a bonus, without really changing your playstyle, Germany is a good example.
     
  17. bonniepbilly

    bonniepbilly Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Messages:
    117
    I dislike the fact that with the Huns your UU is the horse archer where you don’t need horses, but you’ll need horses for the horsemen for your UA, and then when you upgrade to heavy skirmishes you run out of horses... and it’s not like mounted units that don’t require horses are around the corner...
     
  18. azum4roll

    azum4roll Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    1,728
    Gender:
    Male
    Iroquois is fine. The Carthage UA similarly obsoletes past Classical but no one's complaining about that. Trees aren't exactly rare in the game either.
     
  19. Grassland Farm

    Grassland Farm Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2011
    Messages:
    249
    Location:
    Le mighty motherland France
    Is there a VP Discord I'm not aware of? The only one I have is fairly inactive.
     
  20. randomnub

    randomnub Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2017
    Messages:
    567
    Gender:
    Male
    Civs that boom very late (Germany above all, but also France and Sweden despite being strong unlock their uniques a bit too late), civs that are very terrain dependant (Incas and Iroquois the main offenders here), civs that are pidgeholed into a conquest game from the get go, but are annoying to play (Huns and Mongols, I just despise the skirmisher line), civs that don't look very unique when you look at the map (Assyria, due to the 'invisible' UU and the UW you build once and forget about it, or Poland, with invisible horses coming out of nowhere and an UA that while strong feels very passive).

    These are civs I don't enjoy play at all, but it doesn't mean they're badly designed or weak, they could be fun in other player hands. Most of those kits are also synergic and well thought after, just fail in practice.

    Funnily enough, I like, or used to like playing the civs I vote as the least well designed: they are strong enough, just lack particular synergy or have a kit that is a mess.

    1. Germany

    I pretty much agree with everything pineappledan said about the UA, it doesn't reward friendship enough, nor helps getting into friendship status either. GA points also mean very little here, they are there for the sake of having some more (weak) yields but the civ is not about GAs. In the early game other diplo civs have a way to generate more influence, or lower decay, with CSs but as Germany there're good chances your UA gives you next to 0 benefits for the first 50-75 turns when the :c5influence: rewards are low. The hanse is once again a mess of bonus yields, :c5science:, :c5gold:, :c5culture: and :c5production: in the same building and forces you into statecraft/trade confederacy, at that point you're building up for ally city states and don't care much about basic friendship either, especially because bonus UN votes come from allies only.
    The UU comes too late and is a purely offensive one, no synergy with the diplomatic kit. Having higher :c5strength: and :c5moves: than standard tanks also goes against the civpedia entry ("German tanks weren't markedly superior than French or Russian counterparts [...], but they had the German military genius behind them..."). It's also worth note that in this civ game the German leader is Bismark, not Hitler, and the panzer feels awkward. At a quick glance the other UUs match their leader timeline better.

    2. Spain

    This used to be one of my favorite civs before the rework, and once the betas settle down I plan to partially mod it back, albeit weakened a bit (no immunity to conversion, that was really overtuned). I like the land grab part of the UA better than the :c5gold:/:c5faith: on settle/conquest because it feels more dinamic and balanced, but the free inquisitor can be a gold sink that I have to disband. Conquistadors are a missed opportunity: it's very fun to sail them and settle some island with powerful basic infrastructure earlier than pioneers, but without ocean explorer and no automatic conversion anymore it's way better to use their window of opportunity to annihilate nearby opponents: in fact, they're a bit too strong combatants if you ask me, they should have some heavy bonus against lower tech units ("natives" and the like), not being the best cavalry unit of their era.
    The Hacienda UI is a better unique than the Mission UB, due to the fact UIs on the map are pretty to look at, while the faith-bought castle replacement was not synergic with the Fealty Nobility policy. On the other hand, it feels unpolished: afaik it still gets bonus yields from hidden strategic resources. At the end of the day it gives a bit of everything without a clear focus (it can also be spammed pretty much everywhere, that way even if there're some differences between different haciendas the sum of bonus yields in each town is similar). Haciendas play similar to polders or encampments, but without unique synergy: I liked the idea of bonus border growth points that work along the UA, a bunch of those along gold should be the focus of this UI. And give up the unnecessary mess with resource adjacency, that idea is already implemented with the Chateau but without the limitations we place them over all the 'empty' terrain anyway.

    3. Indonesia

    Again a favorite of mine (I like to play Progress, and late game settling being somewhat better rewarded) but the kit is not without flaws.
    First of all a vanilla issue: spawning resources right under a city makes it impossible to raze, that's annoying to deal with as a player (AI is more than happy to keep 1-tile island cities, but most of the time they're a happiness drain for us).
    As others said, the monopolies are bland. The resources also fall off after the mid game with no building associated to them. I think the monopolies should provide a global bonus, while the candi (and the garden, or another replacement building) gives flat yields.
    In order to be meaningful for the religion rage, the Candi comes too late and on a niche building. 2:c5faith: and 20%:c5faith: during WLTK on a civ with no early faith bonus (and a strong incentive in going progress) is often partially wasted, it's pretty hard even for the AI to found as Indonesia. The culture and bonus luxuries are okay, but it's always a 300:c5production: garden and the 25% GP is not very useful outside of your core cities. I'd see it better as a temple replacement.
    If the bonus resources weren't random enough, we have the Kris. Again a roulette, and not a fun one. Being limited by strategic resources, with the same :c5strength: of other swordmen, there're good chances of a lame promotion such as flanking or enemy defection (even more randomness). Even Heroism isn't that good once you have a GG in place, and it's not being buffed by Regimental System under Imperialism (oversight?), hence falls down quick. Invulnerability and Restlessness are just two steps above all other promotions that it's not fun if you're unlucky. They have no synergy with the kit, but given the 'mystic' part and the faith on the iconic candi it could be nice if they had a faith on kill/on damage/on garrison/on creation/on anything to incentivize their use.
     
    SwirlSlayer and Drakle like this.

Share This Page