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

[tu_79]

It's not about synergies, but of awkward situations.
For example, I don't find Maya very synergistic, but it's still an OK civ.
Shoshone UA has synergies with its UI, however I've never manage to use their kit proficiently for the reasons explained above.

For me, this ruins fun.

 

[Zanteogo]

Any civ who's core abilities are based around tweaked numbers. I prefer civs who actually play differently. This is compounded with civs who generally play tall and peaceful. If I am going to play peaceful, I want to be playing a wide civ.

Korea is the worst for this. Plus I find the science bonus can actually work against you as you will research faster than you can build the things you unlock.

 

[Zanteogo]

Also forgot, any civ that unlocks it's UU late game.

It supposed to be that these units are more powerful than other UU because it's usually more of advantage to war earlier that later. Plus a UU is pointless if you are dead. I don't really see it though.

 

[Dimmy]

Playing VP with 3-4UC mod made me unable to play base VP ever again. And the reworked wonders mod as well.

 

[BD123]

Recently getting back into CiV and Vox Populi, but I agree that the Ottomans need a bit more work. Napoleon and Gustavus Adolphus both got reworked so that they'd better reflect the leaders' time period, so I'm not sure why the Ottomans are getting Tanzimat Reforms from the 1830s when Suleiman reigned in the 1500s, and the trade route focus seems more thematically in line with Carthage or Morocco since trade isn't really what the Ottomans are most known for. The hills start bias I understand is to help out their UB but a coastal bias would work better historically for Istanbul and for their trade route focus.

My other two complaints would be Poland and Spain, but I wouldn't say they're bad. Poland is just kind of the same as before Vox Populi, free social policies and that's kind of it. I feel like every other civ got an interesting uplift and were made to feel more unique or engaging than base game, but Poland is still more or less the same. They're certainly still a very strong civ, just not very interesting to me.

I loved Spain prior to the rework only because I hated my cities being converted for role play reasons, but that old ability was probably a bit much lol. The current hacienda is odd and as someone above stated it doesn't really do anything special. An hacienda is also exclusive to Spain's New World colonies, but the current set up doesn't reflect that (you can surround Madrid with haciendas for example). I think they should be made exclusive to continents that your capital isn't on and provide a greater reason for distant colonization in terms of production/gold but I'm not sure how feasible this is.

 

[pineappledan]

An hacienda is also exclusive to Spain's New World colonies, but the current set up doesn't reflect that (you can surround Madrid with haciendas for example). I think they should be made exclusive to continents that your capital isn't on and provide a greater reason for distant colonization in terms of production/gold but I'm not sure how feasible this is.

same is true of the old mission

 

[azum4roll]

I think they should be made exclusive to continents that your capital isn't on and provide a greater reason for distant colonization in terms of production/gold but I'm not sure how feasible this is.

That's just completely unplayable on Pangaea.

 

[BD123]

That's just completely unplayable on Pangaea.

Pangaea is my least favorite map so I forgot about it lol. What I meant to say was that the hacienda should have greater yields/incentive exclusive to colonized continents but an otherwise weaker yield/incentive on the capital home. That's still not ideal on pangaea but I don't think a civ needs to excel at every map.

 

[pineappledan]

You can think of the hacienda system as an evolution of the encomienda, which did exist indigenously in Iberia. It's less of a stretch than the Missions.

That said, there would be a way to make them slightly stronger on other continents, which would be to give Conquistadors a unique mission building that can only be gotten as a free building from settling with a Conquistador. The mission would therefore be locked to landmasses that aren't your starting continent, and you could give the mission bonus yields to nearby Hacienda.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

The in my eyes worst designed civs:

America:
I really dont know what to do with America. Its a cool feature to steal land of neighbors, but you will always rise tensions with your neighbors as a downside. Gaining yields by purchasing tiles also such a mediocre thing, good on paper but the yields are only coming to you if you really have the money to permanently buy tiles, which normally dont happen. While the landgrab of the US may be historical correct, but it isnt a really interesting game feature. The whole thing feels a bit uninspired.

Ottomans:
Its nearly the same as Portugal, a wider range of yields are possible. But instead you are always in fear of getting nothing cause your trade partner declare war on you or your unit gets pillaged. There is also permanently the pressure to chose short range trade routes to trigger your UA more often but have to pay that with less yields by the trade route itself. Their unit is awesome, no question, but on the other side, their UB is so meaningless, that I really dont care about it. I agree with others, that you have with their UA on the one side an ability, which forces you to hold peace, while having on the other side 2 abilities, which pushes you towards war. That UA should be really changed, cause its in my eyes only a worse version of the Portugal UA and doesnt have any synergy with their other abilities.

Germany:
I am a German. I really like to play Germany. But it isnt a good concept.
What carries Germany the most is the Hanse building. 10% of the gold is added as science and 50+% production bonus is simply a ridicoulus strong bonus.
But you have to play Germany always the same. Pick statecraft and send all your trade routes to CS. And this means very often never using any internal trade route and also using trade routes to CS and only gain +4 gold from them, while other options with +10gold +6 science +4 culture etc are possible. I often play the huns peacefully and even they have war aspects in their UA, I dont see it as a loss in not using them. But beeing forced to pick horsehockey trade routes only to activate my other abilites feels simply odd. And +1 Delegate per 3 allied city states is nothing. If you have to face a human played Austria in game as Germany, you are gone. You are simply gone. Their whole build up is a win-more construct. But doesnt really help in coming to the area, you are winning.
The Panzer is in my eyes ok. I play very often early and mid game peacefully and activly wage war only in the late game, so I dont see that much problem. I think using Landknecht as their UU would fit very well, the name itself is already german, and would push the bloom of Germany more into earlier stages.