What civilization do you think will be the most powerful?

[nishant1911]

my analysis of traits(for higher difficulties)-(if civ5 is not drastically different from civ4)

America- good for multiplayer and early game (warfare)
score- 3/5

Arabia- extremely good trait
score- 5/5

Aztec- moderate , main point of culture victory is avoiding war.
score- 2/5

china- effectiveness and spawn rate increased by how much?
score- can't tell right now

egypt- good for those who love shinies, 20% is quite low, i'll rather chop.
score- 3/5

england-good for only a certain type of maps (naval)
score- 2/5

france- very good trait, lesser need to buy tiles+faster expansion
score- 4/5

germany- great for early warfare
score- 3/5

greece- a good trait i guess.
score- not sure

india- very good trait for higher levels,imagine double happy cap early game.
score -4/5

iroquois- a great trait for temperate maps
score- 3/5

japan- definitely overpowered, they need to fix this with a patch
score- 6/5

ottomans- meh,naval unit? haven't they learned anything.nobody goes naval in a standard civ game
score-1/5

persia- deadly in the hands of a good player
score-4/5

rome- arguably the best trait (not overpowered)
score-5/5

russia- very good trait,mainly because of larger quantities of resources
score-4/5

siam- can't say right now
score- not sure

songhai- good maybe
score- can't say

 

[Sonereal]

iroquois- a so-so trait for temperate maps
score- 1/5

If you completly ignore the fact that in the early game, forests on borders will become the main defense during a war, sure, their trait is terrible.

But when you remember that they can encircle your troops in forests when on the offense and absolute dominate on the defense inside a forest, then you see that the Iro ability is great.

 

[Churchdown Yank]

I agree with most folks that Russia and Rome look pretty good. (Voted Russia myself)

Also Japan's Bushido looks intriguing.

It's really hard to say for sure without knowing more about some of the details about the UU's and UB's - so my opinion is pretty much based on the Special Ability + a little bit of other info.

I think France's +culture could be quite powerful. Faster tile expansion + faster adoption of social policies is pretty tasty.

I also find it hard to get excited about England's SA, and the Ottoman's... (Presumably their UU's will be pretty kick ass). Persia's I find interesting but it might be hard to leverage - get ready to go to war as soon as your golden age starts?

Some of the others like Greece and Siam encourage particular strategies pretty heavily which I'm also a little unsure about.

 

[nishant1911]

If you completly ignore the fact that in the early game, forests on borders will become the main defense during a war, sure, their trait is terrible.

But when you remember that they can encircle your troops in forests when on the offense and absolute dominate on the defense inside a forest, then you see that the Iro ability is great.

you're right! i really didn't think about it long enough.
it will be a great trait actually, if going offensive early

 

[Guardian_PL]

my analysis of traits(for higher difficulties)-(if civ5 is not drastically different from civ4)

Aztec- moderate , main point of culture victory is avoiding war.
score- 2/5

Yeah, in previous installments of Civ. But here culture serves to unlock Social Policies, and while running an early-era warfare you can basically unlock half of the Social tree which gives you for instance big bonuses from warfare-related section, which in turn translates to you kicking some more arses around with style and militaristic win.

I love it that UA to bits, especially that barbs will be in abundance so a lot of fighting even if you're a peaceful player you can still gain lots of culture from barb-fighting, develop say trade-related Social tree and pursue win in any way you want. Pure awesomeness.

Bottom line - stop thinking in Civ3/Civ4 terms, this installment will be as groundbreaking as Civ4 was to Civ3. Sid Meier for United Nations world leader win!!!

 

[Senethro]

Lots of guessing here and people looking at numbers but not really thinking about how valuable these numbers are.

Take Rome. When you read the ability you can see the eyes of all the lazy builders who build everything in every city just light up. I'm sure it'll be good on larger maps where you've got more cities. But there will be hidden costs that will be very prominant in the early game.

I don't think we know yet how specialized cities in Civ5 will be. If they are very specialized then every time Rome builds a building it doesn't need, you're wasting hammers until 4 other cities also build it and incurring maintenance forever. When founding Rome you'll always have to have one eye on how much production you can make which may lead to sub-optimal commerce. One of the Social Trees has capital related bonuses and it may be Rome won't get the best use of these due to being busy constructing. In the early game there may be a huge opportunity cost to filling Rome's build queue with buildings as often early game capitals with their high hammer output are responsible for making half an army.

I don't think Rome's ability is that incredible, but it is extremely easy to understand and to use. Compare with things like the Aztec's ability to make war while also teching up their social trees as Guardian just pointed out. Its less obvious but once you think about it, it could be quite good.

 

[Mustakrakish]

japan- definitely overpowered, they need to fix this with a patch
score- 6/5

No, they don't!

 

[stealth_nsk]

About ottomans, think about this - I expect maps to have a lot of small islands. They'll be perfect for barbarian spamming. So expect a lot of barb navies.

You could even cultivate barb farming with ottomans.

 

[Churchdown Yank]

...
I don't think Rome's ability is that incredible, but it is extremely easy to understand and to use. Compare with things like the Aztec's ability to make war while also teching up their social trees as Guardian just pointed out. Its less obvious but once you think about it, it could be quite good.

I agree that it's really pretty difficult to know which ability will be be strongest without playing the game and also knowing the details about the full package you get with a certain civ. My assumption with Rome is that like Civ IV the capital will lead in building most buildings and 25% discount on every library, barracks, market, etc. in the rest of your cities sounds pretty good. That plus it looks like two pretty strong UU's which we know more about than some of the other UU's

I also agree that some of the other abilities are sneaky good. The main thing for me is how specialized they are. For example with the Greeks, you almost have to build an alliance of friendly city states. No more "rape and pillage" Alex! The special abilities will dictate play styles more than in Civ IV.

 

[ilikepies]

The powers all cater to different playstyles so it's hard to number them exactly, but I'll say which I think is awesome, good, and decent/meh.

AWESOME: Arabia, France, Rome, Russia, Songhai (think Mongols only for CiV).
GOOD: America, Aztec, China, England, Germany, Greece, India, Japan, Persia.
DECENT: Egypt, Iroquois, Ottomans, Siam.

I think we'll be surprised when the game comes out though.

 

[Guardian_PL]

About ottomans, think about this - I expect maps to have a lot of small islands. They'll be perfect for barbarian spamming. So expect a lot of barb navies.

You could even cultivate barb farming with ottomans.

This.

Think about it - having a chain of islands nearby, isolate contact to them through no Open Borders (or one-sided Open Borders), create a choke point to keep barbs to their islands and there you go - Barbary Corsairs for the win - you suddenly have a huuuuge navy.
Navy helps with bombardment, blockades and basically warfare. By the time you'll gain critical mass and become able to swarm your opponents with ease you'll probably enter the Renaissance. And guess what - Janissary and Sipahi mwa-ha-ha!

 

[Celevin]

The problem I have with the Ottomans, is sometimes there's literally no opportunities. At least the English just have to get to water, and the Germans just need some fog! The Ottomans need both, which sometimes isn't possible.

I don't like that I feel I need to do very standard rules just to give all the civs their advantages. Sometimes, I like to play on more crowded maps, or sparse maps, etc. I like abilities like Persia, the Aztecs, Japan, Rome, or Egypt, which are always useful but still unique.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I like abilities like Persia, the Aztecs, Japan, Rome, or Egypt, which are always useful but still unique.

I disagree. Roman UA depends on number of cities. Aztecs are very depending on barbs for early development. Both of them are map-specific. Also map-specific are Russian and Arab UA, etc.

I'd say if there are default settings in which all civs will be balanced that will be enough for me.

 

[Celevin]

It's not even about balance though, it's the "opportunity to use their special ability". The Aztecs and Romans can still use their abilities even if it's not ideal circumstances, but I don't see the Ottomans always even getting the chance!

 

[Guardian_PL]

It's not even about balance though, it's the "opportunity to use their special ability". The Aztecs and Romans can still use their abilities even if it's not ideal circumstances, but I don't see the Ottomans always even getting the chance!

That is true, that why you need to... Guess what... Yes... Sisiutil, say it with me:
LEVERAGE the UA!

Somehow I recon that most of the time, if you'll pursue you UA you'll get the chance to use it and gain advantage from it. What if an allied city-state asks you to defend them from pesky corsairs? Even if you're landlocked you could consider building/conquering coastal city in order to fulfill the demands of said city-state, especially if having conquest of the world in mind.

And with barbs being definitely in game for a lot longer than in previous installments and also on-par with the most technologically advanced civilization in game you can do all sorts of tricks. For instance forfeit pursuing navy-based technology for a moment in order to go for something else, all the while converting (if we are to believe you don't need to win in order to convert the barb unit) pirate triremes and frigates that some other civ developed technologies for. It won't be the case on a Chieftain setting, but I can see it being a very cool option for higher difficulties

 

[Calouste]

egypt- good for those who love shinies, 20% is quite low, i'll rather chop.
score- 3/5

We don't know if chopping is still in the game. Well, we know you can cut down trees, it hasn't been confirmed or denied if you still get any hammers from it.

 

[Lyoncet]

my analysis of traits(for higher difficulties)-(if civ5 is not drastically different from civ4)

Aztec- moderate , main point of culture victory is avoiding war.
score- 2/5

greece- a good trait i guess.
score- not sure

ottomans- meh,naval unit? haven't they learned anything.nobody goes naval in a standard civ game
score-1/5

rome- arguably the best trait (not overpowered)
score-5/5

These are the few I don't agree with. Particularly the Aztecs, since it looks like you're judging how useful their CiV SA would be if it existed in CIV. There's certainly a few social policy trees that give you great warmongering bonuses, which could easily snowball into a military powerhouse for the Aztecs. Doubt they'll go for many culture wins though, if that's what you meant. But CiV culture isn't just about border pops and cheap wins.

For Greece, I think that the great number of city-states we can expect per game will make their ability incredibly powerful. This is particularly true in its flexibility. With SAs like England's, sure it's nice, but only if you're engaged in naval warfare. Even (presumed) really good but specific SAs like River Warlord or Furor Teutonicus won't help you if for whatever reason victory by domination doesn't look likely. But with Hellenic League, you can grow your cities, generate commerce, or bolster your military along with getting a much better shot at a UN victory if the game advances late enough. And having the bonus stand at 50% seems pretty overwhelming.

While I don't think it's excellent, Barbary Corsairs could be pretty useful. Depends on the hand you're dealt (like most of these), but it's waaaay too early to decide that navies aren't going to be important.

I'm still not sold on Glory of Rome being that great. It's certainly good, but given that your cities are going to be more specialized, we're probably not going to be getting as much benefit out of the ability as we may at first think, even assuming you build just about every building in your capital.

Also, I realize that you're just measuring SAs, but I think it's really silly to look at balance between them. I don't think anyone's saying that every civ's ability should be equally powerful; seems much smarter to measure it against its UUs or UU/UB as well. It would be boring if every ability, unit, and building were equally powerful, while having some civs with really good units and a more lackluster ability adds some spice (IMO, of course).

 

[Mango Elephant]

The powers all cater to different playstyles so it's hard to number them exactly, but I'll say which I think is awesome, good, and decent/meh.

AWESOME: Arabia, France, Rome, Russia, Songhai (think Mongols only for CiV).
GOOD: America, Aztec, China, England, Germany, Greece, India, Japan, Persia.
DECENT: Egypt, Iroquois, Ottomans, Siam.

I think we'll be surprised when the game comes out though.

I actually think Siam will possibly be the best for cultural victories. My reasoning is this -

A screenie has been shown that when you ally yourself with a maritime city-state you get 2 food in your capital and 1 food in all you other cities. Now, if you ally yourself with two maritime city-states with a non-Siamese civ, you get the following bonus

capital - 4 food
other cities - 2 food

With Siam you get

capital - 6 food
other cities - 3 food

and you get more and more with each allied city-state. Eventually, you'll have much, much more food per turn than you possibly could've if you were not Siam. Now, food is very important for all victories (cultural included), but with cultural city-states imagine how much more culture you'll gain per turn as Siam that you would not have if you wern't Siam. If you really focus on diplomacy with Siam, you could ally yourself with, say, 8 city-states, but with the Siamese SA the food and culture generated is equivalent to 12 city-states, a really large bonus. I think the Siamese should totally be in the top-tier, or at least in the middle-tier.

 

[bjbrains]

I think the German and Ottoman abilities won't be in the top list, I do think they're severely underrated because of how barbs worked in Civ 4- namely, they were out of date past the ancient era, and they spawned infrequently with careful unit placement. I think you'll see a lot more barbarian encampments/naval barbs in Civ 5, thus making those abilities more powerful. Don't also forget that naval units are more important, and units in general are much more expensive/individually important. Also, the Ottomans definitely have powerful UUs for waging sustained warfare, and we can't judge the German UUs since we don't know what they do.

On other civs:
I agree that Siam have extremely high levels of power with their City-state bonus- especially since they'll be able to earn culture without creating as many cities, which makes policies significantly harder to buy, while also making their cities more powerful through extra food.
The Aztecs have an economic bonus (culture is now definitely an resource on the level of science/gold) for waging war- what's not to like?
The Greeks definitely have a powerful ability for making friends with city states, along with a powerful early military to wage war against any other players. I like how the early military gives you the tools to secure your local city states' independence before you can create your 'Delian League' of allied city states.
Rome is overrated for a variety of reasons, that mainly have to do with the transition from Civ 4 to Civ 5. Since there are a lot more conditional buildings like the mills/stables, along with maintenence costs. Also note that you really need a high-hammer capital to make full use of this ability. Their UUs are also powerful, but they both rely on iron, which is definitely a limit on them.

 

[Venereus]

All this irrelevant speculations are making my CiV ich get worst, and September is not getting closer...