What Civs are lagging behind and need rework

[Arithmion]

I think what we need some shake-ups that would encourage us to revisit some Civs. What they did with Norway or France Catharine's new persona is a good example. I don't know if I can point any particular Civ that badly needs rework. There will be always dull, straightforward, or weaker Civs in a game if you have them over 40.

Very true. Additionally, there are some little things that would ripple throughout the civs, like maybe giving siege units a bit more defense against attacks from walls? That would have large ramifications, maybe making the Ottomans need a slight nerf, but it would incentivize actually using siege units before the industrial age. It would make the AI cata-spam a bit more terrifying. And it could change the way light-cavalry civs spend their time, given that currently their strategy is "Destroy your opponents before they invent walls. Get the stragglers in a few thousand years while you finish your hydroelectric dams." (Exaggeration)

Anyway, I'm not a master of balance changes, but I think the point stands. Another way to look at it is to compare current Canada with 2016 Canada. I don't recall one specific change they made, but they are a lot more viable to play as now, especially if you don't play using the (admittedly most efficient) "kill on sight" principle. Of course the fastest way to win any victory is to destroy your neighbors. Any victory... except culture. And if you're Canada, there are actually really good strategies out there, like rushing the Eiffel tower and national park spamming (for free). But again, a small change, like increasing the tourism provided by national parks, could make Canada an actually really good civ, make national parks more viable for other civs to chase, or could make culture victories as a whole more solid, more worthwhile.

 

[GunsGermsandSteel]

Scotland.
Their UU is meh. At that point in the game you need sweeping armies to take territory, not a handful of slightly better scout units. I only build highlanders for fun, the one or two times I've played Scotland.
Robert the Bruce's ability can be difficult to get it to happen.
And while the Scottish Enlightenment is theoretically good, it's also just a mathematical annoyance of controlling the number of cities/population to the amount of amenities you currently have. It's just not fun, or intuitive. Not even sure the effort you put into maintaining happy/ecstatic cities actually nets you more science and gold than if you just built more cities and ignored amenities.

Frankly I think they need to just rebuild Scotland from the ground up.

Maya
I actually had a lot of fun with my maya game... after 3-4 map re-rolls. They are a severely gimped civ if you start on the coast or too close to the coast. I really think the 'within 6 tiles of the capital' needs reworked to same continent as the capital. Something along those lines. Or like first 10 cities you settle.

Spain
Not even sure what the fix is here. I like the idea of Spain but it's actually kinda hard for them to survive the early game and get the religion/beliefs they need to work right. It's like everything just doesn't 'jive' right.

Brazil
Their unique unit is so just tacked on. It doesn't fit with the civ at all, and its just a re-skinned slightly stronger battleship.

 

[Leucarum]

If we're talking about a total rework as opposed to some small tweaks Mapuche top the list for me. They look like the designers had an idea for what the Mapuche playstyle would look like but it didn't work out in practice and now they are a grab bag of (individually fun) ideas which don't mesh together.

 

[Ticio]

Just another "make Georgia, Canada, Spain, Khmer and Scotland competitive" thread?

Sincerely, I would also add Maya (housing boost to capital in order not to be forced double builder early), because their start is nearly Mali tier

Well, my question was more in regard to upgrade the old civs with bonuses that could take advantage of some of the new features but I think I really didn't formulated well the question

For example, Greece and the new District. If it is a good idea to make some tweaks to it so can benefit from this new District in a different form.**


However, I am really interested on seeing what all you people think about some civs (and letting me know too what are perceive as the "worst" civs at your eyes!).


The fact that some of the civs are disputed as bad or not let me think that the developers did a good job balancing. For sure, they are objectively "bad" civs, but it seems that none of them is unplayable and they all seems pretty balanced.


That is quite a thing to praise the developers for!


**EDIT
I just though of another example of what I was wondering.

For example with the new International disctrict too, the last building seems to give "50 science per spy killed" so maybe a change to "original Catherine" so she would have a different bonus like 5% science during 5 turn if she kills an spy or a 100 science points instead of 50.

I was thinking these kind of upgrades for Vanilla Civs, so they can stay "tuned" with all the new features and not feel old or plain.

 

[Leucarum]

The other civ that I think needs an update is Kongo. Faith has become much more important for a culture victory since GS and Kongo now is becoming less competitive at what should be their prime win condition. I think they're in need of a refresh more than most civs as the meta has kind of passed them by...

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

Ridiculous opinion: replace Civ 6 Spain with Civ 5 Spain. Yeah, you wouldn't get the UI and lose out on treasure fleets but getting a ton of gold for finding wonders was really nice. Certainly more useful than what they offer now.

 

[Amrunril]

Ridiculous opinion: replace Civ 6 Spain with Civ 5 Spain. Yeah, you wouldn't get the UI and lose out on treasure fleets but getting a ton of gold for finding wonders was really nice. Certainly more useful than what they offer now.

That's not ridiculous at all. Civ V Spain was a great design with a distinct focus (natural wonders) but with highly variable gameplay depending on which wonder you found. And given how much more Civ VI's civs have going for them than Civ V 's(compare the two games' Inca bonuses, for instance), you could probably keep some of Cic VIs more interesting elements, add the natural wonder bonus from V, and still end up with a reasonably balanced Civ.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Spain isn't terrible but somewhat inconsistent. I think their mission should come earlier.

 

[bengalryan9]

Ridiculous opinion: replace Civ 6 Spain with Civ 5 Spain. Yeah, you wouldn't get the UI and lose out on treasure fleets but getting a ton of gold for finding wonders was really nice. Certainly more useful than what they offer now.

Spain is frustrating. You can totally see what they were going for there but unfortunately they were designed around two things that just don't play a big role in Civ 6 - a strong navy and overseas colonization. The design makes sense (IMO) it just doesn't really fit into the game.

Maybe letting them cross the ocean early like the Maori or Norway would help, but the more you spread that bonus around the less interesting those who have it become. I'd probably even move Vickie's free ship upon harbor construction over to Spain - England already has a ridiculous amount of bonuses as it is.

 

[Ticio]

Ridiculous opinion: replace Civ 6 Spain with Civ 5 Spain. Yeah, you wouldn't get the UI and lose out on treasure fleets but getting a ton of gold for finding wonders was really nice. Certainly more useful than what they offer now.

I don't think is ridiculous at all but, personally, I like the bonuses as they are now but just because they represent perfectly what Spain was during Philip II reign.


Civ v had the perfect "Spain" under Isabella, explorers that discovered half of the world and chasing tales of natural wonders and golden cities (wonders= money and you are expected to explore the map).


Instead, with Philip II it was more about making an actual Empire. Founding cities, making the absurdly beneficial trade lines between continents, while converting the population to Christianity, and making (trying) to create a gigantic and efficient burocracy all over his empire.


I really think that the bonuses given to them is a perfect representation of this (even if I still think that the commercial bonus are a bit weak and could be tweak).


Maybe if they ever do a "conquest of new world" it could be a great idea to add Isabella with the original bonus!

Or, maybe, make an alter version of Philip that has this bonus about discovering wonders (as exploration still was important during his reign) and make Philip a leader that is shared by Portugal too if they add them.

Just like Roosvelt and Catherine.

This way you have a leader that is focused on exploration as Spain in Civ V that could be used by the Portuguese and Spaniards, the 2 main explorators during this period.

 

[trev1972]

I actually found pericles quite strong (i play emperor)

The civs i feel really lag and will never play again are

Khmer
Georgia
Personally for me- spain.

Spain is frustrating. You can totally see what they were going for there but unfortunately they were designed around two things that just don't play a big role in Civ 6 - a strong navy and overseas colonization. The design makes sense (IMO) it just doesn't really fit into the game.

Maybe letting them cross the ocean early like the Maori or Norway would help, but the more you spread that bonus around the less interesting those who have it become. I'd probably even move Vickie's free ship upon harbor construction over to Spain - England already has a ridiculous amount of bonuses as it is.

I guess on an archi map spain is better - but on an archi map vicky is insane.

 

[bengalryan9]

I actually found pericles quite strong (i play emperor)

I don't think anyone finds Greece (Pericles or Gorgo) weak. I think some people are accusing them of being boring... not an opinion I agree with it, but I think that's the train of thought here.

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

I don't think anyone finds Greece (Pericles or Gorgo) weak. I think some people are accusing them of being boring... not an opinion I agree with it, but I think that's the train of thought here.

Boring? Hmm... I find both leaders way more fun to play than Snoreduck.

 

[ShakaKhan]

I don't think there's any civ that's really lagging behind, rather there are some civs that require following a certain strategy that I just don't want to play out - for me, Sumeria and Maya are two examples of this. That said, as we've now had all these expansions and DLC's they're starting to release some civs that follow a very similar blueprint to an existing civ, only do what they do a lot better (to get you to shell out your money for it, but I digress...) Nubia and Egypt are an example of this. Also, pretty much everything you would do with a civ designed around a naval angle you'd be able to do the same thing but better with Maori (although I do have to say I like the changes they made to Norway and they've catapulted from a joke civilization to one that's pretty well balanced and provide a fun and unique way of playing the game.)

I am annoyed by two aspects of two civilizations, though. 1.)The normal theater square can be built on flat or hill, but the Greek's special theater square can only be built on hills. 2.) Polders require THREE adjacent land tiles works for lakes but the coast, which there's much more of, is sooooo limited, and the spots where you can build it are usually where you'd want your harbor.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't think is ridiculous at all but, personally, I like the bonuses as they are now but just because they represent perfectly what Spain was during Philip II reign.


Civ v had the perfect "Spain" under Isabella, explorers that discovered half of the world and chasing tales of natural wonders and golden cities (wonders= money and you are expected to explore the map).


Instead, with Philip II it was more about making an actual Empire. Founding cities, making the absurdly beneficial trade lines between continents, while converting the population to Christianity, and making (trying) to create a gigantic and efficient burocracy all over his empire.


I really think that the bonuses given to them is a perfect representation of this (even if I still think that the commercial bonus are a bit weak and could be tweak).


Maybe if they ever do a "conquest of new world" it could be a great idea to add Isabella with the original bonus!

Or, maybe, make an alter version of Philip that has this bonus about discovering wonders (as exploration still was important during his reign) and make Philip a leader that is shared by Portugal too if they add them.

Just like Roosvelt and Catherine.

This way you have a leader that is focused on exploration as Spain in Civ V that could be used by the Portuguese and Spaniards, the 2 main explorators during this period.

I don't know if Spain needs to deviate too far away from what it is now. I also am under the assumption that Portugal might be exploration focused but probably not under Phillip.
I think instead Treasure Fleets needs to fit in more with the religious design they already have.
I would propose making the yields from intercontinental trade routes even stronger when they are between cities of your same religion, since that was the original intention of the Spanish Empire to spread Catholicism. It was afterwards that they were able to bring back their profits to the mainland.

 

[bengalryan9]

1.)The normal theater square can be built on flat or hill, but the Greek's special theater square can only be built on hills.

Same thing applies to Korea and their Seowons.

 

[HereticalAppendicle]

they should give Greece a new/additional UU. Or just make Hoplites better. Its just really sad that Gorgo doesn't have a good ancient/classical UU. I mean c'mon, THIS.. IS... SPARTA!!

 

[Leucarum]

To be honest, I feel Greece is enough of a beast from their other bonuses that they are best without a game breaking UU... And the hoplites can still do well enough in packs with an early great general from a policy card...

 

[acluewithout]

make Hoplites better

Just make Anti-Cav better, then Hoplites and other UUs will be fine.

 

[HereticalAppendicle]

To be honest, I feel Greece is enough of a beast from their other bonuses that they are best without a game breaking UU... And the hoplites can still do well enough in packs with an early great general from a policy card...

I'm not sure there's any danger of Hoplites becoming game-breaking anytime soon... I would settle for Sparta even having a mediocre UU (and as acluewithout said, it isn't even the hoplites so much as its just anti-cav being weak in general). Its just silly that Sparta of all civs has one of the worst early UUs in the game, they're still a plenty strong civ overall but its almost entirely to do with the extra policy card and gobs and gobs of culture (between the leader ability and the UD). I play purely singleplayer so balance isn't a concern for me, and the roleplaying angle is major part of the attraction of the game for me so Gorgo in particular having a weak UU just seems... wrong.

Just make Anti-Cav better, then Hoplites and other UUs will be fine.

yep that'd work just fine for me, the problem isn't so much that hoplites aren't fine for an early anti-cav replacements... its that anti-cav are just super underwhelming in general.