What do you think are over/underpowered civs in VP?

[Stalker0]

I did a large run of Indonesia games and was never really impressed. It’s a nice civ don’t get me wrong, but none of its abilities truly push a win condition. It gives you a nice platform, but nothing to accelerate a win. Again a perfectly fine civ, but not OP

 

[ElliotS]

AI and Human: Venice is the worst. Once upon a full moon Venice can pull out a decent game in AI hands due to welfare yields.

Underpowered for a Human? Last I played they're some of the best warmongers in the game, with the ability to have massive puppet yields and largely ignore unhappiness and culture/science/empire unhappiness scaling issues.

Unless something changed really drastically they should still be great warmongers for humans. (The AI doesn't get it though.)

 

[Drakle]

Austria
I don't play them that often, but when I do I find them underwhelming. When everything happens to line up nice and you don't roll civs that can mess with your city states, they can do well.. but any civ can do well if everything lines up correctly.

It isn't just they do well if everything lines up. They are untouchable diplomatically if they can secure Marriages + Embassies with even a fraction of the city-states of the world. Both of which count in the early era of the world congress, while allies don't. So Austria can potentially do whatever it wants diplomatically, even if another civ has more city state allies. Like securing a world religion on the first vote, or sanctioning a rival off the bat.

And their weakness early game is overstated. One early quest is enough for becoming a ally, instead of just a friend. And some quests give tons of yeilds.

Austria as a Tradition Civ only really has one, must have early wonder. Roman Forum. Anything else is flexible.

Austria does work much better without a close warmonger rival, but most civs do.

 

[Stalker0]

Austria
I don't play them that often, but when I do I find them underwhelming. When everything happens to line up nice and you don't roll civs that can mess with your city states, they can do well.. but any civ can do well if everything lines up correctly.

Austria is a powerful but brittle civ. There is no other civ in the game that can dominate a DV like Austria can....but at the same time Austria doesn't have the infrastructure or UU to push other areas as well. So what tends to happen is Austria rises to become top civ...until some other war civ decides its time for her to go. And then...she just does.

I think Austria is a fine civ but has to be played careful. Blowing all of your gold early on and getting a lot of marriages makes you feel so good...but its not optimal play imo. You have to take things a little slower, a combination of infrastructure and marriages. It will both give you a stronger base and also put less of a target on your back.

Also playing Authority Austria is fun. At first glance you seem to be cutting into one of your major advantage, your huge GP power. But what you are doing is helping to compensate for your major weakness....and Austria doesn't have to be at her absolute best to win...she just has to survive, and let her amazing UA do its work.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

England
The white tower is busted AF. It's ridiculous this building hasn't been reworked yet. There is no way to bring a building forward 8 tech levels and have it be balanced; it just won't work.

Indeed.
Simply stick each spy to a CS and look how many Yields you can earn in one single turn when all trigger at the same time. It's ridiculous.
I like the UA and UU, but in my eyes, England should be more like a Mongolian of the seas and focus on military pressure over CS and influence.

Morocco
I hate to have to put this civ on the list, but it's really Good. Morocco are altogether a 'more complete' package than most civs: They have flexibility, but also enough of a focused edge. It's an A-tier UA and an A-tier UI and a B-tier UU. No huge S-tier standouts, but everything is at least capital "G" Good.

I agree, Morocco is much better than the descriptions of their abilities may suggest. Can't really say anything to their UU, cause it's so mediocre and comes to a time, where ranged cavalry didn't play any big role in warfare anymore.
But the rest is great, most amazing is their ability to ignore range penalties for trade route distances. Playing them one time and you will notice, how much Yields you are really missing with other civs cause of this stupid mechanic. Kasbahs is also such an amazing UI, cause it gives strong Yields and can be placed very reliable.

 

[darkstrat]

Ok i never participate in threads about civs and who is more powerful as they tend to ignore america but for me america is very very OP.

Their UA assures you a great start were you can easily rush your monument, shrine, worker and wonder and yes the price to product ratio goes down but the initial boost is what matters. The other thing is buying tiles that belong to other civs which is just amazing to grab that extra uranium or that natural wonder thats on your boundary but you dont want to war for.

The extra sight on units is also underrated.

Maybe i am fanboying america but I have literally played majority of my games as washington.

 

[Zanteogo]

Ok i never participate in threads about civs and who is more powerful as they tend to ignore america but for me america is very very OP.

Their UA assures you a great start were you can easily rush your monument, shrine, worker and wonder and yes the price to product ratio goes down but the initial boost is what matters. The other thing is buying tiles that belong to other civs which is just amazing to grab that extra uranium or that natural wonder thats on your boundary but you dont want to war for.

The extra sight on units is also underrated.

Maybe i am fanboying america but I have literally played majority of my games as washington.

May I ask what game speed and difficulty you play on?

I honestly find America sub par. It's a civ that looks good on paper but in practice is very "meh". I find it's ability to actually use tile buying for production quickly becomes pointless for the most part due to tile cost increases. This effect is most noticeable on the slower game speeds due to the way cost scales by percentage but America only gets an base extra 10 production per speed level. Considering the amount of production you gain from normal buy out, it's mostly pointless unless you are just swimming in gold. Tile stealing, to me is hardly used. The amount of tiles that other civs actually have in your "city zone" is usually quite small. Sure it's good for the rare tile snipe, but how often do you actually need to do that? Also, a great general does it way better.

 

[darkstrat]

I play on normal speed at emperor.
Yes, the ability to turn tiles into production goes stale(please buff it) but while its useful it is great. With america i generally focus on the economy.

As for the tile stealing, it may not be useful early game but late game it can be a lifesaver for that uranium or oil.

The thing is i am now habituated with that fast start and find it uninteresting to play as other civs.

 

[CrazyG]

@Zanteogo

From your posts is clear that you value early game a lot more than anything else. That might be correct for whatever settings you play, but I don't think it's generally true. Several late game civs are frequently cited as being OP by other players, like Austria. The community has spent years making changes to ensure that late eras are important too.

 

[darkstrat]

Also for America, i like that instead of having a niche ability which limits my gameplay, i have a very overall ability and can create an allrounder civ. I also feel sweden with statue of zeus is great. I just dont like how other civs kindof force you into a certain strategy. For me, civ is more of a global role play rather than a chess board. I like tactics in war and all but really dislike the player mentality in the higher difficulties.

 

[Zanteogo]

@Zanteogo

From your posts is clear that you value early game a lot more than anything else. That might be correct for whatever settings you play, but I don't think it's generally true. Several late game civs are frequently cited as being OP by other players, like Austria. The community has spent years making changes to ensure that late eras are important too.

I hear you.

My beef with America needing some assistance has to do with them only being good very early. (They are good at taking the first two wonders, after that not so much) Granted, they get their UU late compared to other civs, but I don't feel America is based around their UU.

Though I don't know if I agree with your assessment totally.

I have a few posts regarding late game how I dislike how the world tends to escalate into a never ending royal rumble by modern.

I will admit that 75% of my games don't make it to modern. Often I just restart before that.

 

[JamesNinelives]

I find most civs have something about them that's very strong. So I guess I tend to see those who consistently perform well as being the overall 'winners', on average.

However - I think this is important - the balance between civs has changed a lot recently. Those who I used to see consistently towards the top in previous betas are not getting beated by unexpected civs I'm used to seeing towards the bottom. So I honestly can't say that I feel for sure that any of them are significantly stronger than the others. I just don't have enough gameplay experience with the current balance at the moment. And what I have played hasn't showed any obvious patterns to the point that I'm confident drawing conclusions from them.

I will say on Indonesia (which I've been playing recently), I like it a lot but it doesn't feel stronger than say The Shoshone or Arabia (other civs I have experience playing). It's fairly consistent and fun to play with, but doesn't feel OP.

 

[LifeOfBrian]

Agreed with JamesNineLives, I think most civs have something about them that makes them at least competitive in human hands even on Deity (with standard settings etc.). There isn't a single civ I wouldn't feel confident with about being at least competitive until the endgame. Yes, some are more "OP" in human hands than others, but all are competitive. As for the AI, certain civs are more suited for the AI because they require less strategic thinking and inventiveness to maximize its unique attributes.

 

[salty mud]

AI and Human: Venice is the worst. Once upon a full moon Venice can pull out a decent game in AI hands due to welfare yields.

Have to disagree with this. Just played with Venice and I had to stop early because of how easy the game had become. You get decent puppet yields, happiness is a total non-issue and you can just buy an up to date army thanks to your ridiculous trade routes. I was at the unit cap for most of the game and made minimum +200 gold per turn. It's broken.

 

[DaniSciB]

Overpowered:

Isabella, Queen of Hammers... And Spain... Conqueror of whatever the fock you cross in your way the moment you hit Chivalry... Builder of Navies... Destroyer of Late-Games... Because there will not be late game lol.

 

[DaniSciB]

Did I mention that Spain is an "Unrelenting Religious Super Power" too?

Oh well... There it is.