What do you think is the worst civ?

[Flintlock]

well of course the Inca are bad when playing with barbs on sedentary, all expansionist civs are bad when playing on sedentary because there are no goodie huts.

Actually, on sedentary there are still goody huts, but no barb camps.

 

[gunnerxtr]

Actually, on sedentary there are still goody huts, but no barb camps.

ooooh lol, so all this time i thoguht i was playing sedentary i was actually playing no barbs, damn, thanks for clarifying.

 

[MikeH]

You don't think a 10-shield Spearman is a good UU?!

Also I don't see how you can avoid using it, unless you go for a farmer's gambit until you get IW or the Wheel and have the resources hooked up. That can be a long time when researching Writing at 10% first

With the proviso that no Civ is totally useless, my vote would go to Portugal or America, neither of which is on the list.

 

[thetrooper]

On your list: Mongols.

 

[gunkulator]

On the list: Mongols and Spain both have really lousy UUs. Incan's UU stinks too but they're AGR. Spain is COM which is at least partial redemption so that leaves the Mongols as the worst: Terrible UU, rotten traits.

A close second: The Americans. Worse UU in the entire game. Traits are meh.

 

[Capt Buttkick]

@ Gunner and Punkbass:
Yes, I prefer not to set off my GA before I get out of despo so no Enkidus for me.
On lower difficulties, I'll go for WC first b/c I usually will have time for it before the slingshot. On higher, if I can't get to Republic anyway, I'll still go with WC. If I'm on a difficulty level where I'm not sure whether I can get the slingshot in time, I'll go for it, no Enkidus and clench my fist

 

[greekguy]

IMO you absolutely cannot choose an agricultural civ as the worst. I vote Mongols. Portugal actually has a decent trait, with SEA, and the Zulu have a cool UU.

EDIT: Argh!!! I voted Zulu by a misclick!

how can you like portugal? their uu is horrible and their traits are only ok. also with the Zulus you're bound to get a despotism GA, which basically makes it useless. zulus are definitely one of the worst civs in the game.

 

[Tomoyo]

I don't like Portugal. I'm just saying that they have one redeeming feature. With the Zulus, even if you get a despotic GA, you still get an awesome unit to use it with, especially in AW.

 

[riley555]

Portugal or America

 

[gunkulator]

The Zulu impi is a formidable pillager. Tear up some key roads and mines and the AI is severely set back. In addition, the impi is the only unit that can accompany horsemen into battle, making the Zulu the blitzkrieg kings of the ancient era. To complement this, they are militaristic and expansionists so they'll find their neighbors quickly and be facing them with veteran horses and impi. If you play Zulu, you simply must be an early warmonger.

 

[IbnSina]

I voted Zulu because I forgot about Portugal - they were so bad I replaced them in my mod!

 

[socralynnek]

Portugal.

I am also a fan of scientific civs and especially Sumeria because Agr is very strong (and those cheap little defenders have helped me a lot surviving early wars/barbs)

 

[thescaryworker]

PORTUGAL!!! I would *die* if I was forced to play with them again! ARRRGGGHH!

 

[floydmcw]

I've just given up on my fourth attempt to play Demigod with Egypt. I had a good start on flood plains and with a game forest, but I was hit by disease four times before I could pop a settler. Before that I had a succession of poor starts which I played to varying lengths before abandoning.

I win all the time on Emperor -- my success rate must be over 90%. I've won just twice on Demigod and that was with the Sumerians and Celts, both top-notch civs. I rate the Egyptians as less powerful but I still should be able to win with them.

I'm familiar with basic strategies such as tech bartering and micromanagement. There must be some flaw in my game, but I'm damned if I can figure out what it is. I've read some of the succession games on Demigod, and it doesn't look too hard for those players.

Some questions:

1. My start is usually as follows: Four or so warriors who explore and meet civs, then a granary, then pump settlers from the capital or from another city that has good food (which will also build a granary). My builds are usually a unit or two, then a rax or temple. By 800 BC I'll have 6-8 cities with a settler pump, three or so raxes, and a city or two producing workers. Is this a good plan, or should I do something different? How many settler factories should I have?

2. It doesn't take long for me to fall way, way behind. I pay attention to my finances and try not to have an army larger than what I can support. Yet no matter what I do, it seems like I fall a full age behind, and the AI has cavalry by the time I get to Feudalism. I can't barter techs usefully when everyone has many more techs than me. Is there a way around this?

3. Because I fall behind so fast, and start out weaker, I try to keep my head down and wait till I can catch up. This works fine on Emperor, but not so well on Demigod. Now I'm thinking that I should go to war early even if I am a bit backward. But when I tried that in my last game, I got royally whupped. (It didn't help that I had to fend off two huge stacks of barb horses after the war started ...) Is this a good idea?

4. I've been trying to play continents 60%, to give myself some breathing space. The two games I won were Pangea, and it seemed to help to have contact with lots of civs. Is continents/60% a handicap?

5. Would it be okay to play a game and post the results, like a succession game but only with one player, so that others could give me feedback? Do people do that?

 

[floydmcw]

Sorry to be a goof in your thread. Can someone delete my posts?

 

[Necromancer]

er i think portugal and zulus both suck. since u only get one golden age... zulus have it wasted really early but they do make somewhat decent early warmongering civs to use. Persia is much better suited to this task than zulus anyway. I did vote zulus but i am reconsidering them for portugal. Just because the impi is an accompaniment for the horseman and it is a pillager doesnt make up for the wasted golden age.

P.S. If you do happen to vote for Hittites or Carthaginians or any other civ not really hotly debated in teh forum, could you justify your vote? This thread is mainly a debate between "Pro-Zuluists" and "Pro-Portugueseists"

 

[supaguruzebidy]

I find that in most of the games I play spain and carthage tend to be quite powerless and usually down the bottom of the points sheet. England, portugal and india never seem to do quite well either. I find the american indians do well in most games as do the zulus and the mongols. The european civs seem to fill up the middle ranks apart from greece who also seem perenial cellar dwellers. My best ever score was with the iroquios and the next best was with the aztecs. My worst was a 600 point spaceship victory with greece.

 

[Sargon of Agade]

Of the orginal, I would have to say either Russia or Zulu, Industrious was very good back then so America doesn't get my vote... Of PTW Spanish or Mongols, I have to admit I like both of them, but I am not fooling myself by calling them anything but a challange to dominate with, of C3C I think Portugal... Expanisionist with another trait, not the greatest in my mind, but this game is all about expansion and this trait is all about that, Seafaring, I like it, I like some of the civs with it, most of them infact, and paired with the right trait it can be deadly, but combine the two, which are not only map specific but have no synergy, with a crappy UU that will hardly be used? You get the overall worst civ. For those of you who put incans up there, why? That civ has a so so UU but come on, their traits go well together, they grow from begingin to end and in the hands of a capable player can get some of the best starts out of any civ... However, I must say that my performance with them has been lack luster, but I am bad at REX and taking advantage of early trade... I am suprised any civ with the agricultural trait is on this list...

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

I find that in most of the games I play spain and carthage tend to be quite powerless and usually down the bottom of the points sheet. England, portugal and india never seem to do quite well either. I find the american indians do well in most games as do the zulus and the mongols. The european civs seem to fill up the middle ranks apart from greece who also seem perenial cellar dwellers. My best ever score was with the iroquios and the next best was with the aztecs. My worst was a 600 point spaceship victory with greece.

Are you describing the outcome if you play that particular Civ, or how the AI uses them?
The AI does best with AGR and EXP Civs, with SCI/COM/IND useful as well. REL is nearly pointless for the higher levels (since they get short anarchy by default), and SEA completely.
Carthage does very badly in the hands of the AI since it cannot expand fast - the AI will always wait for an escort before sending out a Settler, and Carthage's NM are 50% more expensive; for the very same reason, Sumeria does so well.
Spain or England have UUs that are mostly useless to the AI, a trait that is useless for it, and another trait of mild use.

Now, if you're referring to your own score, that is also obvious: For the score, nothing but size matters. SEA Civs in the hands of the human are often not really big, but technologically advanced, and economic powerhouses until late game - not like Celts, Iros or Maya, who hold like 30% of world pop before the BCs. Just keep in mind the the scoring is flawed - it almost exclusively looks for Happy Faces, and don't cares if you're an era ahead, or make 1000gpt with half the population count.

 

[LLXerxes]

i think france is the worst civ ever. first of all their uu is ****. the musketter only has an upped defense, i think. but aside from that, it cant UPGRADE. so that means, if you upgrade all your pikemen, to musketters, they cant go up to riflemen, then infantry, and then if you want mech infantry plus the french dont have the best trait mix.

they're UU is good for minor skirmishes. I was at war with the french once, I had about 3 knights, and 4 Immo's. They brought out a bunch of elite musketmen, and an archer. Archer died, but the musketmen fended me off for a couple of turns, then i upgraded to cavalry, killed them. and moved onto India.
But they're good for keeping people away. But don't fight a way with just musketeers.

the worst... hmm. I'm not so fond of Spain... no. I've never tried an epic with alot of Civs, but I wouldn't really like to start one as spain.
Of the one's I have played, I hated the Hittites. My friend loved them, but they just were horrible in my game.