What do you think is the worst civ?

[Richard Cribb]

As punkbass2000 already mentioned, Enkidus are half-priced spearmen.
And they can be upgraded to pikemen.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

They're definitely not as useless as... Jaguar Warriors, for example.

I take it you've never seen a jag rush.

 

[CheekyRich]

Carthagians
I just never seem to play them that well. A great UU don't get me wrong, just a bit too pricey for my liking so early on in the game.

 

[Capt Buttkick]

I've got one C3C diety victory, Carthaginians on a tiny map (come to think of it, it's the only C3C diety game I've played ).
The NumMerc is just awsome for combined arms with Cats. Noteworthy is also the fact that as Carth you get a head start (alphabet + masonry) towards maths if there's ivory nearby

Back to Enkidus, rather than not upgrading, their problem is that they upgrade to the wrong unit. Warrior to swords is a pretty good tactic in most games, especially if you don't have both horses and iron available.

 

[Zelda's Man]

I think the Egyptians are the worst. I don't like their UU and they always seem to start in some crappy desert. In most of the games I play, the other AI is at war with them before I ever meet them. I usually enjoy finishing them off though.

 

[S!n!st3r]

I voted Hitites, I hate chariots, of any possible kind, wether they be 3 or 1 man, they still suck in my opinion.

 

[Mordack]

Mongols

never have a good game with them

I am suprised at all the negative comments about Portugal - I got my personal best score with them

 

[Beorn-eL-Feared]

Disagreed Zelda, Indus and Religious are without a doubt 2 of the top 3 traits for any situation (stuff like seafaring and agri only shine in good circumstances) and for the UU ... cheap cost, cheap tech horsemen are not sucky units imo, they just come too early for a well timed GA

 

[Tomoyo]

How can anyone think the Sumerians are bad???

THEY ARE AGRICULTURAL!!!!! That alone makes them one of the best civs. Also, they UU is great. Although it can't upgrade the swordsman, I consider a big Warrior --> Sword gambit an exploit anyway. In an ancient war, Enkidus are the ultimate unit, right next to the Immortal and Mounted Warrior because of its cheapness.

 

[Jopedamus I]

I agree with Tomoyo completely. Sumerians are one of the top 5 civs in the game! They might be the easiest civ to play, good with any difficulty-level and excellent in any maptype. Anyone who says that Sumerians are not good civ can't play this game at all.

 

[cfacosta]

I voted for the Hittites as worst civ...though Portugal is pretty terrible. Starting with Alphabet gives you a nice start on the philosophy beeline and commercial is eventually (somewhat) useful for you empire builders. But wait a second...what about synergy with their UU. ==poor
The three man chariot has a very limited time when it is useful. Expansionist and an early mounted UU begs for early warfare...or, at least, aggressive expansion and resource denial. Having to research the wheel in order to get access to the UU and find horses is flaw that slows you down too much. By the time you can leverage the little power your UU has, your oponents can build Horsemen or Swordsmen. End result, useless UU. Add to this the weak synergy between expansionist and commercial and you have a civ with a great deal of holes to patch. Granted, there is always a strategy that will work for a given civ's position. My point is that any strategy that will work for the Hittites, will work BETTER for most any other civ.

 

[Dachs]

Yeah, Hittites doesn't have much going for it. There's always the remote chance that you get lucky and get Wheel early and Horses near your starting point, but it's better to get someone like Sumerians or Greece that has good defense early.

 

[Capt Buttkick]

How can anyone think the Sumerians are bad???

THEY ARE AGRICULTURAL!!!!! That alone makes them one of the best civs. Also, they UU is great. Although it can't upgrade the swordsman, I consider a big Warrior --> Sword gambit an exploit anyway. In an ancient war, Enkidus are the ultimate unit, right next to the Immortal and Mounted Warrior because of its cheapness.

If I was one of the people that appeared negative to Sum, please allow me to clear up the mess I made
In most epic games I play I'll choose Agr over most any other traitcombination so Sum is way up on my list as well.

However, my reservations about their UU still persist. I agree you get a lot of shields worth early in the game. It's still a defensive unit that upgrades to defensive units and even for a despotic GA it comes way too early. Maybe it's just a difference of playing styles. If you can get to Republic or Monarchy without using the Enkidu, you're better off with Sum than with 50% of the other agr civs...

Worse agr civs:
Azteca (Jag warrior): too early GA too, excellent if the map is very small or difficulty level is very low. Mil isn't among the best traits for me. Probably because it doesn't work that well together with Agr.
Inca (Chasqui scout): too expensive for its use imhso. Exp is the worst trait for me personally, I just can't get any luck popping huts This is the worst of the Agr civs imhso.
Maya (Javelin thrower): probably a better UU than the Enkidu unless you've got horses nearby, in that case you're better off building horsies (in most games anyway). UU usefulness increases with barb activity. Traits are both nice and I've found they work ok together, although Agr have less of a problem building enough workers than other civs.
Better agr civs:
Iroq (Mounted warrior): top 5 UU, excellent trait combo and among the top 3 overall civs.
Celts (Gallics): another good trait combo and a powerful UU that has a nice window of opportunity between getting out of despo and the AI getting defenders that are better than spears; another top 3 civ.
Netherlands (Swiss merc): nice traits for most maps (- pangea), UU comes at the best possible time w/r to GA timing (ever did this: Get Feudalism, trade for Mono, kick off GA and enjoy your subsequent monopoly on Chivalry? ). Provided the map isn't pangea, top 3 civ.

 

[Capt Buttkick]

As a btw to this thread: Interesting article by Doc Tsiolkovski
With Doc's system, Portugal is the worst civ, followed closely by Zulu and Mongols. Hittites are quite high on the list, compared to this thread. I guess they get more useful the higher difficulty you're on.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Something else that speaks for Hittites: The AI does unusually well with them. No match for AI Sumeria or Celts, but from my experience, better than Iros and Dutch.
Pretty surprisingly; guess that's not only a question of traits, but 'Build Often' flags as well.
And the AI sucks with Iros because they don't build MWs when they have Iron - while they do build the 3MCs.

 

[Tomoyo]

I'm gonna have to try those Hittites soon now...

Iroquois don't build MWs when they have iron? I guess it's the same reason why France, Ottomans, Britain, and Russia only build their infantry unit in the late game of the Napoleonic conquest.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Yes, for them it's a choice between a 3.1. and a 3.2. unit for the same sp costs. They do build some because of the 'Trigger GA' flag (like Spain builds some Conqu), but far to less to be effective.

 

[gunkulator]

They build them in droves if they if don't have iron and just like with a human player they are a holy terror. Next time I get Iroq as a neighbor, maybe I'll give them my iron.

 

[Darix]

As for expansion trait is bad, I will agree on lower difficulty game. But it is really a good trait when you are playing Emporer or higher level. I just won one in diety level with space victory using Inca. I would win it with cultural victory about 60 turns later too and that's how good it is.

If you are playing lower level, you can get settler or tech with any trait, but if you are playing deity level, you have 5% of getting gold, 5% on warrior, 5% on map, and 85% on hitting barbarian without using expansion trait civ. But playing expansion civ, you have 20% chance on getting one of the following - gold, warrior, map, tech, and settler.

If you can get couple free settlers (make sure before you pop the tribe, you have no settler out there or producing one) early, and send out enough scout to get some free tech, you can get a tech lead in late ancient age or early middle age with a good expansion civ start (without using the GL). Not to mention you can get like 10-12 cities really fast to compete with AIs.

Inca is actually the best expansion civ in deity level (not necessary the best, but best in expanding). Combining with agr trait, you can expand super fast when you start in an area with lots of rivers. Inca's UU also allows you to scout the fastest. All you need is saving 3 and win a battle to get into golden age when you switched to Monarchy or Republic, then its UU is done with its purpose.

I think every trait is useful in some way. It is kind of hard to say which civ is the worst. But as for UU, some civs does have bad UU like Korean, Spanish, and Amercan.

 

[slightlymarxist]

Yes I agree, most civs have playable traits. Some civs have really useless UU:s, though. America's and Portugal's Unique Units has to be the worst in the game, so I suppose they get my vote. Even so, they are playable and have ok traits (I agree Expansionist is underrated, especially on Emperor and above).

Carthage is ok. One of my favourites, actually. Egypt too.