What is a least tempting civ to play and why

[crdvis16]

Authority Ethiopia with God of expand is very fun to play you know

I'd probably argue that Russia does that strategy better

 

[Minh Le]

Im not comparing, I just wanna say its fun

 

[crdvis16]

Im not comparing, I just wanna say its fun

Agreed! I'm fond of the border-blobs strategy.

 

[matlajs]

hmmm Spain, interresting mention. i wouldn't wait a civ like this to be picked. they can be played more ways, thought passive and peacefull they resigning on their huge faith income.

 

[Dawnpromise]

hmmm Spain, interresting mention. i wouldn't wait a civ like this to be picked. they can be played more ways, thought passive and peacefull they resigning on their huge faith income.

Yeah, but Byzantium does the same thing but BETTER. Reduced faith buy costs, bonus belief, and no competition for beliefs. The only thing I think Spain does better is they get their religion online faster via settling....and that's about it. I can buy cheap inquisitors for rival pressure.

Then again Byz is my main civ to play so I may be biased.

 

[Galbias]

Polynesia's embarkation across oceans thing is very dependent on map type and the map itself, on a lot of maps it can be nigh-useless. Moai are one of my favorite UIs though, I've settled cities inland rather than coastal so I can have an uninterrupted chain of them.

For me it's Spain. Isabella just doesn't have anything unique to offer to religion that the Celts or Byzantium don't do better.

Their ability to not receive religious conversion/pressure does seem a bit situational. If there's a religious powerhouse spamming pressure everywhere, it's a godsend. Otherwise, it does very little, it'll prevent a bit of religious unhappiness/Inquisitor usage at least.

Also, despite being able to buy naval units and her UB with Faith, I don't think she has any persistent sources of additional Faith income, I thought Missions gave Faith on citizen birth but the wiki says Gold and Food. All the more reason Isabella wants to go Wide, I suppose, and she has less Faith expenses from going Wide than another Civ would. It evidently does work well enough in practice since Spain tends to be an effective AI.

And speaking of a lack of persistent advantages, Conquistadors are strong (Knights are already very powerful for their point in the game and Conquistadors have another 5 base CS on top of that) but unlike most other UUs they don't have any promotions that can be passed on (except maybe Defensive Embarkation) so you need to make the most of them while they're around.

 

[chicorbeef]

For me it's Spain. Isabella just doesn't have anything unique to offer to religion that the Celts or Byzantium don't do better.

No one beats Spain in raw faith output when Spain is conquering, she not only gets a ton of Faith on city capture but also saves Faith on Missionaries/Inquisitors. And the Mission gives a bunch of Faith that had clear synergy with her UA.

Spain with Zealotry is a ton of fun.

 

[Mad Madigan]

I'm pretty hooked on the 3/4 UC mod now, so I can't comment on something like this without keeping the additional unique components from that for each Civ in mind. Having said that, even with 3/4 UC the Civs I have the least interest in playing are Poland and Mongolia. Poland is powerful, no doubt, but as a human player there is very little about their UCs that intrigue me. If I were playing with random Civ and Map settings I wouldn't reroll them, because they're powerful, but there isn't much they offer that "shakes up" how I would play the game. Mongolia runs into a similar problem. Their UCs are good to great, but don't change the warmonger experience enough to encourage me to pick them. Plus, as a warmonger I'd rather gather CSs as allies or bully them for Heavy Tribute than annex them as part of Mongolia's Unique Ability. It's really annoying to have Mongolia as an AI neighbor because of this, but if I were playing as them I wouldn't be that encouraged to annex CSs unless I had nothing better to do them. It's a shame too, because I love the history of Mongolia as a nation and a people, and the story of the Khans, but beyond trying to setup roleplay scenarios I have no incentive to play AS Mongolia in a game.

As for Siam, Iroquois, and Shoshone, I find them to be quite fun, especially with the 3/4 UC mod in place. Shoshone is perhaps a bit directionless as their UCs don't point towards any particular victory condition, but they're quite strong and if you play with ancient ruins enabled they have a super-strong early game that can propel you into a long-term Science victory. I am currently playing a game as Shoshone and my bonus CS within my own territory has kept me safe to turtle and go for a Science victory. I managed to get Great Wall and Himeji Castle and my borders are pretty much impenetrable.

 

[infidel88]

Also playing 3/4 UC exclusive and France with Mongols would be my choice. France as all of their UU come late, often when game is decided. Mongols as their UA is crap. And basically all terrain dependent civs. Iroquois, Inca, Polynesia to some extend.

 

[Gazebo]

Everyone is going to have a civ or two they don't like. That does not mean that said civ needs a buff.

G

 

[CppMaster]

Just want to reiterate that the thread is more about interesting to play than raw power...as I can already see people getting out their balance pitchforks

Everyone is going to have a civ or two they don't like. That does not mean that said civ needs a buff.

G

Are you talking about my proposal? Because additional part of UA could make a civ more interesting to play.

 

[Dawnpromise]

Everyone is going to have a civ or two they don't like. That does not mean that said civ needs a buff.

G

I'll agree, but this is a question can answer what civs may be lacking a niche at best and an idle opinion poll at worst.

 

[tu_79]

It's good to have a boring civ like Poland, actually. When a new player asks what civ to play, we point them towards Poland and Ethiopia because they are plain simple, therefore they're perfect for learning the other mechanics.

 

[Galbias]

I don't think I really used Mongol's CS annexation ability when I played them but the extra movement to mounted ranged units makes them one of the most fun warmongering Civs to me alongside the Huns.

France I've tried a couple times and always ended up having an awkward start, I'm torn between playing them aggressively and sitting tight until their UU comes into play.

As far as war-heavy Civs go I was kind of interested in Sweden but lost some of that when siege units got the damage penalty against regular units. He still sounds effective, the bonuses on GG birth could be super strong if timed right, but he really wants Authority and I don't like going Authority on Civs without an early UU (with 3/4UC it's changed to be even later).

 

[andersw]

As a warmonger I still can't make good use of Sweden, their UU and UB comes so late and the gg heal is hard to have intentional use of.
Unit bonuses are nice but a bit marginal.
Polynesia felt bland but reading on comment above I should probably try it again, wide culture is yummy.
Iroqois feels a bit like sweden but useless early UU/UB instead, the free woodsman is of course useful but just like the swedish one a bit marginal.

 

[Minh Le]

It's good to have a boring civ like Poland, actually. When a new player asks what civ to play, we point them towards Poland and Ethiopia because they are plain simple, therefore they're perfect for learning the other mechanics.

I wouldnt say Ethiopia is simple, It require lots of planing ahead and timing!

 

[FoxOfWar]

For me it's any purely or near-purely warmonger civ that makes me feel like Authority is the "only" way to go. I do occasionally enjoy the romp-across-the-continent-to-own-it playstyle, but very much my preferred approach is more peaceful after I've established "my turf" (obviously depending on the game what that means).

 

[SpankmyMetroid]

Their ability to not receive religious conversion/pressure does seem a bit situational. If there's a religious powerhouse spamming pressure everywhere, it's a godsend. Otherwise, it does very little, it'll prevent a bit of religious unhappiness/Inquisitor usage at least.

Also, despite being able to buy naval units and her UB with Faith, I don't think she has any persistent sources of additional Faith income, I thought Missions gave Faith on citizen birth but the wiki says Gold and Food. All the more reason Isabella wants to go Wide, I suppose, and she has less Faith expenses from going Wide than another Civ would. It evidently does work well enough in practice since Spain tends to be an effective AI.

And speaking of a lack of persistent advantages, Conquistadors are strong (Knights are already very powerful for their point in the game and Conquistadors have another 5 base CS on top of that) but unlike most other UUs they don't have any promotions that can be passed on (except maybe Defensive Embarkation) so you need to make the most of them while they're around.

Spain gets faith upon founding/conquering cities and citizen birth with missions. Combined with her ease of settling by having buyable Pioneers through Conquistadors, wide Spain is a faith powerhouse. I don't see how Byz beats them.

No pressure from other faiths means you can pick population-based beliefs and have them be extremely effective.

 

[neo_arcadia]

For me it's any purely or near-purely warmonger civ that makes me feel like Authority is the "only" way to go. I do occasionally enjoy the romp-across-the-continent-to-own-it playstyle, but very much my preferred approach is more peaceful after I've established "my turf" (obviously depending on the game what that means).

Regarding warmonger or warmonger-able civ I personally separate them into three groups.

1. Those who benefits at taking cities. A conqueror (straightforward or not) motivated by their Uniques like France, Rome, Assyria, Spain, China.
2. Those who buffs their units. While theoretically each civ has their own strong UU, here I'm looking strictly at their UA. Sweden, Zulu, Japan, Denmark, Greek, Huns, Persia, Inca, Polynesia, Iroquoi.
3. Those who are in-between. They have their own way of enjoying war and taking benefit in war. Aztecs, Mongols, Songhai.

I wouldnt say Ethiopia is simple, It require lots of planing ahead and timing!

Agreed! Just like Ottoman. at least making plan about wonder and sudden increase in food.


I do love boring civ when they are practical and suits my style. A straight to the point UA descriptions yet flexible. My favorite is Byzantium. Been playing her countless times. Currently playing Poland and I love their UB+UU. Swarms of aggressive Lancers who destroys enemy formation by scattering their units. And. OMG. 5 movements compared to Lancer's 4. Sometimes I managed to eliminate their Great General by just charging at their units.

 

[Grassland Farm]

It's been mentioned above, but Poland's UA feels so... bland! Most likely because it's the shortest string of text in the UAs when you scroll them down...

City-State related UAs are a bit of a turnoff for me.