What is a least tempting civ to play and why

[matlajs]

Hello. I know, that this belongs maybe rather into balance thread or something, but i wonder if you all are satisfied with civs how they are, or if there is one or more which could use some change to get better - not necessarily for being weak but rather being boring to play for example.

For me, its winner is Siam. That civ has nothing to offer me and make me play it more, than just few turns. There are just civs, which do similar job better, have more ,,active'' bonuses which are fun to make and overall seem to me poor in comparison qith the others.

 

[neo_arcadia]

This is mostly because of their UA but I can't find myself trying another game with these Civ. It's not a complain and more to just my taste of how a civ works lol. They are 'meh' because I think they are meh. Again, not a complain:

Polynesia: So what if I can embark immediately? I guess I have early access to city state quest that their location are in the middle of the ocean and populate those tiny islands and occasionally quite big "New Zealand" island but after that? ...what? I can't seem to use Moai well too. Kinda similar with Inca's hatred to sheep but this one civ don't have that super cool ability that on par with settling on the mountain. I'll be 'on-my-way-to-find' Kamehameha's hut when he 'found-a-way' to spawn fishes to ocean tile or something.

Greek: Influence degrades slower and recovers faster? For what I experienced it doesn't change my way of spamming envoys like crazy. His second ability is awesome though.

Indonesia: Too random. Doesn't like it. The swordsman too. Too random.

 

[SpankmyMetroid]

Poland. They’re just kind of boring. Not bad, but not interesting.

 

[Galbias]

Not saying these civs are bad or need to be changed obviously, not every civ is going to be interesting to everyone in a mod with 43 different ones (on the contrary it's surprising how many civs I do want to play, certainly more than in BNW).

Rome: They gain advantages from succeeding at war, but not any persistent advantages at warring itself. Aztecs have the same issue.

Iroquois: Basically all their benefits are based on a type of terrain that can be removed.

Ottomans: idk, none of their abilities look terribly interesting.

Siam: Their abilities are fairly front-loaded (CS Alliance yields fall off towards the end of the game) so you'd be milking the advantages you got early to stay relevant in the late game which is a playstyle I'm not huge on. Then again they're far from the only civ like this, and getting something like an alliance with a Faith CS and 75% more Faith could give you an amazing early game...idk

 

[Owlbebach]

As of now Ethiopia and Mongols. Ethiopia is just super boring. Siam, Polinesia, Greece - they all have very interesting part that you can make a good use of. Ethiopia is strong, but just super straightforward.

Also Sweden and Zulu - very powerful but very straightforward agressive. You don't get anything from them if you don't fight and i do not like to fight every time

 

[randomnub]

I started to dislike the Shoshone, there's the little mini game of planting encampments but after 100 turns I feel like playing without a single perk.

Ethiopia gets my vote as well, good UA and UB but no real need for the player to think out of the box when playing them. The UU might as well not exist.

Anyway, both civs are strong from the get go and depending on the map/neighbours/randomness I can have an interesting game.

Sweden I just reroll. It's always the same damn straight domination game and my best toys come so late.

Greek: Influence degrades slower and recovers faster? For what I experienced it doesn't change my way of spamming envoys like crazy. His second ability is awesome though.

There's the hidden aspect of the UA (even in vanilla) of not causing influence drop when you move troops through CSs you're not friend with yet. Pretty useful during exploration/early warring. It's also a lot easier to recover from heavy tribute spam and change your approach to CSs. Anyway I agree that's mostly a cherry on top ability, a bit like that faith on ethiopian strategic resources or iroquis bonus strength next to natural wonders

 

[theMisterRud]

Contrary of others, I like "steroid" civs (Poland and Ethiopia), it gives me less pressure to play "in a certain way".

The ones I dislike:

Siam - I really don''t know what to make of them, after Ancient Era I'm like: "i'd rather be playing Germany or Greece"

Polynesia - I just can't play Progress, so this one is predictable

Mongolia - "awkward warmonger that hard counters diplo civs", love the UU though

Inca - "let me fiddle with the setup values in order to get a decent start with this one" (exaggerated, I know)

 

[YukiN]

Poland. It's basically a slightly nerfed version of itself in Vanilla, and I played enough of Poland there. The UA and UB passives are also just passives that give you a solid but ultimately uninteresting boost.

 

[matlajs]

I agree on Poland too .Everything passive . I am with this mod almost 3 years(?) now, but couldn't make myself to properly play Poland, Shoshone, Siam, also don't like so much Iroquis too. Also i have my personal problem with UIs. Aside from Eki and Kasbah, none of the others can remove resource. Eki gives that option at least, thought i do not like idea, that i may remove late strategic resources aswell. I love Chateu. that one gives you some time for planning its placing after every bonus is already revealed , and i have an option to destroy one for coal if i will have shortage. But still, all arround i would like to have option to remove bonus resources for every UI. Map scripts love(maybe for a sake of VP) to spawn luxuries near to each other and bonus near to them. Worst is definetely comunitas in this regard.

 

[Grabbl]

I actually like Poland, Ethiopia and the like a lot - you have strong uniques that don't have a very clear gameplan from the beginning, so the game is really about adapting to the environment. My least favourites are pure warmongers such as Assyria or Zulu (though not in general all warmongers, I like Aztecs and Mongolia quite a lot, actually (perhaps I'm into warmongering with growth bonuses?). As for Shoshone, I agree that they have the most exciting bonuses early game, but those are so exciting I really like to play them - also if even today, I'm not sure what the best order for ruin bonuses is (thanks to VP, there probably isn't even an all-time optimal one). But all in all, I'm extremely satisfied with the civ choices of VP - there are no civs that I really don't like to play at least now and then.

 

[Minh Le]

I dont like playing Civ which seems too strong to me. They are Denmark, Rome, Songhai, China...

 

[crdvis16]

I made a post similar to this one a while ago that has a lot of opinions from people. You guys might find that you are underestimating a few civs (like I was):

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/a-tiered-ranking-of-leader-novelty.627730/

Siam is pretty interesting to me as exploring early to find all of the CSs ASAP can give you an explosive early game, and then rushing to complete CS quests or send diplomats before your free early friendly status runs out too can be exciting. If you don't capitalize on that early free influence properly then you aren't playing Siam correctly.

Polynesia is one of the MOST interesting civs to me, and is one that I find myself re-playing frequently. Embark over ocean from turn 0 is really fun as you can hunt for and get ancient ruins that others can't access. You also can find all civs/CSs before anyone else (assuming you're playing continents) for those trade/tech research/quest bonuses. But the Moai UI is the real game changer as it makes Polynesia a uniquely good wide culture civ which isn't something other civs can capitalize on. Settle on coasts, islands, and especially peninsulas to get Moai adjacency bonuses for huge culture tiles that later get turned into tourism via hotel/stadium/airport/visitor center. You'll end up with a TON of tourism.

Greece is cool to me because authority->statecraft isn't a typical route and their UB makes warfare so fun from all the culture bonuses.

I like Indonesia because their UA and UB can make nearly any location for a city strong. It makes going wide easier.

Most of the others you guys have mentioned are also ones that I listed as somewhat boring. Civs like Ethiopia/Poland can be very strong but they don't feel very unique.

FYI, I believe Gazebo has said that Huns and Mongols are getting some tweaks soon.

 

[Der_Zorn_gottes]

Venice.

My favourite part of Civ is expanding, so....

 

[matlajs]

Siam is pretty interesting to me as exploring early to find all of the CSs ASAP can give you an explosive early game, and then rushing to complete CS quests or send diplomats before your free early friendly status runs out too can be exciting. If you don't capitalize on that early free influence properly then you aren't playing Siam correctly.

My problem is, that bonus influence from start perish, no matter what you do. IIRC, you gain bonus yields for being an ally, but no tool to make it happen. And quest hunting, that is something i can do with every civ. Also this kind of bonus is really RNG dependant, based on map created. But i of course respect your opinion. I can imagine situation them being strong developed civ, it is just its way to it, which do not tempt me to make it so far.

 

[crdvis16]

My problem is, that bonus influence from start perish, no matter what you do. IIRC, you gain bonus yields for being an ally, but no tool to make it happen. And quest hunting, that is something i can do with every civ. Also this kind of bonus is really RNG dependant, based on map created. But i of course respect your opinion. I can imagine situation them being strong developed civ, it is just its way to it, which do not tempt me to make it so far.

Yep, valid points. CS influence drops off pretty sharply so their bonus is very front-loaded. I think the fun part is scrambling to explore as fast as possible because the sooner you find all of the CSs the sooner you get those bonuses and those bonuses are strongest if they occur in the ancient era. Siam is one of the few civs I would consider building a 2nd early pathfinder and getting to embankment early for quicker exploration, or getting an early trireme to try to reach the other continent.

 

[CppMaster]

Would +50% influence on completed quests for Siam make them OP? Or +25%?

 

[tu_79]

I guess the least unique civ is Poland, since it is pretty much the same as in vanilla.
Ethiopia also feels the same generic but stronger civ. Little to focus on, just capitalize on the stronger religion and free techs.

 

[Minh Le]

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

 

[Stalker0]

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

 

[Dawnpromise]

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.