what is the civic that you least use?

[Arlborn]

Nah, only one option? There is a handfull number of civics I never used just because its not what I need! Like almost all warmonger civics! I never used police state or nationhood or whatever! I'm not a really warmonger
And im pacifist, but i never used pacifism, because it doesent seems atracctive to me to lose money only to get more GP points...

Almost never used serfdom..

And environmentalism seems good, but there is better civics in the same raw to be used(I mean for my strategies), so I never used as well...

 

[Bushface]

drkodos, you took the words right out of my brain. Environmentalism is the one civic I have never even considered adopting: I think it pointless, and exists only to make up the five-options count.

 

[Swedishguy]

drkodos, you took the words right out of my brain. Environmentalism is the one civic I have never even considered adopting: I think it pointless, and exists only to make up the five-options count.

It should actually decrease healthiness, but they couldn't think of anything else.

 

[Reg Pither]

OK, after the recommendations on this thread I've adopted Slavery in my last few games, but I've still never actually used it. There just never seems to be a useful opportunity to do so.

 

[CivDude86]

You never had a single unhappy citizen in your whole empire? You never had city with 3+ food resources? You never been caught with your pants down and had to whip a defender out to save a city?

 

[Stephanus]

I never used environmentalism as it is available too late in the game, when I already have a fully developed empire. At that stage I have enough buildings and culture to keep my citizens happy ...
As for pacifism, it's quite my favorite to build up my army before going to war ...

 

[Antilogic]

Referring to somebody's post above...you can't use slavery and emancipation (simultaneously). They are in the same category.

And as to what CivDude said...especially if you have an unhappy person. He's not doing anything for you but yelling in the streets and causing riots. Sacrifice them for production!

If you have a city with 2 food resources...let it grow to size 4, whip down to size 2, and work those food resources. Get a granary ASAP (preferably by whipping). Then, you run into the situation of not having enough things to build. The only thing that suffers is your research, but you won't be whipping your cottage cities, ideally, so it won't hurt that much.

And somebody doesn't use state property? Use it late game in a large empire. The savings are so immense you won't believe it.

 

[Ball Lightning]

I don't use Police State ever.

 

[Wlauzon]

Ive never used caste system either. But when im a spiritual civ i use theocracy alot.

Theocracy sucks big time.

Not only does it prevent the spread of outside religions, but also any others that YOU may have founded.

 

[Wlauzon]

OK, after the recommendations on this thread I've adopted Slavery in my last few games, but I've still never actually used it. There just never seems to be a useful opportunity to do so.

I nearly always adopt slavery, I only use it about 1/3 of the time.

 

[ShaLouZa]

There is no such thing as an useless civic. There are civics that we don't use because it doesn't fit our game, but each one of them has its purpose.

Environmentalism is good in the endgame if you have a relatively small empire in size, too small for state property to be really useful, and if you beeline to industrialization : you build big nasty productive cities smoking with pollution and you clean all the fog with this civic without even spending hammers on hospitals. At the time medecine comes available, cities are usually real big if you're a builder, factories and coal plants kill their healthiness and I usually can afford some turns to research medecine.

Nationalism has saved my ass sometimes when I've been attacked while I was unprepared or not prepared enough in the mid-game. Whip some soldiers and you'll stand enough to build others without losing too much cities or seeing your empire burning to the ground. It's quite like slavery, but cheaper and for a more ponctual usage.

Police state ? Your warmonger's choice : +25% military units and -25% war weariness makes long wars easier. If you go for a domination or conquest victory, you don't need the extra beakers from representation and you can't afford to pay for the units while your empire grows each turn, making universal suffrage useless.

Serfdom, useless ? Errr... I have an empire to build and if I can make it 50% faster, I'll do. I take this civic asap and I change only when my empire is fully developped, to emancipation.

The ones I personnally use the less are caste system ans mercantilism : I don't rely much on GP, I usually just pop great scientists for the academies. But they're useful if you play a philosophical civ and if you want to max your profit from your trait. I've tried once such a game, and it's really quite interesting and powerful, but it just doesn't fit my game.

 

[Antilogic]

Theocracy sucks big time.

Not only does it prevent the spread of outside religions, but also any others that YOU may have founded.

The question is, do you think those other religions are important? If you founded a religion, and have that religion in all your cities, do you need any others? I have a tendency to use religion as a political tool, so I typically run no state religion or convert to a specific religion shared by a group of civilizations that I want to team up with. That's why I rarely use theocracy.

However, if you are the center of that religious power-block, then it would be a smashing idea to use theocracy--spread your religion, and tell your allies to adopt theocracy too. Then, your religious allies could not be converted by another devious player and betray you. I've caused a few holy wars between former religious allies myself by sending missionaries to every one of their cities and converting them.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Serfdom, useless ? Errr... I have an empire to build and if I can make it 50% faster, I'll do.

It's more efficient to just build some more workers. Not a big cost at that point in the game.

 

[CornMaster]

I voted for pacifism. Upkeep is high, and I usually have something to defend. May have used it once, but I don't think so. Another one I don't use is slavery. I don't see the point of hurting city growth and pissing people off.

I've used every other civic at least once. Depending on the game, I might hit 3 or 4 a category in a game.

 

[Antilogic]

Well, CornMaster, when your city can't grow any further due to happiness or healthiness restraints, use the whip. I do in every game for the first half.

And yes, slavery can actually help your city's happiness if you whip at least 2 people simultaneously...that way, the -1 "you are so cruel" penalty is counteracted by the -2 "crowded" penalty that you offset. And, if you have unhappy people who aren't working in the fields, they are just doing nothing. Why not get rid of them for hammers? That way, at least they served a purpose. Pacifism has its uses, although I'm the first to admit that I only used it a few times. Just not my playing style.

 

[Jimbo30]

Well, CornMaster, when your city can't grow any further due to happiness or healthiness restraints, use the whip. I do in every game for the first half.

And yes, slavery can actually help your city's happiness if you whip at least 2 people simultaneously...that way, the -1 "you are so cruel" penalty is counteracted by the -2 "crowded" penalty that you offset. And, if you have unhappy people who aren't working in the fields, they are just doing nothing. Why not get rid of them for hammers? That way, at least they served a purpose. Pacifism has its uses, although I'm the first to admit that I only used it a few times. Just not my playing style.

Well they still need to 'grow' back, which takes food and time. Although feeding unhappy people is bad, it's no worse than having a content lower population.

Slavery is just an emergency 'omg I need a unit now' civic, useful only for spiritual civs under barbarian threat.

 

[Antilogic]

Umm...no.

That's all I can say to that...there are several good guides to whipping here, and believe me, you can build an entire infrastructure on slave labor and be set up very well for the endgame.

The point is, if they grow back, they aren't doing anything useful. In your example, feeding unhappy people = content lower population, with the notable difference that the content lower population has 30 hammers per sacrificed unhappy person as additional compensation. I'll even whip if a worker has to use an unimproved tile, and then I'll improve it when I get around to it.

The key to this is having enough farms to grow back quickly. Or, if you have two or three food resources, you can constantly work those, get another couple citizens, whip them, and then repeat--you will grow back soon enough.

Trust me, it works. If not, then just head on over to the Strategy and Tactics pages and the debate will be raging.

 

[Wlauzon]

As someone noted, there are no useless civs, but many are only good for certain types of play.

I seldom play warmonger, since I have gotten fixated on winning by domination or culture at Prince level. That means I use civs that I see others rank very low.

Just like wonders, for the way I play Chitzen Itza is totally worthless, but the spiral minaret with my usual 3-5 religions can be a huge help. But it would be useless for a warmonger.

 

[Antilogic]

If I'm not mistaken, having one religion or five shouldn't affect the Spiral Minaret. Only your state religion receives the bonus, not all your other religions. And, as a player who favors warmongering, let me tell you, the Spiral Minaret is awesome. Especially if you need some extra money to cover all those small cities you just conquered...it's a godsend.

 

[ShaLouZa]

It's more efficient to just build some more workers. Not a big cost at that point in the game.

But at this point of the game you usually don't need slavery anymore, and unless you play a GP game caste system is not worthy. So adopting serfdom is cheaper and more efficient than building twice the numbers of workers.

And I have to side with Antilogic on the slavery : in the early game it's a must-have if you have high food-production cities. Your cities grow quickly and unless you limit their growth by using specialists they will become unhappy. Just whip the rebels and and you'll have a better city, more developped and totally efficient instead of a bigger city halfly useless.