Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Bizrock, Feb 15, 2018.
I agree with Rome. The civ is also designed to be versatile and to be suited for beginners.
Rome seems very versatile, but they need to be big to be effective?
Brazil can pursuit any victory or go with all at the same time with the bonus from a rainforest, but still map dependent as he needs the rainforest to be effective.
In the other way, Japan doesn't need anything, he can do everything everywhere in anytime with the district adjacent bonus and the discounts right?
Great call, I think Japan really fits the bill for "flexibility". They are not the most amazingly good civ, but quite good at all the different aspects of the game. First of all, they get discounted encampments, holy sites AND theaters. That right there gives them a ton of good options in the early game. Germany and Rome, while great civs, generally follow a pretty strict early game path. For Germany, get a few cities up and then beeline CH/hansas. For Rome, its all about expansion.
But Japan can go religion. They can go warmonger. They can go culture.
And then they get extra adjacency bonuses for ALL districts. So in the midgame they still have the ability to pivot if needed. They can pretty much do more than other civs, with worse land. And can pick any victory condition. That's what "flexibility" means to me.
I'd probably still give it to Rome, but Japan is a nice call too.
But in civ VI, in 90% of all the games you end up with a wide and flourishing empire (you might not win, but you'll be big). Only the start (setting up your empire) might be challenging on some occassions.
I'd go with Rome too. I feel like in every version of Civ, they make Rome as the easiest and versatile civ to pick up and play. I don't object to that either.
Germany because they don't need much pop for their districts plus cheap hansas means Germany can do very well in food poor flatland starts. Plus an extra military card if you need to take something.
That headstart is important. Not only is Rome a top sword rush civ, they also hit policy cards earlier. Rome has an easier time sniping choice pantheons, early GG, and can push to a better government form faster than other civilizations. The UB is a solid general addition too.
A lot of DLC civs are pretty juiced too though.
In my understanding, I will split the definition of flexibility into two and compare them separately.
Having potentials in all victory routes:
These are the civs that have a chance to focus on any one/two route(s).
Civs on the list: Germany, Australia, Rome, Aztec
My grading of the civs in this category:
1st: Rome, Aztec
-Germany and Rome have greater potential if they have the opportunity to ripe, while Rome has a greater land mass to build districts and Germany has a production benefits that will be op in later game.
-Germany is powerful, but they cannot go religious, so this makes them less flexible in that sense, although they do really well on the other routes.
-Aztec has a earlier potential to gain districts, and they needs constant conquest as well as Rome does.
-While Rome has a infrastructure bonus and more powerful UU, Aztec has an amenity and strength bonus. Their strengths are similar and similarly powerful.
-Australia's potential is situational, and comes quite late as well.
Having advantage on various paths:
These are the civs that have a unique that covers multiple routes, but not doing particularly well on each of them.
Civs on the list: Japan, Brazil
My grading of the civs in this category:
-Both civs have advantage on every paths, but not too powerful.
-Japan builds districts faster and earn them in a faster pace from the beginning, on top of the adjacency bonuses.
-Brazil may catch up in earning Great People in later time, but it cannot pull up districts as fast as Japan.
Rounding up them all, in terms of dealing with situations (e.g. being DOW, having amenity problem, being surpassed in any of the victory routes), Rome and Aztec should stand out. Both possess strong military power and ways to support other route on top of the army. Aussie only does well in DOW, rendering their strength quite passive. In Japan and Brazil's cases, they do not have a convenient way to solve the problem.
Australia... +9 campuses (or holy sites... But holy sites suck) if you get lucky. Double production if you are attacked... So good in surviving deity early game. Culture bomb for some extra tiles is icing on the cake.
Given deity AIs propensity for eating up CS you can get the production bonus consistently all game... If you choose to go to war.
It is really great that it took almost 1 page for the civs to start repeating in this thread. Good job Firaxis.
England, because I am biased.
I agree with almost all you said, except I don't think it's that easy
to get a religious victory with Australia. If they start next to Uluru, they
have a much better chance.
Ok, but if you werent?
Having just played one full game of R&F, so I can’t say definitively about all those civs although the Cree are just awesome and Korea is a powerhouse, I go for the Aztecs right now in Vanilla.
I was about to say the same but you beat me to it. I did try to think of the one civ that I considered the most versatile but I think the range of responses answers that.
Maybe a better question would be "which is the LEAST versatile"? Perhaps one of the civs focused mainly on religion and certain terrain? Indonesia maybe?
I think Norway is more pathetic in that category, being locked to religion and conquest and a less useful UU package.
Indonesia at least can spam tons of ships with faith, if they wanna drop the peaceful way of conversion.
Also, France, in my opinion, is at the bottom level of versatility. Other than culture, what can they do?
China can grab early wonders and output tourism as well as science, while Kongo consumes all the great works, and Germany swipes the floor with later wonders.
France cannot do any better even when it can only focus on a single route.
Why does France exist...?
How can we not be biased? Only with empirical evidence. How do you get that on something like versatility?
My comment that I am biased was a jab at the thread but I will defend my namesake.
The ability to either settle or conquer on the large majority of the map and get a free copy of the latest melee unit is crazy strong, especially as that unit can move the same turn. Yes it’s not on her starting continent and that’s the secret. If she start on an edge then she can just swamp people, all she has to do is discover ironworking or niter, nothing more. If she is not near the edge, just push one way and before you know it you are off continent.
With early golden age science for harbour adjacency this can be rather strong combined with Pax Brittanica.
Push to redcoats and it’s just a joke, sod the sea, sod CH, settle early by the sea with really cheap harbours and use campus as second building which will always get +1 adjacency and you are rocking.
The ability to get just 2 museums automatically themed with 6 slots can make her a culture monster, an English museum is worth roughly 2.5 other museums, twice the space but fast and guaranteed theming.
Sea dogs are England useless thing, every civ must have a useless thing to be proud of, however the chop bonus to get one is good and gives nicevera score, as you should really build 3 for a eureka, a sea dog armada is the prefect weapon to capture battleships, so it’s at least an interesting UU but also makes her great on island maps.
Victoria is good on all maps, most of her strength is nothing to do with the sea bar harbours. On a Pangea the chances are you will be fairly close to a continent edge.
Often I will see cities middle game with say 20 production on average... well the RNDY with a shipyard averages +10 production just for that tile.
Loyalty is a lot stronger off continent than on and the RNDY +4 along with all those off continent card bonuses allow her to settle in a -20 loyalty spot and survive with a single city.. as long as she has cash, and goodness, can Vicky get cash.
Her main drawback as I have always said is her starting bias is bad compared to someone like Greece or Tomyris.
Culture, science and Dom she is strong at, no versatility with religion despite Henry making his own (good alt leader?)
Start on an island? Vicky is good there too.
I rest my case, Vicky is not a one shot wonder like Alex, but versatile. The thing is she takes skill to play well, not one for simpletons. You need to understand your starting position to understand your strategy, some games I will not bother with anything but Pax, other games I will race to a great peaceful victory Without using Anything but RNDY and museums., you have to adapt to win well.
The trouble is the violent people are one track minded and rather vocal.
Wow... France is one of the best civilisations for OCC deity, is great for peaceful play, is rather good at science and cultural victories... just does not have an early unique unit to make her an OP warlord. I guess that’s you view but like everyone’s biased.
My recent new favorite for deity play: Egypt
Early war, game-long key wonders, mid-late faith/culture, powerful late trade routes.
Lets assume that I am biased, tell me how exactly France's CUA is able to get science victory?
Its not about one ability... I did say OCC, have you tried a deity OCC? its a different world.
So if by CUA you mean spies?... 7 spies now with the intelligence agency, each starting at level 3 with one choice of promotion gives your spies HUGE ability to steal science.
My testing of spies shows that at level one they die much more often than the quoted figure due to some misleading information while level 3 spies are much much more successful. Quartermaster and +2 promo would give your starting science spy level 6... thats pretty fine and each success is another level, soon you will be stealing a tech every 4 turns.
Frances spies are underestimated hugely, steal great works, whatever... they are awesome from the start. The intelligence agency is just scary.
Separate names with a comma.