What is the most versatile civilization?

[leandrombraz]

Yes, need to keep running it.

Then I just wasted 8 turns on two spies and now that I actually need the boost, I don't have it because they are on another mission =D

Remember kids, your strategy is fated to fail if you don't know what you're doing.

 

[Ferocitus]

Remember kids, your strategy is fated to fail if you don't know what you're doing.

I come here to escape real life, not to be reminded of my
failings. And, anyway, that's my wife's job!

 

[halfhalfharp]

After a couple of playthroughs, I definitely add Crees to this list. The only condition is 2-3 camps/pastures in your capital or second city. On turn 150, you get so much production that you can go whatever path you want. Though it requires a bit more plan than the other ones.

Turn 150 is really late, for a normal game speed. Many wonders and city development have been long finished by that time. I guess maybe you do not mean turn 150?

 

[Scaramanga]

The definition of versatility in this game seems to be winning any victory without putting much thought into it.

 

[steveg700]

Granted. Without the victory conditions in mind however I think much of this discussion is meaningless.

I rather think that once you bring victory conditions into the conversation, a thread about versatility becomes meaningless, because the victory conditions are all about specialization.

The definition of versatility in this game seems to be winning any victory without putting much thought into it.

It would seem so.

 

[nzcamel]

I rather think that once you bring victory conditions into the conversation, a thread about versatility becomes meaningless, because the victory conditions are all about specialization.

Yes to VC's being about specialisation. So what Civs are best at turning from one specialisation to another without losing much steam?
Which Civs are more likely to pull that off regardless of VC type? That to me is a good measure of versatility.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Then the versatility is futile, it’s gilgamesh, Monty, Alex, Tomyris blah blah blah.
I would venture that with victory conditions in mind versatility is meaningless because the VC are primarily based on the early OP civs and we already know the answer... again. Zzzzz
It’s just thread after thread of top tier civs, little versatility of thought required.

Throw Scythia into an isolated start with no horses, and suddenly they're not so hot anymore. This would mean that Scythia is probably OP but not that versatile. Now granted, isolated starts aren't that common, but they're also not that rare either.

The game is much more than picking a crowded map and facesmashing into hapless AI. If anything the metagame is twisted in the manner where the assumptions that you will roll over the opposition is a given. So discussions of that sort are actually about how bad the AI is, not about how strong the civ is, or even how good your own play is.

 

[Bizrock]

Yes to VC's being about specialisation. So what Civs are best at turning from one specialisation to another without losing much steam?
Which Civs are more likely to pull that off regardless of VC type? That to me is a good measure of versatility.

Yes, this is a good measure of versatility that only a few of civilizations can do. Also the ones that won't be so affected with bad situations. Some examples, Brazil can be very versatile with rainforest, but what he can do if he can't expand with the rainforest, can he survive with just the GP bonus? What can Rome do if he can't build many cities early on, can he catch up just with the bonus trading posts? What if Aztec don't get Luxury resorces? If Australia need to declare war to try expansion?
Can a Warmonger CIV still win if he doesn't get a war? Can a science CIV win if he couldn't invest in Science because he need to defend against barbarians or Warmonger CIVs?
This is Adapt and Overcome and deal with almost any situation. This is versatility. Of course all situations is impossible, but some CIVs can deal with ALMOST all of situations.
I'am kinda new in CIV6, but as I could play and read, I would say Germany and Japan, just because the fact that the most versatile tool in this game is the District. Germany can build one more district and Hansa can be good with any style you want, and Japan just ignore all of location situations while a lot of cheaper districts.

Edit: I still have faith in Brazil and Rome versatility just because of Street Carnaval and Baths, Amenities is the second most versatile tool, the Ecstatic city bonus is huge.
Also the other trait of a versatile CIV is the ability of taking opportunities, which can open another brand, but let stick with what we are discussing.

 

[isau]

Well another way to think of "versatility" is how varied the actual gameplay can be regardless of selected victory type.

Mongolia is probably not very versatile. You're likely to play them as a war monger every game.

Korea is not versatile on paper but in practice you could do whatever you wanted and decide to embody either Atilla the Hun or Florence Nightengale. Nothing about Korea dictates much about your diplomacy. It does dictate, to a degree, some things about how you might handle your governors.

Kongo is the least versatile in the sense that it can't win Religious Victory at all, but still probably more versatile than a very heavily war focused civ because the actual gameplay and diplomacy could be aggressive, passive, or something else. Also, I suppose there is an argument that all civs are not versatile in the sense that they cannot play like Kongo.

Spain has an entire strategy in R&F where you can steamroll with Conquistadors to fill out the era score meter. No one else really gets to play this way. Does that make Spain more versatile because it can and others can't? Or lock it into a strategy that makes it effective, but less versatile?

In the end we're just arguing about definitions. I think most of the civs are pretty versatile in the end.

 

[Thormodr]

Well another way to think of "versatility" is how varied the actual gameplay can be regardless of selected victory type.

Mongolia is probably not very versatile. You're likely to play them as a war monger every game.

Korea is not versatile on paper but in practice you could do whatever you wanted and decide to embody either Atilla the Hun or Florence Nightengale. Nothing about Korea dictates much about your diplomacy. It does dictate, to a degree, some things about how you might handle your governors.

Kongo is the least versatile in the sense that it can't win Religious Victory at all, but still probably more versatile than a very heavily war focused civ because the actual gameplay and diplomacy could be aggressive, passive, or something else. Also, I suppose there is an argument that all civs are not versatile in the sense that they cannot play like Kongo.

Spain has an entire strategy in R&F where you can steamroll with Conquistadors to fill out the era score meter. No one else really gets to play this way. Does that make Spain more versatile because it can and others can't? Or lock it into a strategy that makes it effective, but less versatile?

In the end we're just arguing about definitions. I think most of the civs are pretty versatile in the end.

The Mongols are my favourite Civ so I play them in a variety of ways. Cultural Mongols are fun with god of the open sky.

Really need Kublai Khan as an alternate leader, though. C’mon Firaxis!

 

[nzcamel]

The Mongols are my favourite Civ so I play them in a variety of ways. Cultural Mongols are fun with god of the open sky.

Really need Kublai Khan as an alternate leader, though. C’mon Firaxis!

I'm in no way saying that Civs that are geared towards only one or two victories don't have some interesting quirks, especially when paired with the right pantheon/religious belief/City State/etc. And that is a fun conversation to have...but it will always be more subjective than what the OP is looking for I think.

Korea is not versatile on paper but in practice you could do whatever you wanted and decide to embody either Atilla the Hun or Florence Nightengale. Nothing about Korea dictates much about your diplomacy. It does dictate, to a degree, some things about how you might handle your governors.

Yeah, but even though you can play any Civ aggressively, some are better wired to adapt to that than others. Korea has minimal strength in that area compared to others, just as the Mongolians do in science. Neither is overly versatile; though that doesn't mean that you can't use them to win different VC's (and I do agree that the Civ's who are OP militarily tend to be among the least versatile in terms of their traits, probably because taking plenty of cities is another form of versatility itself).

Kongo is the least versatile in the sense that it can't win Religious Victory at all, but still probably more versatile than a very heavily war focused civ because the actual gameplay and diplomacy could be aggressive, passive, or something else. Also, I suppose there is an argument that all civs are not versatile in the sense that they cannot play like Kongo.

And yes, while Kongo is the extreme example; no Civ can play like any other Civ quite. Moving on...

Spain has an entire strategy in R&F where you can steamroll with Conquistadors to fill out the era score meter. No one else really gets to play this way. Does that make Spain more versatile because it can and others can't? Or lock it into a strategy that makes it effective, but less versatile?

In the end we're just arguing about definitions. I think most of the civs are pretty versatile in the end.

Era Score itself is certainly helpful towards any victory, and it's needed for all victories. Yet you mistake something that every winner needs for something that allows one to completely change tack. That is the key to versatility. i.e. Greece's extra wildcard slot allows you to have a card that specifically targets a cultural victory. But if you need to, you can change it to a card that will specifically target a different VC. You still need more than era score to win. You need to meet a set definition.

 

[Bizrock]

Throw Scythia into an isolated start with no horses, and suddenly they're not so hot anymore. This would mean that Scythia is probably OP but not that versatile. Now granted, isolated starts aren't that common, but they're also not that rare either.

The game is much more than picking a crowded map and facesmashing into hapless AI. If anything the metagame is twisted in the manner where the assumptions that you will roll over the opposition is a given. So discussions of that sort are actually about how bad the AI is, not about how strong the civ is, or even how good your own play is.

This happens with most of "top tier" civs, if they start in a bad position, they can't do much.
Scythia or Mongols without horses ,Indonesian not near coast or Sumeria without someone to bang early game and etc

 

[whylom]

France gets +1 to diplomatic visibility for free. In Rise and Fall you get a combat bonus of +3 combat strength per level of visibility over your opponent, so in practice France has +3 combat in all situations. It's not game breaking, but it's good. If you want to warmonger, you can use the Listening Post spy mission against your opponent. It has a 0% chance of failing and adds an additional visibility level for a total of plus +6 versus your opponent. I consider +6 combat significant. It is true other civs can also use Listening Post against you, but Catherine can do it earlier, and later on can do it without sacrificing other missions.

Spies are useful toward any victory type, since this is game is a race. You can use them to knock out space race enemies. You can steal great works. You can steal gold. You can flip cities. Spies are probably one of the most versatile systems there is, whether you want to place peaceful or war monger.

The synergies with the Cultural victory are already obvious. Religious victory may be the least obvious synergy, but there are a bunch of wonders useful toward that victory that France can grab. And I wouldn't say France is "less versatile" at Religious victory than other civs listed here like Australia or Rome.

Another (possibly dubious) argument in favor of France's versatility: wonders taken as a whole are a versatile source of bonuses, impacting every system in the game. A production boost to mid-game wonders can be used to advance absolutely any strategy.

And while the combat bonuses from espionage in R&F are marvelous, let us not forget the Garde Impériale. On your home continent, GI are 20 stronger than Musketmen and 5 stronger than Infantry. In my games (mostly Immortal, some Deity) they 1-shot most enemy units and tear through city defenses in a few turns. Yes, you have to build or buy them. But they're an Industrial Era unit for lord's sake, surely you ought to have either production or gold or faith sorted out by then.

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

I think America with Rise & Fall has become very versatile. The ability to convert all diplomatic slots into wild card slots opens up a lot of possibilities.

 

[Archon_Wing]

This happens with most of "top tier" civs, if they start in a bad position, they can't do much.
Scythia or Mongols without horses ,Indonesian not near coast or Sumeria without someone to bang early game and etc

True to a degree, though Sumeria still has much a easier time dealing with barbs and benefits heavily from it over a random civ in its spot. But yea, rest I'd have to say a lot of people don't consider there's a lot of settings in this game and generalize it to the few they play on.

Personally, I also view "top tier" as a civ that performs on a majority of scenarios, not just a few.

 

[Trengilly]

This happens with most of "top tier" civs, if they start in a bad position, they can't do much.
Scythia or Mongols without horses

Not true at all -- with Magnus you don't need horses (or iron) to build your units. For reference I highly recommend civtrader6 's videos. His Mongol deity game is great fun - no horses - no problem.

The only caveat being they won’t heal (except via promotion) until you secure a source . . . so all it takes is one of your neighbors having the missing resource for you to take.

 

[nzcamel]

Not true at all -- with Magnus you don't need horses (or iron) to build your units. For reference I highly recommend civtrader6 's videos. His Mongol deity game is great fun - no horses - no problem.

The only caveat being they won’t heal (except via promotion) until you secure a source . . . so all it takes is one of your neighbors having the missing resource for you to take.

And what does that tell you about Magnus?

 

[Cedbird77]

England, because I am biased.

Ha ha! I saw that one coming. Glad you were honest about your bias Victoria.

 

[Trengilly]

And what does that tell you about Magnus?

Oh he is crazy overpowered. But hey - Firaxas put him in there so I'm going to use him!

 

[Victoria]

Then I just wasted 8 turns on two spies and now that I actually need the boost, I don't have it because they are on another mission =D

You can cancel a mission at any time, find the city they are in, select the spy and choose cancel, they go straight back to your capital.
Sadly you cannot cancel them while they are travelling.