What's your least favorite Civ and why?

[jasper]

The real one trick pony plug and play yawn fests are the military only civs like scythia and zulu. Korea can at least use their science for different victory paths. Zulu scythia have one victory path open. Scythia worse cause they can really only make one type of unit lol.

Not only that but we can give many civs the korea treatment by over simplifying their gameplay. Rome doesnt have bonuses jsut convenience. Ghandi is plug and play religion.

 

[Futumch]

Maya, maybe? I haven't played Russia all that often either.

Oh. Reasons.
Maya distance penalty is a bit much considering you can't shunt your capital to somewhere more beneficial.
Russia - I dunno, they never really interested me. I should look into that because I'm sure they have their good points.

 

[AvianBritish]

I dislike playing and civ only geared to war because constant war is boring, so; Macedon, Mongolia, Zulu. I would also throw Scythia in there as I dislike the Kurgan meaning only war ablilties are left.

Persia, Ottomans, Mapuche and Gran Colombia may appear like war Civs, but they all have something redeeming about them that means they are still find to play without going to war, normally in the form of their cool tile improvements or buildings and other abilities.

 

[Tech Osen]

The instant tradeposts of the Mongols is also a bit of a redeeming factor. It's handy on larger maps for gold and tourism, faster and easier to connect to far away lands.

 

[blackcatatonic]

There are still, incredibly, vanilla Civs I have never tried playing as. Brazil springs to mind: late-gate bonuses/UU, not particularly interesting, and music that makes me wish I could skip it.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Korea - the most boring, passive, overpowered bonuses all rolled into one boring, passive, overpowered civ. Terrible. What a sad waste of good Sunduck.

Spain - An amalgamation of circumstantial bonuses that require luck rather than skill. hard pass.

Mali - an agonizingly slow start. This wasn't so much a deterrent in Civ 5 for their counterpart Venice since Civ 5 was a much slower game by default. So many bottlenecks (Culture, Happiness, Money, Science) slowed the game down for everyone and there's no real downside towards remaining tall early and expanding during the late midgame. But in a game where wars *and* expansion happen fast, seeing the AI get ahead of you while you can do nothing to prevent it is downright demoralizing.

Shouts to all of the "Declare War and gain +2 Movement and another bonus for 10 turns" abilities for being the worst in the game though

 

[Patine]

Sumeria - It's not only ahistorical to a very significant extent, it's even more cartoonish than the others, to the point I can't take Gilgamesh and his cities of almost pure turquoise and his donkey war wagons seriously as an AI leader at all...

 

[oSiyeza]

I want to add again to the conversation that many of the civs that you say are too straightforward and need to be changed, are precisely because of that, the only civs that the AI handles well, and that are fun and challenging to play against. So the same reasons people use to ask for changes, like Korea or Scythia are precisely the reasons why they should not be changed for me.

Also strikes me as odd, that the same people that dislikes Korea for being too straightforward, dislikes Mali for not being straightforward enough.

There are civs that are very cool and unique to play with, and civs that are very cool to play against. Also civs more easy and more difficult to handle for different players. Rome is a very good civ for a beginner, Maya is a cool civ of an experienced player that wants something different…

I would argue that the only civs that are lacking are the ones that don’t work either way. Like Spain, that is not cool to play with or face against.

So sorry for being a bit of a boomer, but I hope that civs like Korea are not changed. Civilizations should not be balanced, they should be varied, just my opinion.

 

[Pietato]

Civilizations should not be balanced, they should be varied

They can be both.

 

[AntSou]

I didn't care for Sumeria. It's the only Civ I played with that I have strong recolections of being bored.

 

[Francel]

For me, the most boring, and therefore least interesting, civs tend to be “jack of all trades” that are decent everywhere but don’t really stand out in any one thing. Thus, I would say Rome is my least favorite. Sorry, Trajan.

 

[oSiyeza]

They can be both.

I don't think so, and I don't think they should. Unbalanced civs that have different advantages and disadvantages allow you to pick different playstiles and challenges. Balanced civs would only bring less options to play with.

The variety of civs is the second most liked feature of the game according to a poll made here, how would you make all civilizations balanced without making them less varied and more boring?

Imho, the only reason to even design balanced civs is to focus on multiplayer in detriment of single player. Which I don't want, and I also dont think would benefit the multiplayer experience.

For me, the most boring, and therefore least interesting, civs tend to be “jack of all trades” that are decent everywhere but don’t really stand out in any one thing. Thus, I would say Rome is my least favorite. Sorry, Trajan.

I agree in general, but I like rome, their UU is very cool, the automatic roads are very convenient. And is probably the easiest to play with with every victory being viable. A no brainner for begginers, or when you dont want to think much about complex bonuses or sinergies.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Shouts to all of the "Declare War and gain +2 Movement and another bonus for 10 turns" abilities for being the worst in the game though

Hard agree. They went through a phase of adding loads of these and it became tiresome very quickly.

I agree with oSiyeza that it's better for Civs to be unique and interesting than balanced. Maybe I would say that, as I virtually never play multiplayer But I would much rather play something like the Maori or Phoenicia, or Civ 5's Venice, where I know my game is going to play out completely differently from normal.

ETA: I never play multiplayer, not single.

 

[Caprikel]

I do also agree that overly focused civs tend to be the least interesting to play. Generalist civs have always tended to be my favorites to play, especially those with bonuses to general yields like Production/Gold/food, and those with general district adjacency yields.
However there are focused civs that offer a different play-style to make them interesting, like Hungary and domination. Even Hungary though has some general bonuses in addition to their military bonuses though, so I guess they actually fit more in the generalist category, even if they do domination better than some domination exclusive civs.
I think I might go with America as my least favorite civ actually, though I'm biased though with me being American. I'm just tired of America always having such boring and dull bonuses, since they're basically always stuck as the tutorial civ. Honestly the Australian appeal district bonuses would make way more sense as an American bonus, since America makes much more sense as a generalist civ.

 

[Navelgazer]

For Civ5, this was a very easy question for me: Babylon, whose bonuses all came in the super-early game and were powerful but passive/defensive and just basically said "click for more science until you win." Since Korea is Civ6's version of this, they take the "prize" here.

 

[montalaar]

england was very boring, but is saved by eleanor.
most civs are more or less boring and some exceptions are fun civs - gitarja, dido, kristina, peter, norway etc.

rome was mentioned as a candidate for boring civ, yet wasnt named. why? because how dynamic rome is. in the beginning of the game, bonuses of rome, each comes in the right time. monument > road > legion. rome is like fine tuned car. at the first glance nothing special... until you drive it. rome is tuned for empire building.

i do not think war civs are boring. problem is WAR is boring in civ 6. war itself is boring. alexander is jewel of war civs, everything is for war tuned to almost perfection. yet, indeed, alexander is boring to play, as well as mongolia or scythia. but for reasons beyond those civs. all this chore of unit moving for 3-5 hours starts to become real pain after 2 hours.
empire building is so much more fun! that is why empire building civs are so far ahead in entertainment.

same problem is with religious civs. they are fine - russia is super fun. AT FIRST! but as i progress through religious victory for thirty time, there is near zero fun to move around those apostles, heal them. its a chore.
first few times religious victory is fine, if not very fun. after that...
same problem with science victory. its too tedious by the end. most of the time, there is no competition anymore. just shift+enter boredom. bad mechanics. on paper good, but in game it is not. because game is won long before it ends. so, korea is also boring to me.

compare all this to gitarja sea colonies with brilliant coastal tiles or kristina, with her archeologists or open air museums - BAM! and +6 culture tile. BAM! another! museums and wonders with nite collections of art!

 

[Zaarin]

russia is super fun. AT FIRST! but as i progress through religious victory for thirty time, there is near zero fun to move around those apostles, heal them. its a chore.

TBH Russia is a culture civ masquerading as a faith civ. Russia's one of my favorites for how it can leverage religion for culture.

 

[montalaar]

ha! forgot to name my most boring/strange/unfit-anywhere civ - SPAIN!

damn... i do not understand what to do with it. it fits nowhere in my understanding what i should do. all these awkward bonuses. i know, they are historaclly themed, yes. when i play spain(try to play, never finished), i have never ending feeling that i do something wrong, that i am not fully using this or that mechanic, but if i try to use it, i know i cripple myself. i know well how to achieve my goal victory type DESPITE that historical mechanic.
ok, say i play religious victory. then why, why... why would i even want to play map with other empty continent, but then even if so, why would need to colonize it? its absurd, ineffective to achieve religious victory.
but.
if i play empire building, colonization whatever then victory type, most of the time i lose religion founding chase. but if i win this sprinting for founding religion, i cripple my civ heavily for expansion. if i go expansion and lose religion, most spain`s bonuses fly in the window.
very strong unique unit. ok. now what? why i need those stronger inquisitors if i lose religion chase? but if i win, why i need expansion to other continent bonuses?
cant play!

 

[Jewelrunna]

Khmer. They have a very niche play style that I don't enjoy. I don't find religion much fun and to top it off they have my least favourite musical score.

Second Khmer, but I will say their music is fire. Also not a fan of the Mapuche, Swift Hawk is maybe the only ability in the game that's actually detrimental to the player.

 

[AriochIV]

I have trouble with Scythia. Their two advantages (Faith-generating improvements and early unique units) seem to contradict each other... if I try to both make an early rush attack and found a religion, I tend to fail at both.

I also have trouble with Phoenicia, since on most maps, naval power means next to nothing.

Which is a shame, because these were two factions I was really looking forward to playing.

As for the ones I least like playing against, it's the ones with the most annoying music: Canada, Australia, Maori, and Cree. The music is fine in short doses, but it erodes my brain listening to it over and over... and over.