What's your least favorite Civ and why?

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

America are hella dull in my opinion.

 

[Drivingrevilo]

Apart from one-trick military ponies (cough, Gran Colombia), my least favourite to play is Eleanor.

I know lots of people find her fun, but I simply don’t. In my mind, there’s nothing exciting about her. The loyalty mechanic in Civ VI is kinda obscure: a bunch of numbers that, as a player, I don’t really understand or feel I have any meaningful interaction with. And Eleanor is entirely built around this mechanic. In practice, that means plopping great works in a border city, waiting for a while in hope that it arbitrarily starts to flip, and then watching a countdown timer. It’s not fun. There’s barely any interaction. And it just feels like a gimmick.

 

[Navelgazer]

(I'll be the one to say that I really love Khmer and their niche strategy.)

Additionally, I find Gandhi's design just about unplayably bad, with the CUA and LUA both completely contingent on other civs founding and spreading their religion to you, or DoWing you, though that bonus pales in comparison to Laurier's in terms of defensive insurance. (Yes, you can go on the offensive as Gandhi, but it's still not much of an incentive to do so.) Chandragupta can't just make better use of the UU, but better use of the CUA as well since cities with multiple present religions are most likely to be your recently-conquered cities. Double war weariness is minimally effective, and on a small map (the standard setting) the other part of Gandhi's LUA will grant you a total of +15 faith per turn, once everyone else has founded a religion and you've met them all.

So it's not just weak, but passively, boringly weak. That's bad design. Chandragupta is one of the best cases of an alt-leader because, even though he's not my style, he makes India into something you can play actively.

 

[bengalryan9]

Additionally, I find Gandhi's design just about unplayably bad, with the CUA and LUA both completely contingent on other civs founding and spreading their religion to you, or DoWing you, though that bonus pales in comparison to Laurier's in terms of defensive insurance. (Yes, you can go on the offensive as Gandhi, but it's still not much of an incentive to do so.) Chandragupta can't just make better use of the UU, but better use of the CUA as well since cities with multiple present religions are most likely to be your recently-conquered cities. Double war weariness is minimally effective, and on a small map (the standard setting) the other part of Gandhi's LUA will grant you a total of +15 faith per turn, once everyone else has founded a religion and you've met them all.

So it's not just weak, but passively, boringly weak. That's bad design. Chandragupta is one of the best cases of an alt-leader because, even though he's not my style, he makes India into something you can play actively.

I actually really, really enjoy Dharma and find it really rewarding to build holy sites that get faith, culture (choral music), food (feed the world), production (work ethic), and whatever else the AI wants to give me.

I do agree with you on the leaders, though - I've seen a few posters here argue that Gandhi is better than Chandragupta, but I have a really hard time thinking of a situation where I'd rather have a little extra faith (basically a pittance considering you'll probably be building holy sites with good adjacencies everywhere you can to take advantage of Dharma anyways) over a huge boost to wars of territorial expansion. I've never seen the war weariness part amount to anything.

 

[Kmart_Elvis]

India isn't really so bad anymore since that one update last year. +1 amenity per religion in a city and +2 spreads for missionaries has given them a noticeable power boost. My 2nd fastest religious victory is still with Gandhi (after Peter of course). His LUA faith generation is somewhat paltry, but it's something. @bengalryan9 the only time Gandhi is useful is for a quick religious victory, in which case, every little bit of faith in the early game helps.

As for my least favorite... Don't have a civ in particular, but to give you some perspective, I've played about 40 games since GS, since they added the HoF, and only won domination once. So I would say any civ geared strictly towards domination. I've always preferred empire building over conquest, but GS really solidified that. The map generation makes so many more bottlenecks and defensive geography, and cavalry can't take cities as easy as it once was, plus I hate the micromanaging numerous units to take cities in the first place... The result is I just don't do domination anymore. I still have never won games with Zulu, Ottomans, Scythia, etc. When I played Sumeria I did a science victory, and with Hungary a Diplomatic one.

Also, just want to echo what some others have said in that I absolutely hate the "Declare war and get X for 10 turns" abilities. I wish they were just straight up gone from the game. 1) I'm not big on warfare so it doesn't really appeal to me 2) Some of them are so hard to even activate (looking at you Scotland and Georgia) 3) I hate the idea of temporary bonuses, and 4) it's so "gamey" in design.

 

[KayAU]

I guess I'll go with Macedon for this. Everything about them is designed around warmongering, and I just don't find that aspect of the game enjoyable. I like builder civs.

 

[Chefofrats]

For me it has to be Canada. The tundra start is bad, the inability to declare early war hinders me in many situations, the unique unit is unexciting and cannot be used for efficient combat, and the unique improvement comes too late to make a difference. On top of it all, the leader annoys me for some unexplicable reason - not the historical figure obviously, but how he is depicted on the leader screen. He seems like somebody I would never get along with IRL, with his pompous dress and mannerisms.

I have to agree Korea is very unexciting. You just plop down your seowons and wait for the game to end. Yeah, wow, that really gets my adrenalin going. Sigh.

I only played one game with Khmer, but I disliked it so much I have never tried to give the civ another chance. The suiciding of missionaries is such a silly mechanic, and the fact you boost your civ by actually losing religious combat and thus religious pressure in foreign civs is counterintuitive and counterproductive. How exactly should it work? Do I zerg the other civ with my missionaries, suicide them all and increase the power of the foreign religions, only to later convert those cities by other means? Or do I simply ignore religious victory? If it is the latter, it seems like a weird choice for a civ centered around faith.

Norway is strange - the naval pillaging is nice, but the AI settles so few cities by the sea and improves so few tiles there usually is very little to actually pillage. My dominating feeling in my Norway game was frustration at that fact. I WANNA PILLAGE BUT I CAN'T!

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I don't like civs that don't bring me fun, and since I found more fun in assymetrical gameplays/building my cities and I don't like war, obviously I'll say: Korea, Macedon, Zulus, Scythia for beginning. I never sticked with Spain too as, while it sounds fun on paper, is kind of dull in practice. I liked interconntected mechanics or fun additions (how you use artifacts with Kongo, how science and happiness are linked with Scotland) or something that's pretty on the map (polders for the win!). Otherwise, I don't see any interest in playing the one-trick pony (pun intended) that are Scythia or Mongolia (while the trade route bonus for Mongolia is interesting) or too-scettered-you-don't-know-what-to-do Mapuches.

 

[Pietato]

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.

That is not what balancing each civ means. They can have large weaknesses and strengths, they just have to be of a similar overall power.

I know lots of people find her fun, but I simply don’t. In my mind, there’s nothing exciting about her. The loyalty mechanic in Civ VI is kinda obscure: a bunch of numbers that, as a player, I don’t really understand or feel I have any meaningful interaction with. And Eleanor is entirely built around this mechanic. In practice, that means plopping great works in a border city, waiting for a while in hope that it arbitrarily starts to flip, and then watching a countdown timer. It’s not fun. There’s barely any interaction. And it just feels like a gimmick.

Um...maybe learn how loyalty works, then?

 

[Deggial]

I always, ALWAYS feel so bad, when reading these threads!
Apparently, the only honorable way to play Civ6 is peacefuly, avoiding war and conquest like hell. Because it's boring and makes the game way too easy.
I am afraid, I can't do that. I'm such a fraud!

Well, I guess the verdict about war is true. How could I oppose the wisdom of the civfanatics? Due to several reasons, it does make winning easier, no matter which victory type is persued.
However, without warmongering, I wouldn't be able to play the game - at all.
Not because it would be too hard (I simply could reduce the difficulty level I play on), but because it woud be too boring for me.
I can tell - I tried it!

Just recently, I wanted to finally fill this "Diplomacy Victory" badge.
I played Canada and I tried to role-play it according to its "character".
Oh gawd, what a long haul this game was!
It may or may not have helped, that I played the game with Apocalypse mode enabled (in order to spawn these help requests) and I had to repair my tiles again and again.
Anyways, I was so glad, when I finally had won the game, recieved my badge and also "checked" Canada as a "civ I won with" in the HoF.
I will never touch them again!

Just give me my boring, straigt forward, one-trick-pony warmonger civs any time!
And hey, my fellow civfanatics: I won't apologize!


Oh ... and if this wasn't clear: my vote for the least favorite civ goes to .... CANADA!

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I always, ALWAYS feel so bad, when reading these threads!
Apparently, the only honorable way to play Civ6 is peacefuly, avoiding war and conquest like hell. Because it's boring and makes the game way too easy.
I am afraid, I can't do that. I'm such a fraud!

Well, I guess the verdict about war is true. How could I oppose the wisdom of the civfanatics? Due to several reasons, it does make winning easier, no matter which victory type is persued.
However, without warmongering, I wouldn't be able to play the game - at all.
Not because it would be too hard (I simply could reduce the difficulty level I play on), but because it woud be too boring for me.
I can tell - I tried it!

Just recently, I wanted to finally fill this "Diplomacy Victory" badge.
I played Canada and I tried to role-play it according to its "character".
Oh gawd, what a long haul this game was!
It may or may not have helped, that I played the game with Apocalypse mode enabled (in order to spawn these help requests) and I had to repair my tiles again and again.
Anyways, I was so glad, when I finally had won the game, recieved my badge and also "checked" Canada as a "civ I won with" in the HoF.
I will never touch them again!

Just give me my boring, straigt forward, one-trick-pony warmonger civs any time!
And hey, my fellow civfanatics: I won't apologize!


Oh ... and if this wasn't clear: my vote for the least favorite civ goes to .... CANADA!

That's okay, buddy. I know what it feels to go against the stream. I'm the kind of people that loves Waltz Matilda. You're not alone.

 

[Hokie Fan]

My least favorite is Canada. It feels like almost all of their abilities are useless or detrimental.

The lack of having the AI declare a surprise war on you is not terribly beneficial because it takes away your ability to get free cities from the AI when they try to warrior rush you. On deity, this is a great way to get cities without many grievances in the right circumstance. The other problem with this ability is that the lack of surprise wars doesn’t obviate the need to build at least some military because you need units to clear out barb camps. If you could totally avoid military at the beginning of the game, that would be beneficial because you could just focus on infrastructure but as it stands, you still need at least a skeletal army in the ancient era.

Canada’s tundra bonuses are useless. You don’t want to build farms on tundra, double extraction doesn’t do much particularly combined with the disincentive to war, and the bonuses to certain improvements isn’t meaningful.

The hockey ring is also useless. First, you have to build it with a lot of tundra around just to have it be okay. Second, you get a bonus to having a stadium next to it. I’m not going to spam the worst district type in the worst terrain and then fully upgrade those districts just to get a measly four culture. At professional sports, four culture makes no difference at all.

The double diplo favor from tourism is not impactful. In the early game, you don’t have sufficient tourism to generate a meaningful amount of favor for this ability. Late game, if I’m going for a diplomatic victory, having 5 to 10 more fever per turn just doesn’t matter. The way you win World Congress votes isn’t by raw diplo favor, but rather by making smart votes and timing in the Statue of Liberty.

The only two abilities that are actually okay are the double diplo favor from winning scored competitions and the Mountie. The double favor from winning competitions is totally fine. It gives you a nice little gold boost that you wouldn’t otherwise have, but it really doesn’t change how you play. I like the Mountie in theory and I used it to spam about 10 national parks in my last Canada game, but I don’t think this helped me win much faster. When I checked the tourism map at the end of the game, the national parks were generating about 10% of my total tourists. I think the issue is that national parks don’t have anything that can further boost their tourism like policy cards or wonders. Seaside resorts can be boosted by Cristo Redentor. Great works can be boosted by policy cards. National parks don’t have anything. Maybe if one of Canada‘s bonuses included double tourism for national parks, that might make the Mountie better but as it stands, the Mountie was only okay.

In short, most of Canada‘s abilities are either not impactful or detrimental. The Mountie is fine, but it comes relatively late and it didn’t seem to help me win faster. When I’ve played Canada, it feels like you’re just playing a generic civ without any real bonuses for 75% of the game until you get Mounties. This really stinks because I want to like Canada and they fit my play style because I don’t like warmongering except to occasionally kill a neighbor, but I find playing Canada games to be a pain.

 

[bengalryan9]

The hockey ring is also useless. First, you have to build it with a lot of tundra around just to have it be okay. Second, you get a bonus to having a stadium next to it. I’m not going to spam the worst district type in the worst terrain and then fully upgrade those districts just to get a measly four culture. At professional sports, four culture makes no difference at all.

Canada is all about city planning. Both hockey rinks and the entertainment complexes you'd want to build next to them increase the appeal of their surrounding tiles (and tundra tiles tend to already have decent appeal to begin with), which pairs well with Canada's position as the only civ in the game that can convert production, gold, AND faith into national parks. Personally I really enjoy making the plans necessary to take advantage of this as much as possible, but that's just personal preference.

I do wish national parks were more impactful than they actually are considering how much work and planning goes into creating them, but that's more a problem with game balance than Canada IMO. Having the mountie and hockey rinks come so late wouldn't be as big of a deal if national parks were more powerful, but as it is currently stands they do feel like they come a little late.

 

[Hokie Fan]

Canada is all about city planning. Both hockey rinks and the entertainment complexes you'd want to build next to them increase the appeal of their surrounding tiles (and tundra tiles tend to already have decent appeal to begin with), which pairs well with Canada's position as the only civ in the game that can convert production, gold, AND faith into national parks. Personally I really enjoy making the plans necessary to take advantage of this as much as possible, but that's just personal preference.

But I don't understand how this works in practice? When I get Mounties, I can plant trees to boost the appeal of tiles rather than having to use the hockey rink. Planting trees seemed more favorable to me than hockey rinks because by planting trees, I'm not blocked by entertainment complexes and hockey rinks when placing national parks. Plus, I have to wait for stadiums to get any real bonus out of the hockey rink and other than the minor culture boost for the hockey rink, stadiums are bad and expensive buildings that come way too late. To boot, when you're spamming national parks, you don't need the amenities from the stadium because your national parks are already giving you tons of amenities.

As I mentioned, I really wish I could get Canada to work, but as a practical matter, I can't. If you have an example or screenshot of when hockey rinks are actually useful, I'd love to see it because I want to like to Canada, but haven't figure out how.

I do wish national parks were more impactful than they actually are considering how much work and planning goes into creating them, but that's more a problem with game balance than Canada IMO. Having the mountie and hockey rinks come so late wouldn't be as big of a deal if national parks were more powerful, but as it is currently stands they do feel like they come a little late.

I agree. I think if national parks were buffed or Canada had some sort of bonus to national parks, Canada could be a unique civ that's fun to play. The strategy would be to grind it out with your meager early bonuses until conversation and then explode with national parks after conversation by spamming Mounties. Maybe Canada could get double tourism from national parks or national parks could get double tile yields?

 

[martyb36]

Kongo.

I like to “play the map” and having a district and pretty much an entire game mechanic unavailable to me puts me right off them. Tried them once, and they seemed competitive enough, I just don’t like having my options limited.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Kongo.

I like to “play the map” and having a district and pretty much an entire game mechanic unavailable to me puts me right off them. Tried them once, and they seemed competitive enough, I just don’t like having my options limited.

The thing I love the most concerning Kongo is how, well played, your archaeological museums became just the powerhub of your cities. If themed, a museum provides 12 food, 12 production, 24 gold, 18 culture and 18 tourism. It's just silly how your city revolves around your museum and not the other way around.

 

[bengalryan9]

But I don't understand how this works in practice? When I get Mounties, I can plant trees to boost the appeal of tiles rather than having to use the hockey rink. Planting trees seemed more favorable to me than hockey rinks because by planting trees, I'm not blocked by entertainment complexes and hockey rinks when placing national parks. Plus, I have to wait for stadiums to get any real bonus out of the hockey rink and other than the minor culture boost for the hockey rink, stadiums are bad and expensive buildings that come way too late. To boot, when you're spamming national parks, you don't need the amenities from the stadium because your national parks are already giving you tons of amenities.

You're right, but a hockey rink gives twice the appeal that a forest tile does and (at least in my opinion) better yields, especially after professional sports. I put my rinks down first (you can only build per city) next to my EC (which will be positioned so that multiple cities can put their rinks next to it) and place woods on the tiles surrounding the rest of where I want my national park to go.

Remember that when an improvement gives +appeal, it gives that to the surrounding tiles. Your hockey rink(s) shouldn't be blocking where you want to put your national parks - they should be next to the tiles where you want your parks to go, not where you actually want your parks to go.

FWIW I usually space my cities out a bit farther as Canada than I do with any other civ (where I tend to pack them as closely together as the game allows) to also help take advantage parks.

I agree. I think if national parks were buffed or Canada had some sort of bonus to national parks, Canada could be a unique civ that's fun to play. The strategy would be to grind it out with your meager early bonuses until conversation and then explode with national parks after conversation by spamming Mounties. Maybe Canada could get double tourism from national parks or national parks could get double tile yields?

Even some kind of bonus given to them every time they form a national park (extra favor, a burst of a yield in the city that has the park, or even a "+% yield for X turns") would be nice without being game breaking, IMO.

 

[Hans Castorp]

I'll happily hop on the unimpressed-with-Korea train. Once upon a time, I might have added my vote to a few of the dom civs, but I'm trying to break out of my culture/science victory fixation, and starting to enjoy them more. America is pretty meh, as is Mapuche.

 

[Navelgazer]

I only played one game with Khmer, but I disliked it so much I have never tried to give the civ another chance. The suiciding of missionaries is such a silly mechanic, and the fact you boost your civ by actually losing religious combat and thus religious pressure in foreign civs is counterintuitive and counterproductive. How exactly should it work? Do I zerg the other civ with my missionaries, suicide them all and increase the power of the foreign religions, only to later convert those cities by other means? Or do I simply ignore religious victory? If it is the latter, it seems like a weird choice for a civ centered around faith.

You spam missionaries for religious combat and win most of the time but get relics when you lose. Don't think of the Prasat as creating intentional martyrs but rather reckless missionaries.

 

[Leucarum]

You spam missionaries for religious combat and win most of the time but get relics when you lose. Don't think of the Prasat as creating intentional martyrs but rather reckless missionaries.

As much as civ is a digital board game, Khmer to me feels the most board game-y of the civs. Just a playstyle based on a very abstracted mechanic which is difficult to justify.