What's your least favorite Civ and why?

[montalaar]

They're just so passive, though, and that's what makes America dull to play. Nothing they have is going to make you rethink how you build up your cities, where you settle, what troops you produce, how you deal with city states, etc... they're not the only civ that has that problem, but I think they're one of the worst about it. So bland.

well, have you went early war with them on same continent? if not, try. that is the difference. it is easy to miss it.

 

[bengalryan9]

well, have you went early war with them on same continent? if not, try. that is the difference. it is easy to miss it.

On deity I get a whopping +1 combat strength over the AI, so it's not exactly a huge difference. It's not like having a big advantage in early war is all that unique to them, either.

 

[Wyvern_Parade]

Australia. First of all, they're overpowered to the point where it takes all challenge out of the game. Especially after the coastal city buff patch, to me it's just too much.

Also most of their bonuses are not that interesting or fun. Outback stations are just there to slap down on any bad land you have without thinking. Diggers are fine, but not that interesting of a design. They copied the coastal combat bonus that Japan already had, and I believe it's a complete oversight that they don't cost strategic resources. Finally, they have possibly the most poorly designed and easily abused/gamed of all the "+X% bonus after war is declared" in the entire game. (And that's saying something).

Oh, right, they have a random culture bomb for a common improvement too.

The one potentially interesting aspect of Australia, adjacency from appeal, is tarnished by the fact that good Holy Sites and Campus spots next to mountains or reefs inherently have high appeal. So the mechanic usually doesn't force you to adjust your city planning or make interesting decisions at all. You just get MORE for doing the same thing without any trade-off. I wish Australian Campuses and Holy Sites didn't get adjacency bonuses from mountains because then you may have to consider whether you'd rather use those mountain-adjacent, high appeal areas for Commercial Hubs or Theater Squares instead. Or you'd have to work harder actually developing appeal around your city to create good adjacency bonuses. Currently it's just too good to pass up those naturally occurring +8 or +9 campus spots.

 

[bengalryan9]

Australia. First of all, they're overpowered to the point where it takes all challenge out of the game. Especially after the coastal city buff patch, to me it's just too much.

Also most of their bonuses are not that interesting or fun. Outback stations are just there to slap down on any bad land you have without thinking. Diggers are fine, but not that interesting of a design. They copied the coastal combat bonus that Japan already had, and I believe it's a complete oversight that they don't cost strategic resources. Finally, they have possibly the most poorly designed and easily abused/gamed of all the "+X% bonus after war is declared" in the entire game. (And that's saying something).

Oh, right, they have a random culture bomb for a common improvement too.

The one potentially interesting aspect of Australia, adjacency from appeal, is tarnished by the fact that good Holy Sites and Campus spots next to mountains or reefs inherently have high appeal. So the mechanic usually doesn't force you to adjust your city planning or make interesting decisions at all. You just get MORE for doing the same thing without any trade-off. I wish Australian Campuses and Holy Sites didn't get adjacency bonuses from mountains because then you may have to consider whether you'd rather use those mountain-adjacent, high appeal areas for Commercial Hubs or Theater Squares instead. Or you'd have to work harder actually developing appeal around your city to create good adjacency bonuses. Currently it's just too good to pass up those naturally occurring +8 or +9 campus spots.

Australia without mountains is actually a lot of fun to play, but yeah, if they're next to a mountain chain they are pretty overpowered.

I will stick up for diggers just because I think resourceless infantry that you can build before anyone else researches oil are a lot of fun, and they come late enough that they're probably not going to make too big of a difference.

Australia is definitely the total package, though. Great leader ability, great civ ability, good UI and UU, and basically able to win any victory condition they want to.

 

[Timothy001]

I don't really have one. I have one at least 1 games with each civ. Some of the original civs to the release of R&F, I was working toward winning each VC with each civ (obviously no RV for Kongo). I usually play random. But recently, went back and won with all Civs, to fill in the HOF. My last 2 Victories, was Brazil DV, and then an American Score (500 turns). With the release of Maya and Gran Columbia, I won a Culture with Gran Colombia, and a DV with the Maya (3 tries, lost a RV to Eleanor (Fr), and a Culture to Pericles). Now I'm back to playing random. Playing Trajan, Lost a Culture to Persia. Now as Persia, I've taken out Japan, and Indonesia. With 3 Civ's left to find. My Continent is now all mine. Still early game. Just barely got catapults.

 

[pkaem]

Really WTH is wrong with korea? They have a strong science bonus which nearly makes them viable for tall. That's the second trick of that pony. Also pony can give you a variety of options geared twoards early war, turtle science / culture or science domination via hill bias. They are versatile and perhaps the pony riders donsen't know many tricks... No offenese but I want you to show me having more interesting games with rome, Japan, China, perisa or other top notch civ's. And sure... If you roll them it's a guaranteed deity win... There is no such thing. This seems a bit too harsh twoards by beloved koreans.

 

[criZp]

Really WTH is wrong with korea? They have a strong science bonus which nearly makes them viable for tall. That's the second trick of that pony. Also pony can give you a variety of options geared twoards early war, turtle science / culture or science domination via hill bias. They are versatile and perhaps the pony riders donsen't know many tricks... No offenese but I want you to show me having more interesting games with rome, Japan, China, perisa or other top notch civ's. And sure... If you roll them it's a guaranteed deity win... There is no such thing. This seems a bit too harsh twoards by beloved koreans.

When every ability they have is basically "extra science" then they end up being pretty boring yeah.

 

[bengalryan9]

Really WTH is wrong with korea? They have a strong science bonus which nearly makes them viable for tall. That's the second trick of that pony. Also pony can give you a variety of options geared twoards early war, turtle science / culture or science domination via hill bias. They are versatile and perhaps the pony riders donsen't know many tricks... No offenese but I want you to show me having more interesting games with rome, Japan, China, perisa or other top notch civ's. And sure... If you roll them it's a guaranteed deity win... There is no such thing. This seems a bit too harsh twoards by beloved koreans.

Maybe some don't find a game where you're virtually guaranteed to have the tech lead all game long and don't have to put basically any thought into city planning to get +4 adjacency half priced campuses all that exciting? It's like riding a bike with training wheels... sure it has its advantages, but the excitement is basically gone at that point.

 

[pkaem]

Maybe some don't find a game where you're virtually guaranteed to have the tech lead all game long and don't have to put basically any thought into city planning to get +4 adjacency half priced campuses all that exciting? It's like riding a bike with training wheels... sure it has its advantages, but the excitement is basically gone at that point.

Maybe it's even more to think about when you get - 1 per adjacent districts, so you can't relie on finding a campus spot and building a triangle from there. Aswell as you want improvements around the campus and still need to fit an aqueduct and industrial zone (or whatever you need) in. Sorry that's just not true if you fit your cities in a 4 tile grid and build your basic districts. I don't want to talk away that korea is one of the strongest civs in the game, but one trick pony is plain wrong and easy mode is just true if you are able to appease the deity AI or succesfull dodge any attacks, while just push twords edjucation and build two theatre squares. But keep in mind that there are civs whose abilities abused right will net you even easier and faster culture or religous victories if you know your stuff.

When every ability they have is basically "extra science" then they end up being pretty boring yeah.

Okay so you can't play around with the hill Bias, and governer ability to abuse your map and push your game in any direction. Many complain that deity is annoying because you have no room for diverse playstyles. The most important rescource in the game remains science, because you can go everywhere you want with a strong science infrastructure, so you have the freedom to go diffrent routes, even on deity. Thats the opposite of boring, but the concept of interesting is subjective and depends highly on what you are used to and what difficulty you play on. Also I tend to have the most fun when I net my victories as fast as possible, that's for sure not true to everyone.

 

[agonistes]

That south ame

Just thought it'd be fun and interesting to have a counterpoint to the other topic and see what kinds of things people *don't* enjoy in their civs.

I don't think I can name one that I absolutely don't like. But I must admit I am not a fan of Persia despite it being insanely powerful. I like civ's that have a unique way to play them but I'm not a fan of civ's that gets really powerful bonuses by acting sort of odd in the game. So, declaring surprise wars on civ's across the map just to get that crazy movement bonus is obviously very strong but just feels weird and off-putting to me.

I also kind of dislike the Khmer. On first glance, their relic focus seems interesting but... just sending missionaries away to their death to gather relics just feels like a really strange gameplay loop for me personally.

That south american civ, the macupe? I can’t stand his face or flag. I’ll reroll if I find him in a game.

 

[agonistes]

That south ame

Just thought it'd be fun and interesting to have a counterpoint to the other topic and see what kinds of things people *don't* enjoy in their civs.

I don't think I can name one that I absolutely don't like. But I must admit I am not a fan of Persia despite it being insanely powerful. I like civ's that have a unique way to play them but I'm not a fan of civ's that gets really powerful bonuses by acting sort of odd in the game. So, declaring surprise wars on civ's across the map just to get that crazy movement bonus is obviously very strong but just feels weird and off-putting to me.

I also kind of dislike the Khmer. On first glance, their relic focus seems interesting but... just sending missionaries away to their death to gather relics just feels like a really strange gameplay loop for me personally.

That south american civ, the macupe? I can’t stand his face or flag. I’ll reroll if I find him in a game.

 

[GunsGermsandSteel]

As hardcore fans who deeply know the game it is understandable that "straightforward" civs are commonly disliked. However, you have to remember that as a game designer that have to put straightforward civs in the game. Both for the AI and for newbies. If someone just wants to play a science game on their first go round they can just pick the very obvious best science civ - Korea. Games HAVE to include this. I don't think we need to demand every civ to be a gordian knot of interesting mechanics/balance/aesthetics.

My least favorite has been Zulu. First off, they have a rather slow start IMO. None of their bonuses really kick in until the mid-game. While the Ikanda can have benefits there are other districts that are more important early on. Furthermore, their best domination trick (early corps) kicks in at a time in the game when fortifications are at their worst. I generally avoid wars in the late medieval-early industrial time frame. So for me their bonus is kinda meh. Especially depending on how hilly/mountainous/encampment heavy the civ you need to attack next is. Poland(early encampment spam) is such a bad civ for Zulu to have to try to conquer in the middle ages (believe me, I've slogged it out through piles of encampments). Another issue I have with them is that their unique unit is a spearman. I am not overly fond of spearmen as my melee main unit because I much prefer swordsmen with their tortoise ugprade (defense against ranged attacks)
As such I honestly find them to be an inferior warmonger civ to the others. So they are boring, and their warmonger bonuses come in at a bad time.

 

[bengalryan9]

Maybe it's even more to think about when you get - 1 per adjacent districts, so you can't relie on finding a campus spot and building a triangle from there. Aswell as you want improvements around the campus and still need to fit an aqueduct and industrial zone (or whatever you need) in. Sorry that's just not true if you fit your cities in a 4 tile grid and build your basic districts. I don't want to talk away that korea is one of the strongest civs in the game, but one trick pony is plain wrong and easy mode is just true if you are able to appease the deity AI or succesfull dodge any attacks, while just push twords edjucation and build two theatre squares. But keep in mind that there are civs whose abilities abused right will net you even easier and faster culture or religous victories if you know your stuff.

I think you are vastly overstating how hard it is to avoid getting less than +4 on seowons. Finding places to put them is basically the one thing you need to worry about as Korea... that takes a pretty minimal amount of effort on the player's part, and even if you screw it up you're stuck with "only" a meager +3 or +2. Why would you choose to pack your cities that closely together as Korea to begin with?

It's not like I don't think there's a place for a civ like this in the game - it's okay to have civs that are easier to do well with than others, and it certainly makes for a bigger challenge from the AI when you come across her - but that doesn't mean she's all that fun to actually play.

 

[agonistes]

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.

I can get that.

On the other hand, I don’t really pick a civ intending to play to their strengths. For example, I may pick (and have, twice) Scythia to play as a coastal industrial/naval giant -which I find fun. So I don’t really regard any civ as pigeonholed.

For me, the issue with Mongolia is the little fireball flag.

Btw, how do you turn off these crazy colors if you use random opponents?

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.

Yea, I’m a sucker for ui’s. Always happy to see more of them.