Which civs do you choose to play?

[Skitters]

Amurites, Doviello, Bannor, Khazad, Elohim, Sidar. I read somewhere that many here have an unhealthy fascination with Alexis and Faeryl. Would you play less Calabim or Svart if they had other leaders?

I think it's simply that Dark Elves and Vampires are simply two of the more glossier civs. Not so much that Kael and the team have put some pretty neat work in for them, but because they are simply easier to identify with and the concepts for them go beyond FfH.

Indeed with my first dabbling with FfH I found it easier to identify with the Khazad, Svart, Ljos ahead of the human races. The Calabim and Lanun were probably easiest of the human races for me.

 

[loffenx]

Amurites, Doviello, Bannor, Khazad, Elohim, Sidar. I read somewhere that many here have an unhealthy fascination with Alexis and Faeryl. Would you play less Calabim or Svart if they had other leaders?

Well Faeryl has a certain lure for sure.... Alexis aint my type and Flauros... well, he lacks "that something".

 

[KillerClowns]

Balseraphs, Sheaim, and occasionally Hippus.
Balseraphs are just plain fun, with their crazy units and culture.
Sheaim are equally so. Doing everything you usually avoid is very enjoyable.
The Hippus? God, I love being able to cross the map at absurd speeds.

 

[cyther]

I also play Infernals a lot but they arn't on the poll.

 

[hbar]

I play Luchirip, Amurites (flavor, not mechanics. I'd love to see them get a shiny gameplay toy) Sheaim and Balseraphs. I'd have put Elohim if this were Fall Further - Vehem's recent changes make them by far the most dynamic civ available.

 

[Annex]

Infernals and Mercurians aren't really on the same scale of things. They aren't designed to be a playable part of the game in the same way other civs, so we aren't nearly as worried about whether or not they strike you as worth playing as. I guess the way I see it, Mercurian or Infernal switch to, is more of a strategy that you could employ during a game, and a less a choice of which civ you are playing.

I disagree. Sometimes I do feel like playing as Infernals or Mercurians so ill choose a random civ and beeline for Infernal pact or Fanaticism.

 

[civ_king]

your idea is better Zechnophobe

 

[Avahz Darkwood]

Voted Hippus and Grigori, but you left off the Infernals and Mercurians and those are my other two favs.

Edit: I have to disagree with your assessment about the Infernals and Mercurians, they are not a strategy they have a wonderful flavor. (especially grilled medium rare). I would play them from the start if I could so I choose the best civ to hurry and get to them. The are the final arbiters of the end of the world and depending on my mood that day I may want to end it or "save" it (per Basium's idea of saving that is).

 

[Kolath]

Just for ease of viewing since the polls don't do any sorting. Here is the poll results (as of 11:14 EST 9 Oct 2008) in a better graph. Though as soon at .34 comes out, expect Illians to jump waaay up the ladder!

 

[sputnik323]

Calabim, Lanun, Amurites, Sheaim, Hippus are my favorites, although people in the forums keep saying the Lanun are being nerfed again and again. I will probably like the Malakim with some changes in .34 and modmods. I also would like the Clan of Embers better if their alliance with the barbarians were stronger, they (the barb.) turn on me pretty fast, and I dont want to slow my growth just to keep them happy (maybe need a turn limit of peace along with other factors in place). Also like what Ive seen with the Ljosalfar and Luchuirp but had CTD's and hadn't started again yet.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

If the barbarians turn on you too soon, just up the difficulty so that you are competing with the ais more and the barbarians less. (Maybe consider the flexible difficulty option next some time for .34)

 

[Psycho_Ivan]

That flexible difficulty thing looks absolutely maddening. I have trouble enough with Noble (when the computers are actually doing well...), once it goes higher, I have no idea what I'd do.

 

[Blackmantle]

Wow, no one likes those Doviello, huh?

I'm surprised anyone voted for the Illians, seeing as they're still technically not available to play....

... and oddly enough, more people voted for the civ that you can't play than the Doviello! WTH?

You can change the Leaders in game though. (Via: their ambassador pleads you to take over...)

And the Illian Palace grants some XP to new units (also because its rather hard to play them from the start, many a player might pick them if given the choice, especially if the event comes along early... + it likely is a tad more memorable...)

 

[Zechnophobe]

Just for ease of viewing since the polls don't do any sorting. Here is the poll results (as of 11:14 EST 9 Oct 2008) in a better graph. Though as soon at .34 comes out, expect Illians to jump waaay up the ladder!

Great idea Kolath.

So, as has been pointed out by some people, we are missing the Infernal and Mercurians, and part of the reason this is 'okay' is because the import of this poll wasn't actually to determine who people like to play the MOST but rather who people like to play the Least. I'm sorry for those who couldn't choose their favorite faction in the rare case you are a big fan of Basium or Hyborem.

The results of this poll are really showing which factions are the least compelling to play, the ones that people aren't playing very much because they just don't interest them. Of the 100 people that responded to this, about 4 actually play the Doviello very often. The order of the factions here is almost exactly what I think a lot of us expected (though, I thought the clan would be a bit higher to be honest). Keep in mind this has nothing to do with strength. One could argue that perhaps civs that are played more are done so because they are strong, but that isn't NECESSARILY the case. (The Luchuirp , for example, got a fairly needed downtweak in .34, but are about middle of the pack on here.)

I think a really big note here, is that the Barbarian Civs are basically the two least compelling civs to play right now, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was a factor (Yes, I know Mahala isn't a barbarian).

After that we get the vanilla human factions. While I agree that one civ that plays a little more closely to normal Civ4 is fine, I feel the reason why we have all three of the Elohim, Malakim, and Bannor near the bottom is because they are all fairly close to the same. When you want to play a religious-ish good civ, you have all three of these to choose from, and I expect the Tolerant trait is the only reason the Elohim come out on top.

 

[Jay Ray]

Typically I play random civs, although I wish there was an option to exclude certain civs from that list. There are a few civs I just can't roll with--Kuriotates and Sidar being the main culprits here.

Also, its no fun when your random choice picks the same civ you played in one of your recent games. I've started over more times than I care to remember because of that. An option to play them all one by one, but still randomly chosen in a kind of musical civs fashion, would be ideal. So once you play a game as Elohim, for example, they wouldn't be chosen again until you rotate through the rest of the civs and reset the list.

Hmm... does anyone know if that part is hard coded or is there a file someplace that I can tinker with? I'd learn me some python or xml for that.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

speaking of random civ. when you play a game with all civs set to random, is there a chance that 2 factions get the same civ? or does the random selection take care of that and never selects a civ twice?

 

[Jay Ray]

I play all random, all the time. ( Except now when I'm trying out the Illians )

No civs are duplicated in a random game.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

that's good to know, thanx Jay Ray

 

[BugReportage]

Malakim->Infernals

 

[zbelg]

Look at all these lamers who haven't been enlightened by the Doviello.