Which civs you DONT like the most

[Masquerouge]

I don't like expansionnist and militaristic civs. Seafaring civs are ok because at least they have an economical bonus...
Anyway, I've never played with (and never intend to) the Aztecs and the Zulus. I like late-age games, and these civs are SO Ancient Age...

 

[Longasc]

Masquerouge, give Expansionist at try. At Demigod / Deity it really shines. Not as much as other traits, but I personally feel militaristic and scientific are inferior - the bonus at the end of one era is nice, but I prefer in general religious to scientific.

I was no huge fan of Expansionist either, this changed over time. Gosh, what did I like to bash the worthless Hittites!

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

I love EXP, but Mascerouge is correct: EXP and MIL are about the worst Combination of traits, they absolutely don't work together.
Except the Mongols are IMO the best choice for Conquest victory OCCs. But that's admittedly a rare circumstance.

 

[Bartleby]

To play against:
It's always a pain in the butt to face the aggressive civs but at least you know what you're in for, but my arch enemies are the Dutch, the Arabs and the Carthaginians. They ~always~ seem to betray me.
To play:
I don't have any particular unfavourites.

What's wrong with the Cossack?
It's a good UU. Basically a defense-empowered cavalry (so you'll lose far less of them during AI couterattacks), which comes in the late MA, and the MA is the best time for a UU, IMHO...

In C3C the Cossack has the same stats as Cavalry but with Blitz ability. That is a truly beautiful thing.

 

[thestonesfan]

I like expansionist civs myself. But I usually don't play the militaristic civs, or civs with early UU's. Except the Romans, cause red is by far the best color.

 

[Sukenis]

I like expansionist civs myself. But I usually don't play the militaristic civs, or civs with early UU's. Except the Romans, cause red is by far the best color.

Now who could argue with that?!?!

 

[Eyeoftiger]

I can't stand the Zulu. It seems that in every game, they get out to a HUGE tech lead (don't know how) and litter the landscape with those damn Impi. That, and 99% of the time they only build in the jungle (or so it seems), making invasions tiresome and burdensome. AARRGGHH.....Whenever I meet the Zulu, if I'm stronger militarily, I go to war.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

The only civ I really won't play is the Portugese. They are mediocre at everything and skilled at nothing. They'd be better if their UU came a little earlier, but as is getting to use the ocean one tech early just isn't worth much. Maybe I've just not found the right way to play them. Everyone else I managed ok.

 

[sourboy]

Many of the Civs I don't care for (and this seems true from the posts I've read here so far) are based upon the leaderheads, traits, or unique units.

As a modder, I tend to change or exclude many of these for most Civs. I hope they come up with a better system in Civ4.

To name a few, America has a bad UU due to timing (and often times, usefulness), Russia & Scandinavia have horrible leaderheads, far too many Civs have UU's so early they are rendered obsolete far too fast or are plain useless, traits shouldn't be limited to 2 per Civ - but to any or all that apply to each Civ.
Oh, and a personal vendetta against England.

 

[dexters]

There's really no Civ I hate or dislike. I think the thread title was kind of fishing of a flame war here.

Civs I worry about (post C3C with agricultural trait) are the Iroqouis, Sumerians which tend to do exceedingly well into the late game. The mongols are interesting as well.

 

[genghis_khev]

The Koreans (to play against). Their ability to gain tech lead over me and pip me to every wonder..... I hate them!

 

[Keirador]

Why all the America hate? Sure, America is a bit of a challenge and demands precise micro-management and worker manipulation, but if you're good at that, and have a little luck with geography, America is a contender for the best overall Civ. Read Ision's article.

Worst Civ? Portugal. Maybe Hittites, but Portugal is a consistently poor performer.

 

[Cu Chulainn]

My only beef with the Americans is that they make no sense during the ancient age. I don't mind them for any technical reason but asthetically they bug me. I'd rather have another native american or african civ or Israel instead. The only thing I like America for is sticking it to them as the Iroqouis.

 

[Zardnaar]

To play as-Portugal. Any other civ is fine. To play against Sumeria and Iroqous and to a lesser extent Greece and Babylon.

 

[Longasc]

I once played Portugal. The UU is not really good and has a very short life span.

I would also rate them low, but Expansionist PLUS Seafaring can make for early contacts early on.

If there are lots of goody huts on unexplored islands, the trait combo is powerful. But as people already said, both traits are more likely to be a contradiction and not have a good synergy effect.

But I would rather play them as MILITARISTIC in Combo with another trait. So I will probably not play Zulus or Mongols in the next time.

 

[Ramius75]

Indian , everytime i made a pact with them and turn my back. Gandhi always stuck a knife behind, lololol.

Ramius

 

[spammikone]

All but modern civs

 

[eldar]

To play as:
America - they just don't feel "right" to me, amongst other things.
Rome - I just can't get a handle on them. Their traits really aren't very complimentary.
England - okay so Seafaring makes them a bit better in C3C than they were in Vanilla/PtW... but not by much.

To play against:
Inca, Sumeria - they always seem to build the ToA and run away with huge empires. Real early culture-monsters.

Neil.

 

[MikeH]

Russia & Scandinavia have horrible leaderheads

If you play as the civ, you see the leaderhead much less than if you play against them . I agree about Cathy though, who decided to portray her as an old woman? From accounts I've read she was supposed to be a great beauty, of course anyone who said she wasn't probably ended up minus various body parts.

To play, I don't really like the Spanish, Portuguese or Americans much because of their weak UUs. England's MoW isn't great outside archipelago maps IMO, but as Doc says, the trait combo and starting techs make up for that To play against I don't really care, although if I start next to the Zulus or Aztecs they're due for an early elimination or at least crippling.

 

[onedreamer]

IMO:
Any Civ with a UU that is a ship has got to have a negative vote from me. Even in an archipelago map I wouldn't care about having a ship UU if I can have a powerful ground unit or even air unit. On top of that, England and Portugal not only have a bad UU, but even crappy trait combos (at least Byzantines are ok with them). When you give Expansionist to a Civ, the other trait MUST be something decent to compensate the fact that the Expansionist trait is useful only in the few starting turns. Seafaring or Commercial... too mediocre traits to compensate this.
Also, I hate to waste a GA... and a GA triggered with 2 cities during an early war is wasted IMHO. So if I play any civ like Aztecs that has early GA units I am afraid to go at war even if I should, only because I will waste a GA. The only two civs of ancient age that I don't dislike are Greek and Romans, while my fav. are medieval ones... but I almost only play the european ones, I guess because, well... I'm european ^^

My favourite trait is Militaristic... can't stay away from it ^^ while the one I don't like is Expansionist, especially in a crappy combo.

My fav. map is Pangea (but if I play it I try to avoid putting Expansionist civs there), and difficulty Demigod.