Which five civs do you like most and which 5 would you replace / rework?

[Vahnstad]

both in terms of gameplay and how they fit in the series

Best
1. France (Eleanor of Aquitaine) - fun, excellent leader choice and ability, only UU and UI need to be buffed
2. Russia (Peter) - very cool civ design. Solid staple civ which i really like.
3. Aztec (Montezuma) - cool civ design. I love the Aztecs. I have a weakness for them.
4. Mapuche (Lautaro) - fun to play as, i really love them. The best new civ to be added, although many were great.
5. Poland (Jadwiga) - Excellent leader choice. Fun civ design. It was between them and the Incas for the fifth spot.

Worst
1. Egypt (Cleopatra) - weak UU and UI. Solid leader and civ bonus. I like Egypt, i hate Cleopatra replace leader or add one. Egypt has a nice leader pool to choose from.
2. France (Catherine De Medici) - i don't like her as a leader choice. Period. I know gameplay wise there is little difference with Eleanor, but the contrast couldn't been bigger. It's a matter of preference. Eleanor is the best leader pick, CdM the second worst). replace leader, but they sort of did already
3. Scotland (Robert the Bruce) - I rather wanted a classical Celtic civ than this. And they have a stupid UI. I even miss the blob civ. Gameplay wise a bit on the boring side. replace civ by Gauls or Iceni (just add one)
4. Canada (Wilfred Laurier) - While Australia has grown onto me because of fun design, i dislike Canada still. The design is okay-ish however. No hate, just not a civ for me. i guess it's fine because it's a much demanded civ
5. Norway (Harald Hardrada) - Not my favourite civ by far. Boring and weak to play game-play wise. Takes fifth spot instead of Brazil, Zulu and Georgia. buff it, make it more fun in civ 7

 

[criZp]

Best
1. Russia: nice abilities (except the ability that only works when you are lagging behind) and nice music
2. Germany: I like the extra production from the Hansa, and that you can use it to add an extra district. Military bonuses are kinda whatever.
3. Poundmaker: I like the shared visibility with all alliances, nice to see what the others are up to, and gives me more of the map
4. China: for turtling with the great wall and wonder grabbing
5. Inca: fun with those crazy tile yields you can get. Be sure to grab the pantheon that adds +1 faith on the mountains.

Worst
1. Gandhi: the lol gandhi with nukes xd meme isn't that fun that it needs to be in every game
2. Macedon: early game domination civ. not fun
3. Mongolia: early game domination civ. not fun
4. Schytia: early game domination civ. not fun
5. Kongo/Khmer: these guys have the most boring abilities and uniques

 

[Chefofrats]

Best
1. Inca: I love the synergy with mountains. It makes sense from an historical point of view, and provides unique gameplay. This is the civ I play as most often.
2. Germany: as a production freak, I love the Hansa. And unlike the Seowon - another powerful district - it actually needs to be placed properly for maximum effect, making for interesting considerations of city and district placement. A single hill is not enough.
3. Rome - a very good, well rounded civilization, effective at conquest and peaceful growth, just like the historical Rome at the height of its power. Nothing unique about the gameplay itself, but you gotta love how well the whole package works.
4. Russia - it feels great to make good, productive use of the generally useless tundra.
5. Netherlands - I enjoy the high river adjacency for many districts, and the excitement of discovering perfect polder-worthy lakes is awsome.

Worst
1. Canada: seriously, what were they thinking? A tundra start with no real benefits. Strange unique unit. I played one game as Canada for the achievments, I'm glad I never have to play another one. Give Canada more food from tundra, make their leader looks less of a twit, I don't know, do SOMETHING to make the civ better.

To be honest, no other civ even compares to how bad Canada is, in my opinion. However, since the thread requires me to list 5 civs in each category, here goes:
2. China: whenever I play as China, I am drawn into building so many wonders I forget about all else and my performance suffers. I guess it's me who is weak, not the civ, but hey, this is a subjective ranking.
3. Mapuche: given the AI's military weakness, the extra 10 strength you can get as Mapuche is not really that important. The unique improvement provides no science or production, and those are the stats I like the most. The leader looking like Rafa Nadal is nice - who doesn't like Rafa? - but not enough to make me want to play the civ again.
4. Georgia - I realize hating on Georgia and Tamar is a bit last year, or even the year before last, but I do not enjoy the focus on religion and walls.
5. Norway - the focus on melee naval warfare is strange in a game where there usually are few cities settled on the coast. As naval civs go, I much prefer Indonesia with their ranged unit and the cool unique improvement.

I considered putting Korea on the list of worst civs - it is easy to win as Korea, but actually playing such a game is not very interesting. You just plop down your seowons and that's that. Wow. Cool. Right.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I wouldn't replace any of the Civs but I wouldn't mind reworking these:

1. Persia- I just want the Satrap ability to tie into the governor system.
2. Khmer- I find it weird that they decided not to work in Dams to their Grand Baray ability. Granting faith from Dams would help.
3. Norway- I feel like since GS now they get replaced by Phoenicia and the Maori. I would move the Viking Longship to Shipbuilding and give it more combat strength than the Bireme so it wouldn't get outclassed by those and quadriremes.
4. Russia- I feel like Russia is missing something. The Lavra is fine and thematic but the faith from tundra seems off. I'd change it to production. I also wouldn't mind an alt. leader for Russia either to be honest. It would also be cool if the walled Lavra acted as like another Encampment for bombardment purposes, as there is historical precedence. Not as strong as the Encampment though.
5. Georgia- Nothing comes to mind but the unique Renaissance Walls don't help. Maybe adding another UI would help. Or fine change them into Armenia. Not really, but I don't have any definite suggestions.
Honorable Mention: Sumeria- Not necessarily a rework but changing the name to Sumer and the ability name of Epic Quest to Cradle of Civilization would do wonders.

Oh and the good ones:
1. Australia- My favorite designed Civ. Can settle in places others usually won't settle and can easily turn useless desert cities into mini Petra cities.
2. Dutch- Let's face it, the polders are one of the most beautiful tiles in the game and not bad yields either late game. Climate change doesn't matter because it just means more polders.
3. Mali- Who needs production when you have gold?
4. Korea- Pretty basic and geared towards science. The only primary science oriented Civ.
5. Macedon- Yeah I like Alexander.
Honorable Mention: Maori- for being unique, but sometimes hard to find a good starting city.

 

[j51]

Best:
1. Dutch - Just a joy to play with: Getting those good river districts, building polders, taking cities with DSPs. An all around fun and thematic civ.
2. Mali - The Songs of the Jelli could have been a flop, but coupled with the Suguba and Musa's Sahel Merchants it creates a unique gameplay experience that doesn't feel needlessly limiting. Also, very thematically fitting.
3. Maori - They're weird to play around with, like something out of another game, but it works and it fits! Another GS civ that really turns up the asymmetry while remaining fun.
4. Hungary - My favorite steamroll civ. Leveraging Raven King with the Black Army... (chief's kiss)! Also Pearl of the Danube is fun too. I'll never turn down an ability that encourages playing the district placement game. They made it up here in spite of my thinking Hungary makes more thematic sense as a city-state than a major power.
5. Germany/Rome/Greece/Aztecs/Cree/Inca/Mongolia/Arabia/Phoenicia: No single one of these stands out for me, but they all combine well thought-out design with a thematic appropriateness.

Worst (Yeah it's more than five, but "I got alotta problems with you civs! Now you're gonna hear about it!"):
1. France/Catherine de Medici & Kristina/Sweden: Everything about France that isn't Freleanor is an absolute mess: The Grand Tour is boring and weak, the Chateau is waaaay too situational, and the Garde Impériale is never going to get built. Catherine was by very few measures an able leader, and her ability isn't IMHO the most thematically French, but even if the designers wanted to keep it with France there was an even more appropriate leader for it: Louis XI. Why is Kristina paired with them up here though? I have no problems with Sweden's design. In fact, I mostly like it (even if having two Nordic civs is questionable) and Kristina is a fun leader to have around, but Minerva of the North would be perfect as France's civ ability!
2. Georgia: So unnecessary. The meme that became a civ! Tbilisi would be 1000x more appropriate as a city-state and Armenia as a civ. All that, however, wouldn't be a problem if they weren't so incredibly boring: another Medieval swordsman, another declaration of war bonus, and they're geared towards building walls. What fun!
3. Scotland: The unit is useless, the building is a joke, the leader's ability is another "declare X type of war; get X bonus" (yawn), and then there's the music. Also, why is this here when Victoria leads England and there are no Gauls yet?
4. Canada: I wanted to like them, but everything about their gameplay is just meh, plus their unit and building are such blindingly dull stereotypes. Also, post-colonial civs are just not my thing. At least they represent a unique cultural blend, unlike...
5. Australia: A cool civ design wasted on Britain part 2, 3, 4, or is it 5? Honestly I've lost count of how many Anglo "civs" are in this game. If Victoria is supposed to colonize the world, maybe don't take her colonies and make them separate civs.
6. Cleopatra: The ability is fine, but you know who it would have fit just as well? Hatshepsut!
7. Spain/Norway/China/Khmer: Each of these is thematically appropriate, but they don't play well and are too weak.

 

[Victoria]

I am happy with them all bar Canada.
They all have a golden time, bar Canada.

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

I remember when Canada got announced, I looked at their abilities and analyzed how terrible they are. I posted that on a civilization group on Facebook and people there were crying and telling I didn't know anything because the game wasn't out yet. 3 straight buffs later and Canada is still in bottom tier.

Also want to change Sumeria, feels like the entire civ doesnt really matter besides the Warcart, and this is the cradle of civilizations we are talking about.

Korea, too. What a dud. I'd rather see the Three Kingdom ability to be an extension of the Seowon and give them another civ ability, because good lord, this ability makes this passive civ even worse.

Lastly, Scotland. This civ is surely balanced, but I don't like civs like Scotland or Korea because they are strong but only 1 out of 4 bonuses truly work. Seowon for Korea and the civ ability for Scotland, everything else is straight up worthless. Like how often in the game can you declare liberation war. I have so many games with Scotland cuz I love the civ and I think I declare lib war once in those games.

 

[UWHabs]

I can't comment on historical accuracy at all, but my take:
Top 5:
1. Aztecs - fierce, both in the "oh crap, they're starting next to me" or in the "man, I just want to crush people so let's pick the Aztecs" way
2. Inca - I love high yield tiles, and they play that so well
3. Mali - love unique civs, and they just scream gold and a way to play that's separate from how anyone else plays
4. Maori - Like the Mali, they're just so unique that playing them is like playing a completely different game
5. Rome - nothing too special about them, but they're just a traditionally nice civ

Bottom 5:
1. Canada - as a Canadian, I wanted to love them. But given that they have by far the worse tundra bonus, they don't really have anything to make up for it. If you want to make us a diplomatic turtle civ, that's more than fine, but give us something crazy to go with it. Give Canada like +10 bonus in your own territory, or triple movement in tundra, or give all districts the same bonus as dance of the aurora, and just go all in. Tundra farms just make horrible tiles turn into bad tiles, which is kind of annoying
2. Khmer/Cree/any civ with a UB - personally, I love civs with a unique district. Half price is a huge boost that even if they don't give you a lot of uniques, they're still cheap and can spam everywhere. Likewise, UI means you can create a super tile for a single builder charge. Thus, any civ where the uniques don't actually come cheaper than their replacements just feels annoying. That includes the Khmer (who would be so easy to change their bonus to give them half price aqueducts), the Cree (love the UI, but they either need to start with a free scout or give a bonus to get them cheaper than a regular scout), and anyone whose UB doesn't get the production discout (imagine Japan's Electronics factory at half price, or the Aztec ball court for cheap)
3. Norway/England(Eleanor)/any civ with divergent focuses - more about my play style, but I find it annoying to play as civs that I can't use all their bonuses. I've tried multiple times to play an Eleanor game, but I can't build theatres to maximize great works, build harbors for their UD, build industrial zones/green districts to maximize the workshop of the world bonus, while also having some campuses to gain science. Norway is the same way with needing holy sites for the UB, but naturally need harbors due to a coastal focus, but also theatre/campus for general life.
4. Georgia - kind of like Canada, I'm intrigued with them in the game, and the golden age bonus is neat, but the rest are just meh. They fall a little bit like the category 2 I mention above, since their UU is one of those annoying UU that is just more annoying than the default units to build, and their UB replaces a building that I essentially never build either, just can't get their bonuses to click

Might sound like I hate everyone, but you could fix 90% of my list with only a few minor edits, and I could probably give a nice thing I like about almost every civ in the game. It's mostly a few bits and pieces that just make some civs annoying to try to get the most out of them.

 

[Xandinho]

Best:

Incas: very interesting, unique and fun civ, besides being one of the strongest.
Greece: a fun combination of culture and diplomacy, I love this, especially as Pericles.
Maori: the game's most unique gameplay, it really changes the way you play.
Japan: I really love to plan the placement ot the districts in my cities.
Ottomans: unique governor, and probably the best warmonger.

Worst:

Georgia: I like the inclusion of this in the game, but on the other hand, this is a very boring and weak civ that doesn't lead to any kind of victory. Its UB is probably the most useless. Its LUA is very situational. Its UU is weak. The best of its unique abilities is the UA, although it is average and not much fun. Nothing in this civ is particularly interesting.
France: almost the same as Georgia, nothing about France is particularly strong and fun. Its UA, while it makes sense for French Civilization, needs an increase. Its UI is the weakest of all. If you play as Eleonor, it will be even more tedious than with CDM.
Korea: while it's one of the strongest civ in the game, everything about Korea is science and this is very tedious. I'm sure that science is not the only thing that Korean Civilization has generated in its history.
Mapuche: another weak and boring civilization. And Lautaro has the worst design of all the leaders, it is almost as if it were drawn in haste without any details.
Egypt: I've played with Egypt a few times, but the matches are always boring. I don't know what happens, maybe the sphinx needs to be interesting to build, in addition to a pharaoh with interesting ability.

 

[berlin88]

I generally play as Australia, since I think Australia is a well rounded civ. The Outback is great and the production bonus when the AI declares War on me is good as well. The Unique unit is acceptable, though I would have added a 2nd unique unit as well, in the form of the WWI Australian Light Horse.

The inclusion of Theodore Roosevelt as the leader of America, was an excellent choice, and the Rough Riders are a decent unique unit, though I generally don't build much Cavalry until Tanks become available later in the game.

Russia and Germany are also good I suppose, although I would have picked a different leader for Germany in the form of Martin Luther, August the Strong or perhaps even the House of Wittelsbach.

Picking the bad civs is much more difficult, since I generally only play a handful of the civs and ignore all the others. Out of all the possible leadership choices for France, picking the De Medici family over Charles Martel or one of the Bourbons, was just plain dumb, but I have a fairly good idea as to why the devs chose the leader they did. Even DeGaulle would have been a better choice.

In regards to Canada, finding the mythical northwest passing to China and later the fur trade were the main factors in the French colonization of Canada, and Britain conquered Canada partly to gain control of the lucrative fur trade business. In game however, the fur trade plays little or no role in regards to Canada. I understand Wilfried Laurier was a late 19th to early 20th century politician and the fur trade was over by then, but the devs should have included some economic benefit related to trade for the Canadian civ. Additionally, the Coureur des bois would have been an excellent unique unit for Canada.

In regards to the Vikings, why did the devs pick Norway over Denmark? For many years, Denmark ruled over Norway, and many of the great Viking explorers and conquerors were Danish (such as Rollo of Normandy). Iceland, Britain, Greenland, Normandy and part of the Mediterranean were colonized by Danish Vikings, as opposed to Norwegian Vikings. This is not to say Norway was unimportant in the history of the Vikings, but why not have the Danes represent the Vikings, since they were the dominate power amongst the Scandinavian / Nordic factions?

 

[criZp]

In regards to the Vikings, why did the devs pick Norway over Denmark? For many years, Denmark ruled over Norway, and many of the great Viking explorers and conquerors were Danish (such as Rollo of Normandy). Iceland, Britain, Greenland, Normandy and part of the Mediterranean were colonized by Danish Vikings, as opposed to Norwegian Vikings. This is not to say Norway was unimportant in the history of the Vikings, but why not have the Danes represent the Vikings, since they were the dominate power amongst the Scandinavian / Nordic factions?

The Danes were never dominant. During the viking era no country controlled any other. Sweden and Denmark had control over Norway for some time after the black death wiped a large part of the population here, which was long after the viking era ended.

 

[berlin88]

The Danes were never dominant. During the viking era no country controlled any other. Sweden and Denmark had control over Norway for some time after the black death wiped a large part of the population here, which was long after the viking era ended.

While it may be true that the Danes ruled over Norway after the Viking period was over and done with, the Danes were still the primary Scandinavian power during the Viking era, as it was the Danish Vikings who helped populate Iceland, Greenland, England, Normandy, etc.

 

[Icicle]

Like
1) Maori - Love the unique design.
2) Mongolia - It isn't perfect but it's good enough for my favorite civ. Give me Kublai as a more empire-builder as opposed to conqueror focused leader and they'd be perfection.
3) Japan - improves the city building minigame and the culture/faith synergies lend to some creative end game scenarios. J-pop baby.
4) Cree - an excellent all around civ with no particular focus and the ideal large-alliance prosperous empire builder. Love it. Honestly I think there should be a victory condition for getting the entire world to a state of prosperity and advancement and peace, that would be a much more fitting diplomatic victory than the current whatever.
5) France - Double whammy, because I love both Catherine's spy gimmick and Eleanor's city flipping.

Dislike
1) Macedon - this is the worst designed civ, eliminating all consequences for pigeonholing is boring as heck and turns the game into snoozefest easymode.
2) Mapuche - They bring almost nothing fun or interesting to the table, and the bonus against golden ages doesn't even make sense.
3) Khmer - a very pedestrian and awkward set of bonuses.
4) Spain - outside a few niche hyperspecializations they're very boring.
5) Canada - bonuses to tedium only.

 

[konokono]

Haven't tried that many of the expansion civs yet so here's my list based on my experiences

Enjoy:
1. Trajan/Rome. Free culture buildings and free roads? Heck yeah. Just so much less to worry about in the early game.
2. Peter/Russia. Needing to sacrifice a lot of development to get in on the religion game sucks. With Russia the sacrifice doesn't feel as unbearable
3. Catherine/France. I like the idea of espionage and stealing great works for a cultural victory. The set of bonuses actually doesn't mesh that well but I still enjoy it
4. Monty/Aztec. Eagle Warriors and capturing slaves is fun.
5. Harald/Norway. Incentives to build an early navy and do early exploration makes him a fun pick. Stave church seems like a wasted bonus though

Needs Tuning:
1. Cleopatra/Egypt. Everything about it is meh. Never feel like i'd rather have a Sphinx than some other improvement. Rarely feel like I'd rather have an international trade route than an internal one.
2. Qin/China. Wonders generally are just undertuned. There are so few of them that I feel like really make a big difference. And I'd almost always rather just build the crossbowman than the crouching tiger.
3. Gorgo/Greece. Hoplites are the most boring UU. And Thermopylae just feels a bit gimmicky. Would rather be Pericles
4. Pedro/Brazil. I just find him really boring. Oh, yay, rainforest and GPP. Very passive bonuses
5. Gandhi/India. Same with Ghandi. Bonuses are mostly passive, and it's hard to see/feel the impact of dharma/war weariness

 

[679x]

BEST:
1. China. It's the only way I can ensure that I'll get those contested early-game wonders that the AI favours so much (cough cough Great Bath), which alone is something I consider a good feature. I especially love that you can boost Petra in a crappy desert city in the middle of nowhere and actually finish building it to buff the city immensely. I also like playing building sim and seeing how long of a great wall I can make. Is it a great UI? I dunno, but it's fun.
2. Indonesia. My favourite way of playing Civ 6 is to make like the Brits and colonize every nice remote island / coastal region I can find, and playing as Indonesia makes that worthwhile. Love the Kampungs.
3. Maori. In the gameplay appeal department, it's the same as Indonesia for me, just delivered in a different way. Of course, the Maori are a super unique civ due to the way they start the game and the way they interact with the land, and these types of civs that completely change the way you play are much needed in any Civ title for some nice variety. But that doesn't stop me from playing them the same way I play Indonesia.
4. Spain. Kind of the same as above, in terms of creating colonies in far-flung locations. Spain makes for some fun world-conquering IMO thanks to the Conquistadors, and you can take over with BOTH unit layers! The civ was pretty weak in vanilla, but has gotten multiple buffs in the expansions. I think the civ is in a pretty good place now, but if I posted on this thread back in 2016, my answer would probably be different.
5. Russia. It just feels good. I don't know how to explain it. It just feels like things go right for you as Russia. There is one considerable flaw that comes as a result of Russia's successes: unless you have a ton of cities, you just won't have enough great work slots for all the cultural great people you'll be getting. I suppose that sort of mirrors Russia's size in real life, but is a bit screwy gameplay-wise. Also, I don't think the 'feel-like-you're-always-doing-well' effect extends to AI Russia... in my games, they always have low-pop cities with barely any tiles improved, and an army of great writers with few theatre squares to actually benefit from all those writers. It's funny, because it's like the leader ability exists specifically to help the AI Russia. But, all in all, I think it fits well as a civ.

WORST
1. Mapuche. The leader ability is arguably very weak, and the rest of the civ doesn't synergize well. I don't really know what this civ is supposed to do, or what kind of theme the civ is supposed to have. On top of that, it's not a powerful civ compared to practically any other civ in the game, so it doesn't get any extra points for that, either.
2. Khmer. My main issue is with the Prasat: missionaries create relics when they die, but the only way to get missionaries to die is to send them somewhere where enemy apostles can kill them, since you can't initiate religious combat with missionaries. Of course, if your missionaries die, it then reduces your religious pressure in a bunch of cities nearby, thus weakening your religion. The success of this civ largely relies on getting specific beliefs to make the most out of the Prasat, but if you don't get those, you're suddenly sabotaging yourself trying to make the most out of your abilities. You also only get +1 Housing per city from the civ's bonuses, despite having two different bonuses that give a bunch of food, so you're probably going to run into housing issues which weaken the food bonuses. Then, it's hard to get the right high-adjacency holy site location early on while still placing it on the river for the bonuses. Again, it just seems like the civ has to sabotage itself with every one of its abilities.
3. Zulu. The ENTIRE civ is just combat bonuses and that's it. Absolutely no dimension whatsoever. Getting corps/armies earlier is unique in that no other civs have any ability like that (iirc), but it's just not fun or exciting. I only tried playing them, like, once. I dunno.
4. Korea. The whole thing is just science bonuses, and like the Zulu, they don't get any bonuses that are fun or exciting. It's just mindless science (bit of an oxymoron, lol) Also, the civ unique ability is just an ability for the unique infrastructure, so it's like they have no civ ability, which is kind of odd.
5. Sumeria. Probably should have been called Sumer, according to some people on the forums, as I have no knowledge in the subject. I don't know how you screw up a civ name. But when it comes to gameplay, I have a bit of trouble utilizing the civ/leader bonuses. I stray away from levying city-state armies because I worry that I'll lose the units when I lose suzerainty, so that part doesn't help me, and I don't think I've ever benefited from the leader ability at all.

DIVIDED... on Canada. On one hand, the bonuses are all heavily stereotyped, as people have discussed a bit around the forums. Our agricultural area is crammed into the tiny southernmost portions where it is warmest - we don't have farms way out in the snow. Nor do we have sophisticated hockey rinks way out in the snow, other than converting a random frozen pond into a hockey rink by plopping two nets on it, which doesn't really entail doing much in the ways of constructing 'unique infrastructure'. We do have mounties, yes, but they don't create national parks. Instead, if I were to design my own Canadian civ, I would've incorporated railroads and the fur trade into the civ's bonuses, and possibly something else with lumber mills. And, like @berlin88 said, the coureur de bois could have been a cool UU. So, in terms of converting real-life nations into videogamified versions of themselves, they didn't get it quite right with Canada. BUT, I do actually love the gameplay of the civ, specifically because I have a blast spamming tundra cities and subsequently spamming mountie national parks in said cities and just seeing how much appeal/tourism I can get - cheap naturalists without having to get lots of faith is easily my favourite part. Unfortunately, the fun only kicks in later in the game, about when I get the ability to plant forests.

This was a fun thread idea, thanks.

 

[kb27787]

Best: China, Kongo, Russia, Inca, Aztecs (powerful, all in their own unique ways--which really needs no explanation)

Worst (with suggested buffs):

Canada: please give them auto +1 food from tundra and the civ is fixed.
Khmer: Give Holy Sites major adjacency from river tiles and aqueducts at least then (their culture bomb makes no sense at all). Buff their aqueduct to be similar to the Roman bath with improved housing...
Mali: -30% production only applying to military units would be a good start (and make Agoge compensate it back to +20%)
Georgia: All cities should auto-start with ancient walls. Innate +100% production to walls also. Improvements and districts in cities are immune to pillage until the city's walls are taken down.
Egypt: Add +1 housing to Sphinxes on flood plains, UA fixed to +2 food and +4 gold for Egypt for all routes sent by or to Egypt.

 

[dagriggstar]

I'm not doing an order, that is just too hard.....

Favourite designs (I also stress designs, not necessarily how it feels to play, because while Pericles feels great he is also too good imo)
America - The problem with most late game culture civs is surviving in a good enough state to thrive in the late game. The +5 combat on home continent is a great bonus for dealing with that, although arguably could be smaller (+3) but whatever that's REALLY nitpicking (And more talking about balance than design). One of two civs to get a bonus relating to national parks, which works well with the UB.
Arabia - A religious civ where you don't have to rush for religion. The timing of Mamluks is actually good too, so you get the option of going off to conquer someone else who already has a religion to kick start your own.
Cree - Traders claiming tiles is great. Bonus resources then enhance trade routes. Then the Mekewap which gets boosted by nearby bonus resources.
Inca - They may play basically the same as 5 but it is a winning formula. I do hope they get a redesign for 7 though (And terrace farms are available to whichever civ build Machu Pichu as a wonder)
Maori - The start is unique, so already lots of bonus points. But the forest ability and UB working together really sells it for me.

Worst designs
Brazil - If you renamed this "Maya" and replaced the UU it would be a great Mayan civ. My gripe with Brazil is that, while deforestation is not unique to Brazil, it is known for that. And we don't have civ with bonuses to chopping. It doesn't have to be fancy, like extra gold from chops would be fine, I just feel like every mechanic should have a civ with an ability that relates to that mechanic.
Australia - Simply doesn't have the population in real life to justify a housing related bonus. Pasture culture bombs are unnecessary. Bonuses to districts with good appeals - great !. Outback station, concept is good execution not so much. Like most agricultural produce from Australia goes overseas. The decision to give Australia a UU with a bonus to coastal combat.......okay, it makes sense with the coast theme, but actually Australians (historically) suck at coastal combat. Like, as an Australian, I would be surprised to learn that we were involved in one successful amphibious campaign (WWII I would generally attribute the actual taking of islands to America) for instance. The leader bonus is over the top and kind of encourages you to be a jerk to get war declared on you.
CUA - Appeal thing by itself is great
LUA - On the turn that an emergency succeeds that you participate in, all emergency members receive 5 turns worth of culture and science
UU - Digger (Enhanced combat on foreign land)
UI - Outback Station - +1 food and +1 culture per adjacent tile that does not have an improvement or district. Tourism from culture at flight.
Egypt - Wonder/district river thing is very similar to hungary. Sphinx is very similar to a Chateau. Odd UU in context of the game (all standalone UU's are, really). Trade route bonus that is unrelated to everything else really. My main thing with this redesign is the artifact thing, like giving civs an incentive to conquer Egypt while also making them really good if you survive. Also more early combat means more artifacts (maybe ? I don't know how they spawn)
CUA - Yields from Egyptian artifacts are doubled. Egyptian artifacts always count towards theming.
LUA - If we change the leader could we get a free great engineer with your first industrial zone
UD - I want an Industrial Zone (Masonry ?) that is available earlier and gets +2 production from adjacent quarries and +2 production for being on a river. I don't know what I'd call it though.
UU - Same but replaces the chariot and uses the heavy cav promotion and upgrade trees. Like, we have Immortals after all.
Russia - Because it's too good at two things. Firstly, it has the best territory claiming ability. Then you have one of the best abilities for generating writers, artists, musicians. Like pick one or the other, not both. It is actually kind of all over the place with the tundra stuff too. It's just that they are so strong I don't think people care. I don't really care which way the civ goes in, but lean into one thing or the other.
Norway - Longships annoy me. They would be great if they were naval raiders. I mean, that tree has a promotion FOR coastal raiding. AND they are invisible unless you are next to them so you can surprise people. Berserkers don't add anything to the civ, like at all. Stave Church might actually have worked better as an improvement.

 

[Jkchart]

I find that absolutely most of them are good/have their moments. I dread playing Canada and I haven't got a solid playthrough with them yet.

I guess my top 5 are Mongolia (the only conquest civ I truly love how it all comes together), America (huge glow up from Civ V days), Phoenicia, Nubia, Germany. I could switch some of these out though.

Of the ones I've gotten through, the biggest one I think that needs a rework is Khmer - although I enjoyed what I did with them, the Civ itself has some of the least effective perks.

 

[Francel]

I wouldn’t mind any of my favorites receiving a buff, but I like:

Khymer - literally shares my life philosophy, but buff dams
Egypt - turn disasters up to 4 and settle on flood plains
France (w medici) - spies are great; extra dip visibility helps level combat disparity on high difficulties
Georgia - walls are fun, and can synergize faith and diplomacy nicely
Poland - culture bombs, but inflicts too many grievances

Dislike:
Canada
Mapuche

Only flat dislike these two.

 

[Danthor]

BEST:
Inca: great sinergies with the terrain
Egypt: love Wonders!!!
Rome: a classic! cool UA AND UU
Mapuche: nice theme and history of resistance vs European invaders
Cree/Poland/Dutch: cool UAs and map mechanics

Dislike:
Murica: because Murica, and fat Trump. Also for continental name appropriation
Canada: so boooring
Scotland: cool leader and motiff , but the UI doesn't match at all, and the UU is weak to say the least
Norway/Sweden: I want Vikings!!!! yeaarrgghhhh!
India: weak Uxs