[GS] Which Leader (or Civ) do you Think is Overpowered and Needs a Nerf?

[Sultan Suleiman]

In my opinion, its Kupe. The Science and Culture before settling and going into the water at the start of the game, the Marae and Pa, along with the very strong Toa: thats amazing! I know its bonuses for early game and you dont get Great Writers, but still! Thats very good! But I have seen streamers and Youtubers like the Solar Gamer, PotatoMcWhiskey, (sorry if I butchered that name), Marbozir, and Quill18 played leaders like Mansa Musa, Hungary, and the Maori. And I just want to say that other leaders are overpowered too. But I genuinely want to see other people's view points too. My bets are on Matthias or Mansa.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

There’s no such thing as overpowered. I’d rather every other leader buffed than a single leader nerfed. The former would lead to more asymmetric and interesting gameplay.

 

[Pietato]

There’s no such thing as overpowered. I’d rather every other leader buffed than a single leader nerfed. The former would lead to more asymmetric and interesting gameplay.

Of course there is.

 

[Ziad]

To be honest they kinda went overboard with Maori. They can stand to lose free techs and just gain the ability to cross ocean. Hungary should also lose the envoys on levy and just gain bonus envoy generation.

It's not that they're overpowered, but they clustered their power in one area so hard that it's just broken through any competent play that very strongly favors the player (applies to most GS civs but these two stand out).

 

[Sagax]

Was about to write how it’s not helpful to discuss leaders in a vacuum, but I see that you actually mean the entire civ kits.

The consensus seems to be that Maori and Inca are above the curve, while Hungary’s power level is more reliant on RNG.

Honestly, I’d rather have the underpowered civs getting some love.

 

[jddods]

I think they should nef England. (sorry couldn't help myself). Along with others I'd prefer underpowered civs to be buffed.

 

[iammaxhailme]

I haven't played every GS civ yet but of the ones I have (Hungary, Ottomans, Canada, Inca), Ottomans are balanced, Canada is underpowered, Hungary and Inca are both severely OP (Hungary more so)

However Korea is still the most OP civ.

 

[bbbt]

I feel like a week is a little quick to judge these sorts of things. Crazy strategies may yet come out in the wash.

For the Maori, it seems like the -5 Toa stacking may be an oversight, but otherwise they seem pretty RNG dependent as well - at least the number of posts I've seen about people losing on turn 2 with them with a hurricane or restarting because coastal spots were already taken.

 

[Z6E1Z9O]

I think buffing weaker civs would be way better than nerfing current strong ones...

 

[Phantom Lord]

Kupe is extremely powerful in island settings. The Maori ability to move units over water at high speed from the start is outright scary. And culture bombing by fishing, well ...

 

[Troy Bruckner]

Buff other civs including ones from before. Inca is powerful? I didn't get that impression from the game I used them.

 

[MarigoldRan]

Did you mass the Incan Unique unit and use the 100% recon experience card?

 

[Jojo_Fr]

Balanced new civs are Ottomans, Didon, Sweden.

Very overpowered new civ : Incas, Hungary and Maori.

It's clear when you play them.

 

[Kruos]

There’s no such thing as overpowered. I’d rather every other leader buffed than a single leader nerfed. The former would lead to more asymmetric and interesting gameplay.

I disagree here.

More asymetry does not necessary means more interesting. Look at the Endless games for example. The asymetry between factions is far more strong than on Civ6, and the game is not more interesting IMO. Do not get me wrong, asymetry can be fun, but it's not always 'more interesting'. Because it narrows the field of possibilities, and the viable choices for the player. Leading to less interesting decisions IMO.

Regarding the OP subject, from what I have seen I would say that Matthis may be the best candidate for the OP civ, or the 'more OP among OP civs'. He strongly reminds me of Gilgamesh or the Scythes. No matter what, as usual the best indicator will be to look at the banned list for multiplayer games.

 

[Sostratus]

Power is ease of winning; overpowered is being able to unilaterally force a win condition with little counterplay. For warmongers this means having such an upper hand that taking out a neighbor empire (earlier the better) is practically a foregone conclusion, no matter how good the defending commander is. For others this means generating enough domestic yields that no matter how well your empire plays, they will squash you if you don't kill them immediately.
For example: warcarts are immune to spears; there's simply nothing you can do about them. Economic example: seowons simply existing.

IMO the two standouts are Hungary and Maori.

Hungary
Hungary's Raven King itself is the offender. It's less the power level of the ability - after all, several leaders can get +5str/+2 move on their whole army with some pretty flimsy CBs - but the timing.
If you were worried about Hungary rushing you at some point in the game, you can always play Germany and get that sweet +7 vs CS units to send him back to the childrens table. No, the problem is that they can rush people with boosted swords before the target can actually get swords out. Paying to levy isn't an all in strategy (you can still have a regular economy and army supporting you.) The free upgrades is where the problem is. If you both get iron working on the same turn, you'll still need time to stockpile iron and save to upgrade warriors to swords. Hungary can just snap their fingers. Swords vs +5 swords is challenging, but Teddy can do that. The problem is it will be warriors vs +5 swords and archers, which is a genocide campaign.

I admit I like the design of the Raven King ability. It has great flow. If Hungary still had to pay gold to upgrade those troops, this timing problem would be pretty much solved. If Hungary gets too delayed then any target has enough time to engage in counterplay, like building up their walls or just taking out the CS units before hungary can upgrade them.

Maori
These guys are just stupid. Ignoring the ocean start for a second, the marae's absurd levels of culture and faith and tourism for the cost of no writers is such a bargain it's insane. It works on floodplains. Floodplains.
Now the normal way to deal with things like that is to just go to war with them and burn the marae down. But Ed thought about this and decided the Toa should exist, which is such an insane unit that the maori are the ones who can warmonger better. You can send knights and toa can beat them +1 under oligarchy. Toa are super varu; they have the same combat stats and cost but superior promotions, oligarchy support, Pa building (because regular fort building was simply too casual) and they can be upgraded from warriors. It's just too much power for one civ. I know the counter argument is that they could die to a hurricane on turn 2 but they problem is, all the games where that doesn't happen and they actually settle a couple cities next to each other - it's over. In civ5 BNW, spain was often banned in MP because if they started near a NW, they could buy a free settler with the bonus gold, which was basically GG. A lottery civ. Maori is like that except the lottery is to see if pass the tiny chance to lose. Otherwise you get to go home in the new car with a million dollar check and a turkey in the oven.

Why I don't think the Inca are OP
The inca are strong, yes. But most of their oomf relies on good terrain rng and comes in the form of tons and tons of food. If any of their abilities gave production - like the trade route ability- then they would hands down be the best civ.
Food is good but it's just not science or culture or production. The warak'aq is also very good but it comes at machinery. If you start near inca you actually have time to counter warak rushes. (I think most players find it harder to use waraks than @MarigoldRan does.)

Mali becomes very strong in the midgame but he's so vulnerable getting their with his -30% production, he is truly a boomer civ. I suspect suleiman has some sleeper OP potential but I haven't played ottomans yet to really work out how feasible a ibrahim serasker rush is.

 

[myb7721]

Inca's UU is insane. I got a 188 Domination win on Deity/Pangea/Standard/Standard playing sloppily. Get your terrace farms up, get a couple of campuses and the have machinery by turn ~60. After that rush Nationalism. The war starts and never stops. The UU stays viable (eventually as Corps) for the whole game.

I start with worker to get my terrace farm out asap. Usually worker>settler. The Tunnel improvement also help to access civs behind mountains. Overall, Inca have everything they need to do Domination or Science very easily. They are so much fun, it pains me to say it but they are OP.

 

[Ferocitus]

None.

 

[Sostratus]

it pains me to say it but they are OP.

Well, only if you know how to leverage the UU against your opponent to farm xp. It likely wouldn't fly vs humans.

The UU stays viable (eventually as Corps) for the whole game.

I had one relatively quick war where I farmed up fresh Waraks to level 6.
They have a 3 promotion trifecta:
guerilla - because their attacks cost no move, guerilla lets them heal if they attackbut don't move. It also lets them pillage after attacking.
Ambush-obvious
Camouflage- they become INVISIBLE SLING NINJAS. I think this really screws with the AI because they can't really be targeted properly until they attack.

Upgrade to rangers is superior to staying warak unless you don't have ambush yet - two attacks is worth +17, ranger upgrade is +20 attack. The +25 defense helps too.
I mean, ranger corps hitting for 90 is pretty much cheating. Other civs can get it but not like Inca- two attacks means twice the XP!

 

[kaspergm]

I haven't played Hungary yet - and for whatever reasons, hasn't faced them yet either - but I agree 100 % with Sostratus on Maori and Inca. Inca are very good, but don't seem OP. On the other hand, the Toa is downright stupid. In my Maori game, I took out the entire Scythian empire - my closets neighbor - with 4 Toas. When ever she brought out her unique horse archers, my Toas would laugh at them and then 1-hit KO them.

 

[Amrunril]

The Maori are potentially very strong, but they're also a very high variance civ. Their terrain yields in the long term are incredible, but they can also get shut down badly if they only find a mediocre location for their first city and a nearby civ decides it's important to neutralize their long term threat (granted, this can happen to any civ, but it's a bigger concern for the Maori since they lack a "reserved" start location.

The Inca are definitely very strong, but since their strength doesn't come in a way that trivializes any of the game's competitive elements, they still feel relatively fair to play as or against.

The one GGS civ that I would without qualification describe as overpowered is Hungary. What really pushes it over the line are a.) the movement bonus and b.) the possibility of mass upgrades before anyone else can accumulate resources. The movement bonus is important as a means of getting rented units into combat before their contracts expire, but once they do get there, it also translates into a guaranteed first strike that pretty much guarantees victory in any fight between civs with comparable army sizes and tech. And if the double movement army is made of swordsmen when iron's only been unlocked for 10 turns...