Worst Civ in the Game??

[chuckh89]

Wait, what? Ok, for one you can't raze city-states, and if you could doing it would be an incredibly stupid and idiotic idea as you are essentially throwing away a well developed 10+ pop city.

This was what I said earlier...I'll repost

One of the most enjoyable parts of Civilization is unveiling the map, analyzing where you stand, and then settling cities to implement your strategy, and play to your strengths.

A majority of CSs are not in favorable locations (Ex. Science Victory-No mountain), and I feel most people like the freedom of deciding exactly where a to settle a city.

Reinforcement for this argument...I always use Enrico Dandalo as AI enemy Civ. (Unless it is Diplomacy Victory) for Gauntlets. He is great early game because he doesn't spawn cites, and many times Razing his puppeted city will unveil a great location to "Found" a city. Normally you can look at a CS and say "If that CS was "Founded" one space that way, or one space that way it would be a excellent conquest!" All you cities should be in "Prime" locations", your not getting that when you receive a CS for Puppeting"

I thought I made a valid point with the Elite player (Cromagnus) example..."He knows how to win with Venice", but he would crush Enrico win times on all victory conditions easily with a warmonger like Attila.(And Attila is not even close to being the "best" overall Civ.)

Your the Venice lover, and expert on his Strategy...Cromagnus would crush your times in his first attempt,...I guarantee it!

 

[Navelgazer]

I think someone earlier in the thread said something about how Venice was top-tier in single player, bottom-tier in MP. That sounds about right. AI both doesn't know how to warmonger effectively, and crucially doesn't see the threat Enrico poses by really getting going. Human players won't let him stand a chance, and he's pretty powerless to stop them before that happens.

It's like, in MtG, my good friend built a Commander deck around Vorel of the Hull-Clades, where everything in it is about counters, moving them, multiplying them, etc. It grants him potentially endless turns if things go right, and is nasty as you can imagine. Things have never gone right for it, though, and he's never won with it, because everybody at the table can see it coming and ends him first, before he can do anything about it.

Venice is like that, basically.

 

[beetle]

I don't want any cruddy CSs in their current location!

So just pick the one that are really sweet, near a Natural Wonder for example. But can Venice buy tiles in the CS it puppets?

 

[chuckh89]

I think someone earlier in the thread said something about how Venice was top-tier in single player, bottom-tier in MP. That sounds about right. AI both doesn't know how to warmonger effectively, and crucially doesn't see the threat Enrico poses by really getting going. Human players won't let him stand a chance, and he's pretty powerless to stop them before that happens.

It's like, in MtG, my good friend built a Commander deck around Vorel of the Hull-Clades, where everything in it is about counters, moving them, multiplying them, etc. It grants him potentially endless turns if things go right, and is nasty as you can imagine. Things have never gone right for it, though, and he's never won with it, because everybody at the table can see it coming and ends him first, before he can do anything about it.

Venice is like that, basically.

No, that not really what I am saying...This is how I look at it,...Maybe that is the problem!

If your were able to pick your Victory type, Opponents, and Map every game then maybe Venice would be in the conversation.

But when I interpret the question, I would have to answer with multiple Victory Conditions, Opponents, and Maps. Maybe the word "Overall" should be in there somewhere..??

So, when making my "Vote" I think..... Overall, all conditions..??

If I had to accomplish the VVV, and I could only pick one for everything (minus the Leaders, of course), which Civ. would I pick to give me the best results possible in all situations...???

 

[Doktor Vic Tim]

I personally think Venice can be quite a fun civ from time to time, but the mass trade routes gets tedious to maintain. And Venice also kinda suffers from the Spain syndrome. They can be very dependent on a good starting location. What if the nice coast you spawned on was just a small inland sea? What if you started on a solitary large island without a single city state on it? If I would acquire a city state as an actual city, I'd prefer Austria.

I mean, don't get me wrong, the money is NICE once you get it rolling, but I feel that Portugal can pull off a good money making as well once you settle new cities with a lot of resources in its range.

EDIT: And I forgot one nice upside with Venice at least. That national wonder? Not a problem to unlock building.

 

[Navelgazer]

Answering the original question, however (as I seem to be just into writing posts here tonight) there are a several factors that weigh into a Civ being consider sub-par, including:

1) Being too Map-Dependent (this is usually more of an issue for naval-focused civs, for obvious reasons, though I'd argue that civs like Mongolia, Assyria, Huns, etc. can face this the other way.)
2) UA is generally unhelpful, for any number of reasons.
3) UU comes too late to be useful.
4) UU doesn't carry benefits over on upgrade.
5) UU has downsides that cancel out the upsides too much.
6) UU upgrades into an undesirable unit.
7) UU's benefits are terrain-based.
8) UB replaces a Building you wouldn't normally want.
9) UB has downsides that cancel out the upsides too much.
10) Bad start-bias.

And I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of. There are also issues of a UA having downsides that cancel out the upsides, but in those cases, usually the issue is of people just not digging the downside/upside, and not seeing the potential powerhouse there for the taking (e.g. India, Ethiopia, Venice) so I'm not really counting those.

But if a Civ has several of these issues, it's going to be a problem.

Denmark for example, is usually considered among the worst. It is very heavily map-dependent, as it basically demands amphibious attacks to make it work. It works pretty great on an ideal map, but otherwise? Meh. The Berserker and Ski Infantry are both terrain-based, in one way or another. The Berserker is arguably still pretty good - +1 movement and comes early - but it all adds up to a civ that does one highly situation thing pretty well, and has no focus or benefits elsewhere.

Byzantium is another one that faces a lot of problems here. One of the UUs - the Cataphract - is slower and stronger than the Horseman at a point in the game where speed is more important than strength in most cases. (See also: African War Elephant.) Potentially there is a Cataphract-swarm strategy out there, but I've never come across it.The other UU - the Dromon - is actually one of the best UUs in the game, but can't do enough for Theodora to make the Byzantines worthwhile as a whole, and obsoletes entirely upon upgrade. And that is because of the well-intentioned, worthless-in-practice UA. Getting an extra religious tenet sounded great when G+K was first coming out, and must have sounded great to the designers, so much that they split the two halves of this that could have worked together into two separate civilizations, with the Celts getting the much better end of it. The big problem with the Byzantine UA is that when you're on a low-enough level to get a religion, the bonus makes a negligible difference. When you're on a high enough difficulty to have the extra tenet really make or break things, you're almost certainly not getting a religion anyway, so the UA does nothing much, or nothing at all. With the addition of Reformation Beliefs, that diluted the Byzantine UA even further, making it one of the worst, if not the single worst, in the game.

**A special note here about Mongolia, whose UA battles Byzantium's for Worst in the Game, though Mongolia is a great civ in total. Conquering City-States is something you never really ever want to do in the game, yes, but as an AI benefit, the flavor works great, and Keshiks and Khans are so great that it doesn't matter if the player never makes full use of the Mongols' UA. If AI Byzantium founds a religion, though? Who really cares about the extra tenet? That's the difference, to me.**

**Another special note here about flavor - the Byzantine UUs are ancient and classical. The Byzantine Empire's existence basically defines the timeframe of the Medieval period. This bugs the hell out of me.**

Japan is better in BNW following their patch, for sure. I actually wouldn't put them near the bottom myself, but I understand it. For one thing, the Zero is built for a game with air-battles that just don't ever really happen in my experience in Civ V. Removing the oil requirement makes it better, for sure, though there's a flavor issue there as well (in that the Zeroes caused major issues for Japan in WW2 over oil resources.) The Samurai is a good unit, not great, made synergistic and nice for Japan, in peacetime. Building fishing boats, which themselves generate culture for Japan, allows for versatility. Nothing to write home about, but good. But then there's Bushido. The Japanese UA looks great to newcomers who expect the attack penalty for wounded units to be far greater than it actually is. The culture benefits from the UA can be wonderful - Japan is the only Civ that can plausibly expect a culture boost from Turn 0 - but it takes a lot of re-rolls to found near an Atoll in my experience. Still, I think Japan has been moved post-patch from bottom-tier to simply lower-tier. Not great, but far from the worst.

Brazil hasn't really been brought up here, but I'd say that their jungle-start, combined with nothing to mitigate it in the early game (a la the Aztecs, who I think are top-tier or near it) make them deserve a spot in this discussion. Low-production starts are my bane, the Brazilwood Camp doesn't do anything to help, and the Pracinha comes too late to be worthwhile. Considering the hammers necessary for a culture victory, which is all that Brazil is built for, I'd argue that they come into the game with a major handicap.

Finally:

Iroquois have one okay UU, which nobody really thinks about when thinking about UUs, are extremely and unreliably map-dependent, and have a UB which is arguably worse than what it replaces, and hampers tile development in a lot of ways (compare with the Ducal Stable, which encourages it.) Basically, the Iroquois have to be compared with the Inca, who are basically superior in every way, and are Top-Tier in my opinion. Hills last forever. Forests last until they don't. Mohawk Warriors get a terrain bonus. Slingers get one based on UA and also a tactical advantage. Plus the Incan economic benefit lasts the entire game while, again, forests probably don't.

In the end, I think the award for "worst" has to go to either Byzantium or the Iroquois. Because Science and Analysis.

 

[Browd]

So just pick the one that are really sweet, near a Natural Wonder for example. But can Venice buy tiles in the CS it puppets?

No, it cannot.

 

[qemist]

In the end, I think the award for "worst" has to go to either Byzantium or the Iroquois. Because Science and Analysis.

Byzantium can be strong. My best games on immortal as them have been ones with a coastal start shared by many other civs. You build a large dromon fleet then get to work taking city after city in the classical era. Sure they lose their U when you upgrade to galleasses, but by then they will have range and/or logistics and can continue to dominate.

Or if you get a faithy start and go Piety you can hog all the faith buildings and play the sacred sites game.

 

[beetle]

Answering the original question...

Very thoughtful post, but it leads me to assert that OP needs clarification.

If we are talking SP where the player picks their civ and the map, then the issues for civs that really need water (for example) goes away. If I am SP setting up my game, then I probably am only going to try for diplo with Venice and CV with Brazil. So, I have no problems with either of them.

On the other hand, random civ on a random map -- which would be worse?

In the end, I think the award for "worst" has to go to either Byzantium or the Iroquois.

No argument for those two, assuming a random map.

What is the worst civ in the game even when you pick a map that favors them and are pursuing the VC they are best suited for?

 

[chuckh89]

What is the worst civ in the game even when you pick a map that favors them and are pursuing the VC they are best suited for?

The Iroquois

 

[caketastydelish]

Byzantium: Because their UU's come at inconvinent times to actually use them, at least for me. Their UA has some redeemable value but it is underwhelming for the most part, thus making them an overall weak civ. Probably one of the better civs on this 'worst civs' list. But still not one I'd want to use.

Carthage: Ditto what I said for Byzantium, only I find their UA even worse.

Celts: Probably the best civ on my 'worst civs' list but only because Pictish Warrior is redeemable great. Otherwise they're trash.

Denmark: Probably the worst civ on this list of terrible civs. Denmark is only good on an island map, and even then they're average at best.

India: Absolutely horrible UA. The only reason to use them is if you want to go tall, but even then you're probably better off with any of the other tall civs.

Iroqouis: Their UA has very limited value, especially once you get outside of forest territory.

Japan Used to be one of the worst in the game but has been bumped up to an average civ after the bonuses they've added. The +1 culture for fishing boats helps, and the bias close to iron and Mt. Kiliminjaro really helps as well

Mongolia: It's common knowledge that attacking city states isn't a part of winning the game for the most part. Keshiks are good which makes them one of the best civs on the 'worst civs' list. Actually a similar position to the celts.

Russia: Were it not for Russia having what in my opinion is the smartest AI in the game, they would be meaningless during each games with an average AI.

 

[caketastydelish]

Venice, Babylon

I kinda just hate venice generally. I don't like them stealing CS so I usually conquer them first if they're in my game and I really hate not being able to build in my cities. Babylon is just super boring, and invariably playing for a really boring victory condition as well.

I agree that babylon is boring, but they are a very good civ to play as. As for Venice: Arguably an overpowered civ because it's too easy to win a diplo victory as venice.

Ottomans are one of the few factions I really enjoy to play. They are just epic. Janissaries are great and you can use Sipahis they also don't spend movement to pillage.

And about sea! No one would even guess how epic they are without playing

I would consider Ottomans the most overlooked civ in the game.

France

I used to hate France until they had a straightforward playstyle, which they do now. Their UI makes them the second most 'defensive' civ in the game with Morocco taking the number one spot. Build up those chateu's and wonders.

Portugal

Portugal is a great economy civ. Personally I like them better than Netherlands.

The Celts are arguably the most powerful civ in the game.

Even without absurd civs like Shoshone and Arabia, how could you come to this conclusion?

Indonesia.

Indonesia is an economy civ like Portugal and Netherlands. You're just meant to trade those luxuries for your own betterment. The only way I could see myself actually choosing Indonesia, though is in a team based game. One player is going to be super wide (perhaps Shoshone or America or Rome or whatever), the other player has those extra luxuries to keep 'em happy.

To add to the conversation, My personal two least favorite are Carthage and Austria. Carthage gets a free harbor for their coastal cities which could be good for long distance settlements but eh I don't think I'm ever pressed to make harbors, and I have never really used her mountainwalk ability effectively. Now maybe in a 4 corners map separated by mountains it could be extremely good but as a continent's player I just don't see that many relevant mountain ranges where I need it. As for Austria buying city states could also be good in some situations but is generally not what I want to be doing. The coffee house seems like a minor upgrade.

The only reason I like Austria is for team based games. One player is Austria, the other player is an economy one (like Netherlands or Portugal) to earn the cash, give it to Austria and Austria buys those city states.

Well, Shoshone is obviously #1. Which civ(s) are you thinking for the number 2 spot?

Shoshone is a tossup with Arabia. Isn't it true that you don't actually always choose the tech upgrades out of ancient ruins anyway? Like it only allows you to do that once every five times or something.

Polynesia?

Polynesia is a civ I can't understand why people like. Their UU is a military laughing stock, and their UI doesn't do much to help it. There's a reason why Polyneisa is almost always a favorite target in each game of civ to attack.

The Celts and Siam are the worst.Their UA are horrible.

Celts are pretty bad but not the worst. I don't see how you could say that about Siam though? If anything Siam is slightly overpowered.

Iroquois and France for me. Their abilities are barely anything. France you can maybe get lucky with early tourism start and then go hotels and what not. Iriqous ability is just down-right broken. Iriqous Mohawk is a swordsmen replacement hat gets a bonus with no iron and in jungle/forest. Who cares? GPT is going to sink you into poverty building these units and you need to be getting you science buildings anyways. Longhouse is pretty... meh? It becomes a 1/4 tile when you get to scientific theory which is pretty nice but unfortunately it loses its 10% production to everything. And it encourages you not to chop and expand into forested areas which is going to limit your growth.

I always thought of Iroqouis as a weak civ without even realizing that conclusion. All the more reason why they're bad.

 

[Navelgazer]

Mixed Bag there, caketastydelish.I agree with you pretty much about Venice, definitely the Ottomans, France, definitely Portugal (amazingly powerful, just recognize your military needs) and Indonesia to an extent (The Kris is one of the best UUs in the game, better maybe than the Impi, and I want to do that palm-into-face push-out-of-the-conversation move to everyone who can't focus on anything other than the chance that a Kris might get a debuff, but no matter...)

As for the Shoshone and Polynesia comments there, the question was about which civs have the best scouting ability. Shoshone has the Pathfinder, which gets to pick what it wants from ruins every single time (though specific choices have to refresh so you don't get Crossbowmen in the ancient era) and Polynesia, which can scout otherwise unreachable ruins from turn 0, and then America, which gets +1 sight, making them the best at finding the ruins to raid.

I also don't agree that the Celts are top-tier, but I've been seeing the idea tossed around enough recently that I can believe that a guaranteed pantheon, and possibly religion, on Diety, without going out of your way to get it, could be super-powered if played right, and that the Celeidh Hall's happiness bonuses are great as well, beyond just the general Pict rush a Celts player would put together.

 

[caketastydelish]

I also don't agree that the Celts are top-tier, but I've been seeing the idea tossed around enough recently that I can believe that a guaranteed pantheon, and possibly religion, on Diety, without going out of your way to get it, could be super-powered if played right, and that the Celeidh Hall's happiness bonuses are great as well, beyond just the general Pict rush a Celts player would put together.

The problem with the celts is their UA requires you to not improve your forest tiles, which you're going to eventually want to... leaving you with an obsolete UA. Not a doubt in my mind that the celts have one of the best early games in Civ V, but once they're past their prime it's downhill from there.

The Celts are in quite a similar position to the Huns in that regard, except the Huns have TWO excellent unique units to wreck havoc instead of just one, to the point that even after the huns are 'passed their prime' you may have already won the game (not necessarily literally, but you're so far in the lead having obsolete UU's for the rest of the game doesn't matter).

 

[beetle]

The problem with the celts is their UA requires you to not improve your forest tiles, which you're going to eventually want to... leaving you with an obsolete UA.

True, but the timing works out just fine. We are talking 2 fpt -- which is super important early, but trivial later. So, after founding, it is a no brainer to farm (or mine) those three forests.

Compare this to Iroquois UB which requires that the player never chop, and it is not just three tiles, but prolly a whole bunch (assuming the start bias works, which you want, right?) that are problematic. Even with the Longhouse bonus, forested TP or mills still seems weaker than farms and mines. But if you do go for farms and mines, then you really have undone the UB. There is no good choice!

What is the worst civ in the game even when you pick a map that favors them and are pursuing the VC they are best suited for?

I think I have answered my own question. Even on a boreal map, the only real advantage Iroquois have is the ability to move through woods. Their UA+UB+UU are not game changing even under optimal circumstances! It is interesting to me then, that the AI seems to play them pretty well!

 

[Aenthin]

What is the worst civ in the game even when you pick a map that favors them and are pursuing the VC they are best suited for?

The Iroquois

Definitely not. Boreal and Arboreal maps or just a good map generation are the best thing that could happen for the Iroquois because no one else can utilize forest tiles like they can. This is especially true when workers can roam freely in their home territory and thus improve tiles faster than any other civ out there except a lucky Incan location. The problem really only arises when the Iroquois play a map without forests (which can be most of the time depending on luck), but with them, they're practically gods.

 

[chuckh89]

I also don't agree that the Celts are top-tier, but I've been seeing the idea tossed around enough recently that I can believe that a guaranteed pantheon, and possibly religion, on Diety, without going out of your way to get it, could be super-powered if played right, and that the Celeidh Hall's happiness bonuses are great as well, beyond just the general Pict rush a Celts player would put together.

The problem with the celts is their UA requires you to not improve your forest tiles, which you're going to eventually want to... leaving you with an obsolete UA. Not a doubt in my mind that the celts have one of the best early games in Civ V, but once they're past their prime it's downhill from there.

The Celts are in quite a similar position to the Huns in that regard, except the Huns have TWO excellent unique units to wreck havoc instead of just one, to the point that even after the huns are 'passed their prime' you may have already won the game (not necessarily literally, but you're so far in the lead having obsolete UU's for the rest of the game doesn't matter).

I like the debate, but once again...How are we defining...Worst?

Is it Overall, like a VVV situation?

Is it Shuffle situation, Map, Opponents, etc.?

Can I ReRoll?

There are many situations where the Celts can move toward the top, and IMHO they are definitely not one the worst!

With a early Pantheon (And the first to choose), there are many directions you can go to play to the strength of a particular victory type, or map layout.

Have you ever started w/ Boudicca, and settled next to Kailish with 2 forests, and gone Honor opener, then straight Piety w/Raging Barbarians (ON)....I have!, It's Dominating. Why?...Raging Barbs.? 2 archer (Later 1 Bowman), and a Pictich outside a Barb. Camp=4-6 addition Faith (almost) every turn. Now do it next to a 2nd, or 3rd Barb Camp.

Do you know how much culture, gold, and faith your pumping out when you have 5-6 Holy Sites, and Piety completed before Industrial. Plus it is very common for CSs to ask for "Culture", "Faith", "Religion", so now you have 3-5 CS Allies also.....Maybe enough to select voting choices for World Congress (And Win),...How about "Historical Landmarks",...now you have +2 Culture on every one of those Holy Sites.

I have done this many times, so Not "The Best", but definitely not one of the weakest.

But like I said how are we defining..Worst??

 

[Merciorum]

I hate to say it, but India is the only one which can even be on this list. Why? Well, all the others have their own benefits, and few or no cons, aside from India and Venice. Venice's malus, however, is made up for by an extremely powerful advantage and an alternative expansion system.

India doesn't have that. Yes, the lack of unhappiness from pop is great, but by that point in the game a little extra happiness is largely irrelevant. The constrictions on early expansion wildly outweighs this. India was good when the game came out, but changes to happiness have rendered it not just less effective than other civs, but actively handicapped.

 

[caketastydelish]

India seriously needs a nerf, no argument there. Although if they cared about making the game balanced they would stop letting Shoshone and Arabia be absurdly good, and they would beef up Denmark and several others.

edit: An idea to nerf India is make it easier for them to found a religion or otherwise something religious... Considering so much religion comes from India. Personally I'd automatically give them a great prophet as soon as they have their pantheon.

 

[jlim201]

Iroquois have one okay UU, which nobody really thinks about when thinking about UUs, are extremely and unreliably map-dependent, and have a UB which is arguably worse than what it replaces, and hampers tile development in a lot of ways (compare with the Ducal Stable, which encourages it.) Basically, the Iroquois have to be compared with the Inca, who are basically superior in every way, and are Top-Tier in my opinion. Hills last forever. Forests last until they don't. Mohawk Warriors get a terrain bonus. Slingers get one based on UA and also a tactical advantage. Plus the Incan economic benefit lasts the entire game while, again, forests probably don't.

In the end, I think the award for "worst" has to go to either Byzantium or the Iroquois. Because Science and Analysis.

UA= The roads part simply does not work. Roads are for two things, city connections and unit movement. Sure, city connections works. However, to move from Normal Road to "Forest road" costs a full movement, rivers with engineering have no road bonus, it still still costs a full movement. Basically, it makes you still have to make the full road to get any sort of decent mobility.