Worst Civ

India has been the worst for me. Firaxis screwed up on this one. Ghandi was dedicated to peace, but I have been attacked without provocation more times from India alone than all other Civs combined I think. Is it just me or is anyone else having the same problem with old Mr. peace and twinkies?
 
I have had the same problem. Old ghandi just has a hankerin' for war. The only problem is, he's no good at it! Just wait for the modern armor and kick his @$$. His empire is usually too small to do crap anyways. In one game(my first civ3 game) I was the americans on an archipelago with 80% ocean. After an awful start(using civ2 tactics) i was pretty much the weakest civ. I had the most tech though. I really wanted to kill the zulu since they only had riflemen to my tanks. I had a 40 tank invasion planned and ready in transports halfway around the world when old ghandi attacked me. He was right next to me on my continent! Then, persia attacked me and together they were the 2 most powerful civs. I did go on to win the game, but not before Ghandi attacked me unprovoked several times. The fun part was turning around that invasion force and kicking a little Ghandi @$$!!!!
 
Ok.. the expansionist civ are getting lots of bad press here. I got Civ3 for Christmas and I have a wife that is not a fan of the 8 hr Civ3 session, so I have not played it a ton BUT I think that the expansionist civs are quite strong (right now I’m playing English a lot). Ok. Why are they strong? Not the early scout, he is no guarantee that good things will happen. If you get lucky you could get a leg up on tech or maybe even a settler. But the granary! Go granary first, no warrior, no scout, gran first. Then you can turbo settle the land. Once you finish with the land grab then you can pump out mass workers so that your kingdom is connected (happiness with luxuries) and improved for more $$$ and shields. What is the problem with big empire early? Corruption! But with the English you get that toned down with their commerce. Does their UU stink? Yes, but you get SO big SO fast. I generally make a run for lit and get (great and regular) libraries. The lib will give me culture protection as well as quick tech. Anyway…

I hate French in late game. I hate Greek in early game. They are so hard to crack early with the hoplite. I like to see the French on my land mass early, as I can knock them off it. The Greeks tend to be strong throughout the game.
 
That build-the-granary-first thing, dunno if it would work for me. I think I'd have too much unhappiness to finish it in good time. It is nice to have a granary in an core city in the early game, though.

BTW, last game I played with the Indians they were leading the pack with a huge empire, a big ol' continent that used to have 5 civs but they'd knocked out all but their buddies, the Zulus.
 
Can´t say which is the worst civ to play since I tend to play the huge maps with 16 civs,that takes time,loads of time.So not enough to try all of them.
I agree on India.They are treacherous,attack with no provocation what so ever.I was playing China,on my continent it was Greece which was getting way too strong,they swallowed mighty Egypt,large parts of the Roman civilization,destroyed America (which was only being led back to world power by generous Chinese support and trade,wanted to use ´em as a buffer and ally :D),after that came Japan.
They destroyed just about every civ on our continent,leaving me in the middle,my back to the sea,all around me to north,west, east I had a border with Greece.Just India remained in the south-west,naturally Greece attacked,India would have gone down like all the rest,but we supported them,at first by blocking Greek movements towards Indian cities,cheaper trade deals and lastly by intervening.Wasn´t that risky though,since Greece had fallen behind in Tech,160 Cavalry,destroyed by just about 20 newly built tanks and loads of artillery.
In the latter stages of the war Greece was down to 8 Cavalry,70 Rifleman remained,and they introduced the Infantry,so was preparing for a peace treaty.Had pushed all the Greek borders north,back to their homeland and a small pile of powerless Greek cities remained in the east,the remainders of America and Iroquois.Allied India was saved and China too,might have gotten nasty should Greece have settled from war,and got all those cities working properly and catching up in tech. For some reason Persia declared war on me,guess they didn´t like me getting too mighty,we did have a good relationship before that though.They got the French to ally with them,np since France is far in the east, and their ironclad navy is no match for battleships and subs,but then...France allies with India!India declares war on China!!!
Evil ba****ds. :mad:
They are no real threat but how can they repay my generousity like this ffs?!What´s more,our alliance against Greece had seven more rounds left on it.

Anyway,India really is treacherous,always polite but backstabbing.Greece,however could they lose and fall behind so far?They seemed to be mightier than everyone else.Am not sure if Greece always plays like this,they beat everyone on the continent,if they had made a peace I could imagine them having been undefeatable,yet their warmongering destroyed them. Russia is dangerous in the beginning but usually falls behind technologically and in infrastructure.England could be strong but tends to get destroyed by France or someone else in the middle of the game.Hate the Zulus,they expand rapidly and are a pain with their warriors and they have so many of them, moving fast on my defensless cities,early in the game.

In general,think that a lot of the warmongering enemies are dangerous in the beginning of the game,but lose out in the technological race or often get destroyed by another rival who is just as bloodthirsty.Their policy seems to be just as dangerous to them as to other nations, they fight,expand rapidly,but at some point fall behind in infrastructure and tech.All one has to do is survive till then. :goodjob:

What about Greece though,do they usually keep up?:confused:
 
In a normal game of civ3 (no modifications) the worst civ from a game mechaniocs point of view is, undeniably,though I dont think people have realised it - the RUSSIANS

YEs thats right - why, they can't upgrade their knights, this is such a fundamentall weakness compared to all the other civs. I build hardly any cavalry, having lots of knights and just upgrading them, which is what I believe most people do (naturally). Not being ti upgrade gives you an extremley weak industrial age military - with only a few decent units.

Of course if you mod the game so the russians can buiuld cavalry as well everything is alright.
 
Since Civ1, I have always hated the Zulus as well as the Indians. I generally play the Germans or English, occassionally the Americans. In Civ2, as soon as I had armour, it was crush the Zulu time!:mad:
 
Well, I have had very little success with the Eqyptians or with the Babylonians.

In the case of the Eqyptians the unique unit of War Chariot is practically useless, given that you can get horseman 1 advance later. Also, the combination of industrious and religious just doesn't pack a good punch (at least not for my style @ Emperor level). I prefer the French coupling of industrious and commerical or even the Chinese combo of industrious and militaristic.

In the case of the Babylonians, I don't get much from their Bowman. The extra defense is nice, but frankly, I'm usually taking the offensive immediately with my archer/bowman, and the defense is just a perk. Additionally, the unit is quickly made obsolete by swordsman. As for the religious and scientific combo, it is great in theory, but in practice, I have found that at the more difficult levels I'm spending most of the early game trying to expand & defend. Their abilities don't help too much in that kind of early game... and in my opinion, you win or lose with the early game.

As for arch enemies... I agree with many of the other posts. All expansionitic civs (Iroquios, Russian, American, Zulu, & British) are very dangerous in the early game-- they will rush in if you show any signs of weakness. In the later game they are more of a nuisance.

The Babylonians are my greatest nemesis later on, because they can get such a great culture via cheap religious and scientific city improvements. It's nearly impossible to compete against their culture, and keeping their cities from flipping back after military conquest is tricky (to say the least).

I find the Indians quite challenging as well, but from what I've seen, they tend to get embroiled in a lot of trade embargos and outright wars, which will eventually weaken them and provide you a means to take advantage of them.

:crazyeyes
 
I think Germany is the worst civ in the game and I think the Aztecs are a close second because of what I saw them do when I was watching someone else play his personal modpack that makes a fictional civ that is dominant. As soon as he switched to the government with his civ's name, the Aztecs went to war with him and Jaguar Warriors kept attacking his capital city but could not even defeat a spearman.
 
Germans...sometimes I wonder if Bismarck isn't really trying to supress his arm from the standard Third Reich salute.
 
Hmm,am not sure the Aztecs really are that bad,controlled by AI maybe,but playing them is pretty cool,can´t say for sure since I´m only in 750AD,but so far their religous and military mix has worked well,I didn´t get my Golden Age right at the beginnning, but just a few turns ago fr building Sun Tzu´s.Yes,Japan is the better nation to pick with these attributes,since the Warrior is practically useless,but it did give me a good insight on the map early on without having to use an Expansionist Civ.Cheap to build,good for finding resources and luxuries,good for capturing workers,good for fighting and avoiding barbarians.Thinking about it,haven´t had a war yet but it might come in handy defending captured cities,it can get there fast,and is suited to bring down the resisters.Still can build them,allthough Swordsmen are bit more useful at the moment. :)
 
Worst civ: the English (because of their UU)

Any I dont like any of the civs who has expansionist as a speciality. Why? Because of all those pesky little settlers and workers that keep running over my territory. And when you tell them to *#$/ etc they almost always declare war on me.

Second got to be militaristic, just because they are so hard to trade and keeping peace with. They just dont go well with my style of play. Being fairly peaceful and all not that the americans would agree.;)
 
Am I the only one who always gets huge Chinese and Indian civs to fight against? I think it's because they focus on growth, they expand so much. Usually, India falls behind later in the game because they are bad at fighting a war. I'm assuming they like to declare war before even building up forces, because they are fickle like that and yet not militaristic. The Chinese are strong in almost every game I play if they have enough room to grow in.
 
I like playing the Chinese now, but if I'm not playing I like to remove them for the same reason I like playing them:

Riders kick butt!
 
my play style is usually pacifist all thru. i don't attack unless attacked.
last game, emperor level, russian.
had zulus expanding like crazy in the south and the germans in the west. of course the two couldn't live together peacefully if u
put them on a planet the size of jupiter so they went to war and the germans absorbed the entire zulu nation. i had a pretty decent manageable empire and had learned from a previous game what they mean by "don't expand beyond ur ability to defend urself" so i had 2 choices. 1) send an army of settlers and build in the empty tracts of land knowing full well i will have to reckon with the german military at some point or other or 2) let the aztecs, greeks, chinese, english and french settle over there
to provide a buffer. i opted for 2.

the germans cannot be trusted so i placated them with the occasional 100 gold and free tech since for some reason i had become the de facto tech lead ( early cheap libraries/universities helped some).

into the industrial era i built theory of evolution and hoover dam
and hopped right into tanks before anyone else thought to do so.
all my cities had the necessary improvements and i was churning out infantry and tanks every turn. the coastal cities were building
battleships and some inland cities were building bombers and fighters.

into the mordern times i went straight for computers and upgraded all inf to mech inf then build research labs everywhere and SETI - pushing me into a golden age.

10 turns later i have mordern armor and the 100 or so tanks became mordern armor. just then, everyone got tanks.

well, all i wanted was to keep track of the space race so i set out to build my spy network. germany thought they were the biggest and baddest so they declared war just because of my espionage activities. not like i was planning to do anything malicious...

oh well, i got everyone on the planet to declare war on the germans by giving them synthentic fibers. oops... i forgot to give it to the germans and now nobody could trade with them cos of the war...that's not really the point. the point is, they were in revolution so production was really bad and in 4 turns, they had lost half their empire. by the time they came out of anarchy, they
had no rubber/oil/aluminium to build any decent units.

once we partitioned germany among ourselves, the english and aztecs became nasty for no good reason. i knew something was afoot so i accepted MPP with the aztecs since they didn't demand anything for it. at this point, i was willing to settle for peace but i wouldn't placate anyone. the english demanded nuclear power and i refused...they attacked...triggering my mutual protection with aztecs....i got everyone else in on the game as before....the lesser guys just wanted wines or ivory. one would think they'd ask for a tech.

me and the aztecs reduced the english to their core cities in 2 turns. i had nukes ready to launch at london and surrounding cities if i even got the inkling that the english were building nukes. it's the only way to keep weapons of mass destruction from itchy fingers.

the game ended with a space race victory just then. for some reason, my russian republic never got a turn of war weariness anarcy thru the 2 wars. i think court houses and police stations
help a lot.

in conclusion, the germans are the worst neighbours to have. the zulus are brittle and need special handling. they don't ask for much but u better give it to them if u dont want a long war.

if the english survive to the endgame they become unjustifiably bold.

the aztecs keep their word for the prescribed 20 turns and revert to hostility.

the egyptians value long lasting friendships. if u don't piss them off, they will be friendly.

the iroquois are worthless as allies. they don't team up good.
the greeks team up too well and steal loot u have spend time fighting for.

same goes for the english.


americans expand too fast. it really pisses me off when they
build right upto my capital.
 
sure way to get attacked by anyone, even pacifists, is to block access esp for settlers.
Originally posted by Stilgar
India has been the worst for me. Firaxis screwed up on this one. Ghandi was dedicated to peace, but I have been attacked without provocation more times from India alone than all other Civs combined I think. Is it just me or is anyone else having the same problem with old Mr. peace and twinkies?
 
I hate the japanese in civ III, they have declared war on my for no reasons numorous times, it gets on my nerves:mad:
 
I read through everything in this thread, think about personal experience and then come to the conclusion that you shouldn't trust anybody (except the French. They've always been nice to me. Really understanding). Basically, they are following a rule of the game: "Kill the human's civilization. Or if you can't, at least stop him/her from winning"

Anyway, there's obviously varying degrees of aggression. Though the Germans and Zulu are quick to declare war, I don't find them to be the most annoying. At least they're completely overt in their actions. You'll know that they're gonna try and kill you before they make their demands for tribute. The more subtle enemies tend to get into your good books, and are polite (sometimes gracious) towards you all the way through. Next turn, they overwhelm your barely guarded border cities with hordes of their weak units. Fortunately, at the time it happened to me, I was preparing my army to fight another neighbour. I postponed the war path towards them, turned around and fought back against my 'gracious' enemy. They were small, weak and living below the poverty line and were easily overwhelmed by the might of my knights, longbowmen and musketmen. I don't use names here because the civ was irrelevant. The only civs (apart from the Germans and Zulu as they happen to make their intentions so blatantly obvious) who don't do it are the French and the Americans.

I guess that if they have a more powerful military force with powerful units (or they are led by Bismarck or Shaka), they'll have nothing to hide and overtly spit in your face when you refuse to lick at their boots and send their forces. The weaker ones, who will still be following the "stop the human from winning" rule, tend to try and take you by surprise. They are the ones who annoy to no end. They annoy because they don't accomplish anything in their foolish attacks.
 
Originally posted by LordAzreal
I read through everything in this thread, think about personal experience and then come to the conclusion that you shouldn't trust anybody

It is TRUE ;)

(except the French. They've always been nice to me. Really understanding).

Usually the French are good neighbours, but not always. I was sneak attacked by them a couple of times.


Regards,

Slawomir Stachniewicz.
 
Back
Top Bottom