Worst Civ?

[walletta]

This has probably come up before but I was wondering what people thought. I have taken to Monarch-level games, usually on small or tiny continental maps, which means I don't get to assess seafaring civs as I basically eschew the naval aspect of the game as being too fiddly for my taste.

Recently, I have played the zulus a couple of times. Expansionist and militarist with a glorified spearman UU (the impi) that moves two squares instead of one. What is quite fun is to have a couple of these on duty for infra-structure wrecking (shock and awe) when a hostile civ declares war. Just send them bounding onto enemy turf tearing up roads and mines and filling-in ditches The AI really does not like that and seems to sue for peace more quickly than with direct defensive methods.

But, the golden age tends to come too quickly, the UU is soon obsolete, once the map is explored so is the expansionist trait (unless there is a use for it that I am unaware of) and militarism on its own is not that great.

So, I'll say Zulu, confident that someone out there can do better.

 

[justanick]

I agree that expansionist becomes useless after approximately leaving the ancient age. Expansionist allows to settle faster(or max out population and workers instead) due to huts and at better places due to earlier reconnaissance. Together with the other goodies from huts like techs that can accumulate into a severe early advantage. But if you play without huts the trait is near useless. I somewhat dislike the trait, but properly played it can give a head start that can decide the game in your favour.

Militaristic is another trait i somewhat dislike. Starting with archers, cheap barracks and twice the chance of promotion after victorious battle makes it very valuable for early wars, though. Later cheap harbours and cheap airports allow to connect cities to the trading network.

An early golden age is often avoided for good reason, especially at settings below demigod. At the higher settings however not triggering the golden age early is disfavourable. You may need the extra production in order to simply survive and the extra research may allow to leave despotism more early. That is an important objective.

I am highly indecisive at naming a worst civ. Clearly things vary much depending on circumstances. Seafaring is bad at pangea, expansionist is poor without huts. But be careful if the opposite applies. Still i would name 3 expansionist civs as the worst. The Inka with their very useless early UU, the Portuguese and the USA with their way too late UU.

 

[tR1cKy]

Babylon.

 

[Buttercup]

I've no doubt there's lots of logical reasons why XYZ civs are good or bad, but the civ I've seen mentioned least ever is Spain. it's a civ I've certainly never played, it's one you wont find on the HoF boards (though a pedant may be able to find one entry) and I don't think I've ever seen anyone start a thread/post where they say "so I'm playing Spain and..."

While most of the ancient and unusual civs, such as Hittites or Babylon or whatever might have pros/cons etc people still like playing them because of the novelty factor, in a game like this it's just exciting to play that civ that's a true relic of history. Of the more 'boring' modern civs, such as Netherlands, Portugal, England, Russia, Germany, USA, Japan, Korea etc etc Spain even seems to be bottom of that section in popularity.

I suppose an interesting thread might well be "What's the deal with Spain, why no love for these guys?"

So my highly left-field vote would go to Spain.

 

[Kirejara]

Hi Buttercup,

I object!

I like playing the Spain (both in the original unmodded game as well as in my own version).

Seafaring and Religeous is a nice combination especially on an island hopping map.

Actually I am even playing them as Advisor of her most catholic majesty - Queen Esmeralda (I rarely use the standard name).



But I must admit, that I did not like the orignal Leaderhead.

Hittities, Babylons, Mongols and Sumerers are my most disliked civs by the way. but the Americans and Portugueses are the most useless civs. In most games they are pathetic and rarely rise to power.

And the best and most useful civs are in my eyes the Byzantines, the Ottomans (my girlfriend means that Osman looked like me, except for the beard ) and the Iroquois.

 

[Theov]

I don't like religious civs. I'm not a player that pays attention to culture, as I let my armies do the talking. The one-turn anarchy is nice, but hardly worth it, as once I move to republic, I usually stay there. (apart form the occasional step to Commie when the game is won, and all I'm doing is chase the domination victory.)

The scientific and expansionistic trade are what I use the least also, so I would say that I would least like to play with the Iroquois (and the city names are un-identifyable) and the Babylonians would fit my playstyle the least.

Spain is alright (religious/Seafaring) but I might as well play as the Netherlands, Portugal or Scandinavia to be Seafaring yet more geared to war.

 

[walletta]

I do like the Spanish UU, not because of its properties (I don't even know what they are) but because of the funky little dog. One of my all time favourite games involved a long drawn out defensive war against a mighty Spain punctuated by the incursions of these little critters.

 

[dgfred]

Yes... the dogs are cool.
Babylon's archers look good to me.

I like Iroquois... their horsemen tear up some AIs early. Easy to grow biiiiggg.

I like the Celts Swordsman too... fast movement kills. Big growth too.

Anybody carrying an AXE is nice . AIs just can't handle their attacks from the sea.

I have never played as Sumeria or China.

Mostly I play the Scenarios now... hardly ever play a regular game.

 

[CKS]

Conquistadors treat all terrain as roads. A Conquistador army is an incredible pillaging machine, but individual Conquistadors are pretty fragile. Pillaging resources far from the front lines is almost as much of a suicide mission as it is with explorers, and Conquistadors cost a lot more. If you can get to astronomy quickly, they can be effective, though. Think Gallic Swordsman with movement 6+ instead of movement 2.

 

[Lexicus]

I'd say Portugal is probably the worst.

The Zulu are actually one of my favorite civs. Impi and horsemen stacks are fun! And I love the Mongols even though Keshiks aren't particularly good.

 

[Lanzelot]

Hmm, trait-wise I would say Arabia is the worst: religious and expansionistic can be two very useless traits. (Though expansionistic can be strong, but only on the lower difficulty levels and with lots of goody huts.) But the Ansar Warrior is a very nice UU, making Arabia kind of "OK".

UU-wise America is the worst civ. But it is industrious, which is a very strong trait.

So I really don't know... I like all civs...

 

[walletta]

The Korean UU is not up to much, although I like it that it is artillery (well, cannon equivalent) that can actually kill things. As someone who uses a lot of artillery I don't mind having a souped-up version, especially one that will not trigger an early GA.

 

[Lanzelot]

Korea is one of the best civs for research games. But it is a bit more difficult to handle than the Greeks (who have the same traits), because of the following quirk:

In a research game you want to bee-line for Universities, and you want to start your GA in the early Middle Ages, so that a) the increased shield production of the first couple of turns in GA helps you getting up those Universities quickly and b) the increased commerce of the remainder of the GA is multiplied by those Universities.

So that means you have to concentrate on the upper tech branch (Education), which in turn prevents you from getting Hwach'as on time. (If you first go for Metallurgy (lower tech branch), your research boost will be much to much delayed.) So that means you have to start your GA with Wonders. The only Wonders that can be used for this are Colossus (Commercial) and Mausoleum (Scientific). The Great Library is a waste of shields in a research game, and all the other Wonders come too late (second half of middle ages or later).
Getting these two wonders just at the right point of time is very difficult, especially on the higher difficulty levels. Colossus is a very powerful Wonder, so the earlier the better. That's not a problem. But you don't want to get the Mausoleum too early, because it would waste your GA. And if you wait too long, the AI will get it in a cascade. I think on the difficulty levels Monarch and higher it may be virtually impossible to get these two wonders at the right time.

When playing he Greeks, all this hassle can be avoided, as you can simply use 3-4 Hoplites to start the GA right at the time you need it.

In any case, these two nations, the Koreans and the Greek, are those that can get good research going in any circumstances. Other civs that are good at research, but depend more on circumstances, are:

The Sumerians. The agricultural trait means you'll have more population in the same amount of turns, and the extra citizens will provide extra commerce/research. However, you depend on having all your first ring towns on fresh water.
The GA can be started with the Enkidu, similar to the way it is started with the Greek Hoplite, albeit it will be a bit more difficult/risky.

The Byzantine. The seafaring trait provides more commerce early on than the commercial trait, because commercial gives extra commerce only starting with city size 7, while seafaring provides extra commerce right from the start. That can mean getting the Republic a couple of turns faster. However, you depend on getting good coastal locations for most of your first-ring towns.
Starting a well-timed GA with Dromons is easy on the higher difficulty levels, but it may turn out to be a problem at lower levels, where the AI is quite slow at getting ships out on the water... If you can't find a suitable ship to sink and have not planned ahead for a wonder-ignited GA, your game is spoiled...

The Russians. Only works on lower difficulty levels, where your scouts can get almost all ancient techs from goody huts... On higher levels huts don't give techs, so the expansionist is basically wasted.
Also starting the GA is a problem: the Cossack comes with Military Tradition, which is a) much too late, b) on the lower tech branch (similar problem as with Korea, only much worse...) and c) an optional tech that you want to avoid researching in a science game. So you need to start the GA as in the case of Korea: Colossus (which is also expansionistic) and Mausoleum. If the AI spoils this plan, you'll have to wait even longer for your GA than Korea and have an optional to research on top of it

 

[justanick]

On higher levels huts don't give techs, so the expansionist is basically wasted.

It is 20% chance for techs and 20% chance for settlers on deity. So your concern only counts for Sid.

http://wiki.civforum.de/wiki/Bonushütte_(Civ3)

 

[walletta]

Lanzelot

What do you think of researching the lower branch of the tech tree (with Korea I mean) and simply trading for the upper branch techs? I find certain civs (especially the Byzantines for some reason) will ply you with everything they have for your techs.

I agree, the Koreans turn out not be bad at all. I really do not like the Greeks for no better reason than I think the UU should be better than a rotten hoplite. In fact, defensive UUs are as a rule rotten IMHO.

My favourite UU has to be the Man o' War but the trouble is you need perfect conditions for it to be decisive and there is all that naval fiddling to put up with too. The Sipahi ain't bad (fooling around with the Turks just now).

 

[Lanzelot]

Trading for the missing techs might work on higher difficulty levels, but on lower (Monarch and lower), the AI is definitely too slow for that. Consider: with your GA plus Universities you aim at reaching 4-turn research in the early middle age. By that time the AI has lost it's zeal and will not be able to keep the pace, even on Emperor sometimes.

And an additional problem is, that you can't predict 100% precisely, what the AI will research. My feeling is, that the AI even favors the lower branch during the early MA, but it's not guaranteed.

Of course the Greek Hoplite is a lousy UU for a military game, but for triggering a well-timed GA it's perfect. At 20s they are dirt cheap, so you just build 2-3 of them, when you need the GA. That's all. For the real warring you just use the standard means of Horsemen/Swordsmen or whatever you usually do.

@justanick: oops, yes, I always forget that expansionistic has different probabilities for almost all hut-results. (I only think about the zero-probability for barbarians...) So a 20% chance for a tech even at Deity, that's not too bad.
But on difficulty levels Emperor and above another problem is probably, that the AI opens many huts before you do. (An Emperor AI starts with 6 aditional units and 4 of them will probably go scouting right on turn zero?!) So my concern is also valid at least starting at Emperor: expansionistic just isn't worth much on higher levels.

 

[templar_x]

with a good start for yourself, even Demigod AIs won´t cut it researchwise in the early MA, if you can trigger your timed GA. only on Deity they *could* be faster than you in my experience, but often go for the wrong tech, so you simply do not know when you can get your varsities... and may happen to wait and wait and lose valuable turns you can never make up again.
t_x

 

[walletta]

Just as a matter of interest, how do we know what the AI starts with at various difficulty levels? I mean, we never actually get to see, do we? Is it in a book somewhere?

 

[justanick]

The editor tells. There are 4 categories: settler, worker, offensive units, defensive units. Depending on tech the later two might be the same: warrior. For germany however it will be spearmen and archers, which can be uncomfortable for you. The units with best values are chosen. So greece would start with hoplites.

 

[walletta]

The 'editor'?