Worst Civ?

[SinisterDeath]

What is the worst civ in your opinion? I am using 1.07 so I don't have many of the patches or new civs available with the ptw. Personally, I think the aztecs suck (too much jungle and a crappy UU) and I think the english suck as well , talk about a useless UU. They should have made the English UU the Longbowman, they were devastating with their yew tree bows during the Battle of Agincourt. Anyone?

If you read this, then reply... what's the point of reading and not putting in your 2 cents worth?

 

[Andropov]

Personally, I don't think much of the Koreans or the English. You are right about the English UU...absolutely useless.

 

[Padma]

Well, I don't worry too much about a civ's UU when I play with them. If it is a good one, I will use it. If it is not, I may not even build them.

As for your poll, I think any civ is fun to play as. Once you learn how to deal with each one's strengths and weaknesses, you can have an enjoyable game with any of them.

(And what's wrong with the Jaguar Warrior? They can be devastating in the Ancient Age, if used well. )

BTW: do yourself a favor and download the v1.29f patch. It is worth your time.

 

[Vietcong]

the americans and the french are the worst.. the f-15 sucks(the good thing about it is its like a combo between a stelth fighter and a jet fighter so its not that bad..) and the muskettear sucks! i like the jag. warrior(i just overwlem the enamy with shear numbers) and the panzer is very good too.

 

[SinisterDeath]

Originally posted by Padma

BTW: do yourself a favor and download the v1.29f patch. It is worth your time. [/B]

Can I patch a shareware copy that reminds me to register every 2 weeks? I didn't know that I could...

 

[Padma]

Since there is no such thing as *shareware* Civ3 (unless this is the "Demo" mode now available) I would suggest you go out and buy it. If it is the "demo" version, go out and buy it! By now you should agree it is worth the $$.

 

[SinisterDeath]

I'm not sure if it's the demo version or not.... all I know is I can do everything, there are no options that I can't do, I can play all the civs, and the game ends at 2050 like it's supposed to. My buddy copied it for me, and I have it on a burned CD. I know it's not pirated, because it keeps asking me to register every 2 weeks. A funny thing too I might add, cause if you select "Never Register" then the game stops working. LOL... oops did that once and I had to reinstall. Do u know if I can patch this? Or do I need to enter a serial number etc. to patch?

 

[Inter4]

The English UU is very good to trigger a Golden Age in the right era for me

 

[Padma]

[color=600f0f]Flame posts cleaned up - no more discussion about whether this is a pirate copy, or whatever. We are looking into it.[/color]

 

[maverick_mw]

The English are by far the worst Civ, as their UU is the crapest of the crap. Shame, seeing as the English should easily dominate the globe....


Its also quite funny that I play multiplayer with one of my flatmates, and of course we insist on playing our native lands. I am English, and he is Japanese. Oh dear.....

 

[Gengis Khan]

Originally posted by maverick_mw
Shame, seeing as the English should easily dominate the globe....

MMWaaahaaahaaaahaaaa! Oh that was a good one!! Too funny. Oh wait, you were serious??


I think the worst Civ is any with a militiristic trait, which is in my oppinion only useful in always war games.

 

[barron of ideas]

Its not the cvilization, its the player.

You should be able to play well with any of the civilizations. I do like the industrious ones, but I reallize I just need to get twice as many workers if my civilization doesn't have that trait. As far as I know, if you compensate properly, you can overcome the absence of any trait. To get more great leaders and you aren't militarist, attack more with elite troops. The militarist trait has a percentage advantage in getting leaders, but if yo fight twice as many battles, you should get more leaders.

Religious, militaristic and scientific traits give faster buildings of their particular type. So rush, with population, or cash, or disbanding units built for that purpose, or chop trees. Or wait longer. There is no one over-riding killer trait. They are all good, if used properly. When you say they are no good, you are really saying you don't know how to use them right.

 

[Vietcong]

sorry if i was flameing, but i got a point

 

[The Last Conformist]

I'm very interested as to why the Chinese feature on the list - being Industrious and having a killer UU surely more than makes up for the less-than-totally-stellarness of Militaristic.

I voted English, but had all civs been on the poll, I'd probably voted Mongols - my two least favourite traits, and unexciting UU.

 

[Mark Young]

I dont think that there is such a thing as a bad civ at all.

Every game that you play is different from the prevoius one and what terrain that a certain civ gets in one game compared to the next game directly affects how that civ evolves.
Eg; I wanted to play a militaristic game on regent level. it was pangea with approx 12 civs. I chose all the civs that had militaristic listed in their civ trait and some that didn't. The only ones that were aggressive were the Egyptians who aren't militaristic at all, whereas other times they have been pretty subdued and non militaristic.

Padma had a good point, play as some of the other civs and you'll learn to appreciate their characteristics.

 

[puglover]

Darn. Forgot to vote for England. But I voted for America and France.

 

[Anti-EUA]

Depends on the level, on lower levels, Mongolia, since it's not that important to be expansionist, and militaristic is not so needed as well. And their UU is worse than the Impi and the Viking one.
For higher levels, I just hate India and Spain, commercial and religious.

 

[Moss]

England, although for some reason, they also seem to do good when I'm playing AGAINST them.

 

[frekk]

Originally posted by SinisterDeath
What is the worst civ in your opinion? I am using 1.07 so I don't have many of the patches or new civs available with the ptw. Personally, I think the aztecs suck (too much jungle and a crappy UU) and I think the english suck as well , talk about a useless UU. They should have made the English UU the Longbowman, they were devastating with their yew tree bows during the Battle of Agincourt. Anyone?

If you read this, then reply... what's the point of reading and not putting in your 2 cents worth?

The English UU is pretty useless alright. I agree with the idea about their UU - and the generic longbowmen should be replaced by the crossbowman, since it was only really the English and Welsh using longbows in any numbers.

As for the Aztecs, you must not know how to use the Jags right. You just attack right away with massive stacks of Jags. One or two are useless. The great thing about the Aztecs is that they have basically 3 traits - Religious, Military, and with the Jags they are like an Expansionist civ with fighting Scouts! With the Aztecs I am always guaranteed to destroy at least my first neighbour, if not him and then the next closest one. Invariably my early golden age is pretty useless, but, most of the time I get 1-2 Great Leaders really really early, which means I get 1-2 wonders of my choice really really early.

 

[nmcul]

The English. Their lousy UU makes it all the more difficult for them to enter a golden age, which is a pretty heavy consequence. Plus, the commerce trait, even after being patched, is still weak. Personally, I'd like to see it get the improvement bonuses that religious and scientific get, but that might make it too powerful. And how useful is the expansionist trait on the "Earth" map?