Worst Civilization in Civilization 5

[TheMeInTeam]

This is going to upset some people but I'm going to put it out there anyway: Russia.

She has a whiny voice and it irritates the hell out of me.

On the other hand, if you pick her you are 100% guaranteed not to have to listen to her .

 

[Rohili]

This is going to upset some people but I'm going to put it out there anyway: Russia.

She has a whiny voice and it irritates the hell out of me.

I actually like Catherine and think she was well-acted. When she is friendly to you, she has this very elegant and regal tone. When she is angry, she sounds really pissed and venomous - unlike most other leaders where their angry voice is just a low, gruff tone.

Her background music also sounds good too.

 

[anti_strunt]

I actually like Catherine and think she was well-acted. When she is friendly to you, she has this very elegant and regal tone. When she is angry, she sounds really pissed and venomous - unlike most other leaders where their angry voice is just a low, gruff tone.

Her background music also sounds good too.

Her face is teetering right on the edge of the uncanny valley, though...

 

[The Government]

I actually like Catherine and think she was well-acted. When she is friendly to you, she has this very elegant and regal tone. When she is angry, she sounds really pissed and venomous - unlike most other leaders where their angry voice is just a low, gruff tone.

Her background music also sounds good too.

HA HA, good one. Catherine being nice to you, what a joke. I was in a pact of cooperation with her and she was still hostile.

Any, as much as I hate their UA, the Ottomans are good for domination victories. Make 10 janissaries, and in the modern era you will have mech infantry which heals every time you kill a unit.

The Americans are probably the worst, Arabians as a close second.

 

[JoeBlabbah]

Ottomans
This civilization deserves a much better advantage. A 50% chance of converting a Barbarian vessel is just a waste of time. Sure you could get 25 gold, but the unit is a waste by the time you reach further ages.
Redo Advantage: "75% chance of converting a Barbarian vessel and earning 50 gold. Converted barbarian vessels can automatically besiege enemy ports."

 

[Jon the Bastard]

.
Redo Advantage: "75% chance of converting a Barbarian vessel and earning 50 gold. Converted barbarian vessels can automatically besiege enemy ports."

That is a very interesting idea... might need some tweaking after actually playing the re-do UA, but, still very interesting idea.

 

[Nares]

The worst civ are the Iriqous. Once I found out their UA was limited to friendly terrain, I realized they were terrible. Maybe I'm underselling their UU and UB.

Ottomans are underrated. Their UA is trash; true. But the Jannisaries promotion is amazing, and with the changes to cities, I feel that musket-> rifle rushes are one of the strongest strategies for non-MP.

America is also underrated. The free +1 sight upgrade to all land units is seriously undervalued, and while Minutemen themselves are weak, the loss of movement penalty is great once you start upgrading units. Their UA is weak, though I think former CIV players are extremely adverse to buying tiles in general, and readily dismiss the UA by pursuing other methods for acquiring tiles.

Really this poll should be "What's the worst UA in CiV," because that seems to be the basis upon which most people cast their votes.

 

[Deussu]

Ottoman. No question about it. America comes as second. Then India or Germany.

 

[Airey]

Ottomans UU are pretty strong and prob is the only worthwhile Gunpowder unit to delay Rifle
** Requires Upgrade to Rifles....don't try to take on cities with Janissary
- good civ for late game victory types

America is really strong in practice. The UA affects the intangible parts of the game, needs to play with them to appreciate the power.
Trying to describe them on paper looks lame. Most of USA advantage is @ early game. No other civs can simulate their effect @ early game.
Like previous Civs, first 100 turns > next 100 turns.

The more I look at it...
Iroquois (needs forest), Germany (needs river) and Aztecs (needs lake) are prob the more difficult ones to leverage since their UA/UB requires appropriate map type.


Who voted for Siam?!

 

[redmosquito]

100% chance of converting a Barbarian vessel and earning 250 gold would make CiV a perfect game

 

[Pratputajao]

I had to vote American, much as it pains me to do so. The UU's are not that good (minuteman being neither a starting/early unit, nor one that can be upgraded from earlier units and the bomber coming way to late to matter). The UA is not that good. Over the course of a game you might buy 2 or 3 tiles - meh.

Ottoman would be second worst on my list for similar reasons. Both UU's are not early units and can't be upgraded from early units. UA that is situational at best (although I could see using the UA here at least to build a decent fleet for mid-game if I needed it). Small edge for the Sipahi over the american bomber.

I was surprised at the number of Siam haters. Their UA abuses even more the most abusable mechanic in the game - CS. Try Siam with a ton of puppets and a few maritime CS. It's a powerful civ when played right. The elephants are pretty good, too.

Siam is one of the better Civs in the game. I think people voted for it becouse they dont like the fact Siam is in becouse too many Asian civs alread in the game, or its in over a civ they think deserves it more or, "what has Thailand done for the world?" etc... whatever Silly reason that doesnt involve actual game usefulness......

I doubt the majority of those who voted for it have even played as Siam. If they had there is no way Siam would get the number of votes it did. i cant even find one explanation why Siam is one of the worst in the thread? I am an admited Siamese enthusiast (I had better be, my wife is Siame...eh ...Thai...hehe) but even if I wearnt, Siam would not be one I would think of as "worst" not even close Jeeshhh.

Oh, and the Ottomans suck (in the game, not as an actual Civ)

 

[aatami]

Why is the poll closed?

 

[MasterMishi]

India for me, ottomans insta heal jannisary is amazing, aztecs pretty poor too imo

 

[Sparthage]

Why is the poll closed?

Because the Poll creator selected the "end this poll on (date)" option.

As to the Indians, they are better played with a small empire. Granted, it's not the best ability, but it can be useful if you're trying an OCC.

 

[Knut_Are_M]

India has a huge happiness atvantage.
india is best played with a huge empire and settling on luxeries.
seriously india is one of the best ics empires there are, most of the happiness penalty comes from pop, and india only pays half.
a bit of math.
both civs settle on a new lux tile.
(5-4)/0.5=2 pop tile for india, but half unhappiness for new pop.
other civs: (5-2)/1= 3 pop but 1 unhappiness for 1 pop.
and here is a gem: pop 4 indian cities with colloseums still give 4 happiness, same for teaters+stadiums.
It means that india does not need to worry as much about happiness in the midgame, and early game they can settle on lux.

Although india does have a disatvantage if there are very few luxeries nearby, and they do not settle there cities quite as close as other players.

 

[JWAT44]

i disagree with all the people that don't like america. their UA isn't the best and i think it should be like double aluminum or maybe something called Arsenal of the Allies- double production when at war.

 

[ImperialSteeze]

Ottomans. I haven't even played all civs but I will probably try the Ottomans last. They just don't have anything very appealing.

 

[Jim Bro]

ARABIA

I haven't tried them all but I will not play soon with this civ.

camel archers are so-so. knights are made to hit not run so that extra move and weakest range ability doesn't sound very appealing to me. mongolian keshiks are better for that at an early stage of the game.

the +1 gold per trade route is negligible and the double oil resources? if you play with standard resources and have a decent empire, it souldn't be too much of a problem to find oil so i don't get it. + you can build destroyers without oil!

and the luxury resources.. i'm lucky if some trading partners have luxuries to begin with and if they do, i'm probably already trading one of my luxuries for one of his so having an extra luxury of the same type doesn't help out very much.

as far as i know, having more of the same luxury is only good if you can trade it for something and there is not often room for such trade. that they want that luxury doesn't mean that i can get something in return!

Also, Greece is way better than Arabia for a diplo victory btw. having trading partners doesn't make the diplo victory any easier!

Aztecs, America and India come close on my list of worst civs after Arabia. The Iroquois also unless the start bias is real.

For those who hate the Ottomans: A lot of janissaries on the offensive can stand against a moderate number of riflemans so i like the fact that the Ottomans can focus on other techs and spend their military upgrade money on more important issues. mass janissaries are the best units of the game when in large numbers. better than the samurais for their time.

 

[aatami]

as far as i know, having more of the same luxury is only good if you can trade it for something and there is not often room for such trade. that they want that luxury doesn't mean that i can get something in return!

Money. You get money! The most important rule is propose deals! If you know what your doing you should get at least 6 gpt for extra luxuries, usually 7.
If you don't know how to play a civ doesn't make it bad, heck, people think the ottomans are bad but they just need a Korean starcraft pro to use them.

 

[seasnake]

i disagree with all the people that don't like america. their UA isn't the best and i think it should be like double aluminum or maybe something called Arsenal of the Allies- double production when at war.

That plus 1 line of sight would be an incredible early tactical advantage if the AI understood tactics. being able to see deep into enemy lines and avoid stupid moves others would fall into could be really great.