Worst Civilization in Civilization 5

[Slvynn]

ps voted france, really bad designer civ - too inproperly unbalanced

that how u should judge civs, not hard mode vs easy mode

 

[TheMeInTeam]

People who are saying the American UA becomes useless quickly apparently don't fight any wars. It's a total joke that this extra sight is so under-estimated; it's the single strongest unique America has in this game and is better than a lot of the other UAs. The ability to see and plan using the extra tile of sight is huge, and EVERY LAND UNIT GETS IT, without exception.

While the Janissary is certainly good, as a mid-game unit it has less chance for a rolling snowball effect...a similar malady to America's. The problem with it, however, is that it is anything but special on defensive counter-attacks, which quickly and soundly wear it down even from earlier-era stuff like knights/longswords. It's no companion cavalry/keshik/etc. It's a nice boost but it can NOT make up for the worst UA in the game by a wide margin. In this same time-frame, you can't use it to sneak up on any USA units for example, while they can blind-side you easily, even in neutral territory.

It's ridiculous to see all these votes for America when they have one of the most tactically powerful UAs in the game...and everyone thinks it's just for scouting :/.

 

[Alki]

Voted Siam for no other reason than the leader looks like a weasel.

 

[zuraffo]

I voted france because I simply hated the idea of my UA EXPIRING!

I know they are pretty decent to play with.

 

[biohazard72]

People who are saying the American UA becomes useless quickly apparently don't fight any wars. It's a total joke that this extra sight is so under-estimated; it's the single strongest unique America has in this game and is better than a lot of the other UAs. The ability to see and plan using the extra tile of sight is huge, and EVERY LAND UNIT GETS IT, without exception.

While the Janissary is certainly good, as a mid-game unit it has less chance for a rolling snowball effect...a similar malady to America's. The problem with it, however, is that it is anything but special on defensive counter-attacks, which quickly and soundly wear it down even from earlier-era stuff like knights/longswords. It's no companion cavalry/keshik/etc. It's a nice boost but it can NOT make up for the worst UA in the game by a wide margin. In this same time-frame, you can't use it to sneak up on any USA units for example, while they can blind-side you easily, even in neutral territory.

It's ridiculous to see all these votes for America when they have one of the most tactically powerful UAs in the game...and everyone thinks it's just for scouting :/.

Perhaps this is because of the predominance of mounted units in this game. In turns I don't plan on attacking, I use whatever healed Horsemen I have to scout a bit ahead, mitigating the usefulness of +1 sight somewhat. I do see it's use however - with extra sight, units should not be left in positions that are counterattackable as often, saving the units (or their promotions for non-insta heals).

I think America is viewed as weak because the +1 sight doesn't provide any easily measurable gains like other Civs do, and the gains it does provide are subtle and not consistent game-to-game. While better scouting, early ruins and better military planning are nice, it's hard to view any of their abilities as generating a significant advantage.

 

[zuraffo]

Americans :- Ignore terrain cost movement is nice too, besides the +1 sight range. And being able to buy tiles at discounted price can be a huge strategic advantage. Americans are hard to appreciate, but they are not "weak".

 

[Bandit17]

Like I said, it wasn't an easy choice picking USA as worst meaning that they are still a decently balanced and viable civ to play with. If and when the air campaign vs the ai is repaired...err implamented and the ai forces more games to go further into the tech tree than America's B-17 will gain some importance. Right now all they have going for it are early game benefits that wear down as game progresses. I'll take extra health and/or unit strength in my UU any day over extra sight. Cheaper tile costs are nice early on but is a feature I rarely use anyways. If your a big tile buyer than America is a VERY good civ for you but I'm not. I do it very selectivly. Nothing really wrong with America but also nothing very great about them either IMHO.

 

[Vellis]

People who are saying the American UA becomes useless quickly apparently don't fight any wars. It's a total joke that this extra sight is so under-estimated; it's the single strongest unique America has in this game and is better than a lot of the other UAs. The ability to see and plan using the extra tile of sight is huge, and EVERY LAND UNIT GETS IT, without exception.

While the Janissary is certainly good, as a mid-game unit it has less chance for a rolling snowball effect...a similar malady to America's. The problem with it, however, is that it is anything but special on defensive counter-attacks, which quickly and soundly wear it down even from earlier-era stuff like knights/longswords. It's no companion cavalry/keshik/etc. It's a nice boost but it can NOT make up for the worst UA in the game by a wide margin. In this same time-frame, you can't use it to sneak up on any USA units for example, while they can blind-side you easily, even in neutral territory.

It's ridiculous to see all these votes for America when they have one of the most tactically powerful UAs in the game...and everyone thinks it's just for scouting :/.

I would ask if you've used an army of upgraded Janissaries? If the AI attacks you with a weakened unit and dies, you get healed. If the AI attacks you and fails to kill you, you kill it next turn with your 25% attack bonus and get healed. How is a self healing unit not a defensive asset? =p It doesn't matter if you see me first if my army is nigh unkillable.

Regarding America's +1 sight, I don't advance if it will leave me vulnerable to a counter attack, and in the event I need to scout I do it with horses, caravels, or even scouts. America's +1 sight is a nice to have, but any Civ can loosely simulate it with a single unit. It's definitely not as good as having an army of units that practically can't be killed save for the most unfavorable of circumstances.

 

[zuraffo]

Like I said, it wasn't an easy choice picking USA as worst meaning that they are still a decently balanced and viable civ to play with. If and when the air campaign vs the ai is repaired...err implamented and the ai forces more games to go further into the tech tree than America's B-17 will gain some importance. Right now all they have going for it are early game benefits that wear down as game progresses. I'll take extra health and/or unit strength in my UU any day over extra sight. Cheaper tile costs are nice early on but is a feature I rarely use anyways. If your a big tile buyer than America is a VERY good civ for you but I'm not. I do it very selectivly. Nothing really wrong with America but also nothing very great about them either IMHO.

I dunno, terrain cost ignored mech infantry with +1 sight not great? hrmm... Maybe we play differently after all.

 

[Bandit17]

I dunno, terrain cost ignored mech infantry with +1 sight not great? hrmm... Maybe we play differently after all.

Ha ha! Your absolutly right that the combo you are showing is not too shabby. From the poll it looks like it's a America vs Ottoman argument. Within that context the Ottoman UU beats out your case brought forth. The era in which the Jannissary is unlocked is an important period in time and their upgraded UUs would beat out your scenario. We are really arguing over personnal play styles and tastes though which is very subjective. There are no winners or losers in the end.

 

[anti_strunt]

Hey, why isn't Babylon on the list?

 

[Slvynn]

because most of people do not have it, so why should it be?

 

[Qin Shi Huang]

ps voted france, really bad designer civ - too inproperly unbalanced

that how u should judge civs, not hard mode vs easy mode

Yet I believe that the person who made the poll said

"So, now that I've played every Civilization through at least once I think it is time to start speculating on the worst civilization in Civilization 5. The word "worst" can mean whatever you want it to mean; but in this instance please try and take these things into account: the most imbalanced, the most useless UU, the most useless UA, where are the civilizations strengths and during what age are they most effective? Now, post away!"

so we dont have to choose based on improperly balanced, though we should take that into account.

Also easy versus hard mode? Most active people in this forum enjoy challenging themselves.
Yet often they will do this with the Civ they enjoy rather than go with a civ they dont like because being with the civ they like is more fun which is the aim of a game.

So please dont go around trying to force your view onto others.

 

[Brawndo]

The Ottoman UA is terrible, but at least they have two good units. I voted America because their UA is below average, Minutemen are not very good even with the patch and get replaced by Riflemen extremely quickly, and B-17s are nothing special because why even build air units when you can just steamroller the AI with Artillery and Infantry

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I would ask if you've used an army of upgraded Janissaries? If the AI attacks you with a weakened unit and dies, you get healed. If the AI attacks you and fails to kill you, you kill it next turn with your 25% attack bonus and get healed. How is a self healing unit not a defensive asset? =p It doesn't matter if you see me first if my army is nigh unkillable.

Regarding America's +1 sight, I don't advance if it will leave me vulnerable to a counter attack, and in the event I need to scout I do it with horses, caravels, or even scouts. America's +1 sight is a nice to have, but any Civ can loosely simulate it with a single unit. It's definitely not as good as having an army of units that practically can't be killed save for the most unfavorable of circumstances.

Yes, Janissaries are good vs total morons, such as the AI. However, you can kill the AI with pretty much ANYTHING easily. They die easily to concentrated fire, flanking, anything from a later era, and are every bit as vulnerable to ranged bombardment as other units. They are good, but they are not game breaking.

Any unit you're using for extra sight, no matter HOW you are supposedly using it, can see 1 tile further still as USA. There are NO civs that can "loosely simulate" it, and when you're playing against something with an IQ above 50 or so, it is very helpful. Sometimes it is even helpful against the AI, as if you need ANY uniques there.

"nigh unkillable" is a total joke. You get caught by a knight in the flatlands, and you lose almost all your hp, and another one shuffling in can kill you. As you approach, your str can be cut down by archer type units, navies, or cities easily, making it hard to actually finish something off. Attacking a fortified unit on forests/hills isn't going to be favorable either - you'll be largely even against earlier things like longswords/knights (which don't get D bonuses but don't take the flat penalty there) and opposing muskets, subject to who can actually manage a surround on the other player. On defense, you'll probably get kills easily, but on offense against anybody competent, it won't be so easy to move in.

It is a strong unit, just as it was in civ IV. However, just as it was in civ IV, its benefit is mid game, where the American UA and most other civs' UAs/UUs/UBs have already been having an impact for much longer. What if you're fighting horse on horse vs an american player? You don't think it matters if he knows where your forces are even while you can't see him? Keep dreaming.

I'm not saying America is a top civ, just that it's ridiculous to put it behind a civ with such a flagrantly awful UA.

 

[andrewlt]

Hey, why isn't Babylon on the list?

If by worst, you mean most overpowered, then it's an oversight as Babylon belongs in that discussion. Then again, some people voted for civs like China and Greece on this poll...

 

[Mad Hab]

The aztecs and indians can't use their UUs to full extent because they're archaic and you can't mobilise enough of those units with the production level early game to overpower another civ. You could say they're too early. With the indians at least you can say the elephants are good defensively for a while.

I just played with the Aztecs, and I must say the Jaguar is a very, very good unit. Not because it's much better than a vanilla warrior, but because it retains its healing (and jungle) ability when it is upgraded. I created about 5 or 6 Jaguar Warriors, upgraded all of them and never lost a single one during the entire game. Just make sure you kill enemy 'dying' units whenever possible...

Cheers,

Mad Hab

 

[Roxlimn]

TheMeInTeam:

I think it's possible that players don't value +1 sight because they trounce the AI in war quite easily without it. That said, we might then have to wonder why people praise Companion Cavalry so much when Horsemen do just fine.

I have a healthy respect for America's UA and Minuteman UU, but the +1 sight does seem a little gratuitous against AI.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

TheMeInTeam:

I think it's possible that players don't value +1 sight because they trounce the AI in war quite easily without it. That said, we might then have to wonder why people praise Companion Cavalry so much when Horsemen do just fine.

I have a healthy respect for America's UA and Minuteman UU, but the +1 sight does seem a little gratuitous against AI.

Granted, +1 sight is gratuitous vs the AI, but as you point out (accurately), virtually every unique is .

 

[Rudster816]

I havent played as the Ottomans yet, but the American UA is pretty useless because unless you ally a bunch of maritime, you can usually get away with a monument for your tile expansion and have enough tiles to work. That and the fact that great scientists pwnzor (so library specialists are a must) and you usually dont have to buy tiles very often.

The B-17 sucks, but I only used it in a game when I was first learning the game. And I dont really like staying with musketmen\minuetmen too awful long, I try to get to rifles ASAP. Sometimes I have to rush Gunpowder if I dont have any iron, thats about the only time I use muskets for awhile. Horsemen are still pretty strong during that time period as well. I just wish Knights had 4 moves like Horsemen did, and they might be worth upgrading.