Worst Civilization in Civilization 5

[Bandit17]

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 ap
proach, 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.

What your failing to see (get it ?) is that when you enter an opponants territory he will see you regardless thus he will have better sight than you but you will have only slightly better sight than a non-American civ. On defense your sight bonus is useless because you can see everything within your boundaries anyways. In an even straight up fight the Jannissary has more real benefit than the extra seeing and moving American counter parts.

 

[Bandobras Took]

The American UA is so much better than Ottoman's that their UU's can't make up the difference.

Seeing units before they can even enter striking range is a big deal. Manifest destiny equates to maybe an extra ruin or so, faster meeting of city states, and a SIGNIFICANT tactical advantage over anybody who isn't fielding a dominant UU this instant - being able to see them when they can't see you or see deeper into their army can come back to bite them in ways one might not consider on first glance. I'd take that over an awful UA and very average midgame UUs any day. Not that USA is great in this game, but it's certainly better than Ottomans and USA from previous games.

I'll also add that if you're doing Raze-and-Resettle, then America's tile buy discount comes in pretty handy in wars of conquest. What throws me is this is the first time America's really been designed as a Warmonger in a Civ game.

Edit: Oh, yeah. I'm surprised not see more votes for England. A UU and UA that swing wildly with the amount of available water make them a "niche" Civ, which for me says overall weakest -- great in specialized areas and otherwise generally mediocre.

 

[Bandobras Took]

In an even straight up fight the Jannissary has more real benefit than the extra seeing and moving American counter parts.

Because, as we all know, the game is about forcing a bunch of even, straight-up fights with your opponents.

Another point that's been neglected -- America's UA is fantastic for spawnbusting in the early game if you don't want Barbarians to irritate you.

 

[Mystere]

I have found the second most voted civ at the moment (America) to be quite fun to play (putting them above Ottomans for me). Their UA isn't all that bad (scouting for arty anyone?) also because I personally do buy a lot of tiles. I use the monarchy policy in tradition quite often and this just makes tiles insanely cheap. Their now fixed UU is nice to upgrade to riflemen and further but does suffer from the same problem as explained below. Bomber might come late but is solid.

The main problem I have with Ottomans (my choice for worst) is that both UU's while quite good, cannot be upgraded to. This is bad, if you want to use the UU's you have to build them fresh in the era they come available and they will NOT have any experience. Same as USA but with a bomber replacement that is logical.

On top of that their UA is quite weak but that alone would not kick em down for me. Unit ability good, unit type bad. Lancer and musketman just don't work for me when planning my army early. Warrior or spearman can never become musket and any horse based unit can never become a lancer. Sad panda

 

[Alki]

Upgrading Warriors to Mech Infantry and after 6k years of warfare I'll have well over ten upgrades.

 

[Vellis]

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.

I said "upgraded Janissaries". It's moronic to attack anyone with musketmen when rifling is a handful of turns of research away. Considering all the examples you're giving against the Janissary, you seem to be assuming the player using the Ottomans is as much of an idiot as the AI is (which maybe he is for picking the Ottomans =p).

Every unit has to deal with things like flat terrain, ranged attacks, or attacking fortified units on hills, I'm not sure why you seem to think this is a mark against the Janissary. The difference is all the Janissary needs is one kill to be back in fighting condition where every other unit in the game has to either retreat to heal or die. Hell, a Janissary (who has been upgraded to rifleman, this is important), is the best unit in the game for attacking a hill with his 25% attack bonus assuming you get the kill, as even if you take 4 or 5 damage on the attack you'll be fully healed and in rough terrain once it's over.

If you prepare properly no one can build a stronger mid-late game army than the Ottomans. Build Jannisaries, upgrade to riflemen, profit. Also, the Sipahi has a built in +1 vision with 5 move to get that sight wherever you need it. If that doesn't loosely simulate +1 vision on a land unit I don't know what does =p

America has a decent UA with subpar UUs. The Ottomans have a subpar UA with extremely good UUs. I consider it close to a wash between them, but I personally like the Ottomans a little more.

 

[Jon the Bastard]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but you're flat out wrong about the Janissary. It's quite possibly the best UU in the game. Just not as a Janissary. Build about 8-12 of them while you research rifling, upgrade them, then enjoy your self healing, attack bonus, death machine army for the rest of the game =p The Ottomans are amazing on offense from the Renaissance Era forward. UA still sucks of course.

I voted for America. Bomber comes too late in the game for me to get too excited about, and the Minuteman ability is a nice to have, but not huge. Their UA will save you a few hundred gold over the course of the game, but still isn't anything to get excited over.

Firstly - I am entitled to my opinion, but, my opinion on the Janissary is "flat-out wrong?" How does that work? Secondly - I understand what you are saying about having a large number of Janissaries, but, as I pointed out, you then end up with a disproportionate number of Janissaries in your army and you can't take cities with just Janissaries without suffering huge losses on the defensive once you are actually up to the city and sieging it. The unit is great offensively, but, that's the only thing it is great at.

 

[wurstburst]

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.

 

[Vellis]

Firstly - I am entitled to my opinion, but, my opinion on the Janissary is "flat-out wrong?" How does that work? Secondly - I understand what you are saying about having a large number of Janissaries, but, as I pointed out, you then end up with a disproportionate number of Janissaries in your army and you can't take cities with just Janissaries without suffering huge losses on the defensive once you are actually up to the city and sieging it. The unit is great offensively, but, that's the only thing it is great at.

I apologize for my terminology, I can see where it doesn't exactly make sense. What I should have said is that while you are entitled to your opinion on the Janissary, your analysis of it is wrong. The Janissary's real strength comes into play once it's been upgraded. I wouldn't dream of attacking with an army of un-upgraded Janissaries when you get them unless it was a very weak civ, the 16 strength holds them back too much. Upgrade them to Riflemen and above though and there aren't many units in the game that can compare to a free instant heal promotion every time you kill something. The attack bonus is just gravy. The fact that you can't upgrade into them is a pretty big mark against them that I probably don't consider as much as I should, but with Honor you can level up your fresh army without too much trouble.

 

[Rohili]

I was surprised at the number of Siam haters.

I suspect half of them voted for Siam because Ram must be the ugliest leader in the game.

 

[Roxlimn]

Vellis:

Firstly, I don't think it's "moronic" to attack with Janissaries when the opponents they face are Medieval Era units. They are quite strong enough to deal with those, and then some.

Secondly, IIRC, Janissaries do not fully heal every time they dispatch a unit. As far as I can tell, they really only heal 3 HP on each such occasion, so if they lose 5 HP, they end up with 8 HP. This is remarkably strong even then, but not as strong as full heals.

What your failing to see (get it ?) is that when you enter an opponants territory he will see you regardless thus he will have better sight than you but you will have only slightly better sight than a non-American civ. On defense your sight bonus is useless because you can see everything within your boundaries anyways. In an even straight up fight the Jannissary has more real benefit than the extra seeing and moving American counter parts.

I cannot speak for TheMeInTeam, but I prefer to quantify why I think UAs are useful for precisely what reasons, so "slightly better sight" is a rather weak rebuttal against my particular arguments.

For my part, I value the extra sight because it means that I can advance much better and it makes Ranged units extremely potent. With Sentry on your Archers, you hardly need a screening force of melee units in front, since you can always tell where the enemy is and thus array your forces accordingly. This is particularly potent in the case of Artillery and Range promoted Archer units, since they can fire farther than they can natively see without the Sentry promo.

The Sentry promo is also quite good when used with Drill Minutemen, since you can see where you're going, and you can plan to situate them on Rough Terrain as much as possible, and then restricting AI movement through ZOC. In fact, upgrade Minutemen are some of the best units in the game, since they still have Sentry (from the American UA) and can move quickly past terrain that might bog down other units, or otherwise restrict avenues of attack.

 

[stavka]

Judging by the poll results, more evidence of no balance testing.

Seriously, When is Firaxis going to join the 21st century when it comes to software unit testing?

 

[Bandobras Took]

Judging by the poll results, more evidence of no balance testing.

Actually, it's more evidence of people voting with their gut rather than thinking it through. I highly doubt that all the people who voted against America actually played a sufficient number of games with them to accurately judge their merits.

Now, maritime city-states are evidence of no balance testing.

 

[redmosquito]

As strange as it sounds, I think civilization 5 is the worst civilization in civilization 5.

 

[Bandit17]

Actually, it's more evidence of people voting with their gut rather than thinking it through. I highly doubt that all the people who voted against America actually played a sufficient number of games with them to accurately judge their merits.

Now, maritime city-states are evidence of no balance testing.

Well it's a pretty subjective topic and is based on players personnal likes/dislike and their ingame experience with these civs along with their own preffered playing styles. That being said I can agree that the worst two civs are the Americans and the Ottomans. But I can give credit to Firaxis in that the two worst civs are both still very fun and very capable of winning when played properly.

When the ai air campaign gets some love the American B-17 will gain importance and when the navy ai gets more love the Ottoman UA might just be a little more important. I do wish they would change their UA though but oh well...

 

[joyous_gard]

I haven't played them all but I got whipped when I was the Ottomans. It was my fault though, I spent way too much time converting ships and then had economy problems and then declared war on a superior military force and it just all went downhill.

 

[Jon the Bastard]

I haven't played them all but I got whipped when I was the Ottomans. It was my fault though, I spent way too much time converting ships and then had economy problems and then declared war on a superior military force and it just all went downhill.

That sounds pretty rough... . Better luck next time... if there ever is a next time with the Ottomans.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What your failing to see (get it ?) is that when you enter an opponants territory he will see you regardless thus he will have better sight than you but you will have only slightly better sight than a non-American civ. On defense your sight bonus is useless because you can see everything within your boundaries anyways. In an even straight up fight the Jannissary has more real benefit than the extra seeing and moving American counter parts.

The difference in a unit 2 tile away vs 3 towers away, in many cases, is their ability to attack you. This is NOT negligible in neutral OR enemy territory.

I said "upgraded Janissaries". It's moronic to attack anyone with musketmen when rifling is a handful of turns of research away. Considering all the examples you're giving against the Janissary, you seem to be assuming the player using the Ottomans is as much of an idiot as the AI is (which maybe he is for picking the Ottomans =p).

If we're comparing these uniques based on your criteria then, you are comparing rifles that ignore terrain costs vs rifles that heal when they kill something. There's not a clear favorite there...high mobility is not to be underestimated with 1upt - there are situations where either of these super rifles would be superior, but you can't really use the upgrade path as something to clearly favor the ottomans.

Every unit has to deal with things like flat terrain, ranged attacks, or attacking fortified units on hills, I'm not sure why you seem to think this is a mark against the Janissary. The difference is all the Janissary needs is one kill to be back in fighting condition where every other unit in the game has to either retreat to heal or die. Hell, a Janissary (who has been upgraded to rifleman, this is important), is the best unit in the game for attacking a hill with his 25% attack bonus assuming you get the kill, as even if you take 4 or 5 damage on the attack you'll be fully healed and in rough terrain once it's over.

I pointed out those examples to show that Janis were not "nigh unkillable", not to suggest that other units don't deal with the same issues.

f you prepare properly no one can build a stronger mid-late game army than the Ottomans. Build Jannisaries, upgrade to riflemen, profit. Also, the Sipahi has a built in +1 vision with 5 move to get that sight wherever you need it. If that doesn't loosely simulate +1 vision on a land unit I don't know what does =p

Point taken, that *does* loosely simulate it, but not completely - the units with sight are often not the ones you want to finish the turn up front...and are certainly not the only thing in your army in EVERY game. This is also arguably the strongest of the ottoman uniques, and it is "loosely" simulating the UA for USA.

America has a decent UA with subpar UUs. The Ottomans have a subpar UA with extremely good UUs. I consider it close to a wash between them, but I personally like the Ottomans a little more.

You are calling a UU that upgrades to rifles that heal on kill subpar, but not highly mobile rifles...sounds biased.

I'm not convinced either of these guys are weaker than other civs consistently or materially anyway. English UA is awful on pangaea for example...just as bad as ottomans. Montezuma's jaguar warriors are OK vs the AI and upgrade decently if you sink a TON of gold into them, but how much culture/turn are you getting on average from killing units? How great is that UB?

Really, outside of the top tier civs, it barely makes a difference.

 

[zuraffo]

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.

On the contrary, I find myself buying a lot of tiles over the course of the game, regardless of the civ I am playing. It is often a matter of buying tiles to DENY your opponents of good tiles rather than using it yourself. And the strategic purpose of choking off a.. well, chokepoint, and also getting to work that high yield tile just that much sooner. Money is worthless if you don't convert it to something, so why not buy tiles?

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.

I suspect the decision was aesthetically influenced.

 

[flyingbunnys]

I voted Ottaman, if Mongolia was an option I would have gone with that. I was debating Aztec and Ottaman.