Worst Civs to Play As?

[TheLastOne36]

Khmer aren't that good, but I don't think they are near worst. I don't think people have examined the synergy they have. Creative works with expansive to help you chop & whip your way to early conquest, which should net you ivory to let you build Balista Elephants. The extra food from the Baray helps you get new cities expanding quickly, while creative and expansive provide for quicker growth and more tiles improved for those cities.

The Khmer don't have any powerful abilities, but there are a number of things they offer you can leverage. I would much rather play as Suryavarman than Sitting Bull or Roosevelt.

I agree. Sucks if you start in tundra as the khmer though.

The Suryavaram AI is also pretty good.

 

[paydro]

As Still_Asleep points out, the real problem with Sitting Bull is that you are almost always going to ignore either the UU or the UB. The only use for either is in producing units that protect you, but since he's protective, it's just compounding the fact that he has one of the worst traits.

I don't see how anybody competes, except perhaps Charlemagne because leader traits matter more than UBs and UUs.

The Khmer may be your least favorite AI, but as a civ they aren't too bad. If you do have the ivory, the UU is very good, and the UB is quite good... food bonuses are pretty rare, and it synergizes well with expansive.

 

[warhead66]

The worst thing about Panzer is the name.

Panzer is the German word for tank, nothing more.

Therefore, in the german version the normal tank is called Panzer, and the Panzer is called "Deutscher Panzer" (which means German Tank). Horrible.

i agree 100% to me it seems as yet another time where german words become badass just because they're german and/or nazi related. Might as well called the tank "Die Eier von Satan"

If they don't have oil they can't build tanks which means makes your UU pointless. Everything you said can be done just as easily with tanks unless your really behind and they have a bunch of tanks already which means they probably already have anti-tank infantry.

Well that doesn't really prove anything, i mean if you don't have ivory you can't build ballistas and if you don't have iron you can't build bezerkers, pretorians and so on... If you look at the other unique units none of them are completely 100% immortal. The Panzer has it's benefits but is of course limited just like very other uu... Did you expect it to be flawless?

 

[paydro]

Warhead, CivDude is responding to when you said this:
"Panzers a genious to take oil control with, disable the enemies oil recourses then attack with panzers."

...which makes no sense. If you disable their oil, then they do not have tanks, which means the Panzer's bonus is meaningless. You may as well use normal tanks for the purpose.

So the UU only makes a difference against a civ roughly equal to you in technology, where you both have oil, for the time from tanks to mechanized infantry. Even then, it's really only useful in the field, because tanks don't defend cities. It really is one of the worst UUs in the game.

 

[warhead66]

Warhead, CivDude is responding to when you said this:
"Panzers a genious to take oil control with, disable the enemies oil recourses then attack with panzers."

...which makes no sense. If you disable their oil, then they do not have tanks, which means the Panzer's bonus is meaningless. You may as well use normal tanks for the purpose.

So the UU only makes a difference against a civ roughly equal to you in technology, where you both have oil, for the time from tanks to mechanized infantry. Even then, it's really only useful in the field, because tanks don't defend cities. It really is one of the worst UUs in the game.

i still completely disagree, i mentioned that a bit unclear i was referring to a city where an army of tanks either was in the city or close to possibly a much larger number of tanks than what you as german were attacking with.

nonetheless even if we exclude that example the tank is still awesome. it gives you an immortal unit when attacking because there's nothing that can stop it. bring a few soldiers with oyu for the AT and you're good to go.

It's useless discussing if you don't see it already, it works for me i always win when i'm germany, and panzers take a big part in that.

 

[paydro]

...okay, sure, if you regularly fight against huge armies of tanks, Panzers are great. I'm just saying, most wars take place before tanks, and it's only if the opponent not only has oil, and the necessary techs, but also has built extensive tanks during your war that the Panzer becomes important. Even that all becomes moot once you get mechanized infantry.

In my experience, tanks are already a basically immortal unit, except against highly promoted infantry (assuming you don't bring artillery) and of course mech inf. Then again, I am usually crushing riflemen because I jumped ahead to tanks, rather than an enemy that has already built multiple tanks. At that point, I would just try for modern armor, or overwhelm with numbers.

 

[Cutlass]

There are 4 factors to consider:
Traits
UU
UB
Starting techs.

Clearly some people have strong opinions about the value of each. Most of the discussions I've read here hasn't had much emphasis on starting techs. Myself, I want Hinduism, no matter what else I'm doing. I suppose of an ax rush is you're main early strategy then that's less important to you. But you can't count on a neighbor who is nearby enough to have one of the earliest holy cities to take over. And the structure of the game makes early religion too important to miss out on. Getting the shrine and generating 20 or more gold a turn before modifiers in your capital for nearly the whole game is a lot of advantage. Plus the other advantages of having a religion.

Next is the value of the UU and UB. In my opinion, coming early and staying long are advantages that are greater than having a lot of power for a short time, and at the end. HRE has a very good UB that comes available fairly early and stays available till the end. The UU isn't spectacular, but it's fairly good. The traits are usable for anything even if they aren't wonderful to most people.

The American UU and UB to me come too late and do too little.

As for the Panzer, try to keep in mind that both Rommel and Patton believed that tank on tank combat was to be avoided whenever possible

 

[BalbanesBeoulve]

I've heard of a strategy with the american UU and UB where you just turn off research once you hit flight, combustion, refrigeration and industrialism, you rushbuy ships, fighters, and seals and take over the world quickly in the late game.

It sounds like an interesting strategy that i'm going to try soon. I can see it totally dominating on an archipelago map.

 

[Stylesrj]

I think Panzers should be like the Civ III ones. They have 3 movement points. Modern Armour should also gain an extra movement point.
That way, the Panzer is like any other Tank, except it can move faster.
Modern Armour should gain an extra movement point, because it wouldn't make sense to upgrade a 3 movement Panzer into a 2 movement Modern Armour.

 

[paydro]

I agree STylesrj... it would make the Panzer a very powerful weapon because it would mean an extra attack (with Blitz) as well as quicker assaults. I often find I'm racing past my artillery anyway with tanks, and with Panzers... god help your enemies. Blitzkreig is what German tanks are famous for, why not enable that?

 

[The Rook]

Clearly some people have strong opinions about the value of each. Most of the discussions I've read here hasn't had much emphasis on starting techs. Myself, I want Hinduism, no matter what else I'm doing. I suppose of an ax rush is you're main early strategy then that's less important to you. But you can't count on a neighbor who is nearby enough to have one of the earliest holy cities to take over. And the structure of the game makes early religion too important to miss out on. Getting the shrine and generating 20 or more gold a turn before modifiers in your capital for nearly the whole game is a lot of advantage. Plus the other advantages of having a religion.

I think much of this depends on which level you are playing. It is very rare that discovering an early religion is a viable option at the higher levels. Unless you are financial, and have an oasis, the AI will normally beat you to it. Also, such a diversion can delay vital worker techs. If you start with Mysticism AND pursue Polytheism then you will have at the most one worker tech for quite some time. Axe rushes are seldom viable too, unless you fluke copper in the BFC.

Next is the value of the UU and UB. In my opinion, coming early and staying long are advantages that are greater than having a lot of power for a short time, and at the end. HRE has a very good UB that comes available fairly early and stays available till the end. The UU isn't spectacular, but it's fairly good. The traits are usable for anything even if they aren't wonderful to most people.

I think this is debatable. The Fast Worker never obsoletes, and is a very good UU. The Quechua is only useful in the early game, but many people would argue it is overpowered. I like any resourceless UU that comes early, even if it just ends up defending against waves of barbs. I wasn't aware that the HRE UU was available to the very end of the game, but to be honest I can't really see it having much usefulness once the Maceman has expired.

The American UU and UB to me come too late and do too little.

The lateness puts me off too. I think the American leaders are somewhat saved by their robust traits.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Main weakness of the Native Americans is their UU IMO
Philosophic is 1 of the best traits so that balances Protective out. The UB is ok and makes Protective more useful
The Dogsoldier isn't a bad unit, the trouble is it turns an attacking unit into a mainly defensive unit and that the Native Americans don't need. They can't really wage an offensive war until swords and catapults come along and I think their best bet is to turtle until Machinery then turn their archers into a mighty army of CG 1/Drill 3 or 4 Crossbowmen

 

[Sian]

... and keep the momentum by turning the living Xbows and an load of latemade Longbows into Riflemens

 

[warhead66]

...okay, sure, if you regularly fight against huge armies of tanks, Panzers are great. I'm just saying, most wars take place before tanks, and it's only if the opponent not only has oil, and the necessary techs, but also has built extensive tanks during your war that the Panzer becomes important. Even that all becomes moot once you get mechanized infantry.

In my experience, tanks are already a basically immortal unit, except against highly promoted infantry (assuming you don't bring artillery) and of course mech inf. Then again, I am usually crushing riflemen because I jumped ahead to tanks, rather than an enemy that has already built multiple tanks. At that point, I would just try for modern armor, or overwhelm with numbers.

well that is a fair point, they don't give much bonus when you're killing cavalry, but then again, why bother? tanks pwn cavalry as it is. I always fight against tanks when i have panzers but that might be due to the level and map i play on (Monarch world map) I usually have to take on someone who has oil like the british russians or vikings. But i can see if that their ability is limited if nobody else has tanks.

 

[warhead66]

I think Panzers should be like the Civ III ones. They have 3 movement points. Modern Armour should also gain an extra movement point.
That way, the Panzer is like any other Tank, except it can move faster.
Modern Armour should gain an extra movement point, because it wouldn't make sense to upgrade a 3 movement Panzer into a 2 movement Modern Armour.

that would be wierd cause the panzer wasn't faster than regular tanks, it just had dents placed all over it intentionally to make it's armor harder to pierce and of course a thicker armor and a better cannon..

if anything i'd give it two extra strength, keep the blitz tech and the 50% vs. Tanks abilities because it doesnt really get the kind of reward that it should, i mean this weapon blew the world.

 

[fugazi]

... and keep the momentum by turning the living Xbows and an load of latemade Longbows into Riflemens

Ouch ... Sitting Bull isn't so bad but the problem is that where with others you can get a permanent head start, Sitting Bull can only propels himself later on and you really need to have some luck with weak nearby AI's. He's damn fun in MP games though

 

[JayBirds]

I don't think Germany is all that week. Even if the game is decided before Panzers come into play. Frederick is pretty decent.

Unlike some of the more early warmonger focused leaders. Germany can expand very fast and rapidly without throwing your economy into chaos. Alexander can not do this with just cottages, and no courthouses or religious capitals.

So that means I got more time spent into researching secondary techs rather than military/mount tech's for someone like Alex. Or hope someone nearby has a religous capital I can take control of.

I started messing around with Frederick after reading another thread on Germany. I think I got a decent tech path for him figured out. Which ironically does not envolve him founding a religion or getting courthouses (right away or even as a priority).

I started messing around with Alex and he seems rather week tbh. His UU only gets 1 movement. So again I am stuck with having to research basic Horse archers (pop them with the Oracle.) if I want to sack a few civ's early. Key word here is a few. Not 1.

Great General bonus whats the point. If I warmonger I am going to gather GG points fast anyways and by the time Academy's come into play, I have several +3 medics as well as Stationary GG's waiting to pop Academy's.

Fast settlers? Really another wasted bonus slot. If I am going to warmonger all I usually have before I start building my mount stack is 3 city's (unless there is just amazing plots all over my starting position. Workers chop those just fine.

Wonders? There are only 4 really big ones I go for.
BC: Great wall, again chopping plays part here too. No barbarians is awsome. I can leave 1 warrior per city to keep it happy. Untill my initial Horse archer Stacks built.

BC:Oracle, by this time my Capital is at its happy cap and can produce this just fine maybe whip the last few turns of it.

Very early AD. Zuess. Pretty obvious why. Also very cheap wonder to make.

Apocolyptic palce, for obvious reasons. Extra Hammers and it pisses me of when its used against me.

Any other wonder I do try to squeeze in during down time in my wonder city. Some times I get them sometimes I don't.

I am still messing around with Alex trying to figure out what the hype is all about. He seems really week to me tho. Early expansion with him sucks unless you take time to research support techs for your economy. Such as courthouses or a religion ASAP. You can't always rely on a neighbor having a Holy city and taking control of it.

Maybe I am an oddball but Alex sucks to me. UB again requires a tech that is side wall from the tech path I really enjoy and rather solid (for me anyways). Probably or arguably over powered as well, but high risk mid to late game.((((Edit to correct my tech path)))) Which is Horse archers > Clanedar (if there are plantation plots to justify it)> AP > Curssairs >Sometimes Engineering (can't recall if it is required for rifleing or not but I have been clicking it before calvary) > clavary. In that order.

Altho here is the kicker I never trade techs. I simply do not. I hate the Diplo system it works to much against the player rather than for the player. I try to kill all the AI leaders research progress instead by taking out the closest-highest in points leader if I have a few close ones to choose from. then its point leader after point leader. Eventually you get a bunch of backwards nations and maybe 1 or 2 decent.

My playstyle runs a high risk as well. If I have not stagnated the AI's tech trading by a certain point basically when they start poping riflemen in mass it can turn into a stagnate war from their on out untill tanks come into play wihich has a huge lull between the calvary and Tanks. By the time tanks get poped if theres more than 3 Civ's its pretty much game over or well I mean no conquest victory. which is game over me since its all I go for.

Maybe I am just an oddball in the lot. /shrug

 

[Cutlass]

I think this is debatable. The Fast Worker never obsoletes, and is a very good UU. The Quechua is only useful in the early game, but many people would argue it is overpowered. I like any resourceless UU that comes early, even if it just ends up defending against waves of barbs. I wasn't aware that the HRE UU was available to the very end of the game, but to be honest I can't really see it having much usefulness once the Maceman has expired.

I think we miscommunicated bit. The HRE UU does not stay available and useful to the end, but it stays useful until all the opponent's mounted units are upgraded to calvary.

The HRE UB never goes obsolete, because it's a courthouse. One that just happens to be 50% more effective than other courthouses. So a 2-3 gold per city per turn advantage over the course of the majority of the game adds up to a lot of money.

 

[Hammurbabble]

Haven't played them yet but HRE sound crap. Sure they've got an excellent UB and a decent UU but good grief, what a terrible trait combo. I mean, protective and imperialistic, how much more contradicting a combo can you get?

Nothing's wrong with that combo. Imperialistic gives you a fast REX while protective keeps your city spam more secure.

In general, the worst civ to play as is the one that doesn't fit the style you're used to playing. Different traits and sometimes different UU and UB dictate different play styles.

Case in point:

Fast settlers? Really another wasted bonus slot. If I am going to warmonger

There you go, letting your preferred play style dictate the bonuses rather than vice-versa. If you're playing an Imperialist it makes little sense to be an early warmonger. You're better off with a REX for your early expansion, and be a warmonger later on. Especially since Imps usually have later (and very good) UUs.

I think it's more fun to try different leaders/civs and see what strategy works best with each one, rather than playing the same way every time and saying that some leaders/civs suck because they don't work with that play style. But that's just me.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

My respect for imperialistic rose when I started chopping out my settlers so I could beat my rivals to the good city spots. I don't use it to rex, I use it to:

A) Get my cities up and running faster, and let my capital be over with settler building sooner
B) Make sure my cities occupy the best spots because the settlers come out too fast to be beaten to the best locations by some dickhead city spammer

And one of my big arguments against Germany is: If when playing as them you have tanks vs. tanks, you could have gotten tanks vs. rifles using a civ with a stronger early game/mid game (read: anyone) given the exact same map, difficulty, AI placement, and progression of events. In other words, the only reason you'll encounter a situation where the panzer bonus comes in handy is because Germany let you down enough to get you in that situation in the first place.