Worst Civs to Play As?

[Molybdeus]

But using a strategy based around crushing your neighbours with a cheap earlygame-UU is a flawed playstyle anyway, imo.

Could you explain this comment?

 

[The Rook]

I say Immortals, personally, as Axes will eat quechas for breakfast. Also, Immortals are fantastic units to have on an early rampage. Why? They have twice the power and twice the speed, at only slightly more hammers.

If Immortals didn't require a strategic resource, I would agree with you. I often find that the Quechuas have served their purpose by the time I get horses online, and sometimes the resource just isn't within the scope of my expansion.

The Incas are good in a lot of situations, but they still have their shortcomings. How about a multiplayer game, on quick speed? The Quechuas will be obselete in no time, and besides, humans are smart enough to not fight them with archers. Financial won't help much because you won't be able to build a lot of cottages (they'll get pillaged), and industrious won't help much because you won't be able to build a lot of wonders.

Yes, I agree that SP strategies would not work well in MP games. Playing HC, SP style in MP might be a good way of sticking a target on your head. Nevertheless, in SP I would struggle to find a map where the Incas wouldn't function well. In addition, I think Willem is actually very solid on predominantly land maps. Creative is great for rexing, and cannot be fully exploited on watery maps. Financial supports the rexing strategy well with the commerce needed for expansion.

 

[Still_Asleep]

Relying on beating the AI with units that are twice as strong as theirs, despite having the same techlevel, is a weak play. This is especially true for abusing praetorians to win on difficulties where you would not stand a chance without them, but is also refers to a few other UU - to a lesser extent.

It is cheesy, and it will not help you to get better by understanding the game-mechanics.

 

[andersw]

I guess I'm playing a little one dimensional since I've trouble with leaders wich are neither financial nor industrious.

Saladin is one of those I groan over.
(Generally playing on Prince level.)

 

[Supr49er]

Welcome andersw.

 

[Molybdeus]

Relying on beating the AI with units that are twice as strong as theirs, despite having the same techlevel, is a weak play. This is especially true for abusing praetorians to win on difficulties where you would not stand a chance without them, but is also refers to a few other UU - to a lesser extent.

It is cheesy, and it will not help you to get better by understanding the game-mechanics.

I agree, but the discussion here isn't which leaders will help you become a better player. By that standard Saladin is one of the best leaders in the game. The discussion is which civ will help you win games. And by that standard a "cheesy" unit like the Immortal or War Chariot blows away Panzers.

 

[pfo]

I vote for Japan, as they are only useful in warring, which requires care. A badly implemented war could cost you the game, or at least set you back a lot.

If I could defend Sitting Bull, he is not the worst. He is one of my favorites actually. He can pull off one of the fastest rushes, as dog soldiers do not require copper and in sufficient numbers can easily crush 2-3 archers in the early game in a city that is not on hills or has decent cultural defense. If you miss the early rush, you can hold back with archers with 2 promotions (courtesy of a barracks and totem pole) and wait for crossbowmen, which come out the gate with drill 2 and cg 1 (w/ barracks and totem pole). These make excellent city stormers that can defend a stack and a captured city. Crossbows, swords and a spear or two make a great stack. Once you get to macemen, or if you get war elephants, you are easily as capable as most other civs. Protective will allow you to defend your empire as you work that philosophical trait for some GP.

His biggest weakness is in defending his territory from axes in the early game. The dogs defend the cities pretty well, but if he decides to pillage your countryside, there's little you can do but watch.

 

[Riker]

Try with chariots, but dog soldier should win against axemen even outside the city

 

[warhead66]

Actually they weren't better than their contemporaries. The Soviet T--34 was a better tank than the Panzer IV. (The panzer model in the game is a Panzer IV.) This just makes the panzer an even weirder unit, IMO. Either Teutonic Knights or a StuG III would have been much more interesting.

T-34 was not a better tank, it had better odds. It never really served as an invading force the same way as the Panzer IV did. Where Panzer IV had to drive through russia and Attack cities, defend troops, take over france it has been put to test in a much higher scale than the T 34. Plus the cannon on the Panzer indeed does pierce armor better and is capable of firing bigger grenades.

T 34 is indeed an excellent tank but i don't see how you can call it better than Panzer?

 

[AfterShafter]

Worst Civs? Easy. Darius of the Persians, Ragnar of the Vikings, Huayna Capac of the Incans, Hannibal of the Carthaginians, Wang Kon of the Koreans, Pacal of the Incans... I think that about covers it. Well, except for Boudica of the Romans, but why you'd pick such a terrible combo I don't know.

 

[Cutlass]

T-34 was not a better tank, it had better odds. It never really served as an invading force the same way as the Panzer IV did. Where Panzer IV had to drive through russia and Attack cities, defend troops, take over france it has been put to test in a much higher scale than the T 34. Plus the cannon on the Panzer indeed does pierce armor better and is capable of firing bigger grenades.

T 34 is indeed an excellent tank but i don't see how you can call it better than Panzer?

The T34 was the better tank. It had a diesel engine instead of gasoline. It had armor which was slanted to deflect hits much like modern tanks.

The T-34 was a Soviet medium tank produced from 1941 to 1958. It is widely regarded to have been the world's best tank when the Soviet Union entered World War II, and although its armor and armament were surpassed by later tanks of the era, it is credited as the war's most effective, efficient and influential design

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34

The later Panzers were better than the US Sherman tank by a large margin, but that was in part because the US committed to a design that could be built in overwhelming numbers instead of going for a design that was individually superior.

 

[pi-r8]

Worst Civs? Easy. Darius of the Persians, Ragnar of the Vikings, Huayna Capac of the Incans, Hannibal of the Carthaginians, Wang Kon of the Koreans, Pacal of the Incans... I think that about covers it. Well, except for Boudica of the Romans, but why you'd pick such a terrible combo I don't know.

Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell because you picked some leaders that most people consider really good, and some (Wang Kon?) that most people would say are mediocre.

 

[paydro]

He was definitely sarcastic. The Boudica of the Romans was the big tipoff.

Normally I have to take these things at face value, because even civs I think are most obviously great (Darius, Huyana, Hannibal) others think are worthless.

 

[pi-r8]

Yes, I agree that SP strategies would not work well in MP games. Playing HC, SP style in MP might be a good way of sticking a target on your head. Nevertheless, in SP I would struggle to find a map where the Incas wouldn't function well. In addition, I think Willem is actually very solid on predominantly land maps. Creative is great for rexing, and cannot be fully exploited on watery maps. Financial supports the rexing strategy well with the commerce needed for expansion.

Why would the Incas be good for multiplayer? The typical MP strategy of specialist economy + war, war, war + quick speed does not suit the Incas at all.

And yeah, I'm sure you CAN play WILLEM on a land map, but why would you want to? It would be like playing a civ with no UU or UB. If you're just going to do a standard REX with him, then there's plenty of leaders better at it (like any aggressive leader).

 

[AfterShafter]

Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell because you picked some leaders that most people consider really good, and some (Wang Kon?) that most people would say are mediocre.

Yikes, I'm out of date... I just remember before BTS , when Warlords had been out a few months, Wang Kon was always top three for "best Civs in the game" on the forum polls. For me, he's still probably my most all-purpose leader.

Sarcastic, by the way... But with a point, which Paydro pointed out. For instance, for me, a consistently emperor winning player, Hannibal is mediocre and Wang Kon freaking rocks. "Best and worst" Civs is very subjective... I even place guys like Mao very high on my rankings.

 

[AfterShafter]

Why would the Incas be good for multiplayer? The typical MP strategy of specialist economy + war, war, war + quick speed does not suit the Incas at all.

Quecha rush in itself makes them formidable in multiplayer... Don't have to go much past that.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

My admittedly limited experience with MP tells me that the measures one must take to stifle a Quechua rush leaves one open to an effortless ass-kicking from a 3rd party doing a more conventional rush. So in a game with more than 2 sides, Incans at the very least shake things up for their neighbors. Build a conventional defense and die to quechuas, or build a non-standard, warrior based one and die to somebody else's copper units. Pick your death.

And since when do people hate Wang Kon? Lots of people hate protective (though I know AfterShafter not to be one...) but financial, the seowon, and to a bit lesser an extent the Hwacha all get a good deal of respect.

 

[AfterShafter]

and to a bit lesser an extent the Hwacha all get a good deal of respect.

Heh, I won't say much, but hwacha + protective archery units = a very effective resourceless army. Granted, I'd rather have copper/iron and horses, but Wang has a very formidable fallback just in case

 

[Wlauzon]

Worst is relative. Leaders that I would never play in MP shine in SP if you play to their strengths.

In MP there are about half the leaders that are not worth playing.

But generally (in my opinion) MP usually sucks - always the same pattern of someone declaring war on the first turn, always the same 4-5 civs chosen, always the same early rush pattern. I play an MP game about once a month to remind me again why I don't play MP.

 

[Slashninja1467]

America. The SEAL is overly specialized, the Mall only kicks off if you have one or more of 3 wonders, and Roosevelts traits are pretty pathetic. Lincoln is pretty good, OK, and so is Washington. WSGN can get high pop caps, and Lincoln can run a SE. But Roosevelt?

There was a thread here w/ someone stating that Roosevelt was a powerhouse. This is due to the Industrious/Organized trait combo as well as his starting techs. He's a monster with coastal starts due to the fact that he can perform the MC slingshot ridiculously well with the oracle. Now factor in the cheap lighthouses AND forges and u assured urself the mids (larger chance of getting GE because of less whipping penalty of forge, The collosus (MC Slingshot and Forges), and The Great Lighthouse. With monster commerce like that on the coast, AND Courthouses, methinks of Infinite City Spam hehe.