Worst Civs to Play As?

[Hammurbabble]

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.

True IF AND ONLY IF your preferred strategy is to conquer early. But conquering early isn't an easier strategy than waiting until later or never doing it at all, it has its own problems that make it just as challenging. You tend to fall pretty far behind in technology compared to the civs that are remaining mostly peaceful through that period. You easily overextend. You neglect infrastructure and important buildings for shooting towards victory conditions in the military rush. All of these problems have solutions and ways to manage them, of course, but the point here is that there is more than one way to win this game, and so it is NOT true that the Immortal or the War Chariot "blows away" Panzers.

Fact is, in the way I play I might conceivably use those units, but most of the time I wouldn't except on barbarians. It's very situational. Do I have someone very close to me, so that taking their capital right away wouldn't present a logistical and managerial nightmare? Do I have horses ready to hook up? (If I'm playing the Egyptians or Persians, that is.) Suppose the first answer is yes but the second is no, I have no horses but I do have copper. I might do an early rush in that case, but I'd blow off the UU and just use plain old axemen. But the great majority of games I don't even bother with an early rush, because no one's capital is close enough to mine to make it worth doing.

On the other hand, I have yet to play a single game all the way through that didn't include at least one war fought with tanks. So the Panzer is a unit I would use EVERY game played as Germany, while the Immortal or War Chariot only maybe one game in five or ten played as Egypt or Persia.

This game is actually quite well balanced, one civ to another. People dis some advantages or units, but I can see ways to win using any of them. You might not like playing a strategy like that, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that the advantage, unit, or building is worthless. It's just worthless for the single approach that YOU always take. But that's your limitation, not the game's.

 

[AmazonQueen]

True IF AND ONLY IF your preferred strategy is to conquer early. But conquering early isn't an easier strategy than waiting until later or never doing it at all, it has its own problems that make it just as challenging. You tend to fall pretty far behind in technology compared to the civs that are remaining mostly peaceful through that period. You easily overextend. You neglect infrastructure and important buildings for shooting towards victory conditions in the military rush. All of these problems have solutions and ways to manage them, of course, but the point here is that there is more than one way to win this game, and so it is NOT true that the Immortal or the War Chariot "blows away" Panzers.

Fact is, in the way I play I might conceivably use those units, but most of the time I wouldn't except on barbarians. It's very situational. Do I have someone very close to me, so that taking their capital right away wouldn't present a logistical and managerial nightmare? Do I have horses ready to hook up? (If I'm playing the Egyptians or Persians, that is.) Suppose the first answer is yes but the second is no, I have no horses but I do have copper. I might do an early rush in that case, but I'd blow off the UU and just use plain old axemen. But the great majority of games I don't even bother with an early rush, because no one's capital is close enough to mine to make it worth doing.

On the other hand, I have yet to play a single game all the way through that didn't include at least one war fought with tanks. So the Panzer is a unit I would use EVERY game played as Germany, while the Immortal or War Chariot only maybe one game in five or ten played as Egypt or Persia.

This game is actually quite well balanced, one civ to another. People dis some advantages or units, but I can see ways to win using any of them. You might not like playing a strategy like that, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that the advantage, unit, or building is worthless. It's just worthless for the single approach that YOU always take. But that's your limitation, not the game's.

Yes, its undoubtedly possible to win with any leader although SB starting close to a rexing neighbour like Joao is a pain.
I tend to find the traits are the most important factor in choosing a civ, followed by the UB followed by the UU which is highly situational in use. There are exceptions. With Willem or Justinian their UB is a major factor in choosing them and with Rome Praets are a major factor.

 

[The Rook]

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.

That's a very weak strawman. I never said that the Incas were good for MP. What I specifically said was "in SP I would struggle to find a map where the Incas wouldn't function well".

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).

Another strawman? I said that Willem would be a "very solid" choice on a "predominantly land" map. I explained in detail why I thought this was the case in my last post. For the record, I don't equate the term "solid" with "best", but I do consider Willem to be one of the better rexers in SP, obviously the UB and UU would let him down if there is no water. In SP rexing is about fast, peaceful expansion, I fail to see why "aggressive" would be such a wonderful trait. At Deity, the AI can attack with 50 strong stacks by 1 AD at normal speed, I think good diplomacy would be a better bet than a handful of Combat 1 units to see them off. I'd sooner have a trait that pays my maintenance, or gives me free border pops anyday.

 

[Wretch]

My newbie opinions: I'm trying to branch out and try new civs, so I've been thinking about who seems to do well and who frustrates me. Sitting Bull seems to be the favorite whipping boy of just about everyone.

I'm a fan of America, especially Lincoln. The traits are good and when you get to modern times you build your UB and tell the AIs "oh, didn't I mention I have turbo boost?" and just pour it on. Rar!

 

[pi-r8]

That's a very weak strawman. I never said that the Incas were good for MP. What I specifically said was "in SP I would struggle to find a map where the Incas wouldn't function well".

Sorry, I didn't see the SP part. It illustrates my main point though, which is that even a "strong" civ like Incas will still have situations where it is weak, such as MP.

Another strawman? I said that Willem would be a "very solid" choice on a "predominantly land" map. I explained in detail why I thought this was the case in my last post. For the record, I don't equate the term "solid" with "best", but I do consider Willem to be one of the better rexers in SP, obviously the UB and UU would let him down if there is no water. In SP rexing is about fast, peaceful expansion, I fail to see why "aggressive" would be such a wonderful trait. At Deity, the AI can attack with 50 strong stacks by 1 AD at normal speed, I think good diplomacy would be a better bet than a handful of Combat 1 units to see them off. I'd sooner have a trait that pays my maintenance, or gives me free border pops anyday.

I guess I think of rexing a bit differently than you do, since for me, it always involves an early war. I agree that creative and financial is really good for peaceful expansion. For early war, though, aggressive can't be beat, since not only do you get better units (you an build shock axes out of the box), you'll be able to get them out sooner with your cheap barracks. I don't play on deity, so I don't really know what would work there.

What would you do with Willem on a crowded map, though? For example, a standard size pangeia map with 10 or 12 civs? It seems like in that sort of situation an early war is almost a necessity.

 

[Molybdeus]

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

Panzer was better in a one on one fight with a T-34 in ideal conditions, but it cost more to build, had weak side armor, and had suspension issues. In a fight between equally costly forces, the Panzer would be outmanned (due to inferior numbers and the better engine on the T-34: 11.8 hp/t for the PzIV to 18.9 hp/t for the T-34) and its weak side armor hit.

True IF AND ONLY IF your preferred strategy is to conquer early. But conquering early isn't an easier strategy than waiting until later or never doing it at all, it has its own problems that make it just as challenging. You tend to fall pretty far behind in technology compared to the civs that are remaining mostly peaceful through that period. You easily overextend. You neglect infrastructure and important buildings for shooting towards victory conditions in the military rush. All of these problems have solutions and ways to manage them, of course, but the point here is that there is more than one way to win this game, and so it is NOT true that the Immortal or the War Chariot "blows away" Panzers.

It is incredibly easy to dig yourself out of a financial hole at the beginning of the game. If you capture a holy city a great prophet will help you. You can also let your existing cities fall to barbarians. (I once took out four civs with an Immortal rush, though on Epic speed.)

In the words of Machiavelli, "there is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others." If you wait until the mid or endgame before you fight, then your opponents will have been able to develop enough production to swamp you.

On the other hand, I have yet to play a single game all the way through that didn't include at least one war fought with tanks.

I routinely win before 1500 AD, though I'm sure it's not through superior skill. I simply aim for different win conditions than you apparently do. You can win with the Apostolic Palace well before you even get riflemen.

If you are aiming to win through a space race, then I am sure that you do indeed see tank on tank fights. But I always viewed that as an option of last resort. To each his (or her) own, I suppose.

 

[CHEESE!]

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.

I never thought of that. I guess Roosevelt is ok.

Set up an Always War game with Monty, Shaka, Boudica, Ragnar, and Genghis and youll be begging to be the Native Americans.

 

[The Rook]

I guess I think of rexing a bit differently than you do, since for me, it always involves an early war.

Yes, I think we do consider rexing differently. For me, "rapid early expansion" through military means would be "rushing".

What would you do with Willem on a crowded map, though? For example, a standard size pangeia map with 10 or 12 civs? It seems like in that sort of situation an early war is almost a necessity.

I think rushing might well be the best option there, if you have a strategic resource. If not, then dying could be another option, assuming you are playing a high level. Having said that, Unconquered Sun reached a promising position with Isabella in the thread linked below. Although there are only 7 civs, the level is Deity, the start position was congested, and two of his close neighbours include Shaka and Genghis. Unconquered Sun won the race to Liberalism and avoided war through instigating wars himself. His military is practically none existent btw. 4 of his 7 cities don't have a single garrison! Just goes to show how far diplomacy can take you.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=260815&page=3

 

[Slashninja1467]

I never thought of that. I guess Roosevelt is ok.

Set up an Always War game with Monty, Shaka, Boudica, Ragnar, and Genghis and youll be begging to be the Native Americans.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=261510

And heres the thread. Hope you enjoy.

 

[Molybdeus]

Unconquered Sun won the race to Liberalism and avoided war through instigating wars himself. His military is practically none existent btw. 4 of his 7 cities don't have a single garrison! Just goes to show how far diplomacy can take you.

The problem I have with this is not that it can't work, but that one mistake or instance of bad luck often equals a loss. If someone like Ragnar gets a different religion than you, you don't necessarily want to get someone else to go to war with him, because he is pretty good at war and could end up conquering your "pet dog" ally. Then you don't have enough production to fight Ragnar and his huge empire off.

Or, you might be allied to someone with a penchant for backstabbing. (See Catherine.) Even if she is at war with your enemies she could make peace with the enemy and then turn on you.

 

[The Rook]

The problem I have with this is not that it can't work, but that one mistake or instance of bad luck often equals a loss. If someone like Ragnar gets a different religion than you, you don't necessarily want to get someone else to go to war with him, because he is pretty good at war and could end up conquering your "pet dog" ally. Then you don't have enough production to fight Ragnar and his huge empire off.

Or, you might be allied to someone with a penchant for backstabbing. (See Catherine.) Even if she is at war with your enemies she could make peace with the enemy and then turn on you.

I agree, but what alternatives were available? At Deity, the AI can spam settlers and military faster than you can do one of the two, and with Shaka and Monty nearby, early war is inevitable, the only question is who will be involved? The problem is, even if you have a token defence, the AI would tear through it like paper. Anything better than a token defence, would still be inadequate to maintain power parity with a warmonger in the early game, and it would risk stunting expansion and research, whilst crippling your empire with maintenance.

I acknowledge that there are things that could have gone wrong in Unconquered Sun's game, but this was a difficult start. If he had been playing at a lower level, then maybe an honest military campaign would have been the best move. I'm not sure that such a strategy would have been a viable option in this particular case though. This is my humble assessment, but the initial save is on the thread mentioned in my last post. If you or anyone else would like to try it, and show a robust alternative strategy, I'm sure that your input would be gratefully received.

 

[IagoAlberto]

Just a few comments on the Tank debate:
1. The German Panzer in game is based on the PzkW V Panther not the PzkW IV which was much boxier.
2. While the T34/76 was a better all round tank than the PzkW IV it was notably inferior to the Panther in any respect you'd care to mention aside from ease of maintenance. Even upgunned as the T34/85 it was not a match for the Panther one on one due to the excllence of the Panther's 75mm gun and its armour.
3. The big reason for German armoured superiority during WW2 was not the vehicles themselves, some of which were excellent notably the Panther, but most were mediocre. The real reason was tactics and effective coordination and leadership through the use of radios, something which most T34's lacked.
4. Many have argued and I would agree that the Panther was one of the best all around tanks until the advent of the T54/55 in the 50's.

 

[bardolph]

There are so many many variables that it's very hard to pick out a civ as "worst," since in my experience, starting position matters much more than a particular leader's traits or unique builds.

Tokugawa? UU is solid: Macemen are already a staple of any medieval attack force - adding 2 free strikes to each battle can't be a bad thing. Agg + Pro creates absolutely killer gunpowder units that only get better with age. I admit he's not so good if you're pursuing a peaceful victory, so... don't pursue a peaceful victory. 'Nuff said. (Don't let Toku's abysmal AI ruin his rep as a leader...)

Sitting Bull? In the early game, his strength comes from the fact that he's combat-ready without building a second city. This is important. He can pursue an early game archer rush with Drill2/Cover archers, and he can complement those archers with resource-less CR Dog Soldiers, as soon as he gets Bronze Working online. This means that Sitting Bull is guaranteed to have a solid position in the early game, when establishing those first few cities is critical. Sitting Bull has the option of expanding peacefully and relying on his super-archers to protect his cities, or pursuing an extremely early rush on a close neighbor to grab important resources before they get their military online. If you're fast enough, you can zoom in with Dog Soldiers/SuperArchers to pillage all-important Horse Resources and stop any resistance in its tracks.

His UB actually serves as a multi-purpose second UU. Archers, Crossbowmen, and Longbowmen are all much stronger than their normal counterparts, which last all the way to Gunpowder, where protective Gunpowder units take over for his Archery units.

Also, Philosophical is a trait that keeps on giving.

 

[paydro]

I don't really understand your point on the archer rush... on higher difficulties, the computer STARTS with a few archers. You're getting one promotion, same as any other civ, so you're saying that the drill1 is going to make it possible to conquer with them? Maybe you mean multiplayer?

 

[AfterShafter]

I don't really understand your point on the archer rush... on higher difficulties, the computer STARTS with a few archers. You're getting one promotion, same as any other civ, so you're saying that the drill1 is going to make it possible to conquer with them? Maybe you mean multiplayer?

I do archer "stasis" rushes on my Immortal start. Start with warriors, get a few (3 or so) out to the enemy's starting city, attack grabbing a worker if you can, and then camp them on a forested hill right beside the enemy city. No settlers or workers will leave the city, though he will build them, and the CPU will not attack the fortified warriors until they have a good number of archers. Of course, you're bee-lining for archers, and once you get a few archers fortified on that hill, the CPU won't be able to dethrone them. Keep up your siege until the enemy is ripe for the picking - they'll basically be stuck at one city until you're ready to kill the 15'ish archers they'll build there (a stack of 4 or 5 archers on a hill should be all you need to do this safely). My success rate for this if *very* high on Immortal, and I've managed to effectively freeze two Civs at a time with it - though doing a second is always touch and go.

It's not a true archer rush, per say, but it is a rush of sorts, and works wonderfully. Let's you continue to rex while keeping an opponent essentially stalled. Units like Dog Soldiers and Pacal's resourceless spearmen work wonderfully for this as well, since you don't even need the archers then.

 

[bardolph]

I don't really understand your point on the archer rush... on higher difficulties, the computer STARTS with a few archers. You're getting one promotion, same as any other civ, so you're saying that the drill1 is going to make it possible to conquer with them? Maybe you mean multiplayer?

Sitting Bull's archers, built with Barracks + Totem Pole start with Drill 1 plus 2 promotions. With those two promotions, you can take Cover + Combat 1 or Cover + Drill 2 (or even Drill 3 if it's a stack defender/cleanup unit)

These archers will be slightly less powerful against archers than a Combat I chariot, while costing slightly fewer hammers.

Dog Soldiers have a base STR of 4, and can take City Raider I, making them substantially more powerful than a Combat I chariot, while costing slightly more in hammers.

Unlike chariots, neither of these units require any resources, which means you can rush with an Archer + Dog Soldier army without building a second city and without capturing any resources.

Archers "static rush" enemy territory, pillaging farms/cottages/resources and securing strong points, and then merge with Dog Soldiers to make an effective city-capturing stack. Also note that early Totem Archers are perfect for sabotaging Horse resources, since Chariots are the only unit that give Dog Soldiers any trouble.

This rush is only marginally slower than a Quechua rush, but Dog Soldiers have a much longer lifespan, since they will dominate Axemen and Swordsmen. Also, a Quechua rush can be stopped cold by building Warriors instead of Archers, while a Totem/Dog rush can only be stopped by hooking up Horses and massing Chariots (and even then, it's still a tough fight).

 

[paydro]

Sorry, Totem Pole gives 3xp, that's what I was missing.

So they're not actually attacking anybody, you're really selling me on the dog soldier as a rushing force. The fact that they don't require resources is nice I guess, but what are their odds on the free archers the computer gets, fortified in a city? This really works?

AfterShafter: That is unbelievably brilliant, and I can't believe I have never thought of it before. Two questions: 1) Do you begin building the warriors immediately, or do you build a worker first? 2) Does the computer not just send out workers/settlers from the other side of the city from where you're camped?

 

[AfterShafter]

AfterShafter: That is unbelievably brilliant, and I can't believe I have never thought of it before. Two questions: 1) Do you begin building the warriors immediately, or do you build a worker first? 2) Does the computer not just send out workers/settlers from the other side of the city from where you're camped?

Well, the way my starts usually go, I time the completion of my first worker for the turn before I get bronze working... Benefits are that 1) you'll be able to start chopping as soon as he's out, and hurry more workers/military units fast, and 2), your city has a chance to grow because you're not building settlers/workers right off the bat. It slows you down a bit in the short term, but on a slightly longer timeframe, it speeds you up since your city is more productive for all those future settlers/workers. On Marathon (that's what I play exclusively) I usually have two to three warriors out before I even start building a worker, and my city is between size 3 and 5. If you're pulling this strategy too, you'll likely be able to snag a worker from the enemy as well.

Three things. First, no - those settlers/workers just stay camped in the city. The CPU could easily just walk it out escorted by its umpteen million archers, or even walk it out the other side, but they aren't programmed to think that way. It must be the case that they are programmed to think "Enemy unit beside the city means that my settler isn't safe, so I leave it in the city." Works out great for the human player... In my last game, I did this to Saladin in a wide open, middle of the continent space, and his settler just sat there (under 15 or so archers on a hill ) until I came at it with leisurely catapults and swordsmen rush.

Two, you have to do this fast. On Immortal, I find that if I wait for archers to do this, the enemy will have founded a second city, and then you're done. Get your first two or three warriors into the enemy territory fast.

Three, some civs are more likely to attack your blockade than others. Boudica busted a too weak siege recently because I got cocky. Sometimes you have to make sure you get those 5 units (that's been my magic number - at least three archers with a few other units) up there relatively fast, because some civs spam archers very early. Even if they do attack though, they never attack with more than a few at a time... Until they get you on the ropes.

Seriously, when I started doing this, it made my rex game so much easier. Been three months of this now, and I haven't looked back once.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Just a few comments on the Tank debate:
1. The German Panzer in game is based on the PzkW V Panther not the PzkW IV which was much boxier.
2. While the T34/76 was a better all round tank than the PzkW IV it was notably inferior to the Panther in any respect you'd care to mention aside from ease of maintenance. Even upgunned as the T34/85 it was not a match for the Panther one on one due to the excllence of the Panther's 75mm gun and its armour.
3. The big reason for German armoured superiority during WW2 was not the vehicles themselves, some of which were excellent notably the Panther, but most were mediocre. The real reason was tactics and effective coordination and leadership through the use of radios, something which most T34's lacked.
4. Many have argued and I would agree that the Panther was one of the best all around tanks until the advent of the T54/55 in the 50's.

All true
Also worth noting
It was not German tank superiority that won them their Blitzkrieg campaigns in the early part of the war
Most of their tanks at this time were light Panzer I and IIs and medium Panzer IIIs, no better than the British and French tanks of the period. It was their use of armoured formations that made the difference. The French and British were using their tanks as infantry support dispersed in small numbers
The Panther was not built in sufficient numbers to ever replace the Panzer IV as the workhorse of German armoured units
German military production worked on a different model to the Russian and US. More craftsmanship, more specialisation. It has been suggested that this was a bad thing and producing more mediocre tanks (like the US did with the Sherman) rather than devoting a lot of resources into producing limited numbers of the more advanced designs would have helped their war effort more

 

[IagoAlberto]

Very good points amazon queen,
It has been argued by many people including Heinz Guderian and Albert Speer in their memoirs that production of the 'Super-Tanks', especially the PzkW VI King Tiger, and more importantly assault guns really hurt German production. The Germans never settled on producing one type of medium tank or heavy tank for that matter, even after the introduction of the Panther in later 1942 and fixing its glitches by fall 1943 the PzkW IV continued in production to the end of the war. As far as the anti-tank assault guns these were mandated to be produced by Hitler in far greater numbers than the army wanted or needed. So the Assault Guns often ended up replacing actual tanks, which they had far less tactical untility than, due to the lack of a turret.

The lay-person and amateur historian so often portray German production as super-organized and efficient especially during the war. This was just not true, the political structure of Nazi Germany resembled a semi-feudal state. As a result prioritization of production and standardization of methods was haphazard and always subject to the whims of Hitler or one of his many lackeys. Really whats more incredible is what they achieved in spite of their organization.