Your Go-To Civs (Civ 6)

[DWilson]

Definitely Rome (whose abilities tend to simply super charge or expedite my normal game play) and Russia (because I like broad empires and plenty of Holy Sites and culture without needing to remember to build theater squares as early).

I'm frustrated with myself because I really want to enjoy games as Persia (especially so) and the Cree, but I almost always find myself losing interest after early game (also especially so as Persia). They've got fascinating histories and fun and uniques that are, well, unique that sound so great, but which never seem to satisfy. I'm not as interested in Nubia's history, but their uniques similarly seem fun but disappoint or bore me in practice.

 

[AmazonQueen]

The Aztec lasted a couple hundred years. The Zulu Kingdom lasted ten. The Macedonian Empire (as opposed to the kingdom) barely made it a single decade and died with its founder. Conversely...


Russia, England, France, Germany, and Japan all date back well over a thousand years (as civilizations, ignoring changes in government). Japan can probably be dated to about 1,600 years ago; the Anglo-Saxon and Frankish invasions were about 1,500 years ago; Kievan Rus' and the Holy Roman Empire were established 1,200 years ago. China has been around for more like 3,000.


Most of the civs you listed as "lasting the test of time" were brilliant but short-lived, while the "modern world powers" you mentioned all have ancient histories except America, which is an unusual case that, in the long run, will probably fit better on a list with the Aztec rather than China and France.

The Zulu Kingdom was more like 60 years from Shaka's coming to power in 1818 to Cetshwayo's defeat by the British in 1878.
I'm not convinced the length an empire lasted is a good basis for if it should be included or not. Certainly not by itself.

 

[Naeshar]

My go-to civs in a particular order:
Norway - because Vikings!
Japan - because Samurai!
Arabia - because ... music! And also getting religion.
Spain - because missions...
England - just because!
Greece (pericles) - because of culture and hoplites.
France - because Chateaux!

Others are mediocre I play to ge the achievements. I hate Russia, America or Germany, and don't really enjoy playing all the easy-mode civilizations. When it comes to having a fun game, powerlevel and effectiveness must not decide. A game is to overcome the odds, not to get rid of them at the start.

 

[Patine]

The Aztec lasted a couple hundred years. The Zulu Kingdom lasted ten. The Macedonian Empire (as opposed to the kingdom) barely made it a single decade and died with its founder. Conversely...


Russia, England, France, Germany, and Japan all date back well over a thousand years (as civilizations, ignoring changes in government). Japan can probably be dated to about 1,600 years ago; the Anglo-Saxon and Frankish invasions were about 1,500 years ago; Kievan Rus' and the Holy Roman Empire were established 1,200 years ago. China has been around for more like 3,000.


Most of the civs you listed as "lasting the test of time" were brilliant but short-lived, while the "modern world powers" you mentioned all have ancient histories except America, which is an unusual case that, in the long run, will probably fit better on a list with the Aztec rather than China and France.

Yes, but since you just reaffirmed my statement, is the bias toward civ's you were short-lived and DIDN'T last "the test of time" (you seem to have left my negative qualifier out of the quote) being often regarded by strong player consensus to be somewhat more powerful civ's in play a deliberate conceit for some reason or other by Firaxis developers?

The Zulu Kingdom was more like 60 years from Shaka's coming to power in 1818 to Cetshwayo's defeat by the British in 1878.
I'm not convinced the length an empire lasted is a good basis for if it should be included or not. Certainly not by itself.

I'm not at all advocating exclusion from the game for any civ in this point here. I'm just wondering if there's a deliberate bias, for whatever motivation, by Firaxis game developers, to make civ's that historically had a brief but brilliant flash of success that ended long ago seem more powerful in player consensus in play than longer-lasting civ's, many of which still exist as world powers in the RW today.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Yes, but since you just reaffirmed my statement, is the bias toward civ's you were short-lived and DIDN'T last "the test of time" (you seem to have left my negative qualifier out of the quote) being often regarded by strong player consensus to be somewhat more powerful civ's in play a deliberate conceit for some reason or other by Firaxis developers?

I think it's because Civ doesn't (and shouldn't) have as strong of a "decline" mechanism as Real Life does. Those short lived civs you mention had very powerful traits/ideal situations ("uniques" if you will) that got them there, so they're mostly reasonable choices for the game traits. If Alexander were immortal perhaps his Empire would have lasted much longer.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

Yes, but since you just reaffirmed my statement, is the bias toward civ's you were short-lived and DIDN'T last "the test of time" (you seem to have left my negative qualifier out of the quote) being often regarded by strong player consensus to be somewhat more powerful civ's in play a deliberate conceit for some reason or other by Firaxis developers?

I agree with you. A variant of the old adage “dead men tell no tales” comes to mind. For civ I think it's "dead civs cause no trouble."

I'd wager the choice to make the dead civs OP is because Firaxis doesn't want people living in real world civs to feel slighted by another real world civ being represented as OP.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I agree with you. A variant of the old adage “dead men tell no tales” comes to mind. For civ I think it's "dead civs cause no trouble."

I'd wager the choice to make the dead civs OP is because Firaxis doesn't want people living in real world civs to feel slighted by another real world civ being represented as OP.

Are Australia the exception that proves the rule?

 

[BarbarianHunter]

Are Australia the exception that proves the rule?

Australia certainly tests the boundaries of the theory, and there are exceptions to every rule. In the end I think Patine is right though, the dead civs are generally more OP than the living.

 

[DWilson]

So, is the thought that Firaxis makes the shorter lasting civs seem stronger to better justify their inclusion, whereas (for the most part) civs that have actually stood the test of time don't need justification and can still be a fun and accepted inclusion with fairly weak abilities?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Well, by definition a "dead" civ will have earlier uniques which typically are more useful, so on average they should be a little better. And if a short lived civ is still talked about today, it must have done something pretty darn fantastic to still be remembered.

Of course that idea doesn't account for Egypt, but I think something just went wrong there. I don't think it's a conspiracy against living cultures.

 

[Zaarin]

The Zulu Kingdom was more like 60 years from Shaka's coming to power in 1818 to Cetshwayo's defeat by the British in 1878.
I'm not convinced the length an empire lasted is a good basis for if it should be included or not. Certainly not by itself.

Ah, I was looking at the time it was protectorate of the UK; Wikipedia say it lasted 81 years. Still, not very long in the scheme of things. And I certainly wasn't arguing that length of existence is an argument for inclusion; NB I'm a huge fan of including the Palmyrene Empire, which lasted three years, albeit as a sort of stand in for Iron Age Aram.

Yes, but since you just reaffirmed my statement, is the bias toward civ's you were short-lived and DIDN'T last "the test of time" (you seem to have left my negative qualifier out of the quote) being often regarded by strong player consensus to be somewhat more powerful civ's in play a deliberate conceit for some reason or other by Firaxis developers?

Sorry, I misread your post. I thought you were describing the Aztec and Macedon as long-lived empires and France and China as modern newcomers, which...obviously is the opposite of the case. Okay, we're on the same page now. Still not entirely certain I agree with your assessment, though: sure, the Aztec are a powerhouse, but Germany is OP to the point of being broken even after debuffing IMO. That being said, I think there's a definite trend in Civ6 of "buffing the underdog," wherein civs that were not necessarily historically extremely powerful are extremely powerful in game (the Cree spring to mind) and civs that have been major world powers are weaker in game (like poor pathetic England).

 

[Disgustipated]

There's a pretty wide variety of civs people are playing it appears. Though I haven't seen anyone mention Georgia LOL. No one wants to play them. Would be interesting if there was a way to see which civs are being played the most.

civs that have been major world powers are weaker in game (like poor pathetic England).

And the U.S. Oh how I wish Firaxis would make America great again. Not that they've ever been great in any civs game. Their traits in Civ 4 weren't that strong. I can't remember how they were in Civ3, however.

 

[shaglio]

And the U.S. Oh how I wish Firaxis would make America great again. Not that they've ever been great in any civs game. Their traits in Civ 4 weren't that strong. I can't remember how they were in Civ3, however.

America was top of the power rankings in Civs 1 & 2. But, by "top" I mean all civs were tied for 1st place (a minor technicality).

 

[Patine]

I can't remember how they were in Civ3, however.

Abe Lincoln looked absolutely ridiculous with a Visigoth helmet in his Ancient-era portrait, is all I recall there...

America was top of the power rankings in Civs 1 & 2. But, by "top" I mean all civs were tied for 1st place (a minor technicality).

In Civ1 and 2, outside of custom scenarios, civ's only differed from each other in name, leader name, default city names, player colour, starting location (on pre-made maps that included them), and default city architecture graphics (in Civ2, at least, and that was only relevant until you researched Industrialization, and then all your city graphics turned to "industrial" city graphics).

 

[shaglio]

In Civ1 and 2, outside of custom scenarios, civ's only differed from each other in name, leader name, default city names, player colour, starting location (on pre-made maps that included them), and default city architecture graphics (in Civ2, at least, and that was only relevant until you researched Industrialization, and then all your city graphics turned to "industrial" city graphics).

And if I remember correctly, Civ 1 had 14 civs but only 7 colors. So if you played a civ of one color, the other civ that shared that color wouldn't appear. I think China and France were both pink, so if you played China, France wouldn't appear in the game.

 

[Tech Osen]

Well, by definition a "dead" civ will have earlier uniques which typically are more useful, so on average they should be a little better. And if a short lived civ is still talked about today, it must have done something pretty darn fantastic to still be remembered.

Of course that idea doesn't account for Egypt, but I think something just went wrong there. I don't think it's a conspiracy against living cultures.

I think it's more a result of the game play. Early conquest of your neighbors is a solid tactic for any victory condition because bigger is better. And like Sammy here said: these 'OP' civs that didn't stand the test of time all have units or mechanics that really help in the ancient/classical/medieval eras.

 

[AmazonQueen]

There's a pretty wide variety of civs people are playing it appears. Though I haven't seen anyone mention Georgia LOL. No one wants to play them. Would be interesting if there was a way to see which civs are being played the most.



And the U.S. Oh how I wish Firaxis would make America great again. Not that they've ever been great in any civs game. Their traits in Civ 4 weren't that strong. I can't remember how they were in Civ3, however.

Late game unit F-15. I think UUs were the only difference between the civs in III apart from AI behaviour.
At least in VI their UA is useful from the start.

 

[WillowBrook]

I still haven't played three civs and need to replay another handful to get achievements, but if I ever get to the point of choosing what civ to replay, I'll likely give Indonesia and Norway another whirl.

And if they ever make it so my allies can't attack my city states (or someone figures out how to mod it!), I want to come up with some sort of fun challenge with Georgia and envoys.

 

[Tech Osen]

Though I haven't seen anyone mention Georgia LOL. No one wants to play them.

Not that I play them a lot but the times I did I found actually quite enjoyable. I can't stand Tamar as an AI though, this constant "it's against my better judgement to interact with you even tough we have been allies for centuries" attitude gets on my nerves.

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

I have managed to finally beat the game with every civilization. Georgia is the only civilization I will actively (and randomly) avoid ever playing again.