The best Civs: Traits and Unique Units...

[=DrJambo=]

In order to give you the best civs i should highlight the best traits :

5. Expansionist. Too random to be desirable as a trait and has a very short shelf life. Could do with a mid- to late-game boost.

4. Commercial. Underpowered, but i hear it will be given a boost in the next patch. The reduction in corruption with 1.21f reduced the effectiveness of this trait. Ideally could do with cheap marketplaces and banks!

3. Scientific/Militaristic. Both good traits, which you'll prefer will depend greatly on your playing style. Culture/tech or warmongering.

2. Religious, 1 turn anarchy is superb, plus cheap temples and cathedrals are fantastic early city improvements and usually essential to any game. How many times has the temple been the first thing you'll build in a conquered city? Sistene Chapel complements well with this trait.

1. Industrious, fast workers are the key to winning the game. Useful throughout and with a shield boost from the capital. Ai civs with this trait will usually give you the best run for your money.

Ok, in short, the best civs. Feel free to argue your points..

From poorest to best, in my opinion:

16. English.
Awful UU and awful traits in Commercial and Expansionist make the English the poorest civ around by a long margin. Can be hard to even trigger the overly late GA with the Man O War. Needs to be very lucky with goody huts to stand a chance. Improvements to their traits and a land-based UU (Longbowman/Crossbowman?) urgently needed. Either that or give them better sea units throughout the ages, since their awful UU only has a shelf-life of one tech until the Ironclad arrives with Steam Power. Shame the age of sail is so short... and that naval units are generally poor overall. IMPROVE the English

15. Zulus.
Militaristic trait is ok but the Expansionist trait is a poor choice for the Zulus. The "fast spearman" Impis are cool looking but serve no real purpose given that the Zulus also have scouts. The Expansionist trait is thus further weakened due to the conflicting roles of the scout and Impis. This civ always seems to do poorly when played by the Ai.

14. Americans.
Industrious trait saves this civ from being the worst since it F15 UU and other trait, Expansionist, are poor. A lucky start and the Americans can be flying, but the late arrival of the useless UU means that you GA and UU are unlikely to have much impact on the game. Aiming to get your GA by other means earlier is essential. Adding lethal bombardment to the F15 and improving its stats could lift this UU from being second worst to the English.

13. Russians.
Expansionist and Scientific traits are not compensated for by the Cossack UU. Adding defensive to a very offensive minded unit doesn't give much of a bonus, plus cossacks are at the end of the upgrading line. Had they been upgradable to tanks this civ's UU would be more useful.

12. Greeks.
The Hoplite is very useful defensively, although rely on being attacked to trigger the early GA. Scientific and Commercial means this civ currently has below average traits. The Greeks favour the tech whoring passive player.

11. Indians
Religious and Commercial traits together provide an average background to an average, but cool looking Elephant UU. If you are in the situation that you don't have the resources for your UU by chivalry then you probably aren't doing very well anyway. Timing of UU is useful though.

10. Romans.
The fantastic, long lasting Legionaire UU is let down by the current Commercial trait. The cool factor and Militaristic trait to go with the UU means this civ is worth a try. Rarely do well as an Ai civ in my experience.

9. French.
In my games, the Ai always plays the French very well. The best trait, Industrious, more than compensates for the currently poor Commercial. UU (musketeers) while not brilliant come at a very good time for GA and useful Wonders.

8. Germans.
The Panzer is a good fun, highly useful UU which means if you're still in the races in the late-game, you can cause some serious trouble! The movement of 3 means the Panzer can retreat from anything. Militaristic and Scientific are useful traits, but unless aggressive the Germans may struggle to keep pace with others due to late UU and possibly late GA.

7. Babylonians.
Mediocre Bowman UU compensates for the above average Scientific and Religious traits. Cheap science and religious buildings are neat, but overall nothing special and possibility of very early GA means this civ sits bang in the middle.

6. Iroquois
Have a superb UU, if used to its aggressive potential. Resulting early GA and randomly useful Expansionist trait mean this civ only sits in 6th place. Religious trait always useful. Potential for delaying the GA possible with the Mounted Warrior.

5. Aztecs.
I think this "fast warrior" UU, is a good UU. It can scout, but it can't enter other civs' territory like the actual scout can without RoPs, which can be expensive. Militaristic and Religious traits are good, but to make use of this civ's potential and its UU, early fighting and bullying is necessary. So hope that other conquerable civs are nearby and be prepared for the early GA.

4. Chinese.
The good, fast Rider with a timely arrival for the GA which complements warfare and makes the Chinese a scary adversary in the middle ages. The Rider doesn't have the shelf life of the Samurai, but makes up for it with manoeuvrability. Militaristic and Industrious compliment this civ well excellently.

3. Persians.
Excellent Immortals UU, which can be useful up to Military Tradition! GA can come a little early, but careful planning can lead to useful timing of GA like the Egyptians. Industrious is superb and Scientific is nice too.

2. Egyptians.
Ok UU (Chariot) with a potentially over-early GA compensates the best trait combination in the game being both Industrious and Religious. Ai usually plays these guys well. Potential for delaying GA by only using the Chariot when GA desired.

1. Japanese.
Excellent Samurai UU, which have a lasting period essentially from chivalry to replacable parts. It doens't even need horses! GA comes at a very useful time. Militaristic complements this well with Religious allowing swift government changes to suit warring as and when desired.

Obviously some of these are subjective to my personal choice, but i don't think there will be much doubt as to the worst civ!! The top four are all close, with maybe the Persians and Japanese sharing my top spot.

Lets hear your thoughts on these...

[Arrian]

I still think Religious beats Industrious by a hair, but it's awfully close.

It all depends on playstyle. If you're agressive, I'd agree with Japan at #1. Then China, then Aztecs, then Iroquois, then Persia, then Germany, then Zululand and Rome (terrible, terrible trait combos).

If building, I'd put Egypt at #1, followed by the Babs, Persia, India and France.

-Arrian

[Jon Shafer]

Overall, I'd have to agree with this list.

However, I expect this to be moved to the Civs forum within a couple hours.

[Harovan]

Russians are expansionist and scientific, not militaristic. And I did not expect the French on such a high place. I would put them in the second half. Overall a good work.

[=DrJambo=]

Thanks for that correction Ralph.

Always done well with the French personally, so i suppose that is why i have them so high up. Suppose that's mainly to do with their timely GA and the Industrious trait. Plus the AI always seems to play them very well!?

[Incan_Warrior]

I completely disagree with your placement of the Aztecs. Pop out a dozen Jag warriors and you can scout yourself a World Map in no time. They can 1) find phatty future city locations, strat. resources and choke points faster 2) contact other Civs faster, allowing better trade options, 3) through their scouting, allow the player to implement faster and better military strategies and 4) can be upgraded to swordsmen. Essentially, the Aztecs not only have religious and militaristic bonuses, but the expansionist bonus as well. While I have not played the Chinese (they sound great), I suggest that the Aztecs at LEAST be placed in the top 5.

[monkspider]

Yep, this was a wonderful list and I thank you for taking the time for writing it out, but I think you greatly underestimate the power of Jaguar Warriors. And I don't think you quite give Impis the credit they deserve either.
All in all, probably the best list of it's sort ever written.

[alexman]

A couple of comments:

1) The success the AI has when playing the civs is not a reliable indicator of the civ's potential when played by a human. The reason is that there are many settings besides the traits and the UU (aggression level, unit and improvement build priorities, prefered government, et cetera) that influence the AI's strategy but not the human's.

2) Such a list depends heavily on map settings. For example, on a huge pangea map, expansionist is not the worst, but by far the best trait. On an archipelago with max water, militaristic is one of the worst.

[khyron]

As I've said elsewhere, I really enjoy playing Babylon. Yeah, Bowmen are kinda dodgy as a UU in my mind. I usually pump out a couple before I find iron, after which they spend some time milling around looking for something to do. Units will come and go, but the legacy you leave your people can last a lifetime. (Yeah, I'm a builder, and I kinda like the culture thing. ) I also like Egypt from time to time. Rel/Ind is a cool combo.

(EDIT-what were those typoes doing there?)

[Venger]

I will be interested to see the changes to Commercial, as they move the Romans into the top echelon (I'd have ranked them a bit higher, I consider their UU superior to the Immortal).

Venger

[FrustratedPoet]

Yeah Venger, I expect the improvements to the Commercial trait to move the Romans up a few places in most people's estimations.
It won't save those poor English, though.

My Best Civs:

Builder: Egypt or Babylon
Warmonger: China or Japan

[dunk]

I also think Egypt should be higher. I don't beleive the War Chariot is poor as they are cheap horsemen (which are very useful). It is a great unit unless you are engulfed in jungle or mountains. Even then they can still travel along roads through these terrain.

Religious is so very handy. And Industrious is a fantastic trait as well.

I would bump down the Persians.

[=DrJambo=]

this is what i love about these threads - the constant debating.

as you can see nobody is wrong and nobody is right, it's all dependent on playing style and personal preferences.

i agree that overall the Aztecs should probably be higher in the table, but i don't like early GAs and early UUs. My favourite, and in my opinion best time for these, is during the middle ages.

As mentioned earlier, it's very hard to differentiate between the top 4 in particular. The improvement to commercial will alter things greatly again. The Romans, French and Indians should see major improvements.

HOWEVER, the English are doomed to depravity no matter what they do to commercial since their UU is so awful it's unbelievable. An improved UU is all that can help them, one hopefully that'll last for a decent amount of time without being surpassed (like the Ironclad does to them now).

[Catt]

Originally posted by =DrJambo= i agree that overall the Aztecs should probably be higher in the table, but i don't like early GAs and early UUs. My favourite, and in my opinion best time for these, is during the middle ages.

Disclaimer: I've grown to enjoy playing random civs on random map settings.

If one always plays specific (or closely related) map settings, one's favorite civs will reflect the effects of the map settings. As Alexman points out, expansionist is (for me) the most volatile of all traits -- great on large landmasses with goody huts but near worthless on archipelago's and /or maps with no barbarians (and therefore no goody huts).

My own favorites, if forced to choose, are Egypt or Japan - for reasons already shared by many others.

And, Dr. Jambo and others who don't like early GA's, I have long argued (though not the first nor the only do to so) that the Egyptian's are the best possible civ for GA timing -- a particularly underutilized tool IMHO. Why are Egyptians so adept at GA timing? The realtive lack of utility of the Egyptian UU. As I posted in a recent thread elsewhere:

When I play the Egyptians [. . . .] I will build 3 or 4 WCs and then just tuck them away in a safe, interior city. Come the late ancient ages or early middle ages, towards the end of a war I can end on my terms, I will haul the WCs out of storage to take down a wounded horseman, archer or longbowman, or even a wounded knight or swordsman.

It's one of the few UUs that are ideal for GA timing -- most of the other ancient and early middle ages UUs are powerful enough compared to their contemporaries that you simply can't forgo using them if the opportunity arises (can you imagine not using hoplites, immortals, legionaries, mounted warriors, samurai, riders when at war?)

The WC's value lies in its relative lack of miltary prowess -- its purpose readily becomes GA timing rather than military advantage.

I of course should have included the Jag Warrior in the list of powerful UUs in my original post.

Catt

[monkspider]

Interesting point Catt, I have never considered such a strategy for the war chariot.
I would say Aztecs are at least top five material, and I would bump France down a couple notches, but DrJambo's point regarding the timing of the otherwise poor Musketeer is a valid one.

I would really like it if you did a list like this once PTW came out Doc. It will be interesting to see how possible changes to the traits plus the new civs will affect things.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Catt
Disclaimer: I've grown to enjoy playing random civs on random map settings.

If one always plays specific (or closely related) map settings, one's favorite civs will reflect the effects of the map settings. As Alexman points out, expansionist is (for me) the most volatile of all traits -- great on large landmasses with goody huts but near worthless on archipelago's and /or maps with no barbarians (and therefore no goody huts).

My own favorites, if forced to choose, are Egypt or Japan - for reasons already shared by many others.

And, Dr. Jambo and others who don't like early GA's, I have long argued (though not the first nor the only do to so) that the Egyptian's are the best possible civ for GA timing -- a particularly underutilized tool IMHO. Why are Egyptians so adept at GA timing? The realtive lack of utility of the Egyptian UU. As I posted in a recent thread elsewhere:

When I play the Egyptians [. . . .] I will build 3 or 4 WCs and then just tuck them away in a safe, interior city. Come the late ancient ages or early middle ages, towards the end of a war I can end on my terms, I will haul the WCs out of storage to take down a wounded horseman, archer or longbowman, or even a wounded knight or swordsman.

It's one of the few UUs that are ideal for GA timing -- most of the other ancient and early middle ages UUs are powerful enough compared to their contemporaries that you simply can't forgo using them if the opportunity arises (can you imagine not using hoplites, immortals, legionaries, mounted warriors, samurai, riders when at war?)

The WC's value lies in its relative lack of miltary prowess -- its purpose readily becomes GA timing rather than military advantage.

I of course should have included the Jag Warrior in the list of powerful UUs in my original post.

Catt

We should have a few WCs and a Mechanized Infantry unit duke it out.

[Arrian]

Catt's absolutely right about the WC. The same thing goes for the Bab bowman. They aren't very powerful, which is actually kinda a good thing. In a tight spot each can be valueable, however. The WC because of its cheapness, the bowman because of its versatility.

Another thing about the WC (which I also have posted elsewhere):

A WC is 20 shields to build. You can build them until you have chivalry. It costs 100 gold to upgrade a WC to a Knight.

Now imagine that you trigger an early medieval golden age. Imagine that you have Leonardo's Workshop. Imagine just how many WC's you can pump out and then upgrade to Knights when you deem the time is right. Imagine... continental domination.

-Arrian

[Apolex]

Excellent list Dr. Jambo... good post. I would agree with most of your assesments and your ordering, except I'm with Incan_Warrior: you've grossly underestimated the Aztecs (again, it depends on your play-style though). Sure the UU makes the GA come really early, but when properly managed it can be extremely potent.

I like playing the Aztecs and building about 4 cities. All the while, mass producing Jaguars and scouting out resources, enemies, land value, choke-points, communications, and trading techs. You can then attack 1-2 of your neighbors based on who your scouts say has the best land/biggest threat potential and spark a GA. Now you have 6-7 cities in a GA, mass-producing units and you can rush 2-3 more neighbors and get a relatively HUGE empire early on that positions you superbly for later stages of the game. Land is the single most important factor to strength, and starting with the Jaguar Warrior allows you to carve out an early empire. It gets progressively harder to take land from the enemy after the Ancient Era and throughout the Middle Ages, so you have to get it early or be left behind by the big boys.

The only Diety game I have won came by playing the Aztecs. The computer controlled Aztecs may not be as strong because the AI is not smart enough to take advantage of their potential. But a skilled human player can build the Aztecs into a very powerful civ.

-Apolex

[Venger]

Originally posted by =DrJambo=
HOWEVER, the English are doomed to depravity no matter what they do to commercial since their UU is so awful it's unbelievable. An improved UU is all that can help them, one hopefully that'll last for a decent amount of time without being surpassed (like the Ironclad does to them now).

The English UU should be the Redcoat, a unit with +1 A/D from the Musketeer.

Venger

[Barchan]

I'd agree with those who think the English should have a superior long bowman. In their day, English long bowmen were the heat, and their rain of wood and iron turned many a battle in England's favor. I'd give an English Long Bowman UU +1 attack, or perhaps even +2 attack or +1 attack and defense to compensate for the fact that it'd be at the end of the upgrade chain. I think a medieval land UU, as well as an earlier shot at a GA, would really help the English compete against their usual neighbors.

I dunno about the redcoat idea, though. True, English musketmen were better disciplined than most others, so a +1 attack could be justified. But it just seems that musketmen come and go so quickly in the game that it'd be almost as useless as the Man-o-War is now. Besides, if anyone were to get another musket-based UU, I’d have to argue that the Americans should get Minutemen (+1 movement). The F-15 comes so late in the game it is generally either icing on your victory cake or your first prototype winds up in your conqueror’s imperial war museum as a trophy.

Lastly, I’d propose boosting the commercial trait by making marketplaces, banks, harbors and airports cheaper to build. Just as religious and scientific traits get their buildings for less, so should the commercial civs. I doubt much more tweaking would be required, especially since corruption’s been largely neutered under v1.21.

Anyway, that’s my $.02.

[notyoueither]

From what I hear, the Romans are terrors as an AI civ to many players.

[=DrJambo=]

hehe good stuff, lots of very valid arguments here.

i think i'll update my original list as a consequence of some very well argued points.

in the current version of my mod, i have the English UU as the Longbowman (+1 att on the now common crossbowman). Seems to help them quite a bit!

The F-15 comes so late in the game it is generally either icing on your victory cake or your first prototype winds up in your conqueror’s imperial war museum as a trophy.

too true.

I wholeheartedly agree with the point you make about Commercial civs getting cheap marketplaces and banks being the boost needed to bring the Commercial trait up to the standard of the others.

However, the Expansionist trait also needs a boost, preferably something in the mid- to late-game to make it more worthwhile.

Updated the list.

[OPD]

Originally posted by =DrJambo=

16. English.
Awful UU and awful traits in Commercial and Expansionist make the English the poorest civ around by a long margin.

Its a shame really that one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen is so poor while other civs such as the japs are so superior, but its only a game I suppose.

I'd like to see the brits have a galley which can travel ocean squares as their UU.

[sabrewolf]

great list!
and very similar to my experiences!

to summarize:
industrious R-U-L-E-Z
expansionist S-U-C-K-S

this must definetly be improved!
specially on tiny to standard maps, the expansionist trait gives maybe 1 tech, a unit, some maps and if you are very very very lucky (one in 20 games) a settler.
on large maps otoh you can get 2-3 settlers (but only if you are NOT building one meanwhile. to me, that means i use an expoit: before entering goody huts, switch all settler-productions to some building, get the goodie and switch back... and then: use that settler immediatly!
but basicly i don't enjoy those maps, so expansionists suck

as for the engish UU: longbowman
either 4|1|1
or maybe even bombard unit with defense 1: 3(3)|1|1...

[Barchan]

Perhaps these have been suggested before, but I'm just thinkin' here....

Two ideas (similar to those for improving the commercial trait) are to introduce reduced-cost granaries, aqueducts and hospitals and/or reduced-cost settlers and workers. This would allow the expansionist civs to expand faster, which is what you'd think they were *supposed* to do in the first place given the name.

Another possibility would be to allow the construction of a trait-specific city improvement (called, perhaps, Provincial Capitol?) that would reduce corruption and waste in the city it's built in *provided that* the city is on a separate land mass from either (a) the civ's capitol or (b) the forbidden palace. This would make a "far-flung" empire possible. No more than a set number could be built per civ, based on the size of the map. This would allow for more historical colonial empires whereby a few "crown jewels" could be grown into local strongholds (think Hong Kong, Singapore, Bombay, etc.).

The final thought would be to increase the distance variable for city corruption so that cities could be further from the capitol without suffering as much corruption as non-expansionist civs.

Now, if you combine these suggestions (even if just the reduced-cost granaries, aqueducts and hospitals) with those for the commercial trait (reduced-cost markets, banks, harbors and airports) the English could jump from basket case to solid competitor. Throw in a useful land-based medieval UU and you just might have a contender.

But again, I'm just thinkin' here....

[monkspider]

good suggestions barchan

[Nuctemeronn]

IMHO Russians belong to the top 5. Here's my reason.

You start with Bronze Working (scientific trait) which means that you can start the game researching Iron working. With fast scouts and some warrior aquired from huts (expansionist trait) you early spot those vital iron resources and secure them building your cities next to them (and if you are very lucky maybe you already have 1-2 free settlers). These way you deny the AI the iron resources and start pump Swordsmen like mad. I find this the only way to defeat quickly some computer controlled AI's and works very well at least on Emperor. I think also that this would be a OK strategy on multiplayer... we see if works soon.
Of course i'm talking about playing on Pangea or Continent based worlds.

Cya.

[Austin]

Given that expansionist civs are supposed to expand, why not give them either reduced or even NO distance corruption?

Then give the commercial civ a resistance to number of cities corruption.

THEN you could actually build an empire upon which the sun never sets without it being as corrupt as a barrel full of Kennedys.

Austin

[dunk]

Originally posted by Austin

as corrupt as a barrel full of Kennedys.

Austin

That is utterly hilarious.

[zorbop]

commersial is not as bad as you all think. although the new patch does lower corruption, there still is SOME corruption. commersial lowers this to very small amount.
with a lsmall money bonus provided by commersial, this means you don't nead demmocrocy for money or anti-corruption.
this means it so you can comcentrate on your war machine full time in communism or even monarchy.

secondly, the zulu UU is not as bad as it seems. they prevent opponents from retreating.

i think ironclads should not be able to cross ocean squares. that would make the english better, and make the game more realistic.

i think the expantion trate should be changed completely. all it gives is an early game advantage, not actual expanding. they should have faster settlers or something.