Hardest Civ to play

[smbakeresq]

What do you consider the hardest civ to play?

[Willem]

I don't think there are any "hard" civs, they all have their strengths and weaknesses. It all depends on your style of play.

[Krill]

Alot depends on the start...

[pedrojedi]

I have difficulties with the japanese, that's for sure. I think it's the lack of any bonus to civics, maitenance or such; a very combat-oriented civ, it's difficult to me to balance building with warmongering. Their special building come late in the game and, IIRC, gives +1 , which adds to builder difficulties.

Or I just suck big time.

[snoopy369]

I love the Japanese Samurai...

[joncnunn]

Re: Hardest Civ to play

Whichever civ is designed with the opposite game strategy than your prefered strategy.

For me that would probably be the Aztecs since their UB only has an advantage over the regular Court House if you pop rush and I would generallly perfer the regular Swordmen to their UU.

Originally posted by smbakeresq
What do you consider the hardest civ to play?

[joncnunn]

On the Japanese, between their Agressive & Protective traights, the Musketmen amounts to a second UU with free Dril, CR, and Combat I.
(Kind of like Native Americans and Archers built in cities with Baracks + Tolem Poles.)

[pedrojedi]

Originally posted by joncnunn
On the Japanese, between their Agressive & Protective traights, the Musketmen amounts to a second UU with free Dril, CR, and Combat I.
(Kind of like Native Americans and Archers built in cities with Baracks + Tolem Poles.)

Any gunpowder unit, oh yeah, which brings some appeal. I thought about it as well. The advantage goes all the way to mech infantry, which is quite a powerful combo.

[Fleme]

The Japanese, for me as well, are really hard to start off with but if your stars are aligned properly and you manage to get going, they aren't that different. Turns out I've had some of my best games with the Japanese and no-one who likes a bit of war can deny the appeal of the Samurai.

[wodan11]

Here's how I look at it: with the Japanese you cannot ignore your economy. With most other leaders, you can be have (economically) sloppy gameplay or you can indulge a desire to go to war at an (economically) inopportune time.

[rah]

Yeah, it takes a lot more effort to keep your economy on par with the others, but Samurai's can be fun. And later gunpowder units also.

[Blaupanzer]

As an AI, the Japanese thrive early, then drop off due to their lagging economy and therefore science. As to hardest to play, the Russians, especially Peter, are also harder to play due to the lateness of their unit and especially, their UB. Two of the American leaders are alright, even though their unit/UB are the latest in the game but I have had no luck with Lincoln. Neither German leader is particularly impressive either.

I am a builder by nature, trying to learn to be more aggressive as the mid to late game gets very tough with over half the civs vassaled to another AI civ -- often 2 or 3 to one AI civ. Creative and organized work best for me, spiritual and financial come next, expansionist, industrial, and aggressive can be useful. Charismatic helps early and shows value quickly in a war. However, imperial, philosophical, and protective seem to contribute very little to my style. Several civs have the latter attributes in combination, so are harder for me.

Thus, Sulieman is toughest for me to play.

Two others with the "bad" trait combinations are not as hard due to the civ. These are Charlemagne and Sitting Bull with buildings and units are a big help, despite the leader's traits.

[wodan11]

Suleiman?!? Zounds. I find him huge as a result of his traits and UB.

[HalfLotus]

Any civ/leader with Protective trait seems weak to me.

[Theben]

Protective shows it's value early on when fighting off raging barbs and later in the gunpowder era, when such units can operate effectively both on offense and defense.