Some Civ's better than others?

[The Rook]

What Civ do you play and why? I used to always play the Rpmans, but my latest game I have switched to the Japanese, and I find life so much easier.

The Romans start of usually with the Egyptians and Greeks nearby. In the early game, these two can be big pains in the rear. The Egyptians get the war chariot very early, and they are cheap to build. The Greeks get the Hoplite, which are very hard to dislodge from a city. The Roman Legionaries are great, but they are no better at offense than the regular swordsmen.

In my current game, I am in a big war against my old team the Romans. I haven't even gotten my first Samurai, but I'm still putting the hurt on them. I can see why, I have had a hard time in the past playing as the Romans.

Has any of you had good success with the Romans? Maybe, I'm just wrong about them. The best I ever did with them was one game, where I immediately saught out both Greece, and Egypt and smited them before they could give me any problems.

I know the civs are not created equal. Some will have strengths over others during specific time periods. It just seems to me that the Romans are in a tough situation.

[Dis]

well it depends on your style

I tried the romans, didn't like them for some reason (because I lost ).

I love militaristic and religious. so aztecs and japanese are 2 of my favs. Everyone keeps saying how good France is, but they take to long to become good. I want to dominate early.

[Sean]

I play as the English. That expansionist advantage is good early on. A couple of scouts allow you take advantage of huts on a large land -mass. I also like the commercial benefits of the English, as it reduces corruption. Having said all that, I am sure other civs have a lot to offer.

[Velociryx]

Good thread, and I'd have to say absolutely yes!

Partly, it depends on your preferred playing style, as has been mentioned, but also on map size, amount of water, and difficulty setting (ie - Militaristic civs are heinously powerful on the harder levels!).

Some civs too, just have attributes that go together...synergy. The Aztecs/Japanese....Militarism and Religion is a potent combination, and when you consider the other strengths of those two civs (the Aztecs have what can only be described as a broken UU...wow those guys rock!), and the Japanese start off knowing where the horses are....that's powerful stuff!

Contrast that to the Zulu, for example. They are Militaristic/Expansionistic, which on the surface looks good together....until you realize that their UU works against the civ as a whole (saddling a militaristic civ with a defensive unit is bad enough, but the whole POINT of Expansionism is the 2-move scout! The Impi has two moves, and comes early in the game, meaning that the Zulu could have just done away with Expansionism and taken ANY other ability and been better off for it).

So yep....clearly....not all civs are made the same....

-=Vel=-

[Moraelin]

As was said, it really depends on your playing style.

E.g., one of my favourites is Greece. Early in the game you'll have a UU that gives you all the defense you'll ever need until the late middle ages, and later in the game you have Commercial which means less corruption. (Right. That corruption which everyone is complaining about.) And slightly more money. And scientiffic means cheap libraries and universities, which means cheap culture AND reasearch. All around a very nice package if you play it right.

E.g., take the Persians. Industrious means you can build LOTS of roads and irrigation and mines very quickly, and those immortals can storm any city until the late middle ages without breaking a sweat. You get Knight class offense power, at less cost and without horses. Or a Longbowman with twice the defense and at less tech requirements. And they're Scientific too. Not bad at all.