Long story short production & resource advantages are generally stronger than miltary advantages. On paper the Incas appear to be the strongest civ, as they solve the early Wealth problem that all other civs must deal with very neatly. Technological advantages are usually also strong, so you would expect the Greeks to be a solid civ.
(Examples of the tradition: Psilons, Klackons in MOO...Yang, Zakharov in SMAC...while not DOMINANT if you leave out Psilons, given equal play skill these types of civs/factions/races tend to win more frequently)
However, 3 simple words ensure balance in THIS game:
Plunder: 500 ALL
That is what keeps the rush/military civs viable.
The game is at its heart a slightly more complex (and much more addictive) version of rock paper scissors...there are two options, rush and boom, and different degrees of boom (depending on how much defensive infrastructure you want to build). Pure rush dominates pure boom, but failed rush is ALWAYS disaster...the tricky act of balancing on the tip of the boom sword is what makes the game interesting IMO.
I think you can safely advance the argument that a civ that neither booms nor rushes particularly well is in a great deal of trouble. However, the civs singled out in this thread as "weak" are both solid boomers. In addition to production bonuses, the Mayans can get away with spending next to nothing on military early and still clock any invading force, and that is NOT a bonus to be sneered at. With the ability to accumulate Knowledge right away, the Greeks are VERY capable researchers and should be the game's tech leader in a near pure boom.
Based on play experience I suspect that Uber's list of favorite civs will eventually be identified as marginally better boomers than some of the other civs (Incans get mines, Bantu get turf, Egyptians own the key Wonders in PvP).
If any civs deserve to be picked on, it would be the two that are neither strong rushers nor boomers, the Nubians and Russians. However, both are certainly viable...the flexibility the Nubians offer is unmatched, and the Russians have their own strange assets which come into their own once spying becomes critical (and may God help you if they get the Kremlin). The Russians in particular are hard to deal with if you've never faced good Russian players before.
So figure out what works for you and get to it...you'll see me out there with Bantu and Incans mostly, as that's what works well for me.
(Examples of the tradition: Psilons, Klackons in MOO...Yang, Zakharov in SMAC...while not DOMINANT if you leave out Psilons, given equal play skill these types of civs/factions/races tend to win more frequently)
However, 3 simple words ensure balance in THIS game:
Plunder: 500 ALL
That is what keeps the rush/military civs viable.
The game is at its heart a slightly more complex (and much more addictive) version of rock paper scissors...there are two options, rush and boom, and different degrees of boom (depending on how much defensive infrastructure you want to build). Pure rush dominates pure boom, but failed rush is ALWAYS disaster...the tricky act of balancing on the tip of the boom sword is what makes the game interesting IMO.
I think you can safely advance the argument that a civ that neither booms nor rushes particularly well is in a great deal of trouble. However, the civs singled out in this thread as "weak" are both solid boomers. In addition to production bonuses, the Mayans can get away with spending next to nothing on military early and still clock any invading force, and that is NOT a bonus to be sneered at. With the ability to accumulate Knowledge right away, the Greeks are VERY capable researchers and should be the game's tech leader in a near pure boom.
Based on play experience I suspect that Uber's list of favorite civs will eventually be identified as marginally better boomers than some of the other civs (Incans get mines, Bantu get turf, Egyptians own the key Wonders in PvP).
If any civs deserve to be picked on, it would be the two that are neither strong rushers nor boomers, the Nubians and Russians. However, both are certainly viable...the flexibility the Nubians offer is unmatched, and the Russians have their own strange assets which come into their own once spying becomes critical (and may God help you if they get the Kremlin). The Russians in particular are hard to deal with if you've never faced good Russian players before.
So figure out what works for you and get to it...you'll see me out there with Bantu and Incans mostly, as that's what works well for me.
Comment