Useless Civs

[Comrade Tribune]

Are there Civs that are positively useless as they stand? I would define a Civ as 'positively useless', if it is bettered by at least one other Civ in (more or less) every respect.

Example: I think there is a case for considering the English (Civ -not real life!) useless. Why play the English if you can play the Romans? Mil-Com is better than Exp-Com, the Legion is clearly more useful than the MoW. Even worse, the English abilities and UU don´t fit: On Pangaea, Exp is good, but MoW is useless. On Archipelago, MoW may be somewhat useful, but Exp is irrelevant. There is no perfect world for the English, but nearly every world type (except Archipelago, perhaps) is good for the Romans.

Is there ANY reason at all to prefer the English to the Romans? If not, they are clearly outclassed, and therefore useless. Other similar examples?

[Lord Merciless]

People may want to play the most 'useless' civ as a challenge?

[One_Brow]

I would think that the English have an advantage on huge Archipelago maps with 60% water.

[Comrade Tribune]

You are right; thinking along that line, large/continents/60% water might also do. Still, the problem with their UU remains: It is obsolete in no time. Before you can build a large fleet of MoW, the first Ironclads will show up, no?

I think the English, with their enormous Victorian Empire, should be one of the best Civs, but in the game they are really one of the worst.

[sabrewolf]

expansionist is only good on large and huge maps. on the same maps, commercial is one of the better ones too (less corruption when many cities are built).

for "normal" games (e.g. standard size) both traits lose their power and on smaller maps they are completely useless.

however: the UU is imho totally useless. not much more powerful than normal frigates, comes late and only a few turns before the ironclad. even on archipelagio-maps there isn't a lot of naval warfare... civ3 and it's AI just isn't made for that...

i usually play english in scenarios (e.g. WW2) or if i feel like playing a harder game without having to play deity...

[Nuclear Winter]

Another useless civ is the Zulu. What is the use of a spearman with 2 mov if he won´t be attacking anyway?

[One_Brow]

Originally posted by Nuclear Winter
Another useless civ is the Zulu. What is the use of a spearman with 2 mov if he won´t be attacking anyway?

Send in one or two with a horseman stack to absord counter-attacks from opposing archers/swordmen.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Nuclear Winter
Another useless civ is the Zulu. What is the use of a spearman with 2 mov if he won´t be attacking anyway?

a) great for escorting a bunch of horsemen
b) great for early game pillaging in multiplaying

[Homunculus]

I'd think the english UU should really be the LONGBOWMAN. the longbow was a typically english weapon and used by no other civ.
with PTW i think longbowman (as English UU) should be 5.2.1 and normal unit crossbowman 4.1.1 (or 3.2.1, but thats the swordman..)

Judging "useless" from which countries i play with (side note, i usually play large or huge earth maps with correct starting locs)

-babylon
-persia (thats because of my playing style)
-greece (i dunno, but i never played em..)
-zululand
-Japan (island too small)
-England (see Japan)

I have yet to form my oppinion on the PtW civs..

[siredgar]

There are no useless civs! They can all be used. If you don't want one, replace it with one you want by going to the CivEditor.

[orange]

expansionist also gets you an early settler from a hut about 33% of the time, friendly huts throughout, and you can gain a good look at the map to sell once you reach other tribes and have researched map making.

Expansionist is good...but what I always need is Industrious...Industrious and anything and I'm set.

[HAND]

If being a commercial civ (English) allowed you to build marketplaces and banks quicker then it would be one of the best!

[Ribannah]

Well, it does (less corruption).
In fact it allows you to build EVERYTHING faster.

[Beren]

Originally posted by Homunculus
I'd think the english UU should really be the LONGBOWMAN. the longbow was a typically english weapon and used by no other civ.
with PTW i think longbowman (as English UU) should be 5.2.1 and normal unit crossbowman 4.1.1 (or 3.2.1, but thats the swordman..)

Nice scheme, but normally a UU only gets on bonus point (making him 5/1/1 or 4/2/1) and besides the crossbow was used a long time ago in China (I don't know when) and used in Europe by the 11th century, while longbows started to appear at earliest at the end of the 13th century. I think there's a gap.
More importantly, I don't think the English golden age was the Hundred Year War (neither the time of MoW, I think of ninteenth century England: it was unequalled at that time.)

[The Pioneer]

It's a funny thing that all through the years I've played with the same few civs. I usually play Greeks, Americans and the Germans. I've experimented very little with other civs but I will try some when I get PTW next. I really do not care for the traits, I use most the same strategy for all my civs. Now don't you call me boring

So long...

[AroSch]

I agree, the English seems to be a little bad - not unless. If you play a map of the world or of europe and the English are starting at ther island, they are much more disadvantaged then other expansionst Civs. And ther UU is a joke, IMHO. Only a few turns and steamships are available. Don't missunderstand me, I love naval power, I love playing the English too (but I have to change rules, if naval power shall become important. ). Industrios seems to be the better choise instead of exp. for the English. They was the first ind. Civ in RW ever...

[Homunculus]

Originally posted by Beren
Nice scheme, but normally a UU only gets on bonus point (making him 5/1/1 or 4/2/1) and besides the crossbow was used a long time ago in China (I don't know when) and used in Europe by the 11th century, while longbows started to appear at earliest at the end of the 13th century. I think there's a gap.
More importantly, I don't think the English golden age was the Hundred Year War (neither the time of MoW, I think of ninteenth century England: it was unequalled at that time.)

well in this case i was thinking about PtW, there are units with a lot more upgrade (cavalry UU with 8.3.3)
and 4.2.1 is the medieval infantry there.. I know longbows were a bit later in their use, what could be done to keep it "historically accurate" is get the english crossbowmen and then 1 tech later (or maybe 2) give them the longbowman.

and besides, the iroquois *whatevertheyarecalled* were'nt used in the same time as other horsemen either

[sabrewolf]

beren and homunculus,

you're both right. all UUs in civ3 have only 1 extra upgrade point. however if you look at the percentage (which is what really counts in combat), it's different:
hoplites have 50% more defense than the default unit. mounted warrior has 50% more attack. and bowmen even have the DOUBLE defense of normal archers.

the PTW special cavalry with 8 attack has "only" 33% more attack than the ordinary one. it's still powerful, but the combat-difference is smaller.

and anyway... PTW units with more than +1 upgrade often cost a lot more (hell... gallic swordsmen cost 60 or 70 shields, but are only slightly stronger at defending than mounted warriors!)

[King_Henry]

Originally posted by Nuclear Winter
Another useless civ is the Zulu. What is the use of a spearman with 2 mov if he won´t be attacking anyway?

Horsemen can't retreat against other fast units,like the impis. And yes, they can help escort your horsemen.

[trevor]

A littlw while back I saw a English Colonial Infantry unit (think of the movie Zulu). I'm not sure if it was ever completed though. Sad if it wasn't, because it would fit perfectly with the English golden age.

[High_Lord]

any civ can be useful I just dont think any of them are completely useless

[Oerdin]

Without a doubt the English Man-O-War is the worst special unit in the game. The English are additionally handicapped by have the Commercial ability which defacto is meaningless in the game.

[sabrewolf]

oerdin
i used to think the english have the most useless traits. and actually, for my games i still think so.

but on large and huge maps, commercial and expansionistic are considered extremely powerful.
specially the commercial is good for a strong economy without having all cities more than 10 tiles away from the capital absolutely crippeled by corruption.
an expansionist's ideal world is huge, pangean and has sedentary barbarians. you'll know all oponents, the whole map and all ancient technologies by the time the others are halfway through the ancient era.

however, the UU is indisputably the most useless of all...

[Daz]

I'm getting a feeling Greece in getting underrated. I mean, commercial, scientific and a good UU to start the game with.

I look at it this way: Build good cities, defend'em with your hoplites, get tech fast. This should give you a competetive edge to be able to expand and with less corruption too.

Right now I play greeks and have a huuuge empire and relatively low corruption. And the russian cossack is easily overrun with tanks

[Yanghead]

Greece is an excellent civ. 1/3/1 UU with an ancient era golden age = first into middle ages plus scientific helps you here with cheaper libraries and universities and commercial gives you cheaper markets etc plus more trade arrows and less corruption. All in all greece is in the top three, I think Carthage is better 2/3/1 UU with commercial and Industrious. In my experiance its the millitary and expansionist civs that suck the most. No matter who I play, or the difficulty level I concider myself extreemly lucky to get even one leader, who becomes an army and attacks ONCE then hides until I can build the wounders that this victorious army grants me. Have never tried the Scandinavians or any of the african civs except Egypt, but it seems to me Military and Exp together make for a very weak civ unless you have an amazing UU.

[Jamski]

You can let the army die after one victory, Yanghead, you can still build the HE and the Military Whotsit later.

Regarding the English MoW : What this unit is good for is the timing of the Golden Age. A bee-line for Magnetism, and then the vital early Industrial techs come much more easily. The Ottomans have that same effect, but a "useless = non required" tech has to be researched first. Also the English starting techs means that they can almost always be the first to study Mapmaking, so the first to get building the Lighthouse, which can lead to a huge advantage to expansion & contact in the early game. And some people are English, and like to play as them

Every Civ has its advantages. I have won with all except the Zulu, as I have hated them since Civ1.

-Jam

[Gangerolf]

edit

[Centauri18]

I understand that the Expansionistic trait is not very useful, but remember - expansionistic civs are more likely to get free techs from barbarian villages in the ancient age. I myself think you ought to get free techs all through the game, but oh well.
I once used a few scouts to explore nearly every barbarian village on the small continent I was alone on, and got nearly every ancient teach, and was in the Middle Ages in no time flat.

[HAND]

The best approach to have with English is grow VERY quickly to monopolise resoucres and luxuries...In the long run, raking in the cash from trade and the commercial trait.
Its not too important to concentrate on research at the start, since scouts will be producing alot of tech from goody huts which will also be good for trading.
Again, the problem is the threat of attack for not having as many troops, that probably decides if you succeed or not.

[Jamski]

Originally posted by HAND
The best approach to have with English is grow VERY quickly to monopolise resoucres and luxuries....

And one of the best ways to get ahead in this game (apart from early rushes) is to REX the arse of the AI, and for this the English are the best, especially if they can pop Masonry and get the Pyramids, or learn Mapmaking and get the Lighthouse they are unbeatable in a straight race for land (excluding stopping them through force of course )
So the English are NOT useless.

-Jam