@@fiddleriddlediddlediddle Say that to SotL if you dare, haha. Both games are great, don't talk bad about a certain game just because you're not on that particular game's channel.
That feeling when the Civ you liked playing when you were 8 because it was green and green was your favorite color is still a favorite because it's one of the strongest in the game.
When I played this game as a boy, I ONLY played as the Celts, because I liked the leader's mustache and I remembered my father saying we were celtic. Even now, if I play as another civ, it feels like adultery.
Or the civ you liked playing when you were 8 because you were from that country is either really good - Indians, Persians and Chinese celebrate - or so bad - Americans look away.
I always played as Byzantium as a kid because it was mysterious to me and I loved the name. Years later, when I met my girlfriend (years before we started going out) she asked me what my favourite civilisation was and I said they Byzantines because it was who I played as in Civ. She thought that was a great answer, and we have always laughed about that since.
When I began playing Civ 3 more, I didn't know they were considered to be crap. I literally picked them only because they don't appear in any other Civ game and their leader looks normal compared to the rest of these cursed leader heads lol.
Played this game since I was a kid with my grandpa. He used to live and breath America on Sid and play a save for days until the entire map was bright blue for the pleasure of it (Would end a game with hundreds of radar arty, and even more nuked captured workers). Hardly ever play it above the normal difficulties, but it reminds me of him. Have almost 1000 hours on steam, and who knows how many from when I needed the CD box sets. Nice to find a channel that isn't letting it die, thank you.
Spot on ranking of the traits. The way I like to describe it - if you're used to playing agricultural, industrial or commercial civs, you are really going to notice it once you play a civ that doesn't have them. That just doesn't apply to any of the other traits (except maybe seafaring on archipelago) - they offer nice perks, but nothing crucial. Agricultural, industrious or commercial make the game significantly easier to win. Also as a historian, can I just say that having Carthage as Industrial and England as Commercial makes no sense - they should switch their traits. Carthage should be commercial (their success was based on commerce. The trade in mediterranean was even one of the reasons for the first punic war with Rome), while England should be industrial (because industrial revolution, duh).
Britain maybe the first to industrialize but it was hardly an industrial powerhouse but had always been a financial one. And into the 20th century and beyond it has deindustrialized too much to deserve that trait.
Yeah I don't understand why everybody dislikes the III. It was very good with all the expansions. In my opinion the worst Civ game is Civ5... The only good thing it has brought is the hexagon tiles.
I presume CIV III was your first CIV experience. I miss CIV II multi- player Gold edition & it's many many excellent scenarios, some radically altering the game. I just wanted a bit of tweaks to improve it... which came with Alpha Centuari that ran on a CIV II base but with radical improvements like to the civics and-never to be repeated ability to personally design units.
Just a quick overview of the rank for a quick reference. Thank you SuedeCivIII for the list! :D 31. Portugal 8:59 30. America 9:42 29. Spain 10:27 28. The Hittites 10:50 27. Mongolia 11:28 26. The Zulu 11:49 25. Carthage 12:07 24. Russia 12:31 23. England 13:12 22. Germany 13:39 21. Japan 14:27 20. Byzantium 14:47 19. Vikings 15:23 18. Rome 16:00 17. Babylon 16:13 16. France 17:29 15. Arabia 18:07 14. Greece 18:46 13. Korea 19:18 12. The Inca 19:39 11. Netherlands 20:07 10. The Ottomans 20:31 9. Egypt 20:54 8. India 21:32 7. The Aztecs 22:15 6. The Mayans 23:00 5. Sumeria 23:53 4. Persia 24:41 3. China 25:16
@@suedeciviii7142 I've been getting it wrong this whole time. When I play against my dad and my brother, my dad is usually either England or America. Me and my brother always wanted Portugal.
Carthage should have been given War elephant and India should have been given something like Gurkha - UU replecement for Rifleman or Guerilla, with either higher offense or extra movement point.
celts are best for conquering early in the games, but ,in civ 3, all the civilizations have cool traits and gameplay differences, but in my opinion the ranking could be a lot different in some cases such as if you are playing on less agressive AI , the iroquois are not very good
Was the french Musketeer changed during one of the expansions? I clearly remember playing civ3 as a kid and he was 3/4/1, not 2/5/1. Even as a clueless kid I knew that was useless... 2/5/1 is pretty solid IMO, 2 musketeers can easily defend border cities against pretty much anyone until cavalry comes into picture. edit: yeah, just checked it, it was changed in Conquests.
Great walkthru on the civs strengths and weaknesses. I would never have thought agricultural was a good choice. I have now played a Regent game with the Iroquois, on a continents map. It went very well! That early growth spurt was so nice. I also like Persia for the more conventional strengths.
@@suedeciviii7142 I think pretty much all new player ALWAYS undervalue agricultural (because its effects is kind of subtle, and +1 food just doesn't sound very exciting), and overvalue militaristic and expansionist, because their effects are more "visible". Also most new players usually go for military victories, so they put militaristic high.
I like that the Iroquois are so good. They are one of my favorite cultures in real life because of Hiawatha and I'm glad to see they're powerful in the game too.
Hello,Suede-I’d like to thank you for this video about all civilizations’ unique units,you told both pros and cons of all units and due to your explanations I use Mounted Warrior very often,it’s very well in war in offensive moments;captures cities amazing and upgrades from regular to veteran and elite incredible and Iroquois are my favorite nation! So thank you very much for all your help,Suede - Well done,Nice work!!!
I loved playing with Persia, one of the few civs that had success with . Probably because I always build every building in each city and waged war with cavalry and tanks
I humbly request 2 videos from you into the future sir. 1. How to wage war/combat guide Currently one of the biggest turn offs from Civ3 for a lot of players is the combat "Why can't my several warriors/spearmen kill 1 spearmen defending a town?!" 2. A comparison video of Civ 5 and Civ 3 like you did for Civ 4 and 3. I mean why not, I personally hate Civ5 but it still happens to be one of the most top played Steam games.
Number 2 was already on my list. Civ 5's not as of a game as 3 or 4 IMO, but there are some excellent features, like the strategic resource system. As for number 1: I actually drafted up a video on that. But it was pretty dry, just me talking in front of the civ 3 combat calculator for 10 minutes. I feel a lot of the war concepts are more based on "feel" (like how many units is enough for a timing push?), and better illustrated with full game play throughs than through a guide.
when you attack a town, sarve it down and destroy the improvments around it , and if you have bombing stuff than use them to bomb the nearby reinforcments that may be coing , higher development will always mean strionger defence, also try to surround the town and find a sweet spot where you can attack without losing too many units. Usualy capturing cities with high population will be a struggle and also if you have looked at files and stuff there is a lot that influences combat, when yous stack units it boosts their defence but it does not give as much as an effect when attacking.
Yup! I'll admit their unique unit is a lot of fun too, despite not being too good. It's fun farming barbarians for workers. Although it's a shame that slave workers don't receive the industrious speed bonus.
Thanks suede, been waiting for this video!! I definitely agree with the Sumeria and Persia being two great civs, especially for new players, as I use them quite often. I was surprised with China as being third on your list but it’s intriguing so I’m definitely gonna start up a game tmr!!
After fiddling around with some AW games, I've come to realize that there's more to numidian mercenary, javelin thrower, and the babylonian bowman. For most civs, to minimize losses, you'll probably need both spears and archers. According to more experienced AW players on civfanatics, and in my experience also, spears behind city walls minimize losses, since the AIs will have more losses trying to kill them than you will have trying to kill invading units (at least before you have enough catapults to redline or yellow line invaders and keep them coming to good spots). Veteran spears can promote to elite which is nice. But even though I've done it, attacking with an elite spear doesn't strike me as happy even if the invader gets redlined first. Bowmen, numidian mercernaries, and javelin thrower don't have that problem. You could use them as defenders, then when one promotes, you then try to use it as an attacker to get out an early army. Carthage's traits thus end up somewhat synergistic with the numidian mercenary, since Carthage can have one tech researched to mathematics, and the Maya knowing Masonry also helps them out (and worker shortage can easily become an issue in an AW game, and it's understandable due to unit support concerns and needing/wanting more military all the time). Carthage can also probably also might avoid researching warrior code for a bit in such a game. The drawback of those units though, other than cost, lies in the resulting despotic golden age, which isn't quite so happy. And more synergy could exist for Babylon if it was militaristic.
Babylon gets the extra bonus of defensive bombard on the bowman. But yeah, I've thought it over and my ranking of Numidian mercenaries was far too low. I had them below keshiks. They're definitely better than that, and likely better than impi and musketeers too. They're just a valuable option to have. Sure they're pricey. But if you care about cost, you can just build warriors. If you don't fight in the ancient era, you'll at least get utility out of them as replacements for pikes in the medieval era.
Interesting you have America second to last. I usually just play in the mid difficulty levels though, 7 or 8 opponents, mid-size map, and always dominate with America. I have a great expansionism period, either best or one of the best. I get to the tech lead fairly early but by Industrial age for sure and never give it up since I usually Golden Age in mid to late Middle Ages with wonders or latest with Hoover Dam in Industrial Age. I don't think I've ever golden aged fighting with that unique unit. But this was instructive and interesting. I also love the Iroquis, Mayans and Aztecs, not so much the Persians though. I should give the Celts a thorough try as well.
The Carthaginians are actually good on Archipelago, IF you play random climate/age etc and 70% water. (60% water makes seafaring a less valuable trait) Industrious allows you to get a huge head start and expand faster because you can maximize city tiles faster and build roads to neighbors u want to invade. The seafaring trait allows u to reach AI civs before your neighbors and get a lead on tech. I always go writing, mapmaking philosophy and usually get it. Also one tile cities are great in archipelago. Easy to defend (a single spearman until Marines) & they provide bases for your ships. Same with 2-3 tile islands. As long as a worker and an archer on standing on the non city tile, no enemy can land. The Man o War is a killer unit in the same situation, archipelago, 70 water. Frigates are a big deal in 70% situations because u can soften up the many coastal cities with them before landing your troops, plus Man o Wars recover a high percentage of regular frigates from the ones they sink and win more naval combat. /
Ive been playin with germany for the past 20 years the same style which makes harder difuculties difficult. This is giving me confidence to explore new cizs!
I don't think Germany falls off at all at higher difficulties, but they definitely limit your options. There's so many cool strats that other civs will allow for.
The first time I played this game I was 6 years old and couldnt even read nor speak english. I liked the animations and movements. I would always start with Rome because I liked the colouring but I never got past the ancient era. The peak was when I actually got a medieval infantry and tried to defeat the enemy and got destroyed. 13 years later it feels amazing that now I can actually win as Rome.
You ask who's a fan of the Hitties. I think they have their charms. I'm a builder/science focused player who plays on Regent, so I'm sure their weakness stand out far more at higher difficulties, but here's what I like: 1) Their trait combo drastically reduces two of the most annoying aspects of the game - barbarians and corruption. I can freely explore far and wide and plant early cities on distant resources/luxuries. Also, I believe this is the only trait combo that doesn't alter the cost of any buildings or worker moves, so it's a good pick for new players to get the fundamentals down. 2) I think of the Three-Man Chariot as a Bowman on wheels -- or maybe a Impi on steroids. If you're using it primarily for defense, it can defend a wide radius of cities AND it can trade effectively into a stack of Immortals before they attack (and can retreat). At the end of the day, I'd rather have Sumeria or Greece, but I do think their traits and unique unit adds up to a decent builder strategy. Also, I'm now the last 2 comments, my apologies for being a fanboy.
One thing you may have missed is starting techs as well. Seafarings and Commercial get writing which is great for the philosophy slingshot. Combined with pottery that's a great start firm settler factory. I think England also gets pottery so it's great there as well.
Yeah, I think I factored that into my ratings of sea/com, and to a lesser extent ind. Definitely a huge advantage, especially on high difficulty levels.
Feel a bit bad about England being so low. Com/Sea have incredibly good synergy. Man-o-War is also quite incredible sea unit. With it your are set to get a GA right at the dawn of industrial era, since it's a/d ratio is unbearable by any other ship until ironclads and AI almost never makes them. It has a speed of 5 but it's actually 6 because SEA. And it can enslave enemies ships, turning them into new MOW. You can just dis and them if needed and that's 16 shield right there. That's how English can get their production, lol. On archipelago or continental maps English can have some really scary commerce that comes from their bonuses which will deal with techs and happiness. And last but definitely not least they start with two massive techs, Alphabet and Pottery. So they can build the best early building right away and are set to go to quick philosophy. English probably are not the best civ around, admitedly, but I think they still should be higher than below mediocre level. They have so much potential and various fun ways to carry on through the game.
I really don't like playing Mayans. They feel so unbalanced. Agri + Indu is insanely overpowered combo expecially in the early game, that leads to explosive growth (so much that I often end up having happiness issues). But I find it hard to actually convert this into an early lead. They're below average at war, because their unique unit sucks, you can't do archer rush, so basically the only viable option until Chivalry for conquering nearby civs is Swordsman. And when you conquer enemy cities, it's hard to make anything of it. Religous and Scientific civs get cheap culture buildings to expand you borders and prevent culture flips, Commercial get lower corruption so you can actually use those cities for something substantial. Mayans don't have any of that. I vastly prefer other civs, that have Agri and Indu traits paired with other strong traits like commercial, religious, scietific or militaristc, and have a solid unique unit. Celts, Iroquois, China, Sumerians, Persians, Ottomans, Egypt, France...
So, at the end, you say that the most effective civ in CIV 3 are Iroquois. I never thought about all these consideration and usually I don't play a lot with Iroquois, but I completely agree with you: quick exploring of surrounding lands, so early science exchanges and fast towns growing useful for starting phase to produce settlers and useful in advanced game for grow up cities to metropolis.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks Expansionist is the worst trait in the game. It's good for beginning of the game, but just useless after the fact. I've never played an Agricultural civ, though, and should actually give that a try (especially if I want to spread quickly). Have you ever considered loading up the Civ III Editor to... *Improve/Replace lower tier UUs.* -Example 1: America gets a Minuteman [2/4/2, or a zone of control] instead of Musketman. -Example 2: Modify the Javelin Thrower to be 2/1/1, Cost 20 Shields, Enslave instead of Bombard. -Example 3: Keshik remain a Knight replacement with lower defense and cost but replaces the hills/mountains perk with treating all terrain as roads (like Explorer), or make it a replacement for Horseman and make it 2/1/3. *Replace the Expansionist Trait with something more beneficial (if applicable).* -Example 1: America becomes Industrious/Commercial -Example 2: Portugal becomes Seafaring/Commercial -Example 3: Russia becomes Scientific/Militaristic *Change perks & penalties of useless governments.* -Example 1: I actually have no idea how I would improve Fascism, Feudalism, or Democracy. *Add/Change/Remove units, tech, improvements, wonders, governments, etc?*
Many, many people have attempted to do exactly what you are describing and it usually comes out at something that caters to their own taste rather than something that you could easily sell to other people. It's so easy to lose focus and just end up with a mess of changes. So if I did it, the main challenge would be that, sticking to pre-set goals as to how the game should be different. It would be an interesting challenge and I suspect I'd find it fun, but it's not on my list.
I know what you mean. The closest I ever got to making something "for other people" was making a scenario using members of my family who actually played the game and seeing what they liked the most (for their UUs, traits, and unique buildings). Are there still enough people playing where a full on discussion to balance/improve the overall experience can take place?
@@PelemusMcSoy Yes. There's 2 discords (one for single player, one for multiplayer). Check out the single player discord here if you want to talk about that sort of stuff. discord.gg/Bp3VPav
LOL the iriquois are always the ones that are dead by the end of the industrial era, they never develope all the way, but hey, a player could change that
Are you from upstate New York, or somewhere nearby? I've heard that some Iroquois people pronounce it your way so it's not incorrect. But the word is French. I'm from Canada, that's how it's pronounced where I'm from. And if you google pronunciation guides, you're mostly going to get stuff that says "ee-ro-kwa".
Expansionist IMO is still very strong on pangea in deity. I never had trouble popping huts with 3 extra scouts built. I'd rather have it over religious in that case. The tech lead can allow you to amass gold for a mass upgrade or reach your medieval UU tech much faster.
Check the charts here www.civfanatics.com/civ3/strategy/game-mechanics/probabilities-of-goody-huts-c3c/ You are correct. You're actually more likely to pop a settler on deity than on any other difficulty, unless you're non-expansionist, in which case your odds are 0.
I play CIV III so differently than most I’ve discovered. As much as I try getting into the whole agri fandom, I just can’t, and it’s not because it’s bad, it’s because I usually don’t like Pangea maps. I prefer islands. You said in a video once that noobs aren’t good on maps with lots of water, but since I grew up playing CIV I, Pangea wasn’t an option. My playing style makes Industrious the most OP trait, because I don’t need a settler 3 or 5 or 7 turns earlier when I have a road built 50% faster. I build big cities made for late game. An emphasis on a strong capital or second city location lets me rush the pyramids if i want fast growth, and a granary in every city is even better than agri because I don’t need a river to get the bonus. And a fast growth doesn’t help unless I have bonus resources to get high production... The problem with agri is that my cities grow so fast they get civil unrest all the time, and in the early game I have no industry to build roads to send luxuries, another unit to keep them calm, and usually no extra gold to be spending on the happiness bar. Here is my ideal setup: An island to myself with 2 luxuries, room for about 20 cities, a large or huge map, and time to let my workers make me not just have a few big cities but a wise forbidden palace placement that gets almost all my cities at high production by the time factories are available. A commanding navy of privateers keeps other civs in check until we all get modern ships, and then you can put out bombers on carriers and no one can ever challenge you. My preferred civs are the French and Americans, with the Carthaginians being really fun on small island maps. I just don’t like Pangea, so it’s really important to decide what CIV you’re playing based on map type and not just UU or traits. PS. If I want a road over 5 grass type tiles, that’s 15 turns with industry (including movement) but without industry it’s 20 turns. There are your 5 extra turns from agri right there. And if you happen to already have the road to the city location the settler is moving faster. Industry > Agriculture. Pyramids > Agriculture. And most AI rush Oracle or Colossus. If you get a good second or third city as settler factory the AI won’t get Pyramids first 19 times out of 20.
If your cities are growing so fast with Ag that they disorder, just build more workers. There you go, 2 birds with one stone, makes up for the slower worker speed too. You're right that Industrious is relatively strong on archi maps. Ag is still great though, it just becomes more of a scaling trait. With few rivers and lakes, you need aqueducts in every single city, which are half priced with archi. You also get the third city center ag food in all cities. not just fresh water cities, when you switch out of despotism.
@@suedeciviii7142 my problem with more workers is that unless I’m commercial I struggle with paying for all of them. Once in republic I can usually handle 70-80% tech but unit cost has brought me down to 40-50. Perhaps just better unit management on my part. And I didn’t know the bonus was restored once out of despotism, great to know! Thanks for the info vids! And
@@dallenhaven3329 Agreed. I try to get as much done before I switch to republic, but it is a cost. Industrious is a a useful trait, no doubt about it! Island maps are easy mode for unit management though.
Agricultural isn't much of a bonus for a 20k. Commercial is almost entirely useless for a 20k. Seafaring makes for a strong trait for a 20k game. Exspanionist is awesome for a low level fast space race or diplomatic game on a sizeable map. I read once on the forums that someone made an army of conquistadores and the person couldn't remember having so much fun, as he pillaged basically everything the AI had. Carthage ends up extremely strong for a 20k game. They make for the best choice for a Sid 20k game, even beating out the Byzantines, since they can build The Pyramids and can prebuild with the palace after that. Also, they have a 3 defense unit that doesn't require iron. A healthy army of numidan mercenaries can't get killed by the AI until modern times. Also, the speed of building roads and railroads with the industrious trait I think hard to undervalue. Additionally, such a ranking system I think best as a means of discussion and such rankings aren't absolute. Carthage makes for a good example. They won't make for a top tier for a lot of victory conditions. But, for a Sid level 20k game they end up top tier.
One of my next playthroughs is going to be 20k. I haven't done it at a high difficulty level. So for that reason, I'd be really interested in learning more. Any links on the subject of Sid 20k? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it hard to win with? I was under the impression that past emperor, winning a 20k culture victory was more of a niche challenge like AW or OCC, not an efficient strategy for winning the game. That you'd need to weaken enemy civs so much that it'd be easier to simply kill them completely and win by domination. Out of curiosity, who would you put at the bottom?
@@suedeciviii7142 If you use MapFinder or otherwise reroll until you have a good start, and play a big water archipelago, then without exploits, upper level 20k ends up easier than other victory conditions (if not using the pillaging trick). None of the upper level 20k victories that I know of (all in the HoF) use the destroy the enemy so you can get a 20k victory... they're more about the start. If you're on an archipelago map, usually you can force any AIs at war with you to land their units next to your capital by keeping it empty, with just one of the adjacent landing tiles open for the AI to land there (you have units ready to destroy invaders as soon as they land). For a link, there was a 20k Sid competition for the HoF a while back: forums.civfanatics.com/threads/g-iii-sigma.243453/page-3 Many of Sanabas's ideas apply on Sid as I recall from the following thread, but you don't necessarily want to use the capital, since research takes so long, and you can prebuild wonders outside of the capital: forums.civfanatics.com/threads/the-idiots-guide-to-20k.162674/ I think I'd put the Zulu at the bottom.
@@Spoonwood The mapfinder looks interesting, I'll download that. One thing I assumed for this list was you didn't have choice of map or land type. I'd agree that when tackling particular interesting challenges, civs like Carthage, Byzantium, and Babylon are useful tools in our toolkit, while civs like the Germans and Zulu are not. There's very few things they do that other civs don't do better. That being said, it was interesting because a lot of the "generalist" civs that don't excel at anything in particular, like Rome and Germany, are very popular with new players.
I think Greece might be a bit underrated here. You did undermine just HOW synergistic their UU is. I guess it's more situational, but on a coastal city you can build two hoplites, a settler, and then immediately build Colossus (which in a vaccuum isn't great by itself) while researching Writing, by the time it's done happiness issues are nonexistent in your capital and you should have extra pop to build more settlers before getting to Literature. It does rely on your second city being brawn enough to pump out a settler in the mean time, but paired with commercial it snowballs into scientific domination by the mid game. Especially if you b-line the scientific route in the medieval era and pick up Copernicus and Newton's. Having access to pikeman turn 1 the same price as spearman is absurd, so you don't have to worry as much about spamming units. In the ancient era. It does hinder ancient expansion, but I think the benefits are worth it unless you have especially cucked land. You're not going to have immensely successful ancient wars with this strat, but it lends a very nice feeling and meaningful snowball.
My favorite unit is in the first place - Mounted Warrior,a unique unit for the Iroquois,it’s my favorite nation,I’m always lucky with the Iroquois everywhere,especially at war - it’s my favorite part in Civilization 3 !!!
Hey, question here! So I believe you said in a different vid that the agriculture food bonus only works if you plant next to fresh water (I think you said that's only the case for despotism). Furthermore, the seafaring bonus only works if you settle on the coast. Wouldn't this make the Netherlands traits conflict, considering it is probably difficult to find a lot of city spots next to both fresh and salt water? Also, cool to see this game still get attention. Played it with my father a lot growing up. He was a fan of English history and would exclusively play England on any map. We would play archipelago 60% over LAN, and basically tag team the AI, which made up for how little we knew about playing the game efficiently.
The food bonus is much more important that the commerce bonus. Early game I'd say one food = 5 commerce. Thanks! It truly is a classic and I think there's a lot to talk about :)
IMO militaristic and seafaring take a split for the worst traits. Militaristic doesn't really do anything useful in terms of getting you ahead in the game. Barracks is already pretty cheap to begin with and higher chance of promotions isn't really significant if you build barracks and pump out veteran units. I only use like 4-5 cities to produce units, so the cost required to build barracks is pretty much nothing. And by the time I want to build a huge army and need more cities to build units, it only takes like a few turns to build barracks in them. When I play militarictic civs it always feels like playing a 1 trait civ. The only scenario when this trait is kinda useful is if you're going for super early archer rush. From the militaristic civs, I would put Rome lower on the list since it's really hard to avoid triggering Golden Age in despotism if you want to use their UU. Seafaring is only useful on archipelago maps and even then it's just kinda ok. The only exception are Byzantines who can really profit from their insanely overpowered UU. Expansionist is situational and it's obviously useless on archipelago maps or tiny to small maps, but IMO it's a great trait on pangea maps in general or large to huge continent maps, especially on lower difficulties. Early contacts with other civs and bonus tech from popping up huts can get you really ahead in the game. But yeah, it's really situational and definitelly one of the worst traits. Note that I never played above Monarch difficulty, so I don't know how these traits fare at higher levels.
TBH the more I look at it, the best thing about militaristic military great leaders. Armies are just so stupidly broken. Not only does mil give you double rate of MGLs, but you also likely get twice as many elite units, and it gets you heroic epic faster. To clarify, the "higher chance" is literally double for promotions and MGLs. There's also some decent utility in things like half priced harbors and walls that it's hard to call it a bad trait. If you think exp is strong because of early contact, then by definition seafaring is better. The difference in movement between a warrior and a scout is the same as between a curragh and a seafaring curragh. And on island maps (and some continents maps) the trait is absolutely game breaking. Expansionist gives you a contact monopoly on a pangea for what, 30 turns maybe? Seafaring gives you one for half the game. Expansionist has also no scaling, it does nothing past the expansion phase. Meanwhile, the commerce bonus from seafaring is hard to notice but it adds up throughout the game. I don't mind despotic GAs as long as you have a good UU to spam in the GA.
@@suedeciviii7142 I forgot about the MGLs, but it stil doesn't make the trait worth for me. I concede that Expandionist and Seafaring are worst but Militaristic is pretty close. When I play civ3, I like to just have some fun and do both some war and actually build up my empire. Traits like Agricultural, Industrious or Religious are useful for both, unlike Militaristic.
@@prehistorCZ Yeah agreed. I'd probably put rel/mil as third and fourth worst, the order depends on playstyle. Although you could make a case that seafaring is better than them on high difficulties, even if you might be playing on a random map that might be pang/continents
My dad who played this game and got me into it always played the Iroquois. It makes sense now to me because he never explained it but he said they're just the best
Appreciate the content. Since this video is a ranking of civs for human players, do you have a list of civs that the AI plays well? Civs to play against for a good challenge?
That's a mystery. I have no reason to believe that the AI is good at Portugal (including their programming flags), but for some reason, portugal does well.
I always play as France but am going to try some new ones after watching this! thank you. I'm not French but always thought they had the best 2 traits Industrious and Commercial.
I like talking about the differences between each civ, but to be honest it's a flexible game! It's nowhere near mandatory to play around your UU or civ traits to win. That being said, I think there are a few civs with narrow playstyles that really are weaker if played any other way.
I've recently thought that for Quick Civ mod on a pangea map, the Hittites make a strong choice. Agricultural isn't quite as powerful relatively and can be useless for having a settler factory. Starting with a granary is still nice, and expansionist means quicker contacts is possible. Commercial gives one a good tech for trading, and less corruption later. The three-man chariot has 2 defense? That could mean quicker promotion to elite status or getting a leader. I think I'd rather have expansionist in general than agricultural for a game with Quick Civ mod on a pangea map. I think Spain fairly strong for island archipelago games 20k games. The main issue that they have though, is that both The Oracle and The Pyramids are religious, and The Colossus is Seafaring. If you don't have the despotism penalty, they become stronger. Portugal, I would think, becomes better if you don't have the despotism penalty and play for 20k on a not too high level difficulty. They get an instant golden age with The Colossus, which would be a strong commercial production, and shield production early. I think faster than anyone else for a 20k game! Getting one settler from a hut early can be substantial enough to make expansionist worth it. But, the problem lies in that such will fail a lot of the time. And huts for 20k might mean losing out on an ancient wonder that you might have gotten with huts off. Maybe not with 80% archipelago though. I think Rome rates high for the Quick Civ mod.
Ag is still quite strong in QC. There's no despotism penalty so you get the bonus immediately in all cities. Gives you 5 food per turn default, which is a nice breakpoint. It does scale worse though. I ran a test a couple years ago. I made a typical mid-late game empire in QC, with and without the commercial flag. The difference was virtually nothing. 0 shields and maybe 10 commerce, mostly from the city center bonus. It might have to do with how we plant cities in QC though.
Literally everytime I have Portugal against me as one of the AIs on Pangea or Continent, they are absolutely pathetic. Many times they are destroyed by other AIs even before I get to them. I'm just in the middle of a game where Portugal has tiny "empire" of like 6 cities and they're just in the process of being conquered by China (and I'm about to join the party). Same often applies to Mongols, although not to such an extent. Strangely, another "bad" civ - England - is often pretty strong, I noticed. I don't really keep track of it, but that's just how it appears to me... Celts are my favourite civ, their UU is amazing (too bad you cannot build them anymore after feudalism, I would prefer them to medieval infantry) and their traits have IMO great synergy. Maybe I'm not doing something right, but whenever I play agri civs, I tend to have some happines issues (yes, I know about the slider, but it's not always an option) due to the rapid growth and not many luxuries being available for trade. Having cheap temples solves this before you can secure some more luxuries and build marketplaces. Plus cheap temples are also great for conquering new territories, since expanding you borders prevents the AI from puting cities in stupid spots.
I've clearly been watching your channel too long, but in another video you said Expansionist is better on higher difficulty (except for Sid) since the odds of popping Barbarians scales with difficulty. Here, you say it's worse on higher difficulty since the AI's extra units clear the maps. So which is it? This is the hard-hitting journalism the civ iii community demands! :)
I know these vids are now four years old, but even then Civ 3 was close to 20 years old. I'm not trying to be critical, as Civ 3 is the last Civ game I've played, because I think the newer ones, starting with Civ 4, were deliberately broken (units unable to traverse mountains). Any particular reason why you put so much effort into making numerous vids about such an old game?
The channel started because I wanted to draw players in to the multiplayer community. From there, I kept posting because I love the game, I'm good at the game, and it's fun having a RUclips channel.
Scientific and seafaring are my favourite traits, followed by agricultural and industrious, the other traits i dont really care about them. I mostly play maps with lots of ocean on it, so Byzantines or Dutch for me most of the time, Persia and Carthage i like too.
I beat all my games without switching out of the default government (Tyranny?) Was I exploiting a glitch? It just seemed that it was always a 'Bad Idea' to switch to any other gov.
I don't know if you considered this in your ratings, but militaristic trait produces more great leaders which can produce armies and armies can do wonderful things.
Awesome vid! I think the rundown of civs is great. How do you think the rankings would change if you got to pick the map settings you were playing on before starting? Like, how would a niche civ rank if it got its preferred map settings vs. a generally good civ on it’s best map settings combination? I guess that would be a completely separate list that would rank civs by ability to win with them.
Seafaring, Agri, and expansionist would all be very strong traits. Religious and scientific would become relatively weak I think. The synergy would be way different too. Zulu and Mongols would definitely be at the bottom, on maps where expansionist is good, militaristic tends to be bad. England and the byzantines would be very strong civs. The Hittites might even be pretty good.
@@suedeciviii7142 Hi sir! Like your PowerPoint slides etc. Are they maybe on Google drive somewhere? I just like to read it carefully before playing the game. :) Thanks for the good videos btw!
@@nickklok4955 I haven't posted the slides online sadly, want me to email them to you? Also, check out my recent video "how to get good at civilization 3". There's a link to a bunch of articles and forum posts containing information about the game that isn't in the civilopedia.
I like to play on huge maps with 15+ AIs. I used the Vikings on an Archipelago on Warlord difficulty (hardest I had ever played at the time) and came in second. Spain kind of got away, unfortunately.
How realistic are those realizations about civilizations, I mean... if those would go for a future-start match, the commercial trait for the Iroquois could mean that those have an Indian casino somewhere in the town... and some other funny stuff like that... O.o
Hah! We had to ban agricultural in future start because it was too strong. It just let you get to drafting size too fast. We makes sense. In a post-apocalyptic "restart" type situation on earth, being agricultural would be really strong.
Great video man, but i am quite sad that the america is that low, I play monarch and always rush through the ancient age and prebuild for sun tzu, then i start to dominate the game
Ok, so an old geezer question: Carthage and Spain get back Commercial instead of Seafaring. Still so low, or they would be a bit higher? Carthage, especially, since it would have same traits as French, which are 15th.
It's not a wasted GA. Early despotism GAs are very powerful as long as you dump the gold and shields into something useful (Typically conquering or building ancient era wonders). The immortal is among the easiest units in the game to conquer with, so just investing the GA shields into more immortals is a fantastic use of a GA.
A simple and historically accurate fix for Rome would be to give Legions the ability to build roads. This would give the Legions utility, mobility, and open up new strategies.
I applaud the detail you put into the video but why the indifference for Rome? You had more to say about lower ranking civ’s. I’ve played Rome probably hundreds of times, always on low levels and have had massive success with them. I’ve won the game every way that is possible with Rome while building all wonders of the world except one or two in most games. So Suede do you not like the Roman civ? BTW I’m a huge fan of the actual Roman civilization. Just wondering, great job on the video as a whole.
Mid tier traits, mid tier UU, and not much synergy. Rome struggles at higher difficulties because they lack tools that allow them grow (No offensive UU, no agri/ind). If they can't grow, they can't take advantage of commercial's reduced corruption. They can do a rush with archers/Legions, but they lack flexibility.
No, sorry. I do talk a lot about the factions when I play through the conquests, either on stream or in videos, but it's part of longer playthroughs. Was there a particular conquest or faction you were curious about? I could maybe try and find a relevant segment.
@@suedeciviii7142 Hey that’s fine, mostly wanting to figure out how to not be owned by rome in the rise of rome conquest. Best luck I had was with Greece but on higher difficulties I usually get steam rolled
@@DustBornKnight Usually ally with every civ vs Rome turn 1. That or go for fire catapults. It gets very hard if you let them get the advanced Legion units. I did a playthrough where I conquered Rome as Egypt if that interests you.
Just playing demigod game with random settings and civs(I randomed Russia) and started on isolated island worst possible start for exp also had incredible bad luck with my curraghs i think i found other civs somehwere around 200AD. I managed to get Gl at least to catch up but then i noticed i dont have iron/saltpeter nothing on my island was great land but not single res well i decided to continue anyway to try Cossacks so i managed to get few cities on continent and got myself saltpeter and Cossacks are only reason why i didnt get uterly crushed had some cannons/trebs and few cossacks so i decided to war strongest civ in game which was India i was heavilly outnumbered but manage to get on top beacuse of this UU so i cant agre they are bad on higher diff levels unless we talk about Sid. Also science wasnt that bad either for me as i coould get uselles tech and trade them for gpt i dont think i would catch with AI if i was something else other then science. If Scandinavia is rank 19 Russia should be really close simply because power of their UU and really great timing for GA.
I want to know the source of my idiocy. I've played this game for 20 years nonstop and am now playing demi-god level but seldom get above last place by 1 A.D. Am trying the touted Iroquois but to no avail. There is something basic that I'm not getting with any civ I play at this level. FYI - I re-start until I get a decent starting square, play random civs and landmasses, and tend to be aggressive - starting wars early to get cities or concessions. Help!
@@suedeciviii7142 Suede, would've replied sooner but I was immersed in an Iroquois demigod game where , for some reason I actually was doing quite well and I'm not certain why. - I watched some of your games he and noticed that you built warriors - which I never do. I hate warriors - they just seem like feckless placeholders. But then, that's probably why I fail miserably at higher level games. I will send you over some saves and maybe you can show me my fatal flaws. Thanks much!
Could you beat sid difficulty with 7 AI players? I tried but i failed, i always 1 era behind them which is annoying and for the government question why Republic is the best? Also why my gold starts to decrease when i switched to republic
I can't say that I have. I did a video on governments. TLDR, you have to manage unit support very carefully in republic, or your army will bankrupt you. Disband outdated units, and grow your cities to size 7+ to increase the free unit support you get.
Basically, synergy between the traits. Imagine one trait gives +5 shields, and another gives +25% shields. The +25% adds on to the +5. Same thing with Greece and the Byzantines. They get their libraries faster because they're cheap, and the bonus gold from the com/sea trait gets funneled into the libraries.
Other than the +1 food in the city center for freshwater access, what good is the agricultural trait? Is there anything else it does I'm not aware of? For some reason I'm blanking on this despite having played the game on and off from its release. Are aqueducts cheaper? Agri wonders half cost?
First of all, +1 food is absolutely insane. In despotism that will typically be a 50% increase in growth. When you're out of despotism you get the bonus in all cities. Not just cities with freshwater. Weird how it works that way but this actually gives the government good scaling, as it keeps on providing benefits long after pretty much every trade except commercial have stopped being useful. You get cheap aqueducts, which really helps you get decent unit support in republic ASAP. Irrigated desert tiles get +2 food instead of +1, making bad starts a lot more rare. And you start with pottery. Not a valuable trading tech but typically the one with the most immediate use.
@@suedeciviii7142 First of all, thanks for the snappy response! I realized as you were making your main point about how much of an impact that "measly" +1 food makes, that during my testing in debug mode last night of almost everything that can affect the city center tile yield, when it came to planting a city on resources, the food yield absolutely never increased, only shields and gold (I know you mentioned this in another video), and even those had exceptions of course (furs didn't give the +1 shield as expected). This throttling of food bonuses must have been on purpose- food is so crucial an advantage in the outset of a new game that they made sure you had only a few things that could boost it from the beginning of a new settlement. For example, think planting your settlement on a flood plain will give you three food in the city center? Nope, nixed down to 2 like most other tiles. Other side of that coin- planting on a desert tile doesn't leave you with only 1 food in city center, it's still normalized to two again. Balance. And yet.....it's all still so freakin' complex! Follow-up questions- what fraction of cities on continents or pangaea would you say end up having freshwater access? 1 in 4? 1 in 5? If the +1 food only applies to those select freshwater-access cities before switching out of despotism as you said, (implying the bonus is nixed by the desp. penalty but otherwise would apply to all cities no matter the freshwater?), then having only a handful of cities with faster growth should shape other decisions, such as where to place the one or two granaries you recommend building. Should these faster-growing cities in the depo. phase focus on being settler factories, or military unit factories? Cheap aqueducts, super helpful for sure! And cheap solar panels and recycling cent.....oh, never mind. 🙂 It is ridiculous how many tiny little rules this game has, with addendums for the exceptions to the rules that are overridden by this other rule........ad infinitum ad nauseum! Players like myself and many others in the comments learning new things about the game even 20 years later. Just for the city center tile yield alone, here's a list of the things that can affect it- underlying tile yield, government type, resources, freshwater access, civ strengths, sea access, river adjacent (separate from a lake's effects in one regard), settlement size, golden age, capital or not....and I'm sure five more things I haven't thought of. Is there any hope of me ever being able to look at a few patches of land before my intrepid settler caravan of 10,000 hapless souls, and in an instant be able to calculate in my head how much food, shields and gold I'll get from it by planting on it? Sorry for the eye strain, I'm a stickler for details when I want to be. One reason I posed this question while being aware of much of the details already, is precisely because there are SO MANY small little-known rules NOT covered in the Civilopedia, or that are a direct contradiction to a false statement in the Civilopedia. I figured asking the premier online expert who still has a love for this endlessly-replayable game would be the one to give me as thorough an answer as you did. Off to do more testing! Hat tip to you again, mighty sir!
@@suedeciviii7142 Sorry but one last question- are you saying that the +1 food for being agricultural normally applies to every settlement irrespective of freshwater access, it's just that the effect is nullified by the despotism penalty, but then countermanded only when there's the ADDITIONAL bonus of having freshwater access? For example- city center = 2 food, +1 for being agri = 3 food, but despo penalty knocks anything at 3 back down to 2 (so back to 2 food), but if you also have freshwater access (yet another +1 food), the calculus is now 2 + 1 - 1 + 1 = 3....and 3 is 50% more than 2? This would make sense since you said after leaving despotism you get it in all cities......and therefore +4 food in agri civs' cities with freshwater access? Off to test again!
@@suedeciviii7142 Okay you were very precise in your wording about this mess. You do NOT get 4 food in the city center for the combo of 1) being agricultural, 2) planting next to fresh water, 3) being out of despotism. It's still only 3. Therefore there doesn't seem to be some set of rules countermanding one another, it's simply set up that being agricultural helps you conditionally in despotism, and then universally once you're out of despotism. How nice of them to not explain that. How blessed to have Suede to convey it to us chieftains, lol.
@@alightinthedarkages9494 Yeah I simplified a bit, but technically it's tied to the despotism penalty. So in anarchy you also won't get the bonus food unless you're on fresh water.
I think I'm pretty good at making bad choices, because the exact two worse civilizations in order was the two nations I decided to start a game with shuashuh
This is kind of a very nichey questions. I like to play America and was kind of sad to see it ranked so low. I'm not going to argue with the ranking because I simply don't know enough. I like to take something that is not the best and learn to master it and get the most possible from it. Like flathead engines ( : < ). Any tips specific to playing America? I don't usually play at high difficulty levels just to keep the game moving in the small chunks of time I carve out to play.
Part of the reason I ranked America so low is they really fall off on higher difficulties because their golden age is impossible to get. So play on Warlord or something and their a midtier civ. Choose the right map, (60% water Pangea maybe) and they are well above average :) Just make sure to build enough scouts to get those extra huts. As for tips for America: they have very strong early game traits. Try to expand very rapidly, and trade techs frequently to try to get out of the ancient era as soon as possible. If an enemy is blocking your expansion, try for an early war. Maybe grab either The Pyramids or The Hanging Gardens. Then go for Copernicus' observatory in the middle ages, and that should give you a well timed golden age. If you miss the Pyramids or the Hanging Gardens, The Hoover Dam can be your industrious wonder.
Thanks! Some of that I already do. Warlord, yep! Like to play archipelago. I expand rapidly and attack ruthlessly. Tend to grab too many wonders that don't do me any good. Your tutorials have already added fun and a faster pace to my games by showing me wasted effort!
I'm also very hesitant to encourage new players to build wonders, but with America I'd encourage you to pick up wonders with strong effects throughout the game. Your traits won't be any use late game, but if you can use your early strength to pick up wonders with big global effects that last the whole game (Like Sun Tzus, The Pyramids, JS Bach's, or Smith's Trading Company) that can make up for your lategame weaknesses
expansionist is massively underrated here. 99% of beakers on deity and sid comes from meeting the AI ASAP and trading. warriors are often simply too slow to make it happen, costing the whole game. you can also use scouts for resource denial, because f the AI.
If you putting a hyper focus on early trading wouldn't seafaring be better? No point meeting the AI early if you have no leverage. Pottery is an undervalued tech, alphabet is the most valuable. And curraghs are faster than scouts, and work on all map types.
@@suedeciviii7142 I wrote some of them, I thought the Indians got under rated. Think they've been archived, I wrote the Rule Brittania guide. It was so long ago lol. I read the Arabs high for all the same reasons you did but some thought I was nuts. I rate Dutch higher than you because of deity and sid games. Think I beat sidusing them, deity first win was Rome. Mostly agree with your list 80% the other 20% are minor quibbles.
@@roryhebberd9766 Honestly even I have some quibbles to my own list. I rated Zulu/Mongols too high. And Korea too high. India is fantastic, they're one of the few commercial civs that can fall behind early and still make strong use of the trait. Because Elephants can always be used to conquer, being really beefy and requiring no resources. And with alphabet, they won't fall behind in tech before then.
For some reason I always get Inca as my neighbour or second closest civ when I play with England. I get tired of it and decided to hand pick my opponents.
do you play with culturally linked locations? There is a bug that means that setting doesn't work as intended and instead just means you basically only get Civs from North and South America.
Expansionist is a bottom tier trait, so no. Their UU is still godly though. IIRC industrious use to be stronger (100% worker speed increase instead of 50%). So the best civs in vanilla C3C were industrious. I think Persia was very good, as was Egypt.
I disagree a bit for expansionist. In first turns, you may increase your scientific research more by scientific exchange with other civs than search them on your own. This means that in first turns your science level depend by how many contacts you have before other civs exchange themself. In this contest, starting with a scout is the best opportunity (except if you are alone on the island/continent). However expansionist trait is unuseful in middle and advanced game.
I think we agree here. So you're saying it's inconsistent, that it depends on hut results and how many civs you meet? I'd agree with that. Great trait on certain maps but just does not give consistent value.
it's kinda crazy how many UU were changed with the expansion. the kossaks e.g. had 6 attack and 4 defense, making them a really good choice for attacking AND defending. same with the french musketeer: 3 attack, 4 defense. now it's at 2 attack and 5 defense. useless for attacking now :/.
@@suedeciviii7142 i actually like the egypt horse chariot the most. you can spam them so easily, it's crazy. i think to get one gallic swordsman you can build two egypt chariots. that equals 4.2 (2.1x2) to 3.2 if you count the points together. plus you only need horses as a ressource instead of iron. and those chariots were also already available in the standard game (without the conquest expansion). i also like the persian swordsmen, though they can be countered with riders quite easily. the roman legions are tougher to crack. but jeah, the gallic swordsmen are one hell of a good unit. they are like a crappier knight version that is cheaper and can be built fearly early in the game.
@@Daxter250 I know right? But so many people say the war chariot is a bad unit. The earlier you get the unit, the better it is. So the Gallic is not just a shitty knight. It's better than a knight, since it's much more cost effective against spearman than knights are against pikes.
@@suedeciviii7142 i actually meant is as a compliment. its just mediocre in terms of attack and defense points compared to a knight (and i friggin love the knight!). i totally agree that its a great early unit with the only drawback that you have to pay 40 shields instead of 30. aside from the war chariot im actually not sure if an other UU can beat the gallic swordsman. it's so mobile and versatile and that golden age you can get from the unit helps greatly in a huge war (and that in turn can manifest ya position early on). maybe the iroquese UU can keep up. having 3 attack on a rider while only costing 30 shields is damn great.
I think the traits are actually, all things considered... decently well balanced. (At least, if you make the assumption of random land mass. Obviously seafaring civs are overpowered on archipelago maps.) This is 100% not true for unique units. Some are insanely strong, some are downgrades. So because of this, I think the UU has a lot more sway in making a civ good.
My noob ass always played with Rome. I thought it was hilarious to hear what you had to say about them mid-video. FYI I still lose to AI on Regent. Still a noob.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Roc Steady (feat. Flo Milli) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HozPPyqW0dY/mqdefault.jpg)
Just wanted to say that you are the Spirit of the Law for civ 3 content
huh so I'm not the only one to say that
haha awesome
😃😃😃
He's like SoTL but he talks about a good game instead of Age of Empires.
@@fiddleriddlediddlediddle Say that to SotL if you dare, haha. Both games are great, don't talk bad about a certain game just because you're not on that particular game's channel.
Ive been playing this game for 20 years.... I'm FINALLY starting to understand how to play it....
Same here, just realised a civil 3 game mechanic just two weeks ago after playing the game since release. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
That feeling when the Civ you liked playing when you were 8 because it was green and green was your favorite color is still a favorite because it's one of the strongest in the game.
When I played this game as a boy, I ONLY played as the Celts, because I liked the leader's mustache and I remembered my father saying we were celtic. Even now, if I play as another civ, it feels like adultery.
Or the civ you liked playing when you were 8 because you were from that country is either really good - Indians, Persians and Chinese celebrate - or so bad - Americans look away.
I always played as Byzantium as a kid because it was mysterious to me and I loved the name. Years later, when I met my girlfriend (years before we started going out) she asked me what my favourite civilisation was and I said they Byzantines because it was who I played as in Civ. She thought that was a great answer, and we have always laughed about that since.
10:51 for the Hittite roast
lol poor Hitties... didn't stand a chance in real history or in simulated history
I'm here for it
Their unique unit is pretty nice looking though, good looks wont win you a spot in history unfortunately….
When I began playing Civ 3 more, I didn't know they were considered to be crap. I literally picked them only because they don't appear in any other Civ game and their leader looks normal compared to the rest of these cursed leader heads lol.
@@masterexploder9668 i love the Hittites
Played this game since I was a kid with my grandpa. He used to live and breath America on Sid and play a save for days until the entire map was bright blue for the pleasure of it (Would end a game with hundreds of radar arty, and even more nuked captured workers). Hardly ever play it above the normal difficulties, but it reminds me of him. Have almost 1000 hours on steam, and who knows how many from when I needed the CD box sets. Nice to find a channel that isn't letting it die, thank you.
Bold to play America on Sid. When I played as them on demigod I found it stupidly hard to get a golden age.
Spot on ranking of the traits. The way I like to describe it - if you're used to playing agricultural, industrial or commercial civs, you are really going to notice it once you play a civ that doesn't have them. That just doesn't apply to any of the other traits (except maybe seafaring on archipelago) - they offer nice perks, but nothing crucial. Agricultural, industrious or commercial make the game significantly easier to win.
Also as a historian, can I just say that having Carthage as Industrial and England as Commercial makes no sense - they should switch their traits. Carthage should be commercial (their success was based on commerce. The trade in mediterranean was even one of the reasons for the first punic war with Rome), while England should be industrial (because industrial revolution, duh).
If you're an historian you must have heard: "L'Angleterre est une nation de boutiquiers"
Britain maybe the first to industrialize but it was hardly an industrial powerhouse but had always been a financial one. And into the 20th century and beyond it has deindustrialized too much to deserve that trait.
CIV III I.M.H.O is the greatest of the CIV series
Agreed, I hate what Civ 4 did to railroads and heroic units, totally nerfed - unfun.
all civilization fun to play, just not for tooo long
Yeah I don't understand why everybody dislikes the III. It was very good with all the expansions. In my opinion the worst Civ game is Civ5... The only good thing it has brought is the hexagon tiles.
I presume CIV III was your first CIV experience.
I miss CIV II multi- player Gold edition & it's many many excellent scenarios, some radically altering the game. I just wanted a bit of tweaks to improve it... which came with Alpha Centuari that ran on a CIV II base but with radical improvements like to the civics and-never to be repeated ability to personally design units.
@@ozymandias5257 CIV3 was not my first experience. I played it from the first day of release for CIV1
Just a quick overview of the rank for a quick reference. Thank you SuedeCivIII for the list! :D
31. Portugal 8:59
30. America 9:42
29. Spain 10:27
28. The Hittites 10:50
27. Mongolia 11:28
26. The Zulu 11:49
25. Carthage 12:07
24. Russia 12:31
23. England 13:12
22. Germany 13:39
21. Japan 14:27
20. Byzantium 14:47
19. Vikings 15:23
18. Rome 16:00
17. Babylon 16:13
16. France 17:29
15. Arabia 18:07
14. Greece 18:46
13. Korea 19:18
12. The Inca 19:39
11. Netherlands 20:07
10. The Ottomans 20:31
9. Egypt 20:54
8. India 21:32
7. The Aztecs 22:15
6. The Mayans 23:00
5. Sumeria 23:53
4. Persia 24:41
3. China 25:16
2. The Celts 26:03
1. The Iroquois 27:03
I forgot that Carthage doesn't have the UU of War Elephant, because of how often I play the Conquest scenario. 🙃
Oh man if only. But I've actually changed my mind about Carthage. They're a mid tier civ.
Carthage is still great for ancient and early middle ages
@@suedeciviii7142 I've been getting it wrong this whole time. When I play against my dad and my brother, my dad is usually either England or America. Me and my brother always wanted Portugal.
Carthage should have been given War elephant and India should have been given something like Gurkha - UU replecement for Rifleman or Guerilla, with either higher offense or extra movement point.
Their spearman is actually pretty good all the way up to the end of the medieval age!
Who's still playing this in 2020? :D
Me!
anyone(if anyone playing like fire emblem 1 or 2, why not playing old civilization?)
I do.
Meeee
I am but damn a PowerPoint? How many slides was that? Lol it is an amazing game though.
You should make a series playing with the 5 worst civs on this list and trying to win a different way each time
☺
Extremely useful presentation and these tutorials are what puts your channel ahead of others.
celts are best for conquering early in the games, but ,in civ 3, all the civilizations have cool traits and gameplay differences, but in my opinion the ranking could be a lot different in some cases such as if you are playing on less agressive AI , the iroquois are not very good
Been waiting for this one. Thank you for the helpful insight and taking into account as many playstyles as is reasonable.
I finally undersand that, whenever the Iroquois are in my game, they always do well, grow big, and become one of my biggest opponents.
Where has this channel been all my life
Was the french Musketeer changed during one of the expansions? I clearly remember playing civ3 as a kid and he was 3/4/1, not 2/5/1. Even as a clueless kid I knew that was useless... 2/5/1 is pretty solid IMO, 2 musketeers can easily defend border cities against pretty much anyone until cavalry comes into picture.
edit: yeah, just checked it, it was changed in Conquests.
It also gained Defensive bombardment, that whoe defence only bombard was not there from the start
Thanks for these videos man I just picked this game up never playing a civ game before and I'm hooked
Great walkthru on the civs strengths and weaknesses. I would never have thought agricultural was a good choice. I have now played a Regent game with the Iroquois, on a continents map. It went very well! That early growth spurt was so nice.
I also like Persia for the more conventional strengths.
It doesn't fall off late game too! +1 food in all cities is a great late game bonus. Unlike a lot of other early game traits
@@suedeciviii7142 I think pretty much all new player ALWAYS undervalue agricultural (because its effects is kind of subtle, and +1 food just doesn't sound very exciting), and overvalue militaristic and expansionist, because their effects are more "visible". Also most new players usually go for military victories, so they put militaristic high.
I like that the Iroquois are so good. They are one of my favorite cultures in real life because of Hiawatha and I'm glad to see they're powerful in the game too.
Hello,Suede-I’d like to thank you for this video about all civilizations’ unique units,you told both pros and cons of all units and due to your explanations I use Mounted Warrior very often,it’s very well in war in offensive moments;captures cities amazing and upgrades from regular to veteran and elite incredible and Iroquois are my favorite nation!
So thank you very much for all your help,Suede - Well done,Nice work!!!
I loved playing with Persia, one of the few civs that had success with . Probably because I always build every building in each city and waged war with cavalry and tanks
I humbly request 2 videos from you into the future sir.
1. How to wage war/combat guide
Currently one of the biggest turn offs from Civ3 for a lot of players is the combat "Why can't my several warriors/spearmen kill 1 spearmen defending a town?!"
2. A comparison video of Civ 5 and Civ 3 like you did for Civ 4 and 3.
I mean why not, I personally hate Civ5 but it still happens to be one of the most top played Steam games.
Number 2 was already on my list. Civ 5's not as of a game as 3 or 4 IMO, but there are some excellent features, like the strategic resource system.
As for number 1: I actually drafted up a video on that. But it was pretty dry, just me talking in front of the civ 3 combat calculator for 10 minutes.
I feel a lot of the war concepts are more based on "feel" (like how many units is enough for a timing push?), and better illustrated with full game play throughs than through a guide.
Are you serious? Civ v is one of the best civ games out there
when you attack a town, sarve it down and destroy the improvments around it , and if you have bombing stuff than use them to bomb the nearby reinforcments that may be coing , higher development will always mean strionger defence, also try to surround the town and find a sweet spot where you can attack without losing too many units. Usualy capturing cities with high population will be a struggle and also if you have looked at files and stuff there is a lot that influences combat, when yous stack units it boosts their defence but it does not give as much as an effect when attacking.
I’m so happy you like civ iii, I personally just like to do Huge with 8 civs.
Recently did I Mayan run, have to say they are a fun civ especially with those amazing traits
Yup! I'll admit their unique unit is a lot of fun too, despite not being too good. It's fun farming barbarians for workers. Although it's a shame that slave workers don't receive the industrious speed bonus.
Thanks suede, been waiting for this video!! I definitely agree with the Sumeria and Persia being two great civs, especially for new players, as I use them quite often. I was surprised with China as being third on your list but it’s intriguing so I’m definitely gonna start up a game tmr!!
How’d that China game go?
@@manaman9625 I got like 3000 hours logged in this game, probably played like 4-5 games with China since then 🤣🤣. Definitely overpowered
After fiddling around with some AW games, I've come to realize that there's more to numidian mercenary, javelin thrower, and the babylonian bowman. For most civs, to minimize losses, you'll probably need both spears and archers. According to more experienced AW players on civfanatics, and in my experience also, spears behind city walls minimize losses, since the AIs will have more losses trying to kill them than you will have trying to kill invading units (at least before you have enough catapults to redline or yellow line invaders and keep them coming to good spots).
Veteran spears can promote to elite which is nice. But even though I've done it, attacking with an elite spear doesn't strike me as happy even if the invader gets redlined first. Bowmen, numidian mercernaries, and javelin thrower don't have that problem. You could use them as defenders, then when one promotes, you then try to use it as an attacker to get out an early army. Carthage's traits thus end up somewhat synergistic with the numidian mercenary, since Carthage can have one tech researched to mathematics, and the Maya knowing Masonry also helps them out (and worker shortage can easily become an issue in an AW game, and it's understandable due to unit support concerns and needing/wanting more military all the time). Carthage can also probably also might avoid researching warrior code for a bit in such a game.
The drawback of those units though, other than cost, lies in the resulting despotic golden age, which isn't quite so happy. And more synergy could exist for Babylon if it was militaristic.
Babylon gets the extra bonus of defensive bombard on the bowman.
But yeah, I've thought it over and my ranking of Numidian mercenaries was far too low. I had them below keshiks. They're definitely better than that, and likely better than impi and musketeers too. They're just a valuable option to have.
Sure they're pricey. But if you care about cost, you can just build warriors. If you don't fight in the ancient era, you'll at least get utility out of them as replacements for pikes in the medieval era.
Interesting you have America second to last. I usually just play in the mid difficulty levels though, 7 or 8 opponents, mid-size map, and always dominate with America. I have a great expansionism period, either best or one of the best. I get to the tech lead fairly early but by Industrial age for sure and never give it up since I usually Golden Age in mid to late Middle Ages with wonders or latest with Hoover Dam in Industrial Age. I don't think I've ever golden aged fighting with that unique unit. But this was instructive and interesting. I also love the Iroquis, Mayans and Aztecs, not so much the Persians though. I should give the Celts a thorough try as well.
The Carthaginians are actually good on Archipelago, IF you play random climate/age etc and 70% water. (60% water makes seafaring a less valuable trait) Industrious allows you to get a huge head start and expand faster because you can maximize city tiles faster and build roads to neighbors u want to invade. The seafaring trait allows u to reach AI civs before your neighbors and get a lead on tech. I always go writing, mapmaking philosophy and usually get it. Also one tile cities are great in archipelago. Easy to defend (a single spearman until Marines) & they provide bases for your ships. Same with 2-3 tile islands. As long as a worker and an archer on standing on the non city tile, no enemy can land. The Man o War is a killer unit in the same situation, archipelago, 70 water. Frigates are a big deal in 70% situations because u can soften up the many coastal cities with them before landing your troops, plus Man o Wars recover a high percentage of regular frigates from the ones they sink and win more naval combat.
/
Ive been playin with germany for the past 20 years the same style which makes harder difuculties difficult. This is giving me confidence to explore new cizs!
I don't think Germany falls off at all at higher difficulties, but they definitely limit your options. There's so many cool strats that other civs will allow for.
The first time I played this game I was 6 years old and couldnt even read nor speak english. I liked the animations and movements. I would always start with Rome because I liked the colouring but I never got past the ancient era. The peak was when I actually got a medieval infantry and tried to defeat the enemy and got destroyed.
13 years later it feels amazing that now I can actually win as Rome.
Just wanted to say this is a great video. I was thinking about getting back into III, and going through your content has been eye opening. THANKS!
You ask who's a fan of the Hitties. I think they have their charms. I'm a builder/science focused player who plays on Regent, so I'm sure their weakness stand out far more at higher difficulties, but here's what I like:
1) Their trait combo drastically reduces two of the most annoying aspects of the game - barbarians and corruption. I can freely explore far and wide and plant early cities on distant resources/luxuries. Also, I believe this is the only trait combo that doesn't alter the cost of any buildings or worker moves, so it's a good pick for new players to get the fundamentals down.
2) I think of the Three-Man Chariot as a Bowman on wheels -- or maybe a Impi on steroids. If you're using it primarily for defense, it can defend a wide radius of cities AND it can trade effectively into a stack of Immortals before they attack (and can retreat).
At the end of the day, I'd rather have Sumeria or Greece, but I do think their traits and unique unit adds up to a decent builder strategy.
Also, I'm now the last 2 comments, my apologies for being a fanboy.
One thing you may have missed is starting techs as well.
Seafarings and Commercial get writing which is great for the philosophy slingshot. Combined with pottery that's a great start firm settler factory.
I think England also gets pottery so it's great there as well.
Yeah, I think I factored that into my ratings of sea/com, and to a lesser extent ind. Definitely a huge advantage, especially on high difficulty levels.
Feel a bit bad about England being so low. Com/Sea have incredibly good synergy. Man-o-War is also quite incredible sea unit. With it your are set to get a GA right at the dawn of industrial era, since it's a/d ratio is unbearable by any other ship until ironclads and AI almost never makes them. It has a speed of 5 but it's actually 6 because SEA. And it can enslave enemies ships, turning them into new MOW. You can just dis and them if needed and that's 16 shield right there. That's how English can get their production, lol. On archipelago or continental maps English can have some really scary commerce that comes from their bonuses which will deal with techs and happiness. And last but definitely not least they start with two massive techs, Alphabet and Pottery. So they can build the best early building right away and are set to go to quick philosophy. English probably are not the best civ around, admitedly, but I think they still should be higher than below mediocre level. They have so much potential and various fun ways to carry on through the game.
Thank you for all your guides and tutorials. Awesome stuff, Suede!
I really don't like playing Mayans. They feel so unbalanced. Agri + Indu is insanely overpowered combo expecially in the early game, that leads to explosive growth (so much that I often end up having happiness issues). But I find it hard to actually convert this into an early lead. They're below average at war, because their unique unit sucks, you can't do archer rush, so basically the only viable option until Chivalry for conquering nearby civs is Swordsman. And when you conquer enemy cities, it's hard to make anything of it. Religous and Scientific civs get cheap culture buildings to expand you borders and prevent culture flips, Commercial get lower corruption so you can actually use those cities for something substantial. Mayans don't have any of that. I vastly prefer other civs, that have Agri and Indu traits paired with other strong traits like commercial, religious, scietific or militaristc, and have a solid unique unit. Celts, Iroquois, China, Sumerians, Persians, Ottomans, Egypt, France...
So, at the end, you say that the most effective civ in CIV 3 are Iroquois.
I never thought about all these consideration and usually I don't play a lot with Iroquois, but I completely agree with you: quick exploring of surrounding lands, so early science exchanges and fast towns growing useful for starting phase to produce settlers and useful in advanced game for grow up cities to metropolis.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks Expansionist is the worst trait in the game. It's good for beginning of the game, but just useless after the fact. I've never played an Agricultural civ, though, and should actually give that a try (especially if I want to spread quickly).
Have you ever considered loading up the Civ III Editor to...
*Improve/Replace lower tier UUs.*
-Example 1: America gets a Minuteman [2/4/2, or a zone of control] instead of Musketman.
-Example 2: Modify the Javelin Thrower to be 2/1/1, Cost 20 Shields, Enslave instead of Bombard.
-Example 3: Keshik remain a Knight replacement with lower defense and cost but replaces the hills/mountains perk with treating all terrain as roads (like Explorer), or make it a replacement for Horseman and make it 2/1/3.
*Replace the Expansionist Trait with something more beneficial (if applicable).*
-Example 1: America becomes Industrious/Commercial
-Example 2: Portugal becomes Seafaring/Commercial
-Example 3: Russia becomes Scientific/Militaristic
*Change perks & penalties of useless governments.*
-Example 1: I actually have no idea how I would improve Fascism, Feudalism, or Democracy.
*Add/Change/Remove units, tech, improvements, wonders, governments, etc?*
Many, many people have attempted to do exactly what you are describing and it usually comes out at something that caters to their own taste rather than something that you could easily sell to other people. It's so easy to lose focus and just end up with a mess of changes. So if I did it, the main challenge would be that, sticking to pre-set goals as to how the game should be different.
It would be an interesting challenge and I suspect I'd find it fun, but it's not on my list.
I know what you mean. The closest I ever got to making something "for other people" was making a scenario using members of my family who actually played the game and seeing what they liked the most (for their UUs, traits, and unique buildings).
Are there still enough people playing where a full on discussion to balance/improve the overall experience can take place?
@@PelemusMcSoy Yes. There's 2 discords (one for single player, one for multiplayer).
Check out the single player discord here if you want to talk about that sort of stuff.
discord.gg/Bp3VPav
@@suedeciviii7142 Thanks a bunch!
This will change how i play my next game. Definitely going to give the Iroquois a go.
LOL the iriquois are always the ones that are dead by the end of the industrial era, they never develope all the way, but hey, a player could change that
Just for future reference, Iroquois is pronounced (ear-a-coy). I grew up where they existed and learned about them in school haha
Are you from upstate New York, or somewhere nearby? I've heard that some Iroquois people pronounce it your way so it's not incorrect.
But the word is French. I'm from Canada, that's how it's pronounced where I'm from. And if you google pronunciation guides, you're mostly going to get stuff that says "ee-ro-kwa".
@@suedeciviii7142 western new york! But wow I had no idea. Learning more than civ III strategy!
@@liammcmahon2276 As someone from Northern NJ, i can confirm that Liam's pronunciation is how i've always heard it too.
Expansionist IMO is still very strong on pangea in deity. I never had trouble popping huts with 3 extra scouts built. I'd rather have it over religious in that case. The tech lead can allow you to amass gold for a mass upgrade or reach your medieval UU tech much faster.
Check the charts here
www.civfanatics.com/civ3/strategy/game-mechanics/probabilities-of-goody-huts-c3c/
You are correct. You're actually more likely to pop a settler on deity than on any other difficulty, unless you're non-expansionist, in which case your odds are 0.
Wow.. so much tips.. wish i had these 10+ years ago.
Dutch were my choice for a Sid game on archipelago. Won a diplomatic win with them.
I play CIV III so differently than most I’ve discovered. As much as I try getting into the whole agri fandom, I just can’t, and it’s not because it’s bad, it’s because I usually don’t like Pangea maps. I prefer islands. You said in a video once that noobs aren’t good on maps with lots of water, but since I grew up playing CIV I, Pangea wasn’t an option. My playing style makes Industrious the most OP trait, because I don’t need a settler 3 or 5 or 7 turns earlier when I have a road built 50% faster. I build big cities made for late game. An emphasis on a strong capital or second city location lets me rush the pyramids if i want fast growth, and a granary in every city is even better than agri because I don’t need a river to get the bonus. And a fast growth doesn’t help unless I have bonus resources to get high production...
The problem with agri is that my cities grow so fast they get civil unrest all the time, and in the early game I have no industry to build roads to send luxuries, another unit to keep them calm, and usually no extra gold to be spending on the happiness bar.
Here is my ideal setup: An island to myself with 2 luxuries, room for about 20 cities, a large or huge map, and time to let my workers make me not just have a few big cities but a wise forbidden palace placement that gets almost all my cities at high production by the time factories are available. A commanding navy of privateers keeps other civs in check until we all get modern ships, and then you can put out bombers on carriers and no one can ever challenge you. My preferred civs are the French and Americans, with the Carthaginians being really fun on small island maps.
I just don’t like Pangea, so it’s really important to decide what CIV you’re playing based on map type and not just UU or traits.
PS. If I want a road over 5 grass type tiles, that’s 15 turns with industry (including movement) but without industry it’s 20 turns. There are your 5 extra turns from agri right there. And if you happen to already have the road to the city location the settler is moving faster. Industry > Agriculture. Pyramids > Agriculture. And most AI rush Oracle or Colossus. If you get a good second or third city as settler factory the AI won’t get Pyramids first 19 times out of 20.
If your cities are growing so fast with Ag that they disorder, just build more workers. There you go, 2 birds with one stone, makes up for the slower worker speed too.
You're right that Industrious is relatively strong on archi maps. Ag is still great though, it just becomes more of a scaling trait. With few rivers and lakes, you need aqueducts in every single city, which are half priced with archi. You also get the third city center ag food in all cities. not just fresh water cities, when you switch out of despotism.
@@suedeciviii7142 my problem with more workers is that unless I’m commercial I struggle with paying for all of them. Once in republic I can usually handle 70-80% tech but unit cost has brought me down to 40-50. Perhaps just better unit management on my part.
And I didn’t know the bonus was restored once out of despotism, great to know! Thanks for the info vids!
And
@@dallenhaven3329 Agreed. I try to get as much done before I switch to republic, but it is a cost. Industrious is a a useful trait, no doubt about it!
Island maps are easy mode for unit management though.
Agricultural isn't much of a bonus for a 20k. Commercial is almost entirely useless for a 20k. Seafaring makes for a strong trait for a 20k game. Exspanionist is awesome for a low level fast space race or diplomatic game on a sizeable map.
I read once on the forums that someone made an army of conquistadores and the person couldn't remember having so much fun, as he pillaged basically everything the AI had.
Carthage ends up extremely strong for a 20k game. They make for the best choice for a Sid 20k game, even beating out the Byzantines, since they can build The Pyramids and can prebuild with the palace after that. Also, they have a 3 defense unit that doesn't require iron. A healthy army of numidan mercenaries can't get killed by the AI until modern times.
Also, the speed of building roads and railroads with the industrious trait I think hard to undervalue.
Additionally, such a ranking system I think best as a means of discussion and such rankings aren't absolute. Carthage makes for a good example. They won't make for a top tier for a lot of victory conditions. But, for a Sid level 20k game they end up top tier.
One of my next playthroughs is going to be 20k. I haven't done it at a high difficulty level. So for that reason, I'd be really interested in learning more. Any links on the subject of Sid 20k?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it hard to win with? I was under the impression that past emperor, winning a 20k culture victory was more of a niche challenge like AW or OCC, not an efficient strategy for winning the game. That you'd need to weaken enemy civs so much that it'd be easier to simply kill them completely and win by domination.
Out of curiosity, who would you put at the bottom?
@@suedeciviii7142 If you use MapFinder or otherwise reroll until you have a good start, and play a big water archipelago, then without exploits, upper level 20k ends up easier than other victory conditions (if not using the pillaging trick). None of the upper level 20k victories that I know of (all in the HoF) use the destroy the enemy so you can get a 20k victory... they're more about the start.
If you're on an archipelago map, usually you can force any AIs at war with you to land their units next to your capital by keeping it empty, with just one of the adjacent landing tiles open for the AI to land there (you have units ready to destroy invaders as soon as they land).
For a link, there was a 20k Sid competition for the HoF a while back: forums.civfanatics.com/threads/g-iii-sigma.243453/page-3 Many of Sanabas's ideas apply on Sid as I recall from the following thread, but you don't necessarily want to use the capital, since research takes so long, and you can prebuild wonders outside of the capital: forums.civfanatics.com/threads/the-idiots-guide-to-20k.162674/
I think I'd put the Zulu at the bottom.
@@Spoonwood The mapfinder looks interesting, I'll download that.
One thing I assumed for this list was you didn't have choice of map or land type. I'd agree that when tackling particular interesting challenges, civs like Carthage, Byzantium, and Babylon are useful tools in our toolkit, while civs like the Germans and Zulu are not. There's very few things they do that other civs don't do better.
That being said, it was interesting because a lot of the "generalist" civs that don't excel at anything in particular, like Rome and Germany, are very popular with new players.
I think Greece might be a bit underrated here. You did undermine just HOW synergistic their UU is. I guess it's more situational, but on a coastal city you can build two hoplites, a settler, and then immediately build Colossus (which in a vaccuum isn't great by itself) while researching Writing, by the time it's done happiness issues are nonexistent in your capital and you should have extra pop to build more settlers before getting to Literature. It does rely on your second city being brawn enough to pump out a settler in the mean time, but paired with commercial it snowballs into scientific domination by the mid game. Especially if you b-line the scientific route in the medieval era and pick up Copernicus and Newton's. Having access to pikeman turn 1 the same price as spearman is absurd, so you don't have to worry as much about spamming units. In the ancient era. It does hinder ancient expansion, but I think the benefits are worth it unless you have especially cucked land. You're not going to have immensely successful ancient wars with this strat, but it lends a very nice feeling and meaningful snowball.
Top 3 for me personally. Easily
My favorite unit is in the first place - Mounted Warrior,a unique unit for the Iroquois,it’s my favorite nation,I’m always lucky with the Iroquois everywhere,especially at war - it’s my favorite part in Civilization 3 !!!
Hey, question here! So I believe you said in a different vid that the agriculture food bonus only works if you plant next to fresh water (I think you said that's only the case for despotism). Furthermore, the seafaring bonus only works if you settle on the coast. Wouldn't this make the Netherlands traits conflict, considering it is probably difficult to find a lot of city spots next to both fresh and salt water?
Also, cool to see this game still get attention. Played it with my father a lot growing up. He was a fan of English history and would exclusively play England on any map. We would play archipelago 60% over LAN, and basically tag team the AI, which made up for how little we knew about playing the game efficiently.
The food bonus is much more important that the commerce bonus. Early game I'd say one food = 5 commerce.
Thanks! It truly is a classic and I think there's a lot to talk about :)
IMO militaristic and seafaring take a split for the worst traits. Militaristic doesn't really do anything useful in terms of getting you ahead in the game. Barracks is already pretty cheap to begin with and higher chance of promotions isn't really significant if you build barracks and pump out veteran units. I only use like 4-5 cities to produce units, so the cost required to build barracks is pretty much nothing. And by the time I want to build a huge army and need more cities to build units, it only takes like a few turns to build barracks in them. When I play militarictic civs it always feels like playing a 1 trait civ. The only scenario when this trait is kinda useful is if you're going for super early archer rush. From the militaristic civs, I would put Rome lower on the list since it's really hard to avoid triggering Golden Age in despotism if you want to use their UU.
Seafaring is only useful on archipelago maps and even then it's just kinda ok. The only exception are Byzantines who can really profit from their insanely overpowered UU.
Expansionist is situational and it's obviously useless on archipelago maps or tiny to small maps, but IMO it's a great trait on pangea maps in general or large to huge continent maps, especially on lower difficulties. Early contacts with other civs and bonus tech from popping up huts can get you really ahead in the game. But yeah, it's really situational and definitelly one of the worst traits.
Note that I never played above Monarch difficulty, so I don't know how these traits fare at higher levels.
TBH the more I look at it, the best thing about militaristic military great leaders. Armies are just so stupidly broken. Not only does mil give you double rate of MGLs, but you also likely get twice as many elite units, and it gets you heroic epic faster.
To clarify, the "higher chance" is literally double for promotions and MGLs.
There's also some decent utility in things like half priced harbors and walls that it's hard to call it a bad trait.
If you think exp is strong because of early contact, then by definition seafaring is better. The difference in movement between a warrior and a scout is the same as between a curragh and a seafaring curragh. And on island maps (and some continents maps) the trait is absolutely game breaking. Expansionist gives you a contact monopoly on a pangea for what, 30 turns maybe? Seafaring gives you one for half the game.
Expansionist has also no scaling, it does nothing past the expansion phase. Meanwhile, the commerce bonus from seafaring is hard to notice but it adds up throughout the game.
I don't mind despotic GAs as long as you have a good UU to spam in the GA.
@@suedeciviii7142 I forgot about the MGLs, but it stil doesn't make the trait worth for me. I concede that Expandionist and Seafaring are worst but Militaristic is pretty close. When I play civ3, I like to just have some fun and do both some war and actually build up my empire. Traits like Agricultural, Industrious or Religious are useful for both, unlike Militaristic.
@@prehistorCZ Yeah agreed. I'd probably put rel/mil as third and fourth worst, the order depends on playstyle. Although you could make a case that seafaring is better than them on high difficulties, even if you might be playing on a random map that might be pang/continents
My dad who played this game and got me into it always played the Iroquois. It makes sense now to me because he never explained it but he said they're just the best
Good tier list. Never played chinese but 100% agree w/ top and bottom otherwise and did not look at the rest.
Appreciate the content. Since this video is a ranking of civs for human players, do you have a list of civs that the AI plays well? Civs to play against for a good challenge?
That's a mystery. I have no reason to believe that the AI is good at Portugal (including their programming flags), but for some reason, portugal does well.
I always play as France but am going to try some new ones after watching this! thank you. I'm not French but always thought they had the best 2 traits Industrious and Commercial.
Hey suede! Big fan bro. I think a fun video topic for ya would be a best/worst case scenario for winning with each civ. Cheers!
I like talking about the differences between each civ, but to be honest it's a flexible game! It's nowhere near mandatory to play around your UU or civ traits to win.
That being said, I think there are a few civs with narrow playstyles that really are weaker if played any other way.
Just started replaying civ 3. This helps substantially lol.
Thanks for the vid. Keep up being the best
I've recently thought that for Quick Civ mod on a pangea map, the Hittites make a strong choice. Agricultural isn't quite as powerful relatively and can be useless for having a settler factory. Starting with a granary is still nice, and expansionist means quicker contacts is possible. Commercial gives one a good tech for trading, and less corruption later. The three-man chariot has 2 defense? That could mean quicker promotion to elite status or getting a leader. I think I'd rather have expansionist in general than agricultural for a game with Quick Civ mod on a pangea map.
I think Spain fairly strong for island archipelago games 20k games. The main issue that they have though, is that both The Oracle and The Pyramids are religious, and The Colossus is Seafaring. If you don't have the despotism penalty, they become stronger.
Portugal, I would think, becomes better if you don't have the despotism penalty and play for 20k on a not too high level difficulty. They get an instant golden age with The Colossus, which would be a strong commercial production, and shield production early. I think faster than anyone else for a 20k game! Getting one settler from a hut early can be substantial enough to make expansionist worth it. But, the problem lies in that such will fail a lot of the time. And huts for 20k might mean losing out on an ancient wonder that you might have gotten with huts off. Maybe not with 80% archipelago though.
I think Rome rates high for the Quick Civ mod.
Ag is still quite strong in QC. There's no despotism penalty so you get the bonus immediately in all cities. Gives you 5 food per turn default, which is a nice breakpoint. It does scale worse though.
I ran a test a couple years ago. I made a typical mid-late game empire in QC, with and without the commercial flag. The difference was virtually nothing. 0 shields and maybe 10 commerce, mostly from the city center bonus. It might have to do with how we plant cities in QC though.
Literally everytime I have Portugal against me as one of the AIs on Pangea or Continent, they are absolutely pathetic. Many times they are destroyed by other AIs even before I get to them. I'm just in the middle of a game where Portugal has tiny "empire" of like 6 cities and they're just in the process of being conquered by China (and I'm about to join the party). Same often applies to Mongols, although not to such an extent. Strangely, another "bad" civ - England - is often pretty strong, I noticed. I don't really keep track of it, but that's just how it appears to me...
Celts are my favourite civ, their UU is amazing (too bad you cannot build them anymore after feudalism, I would prefer them to medieval infantry) and their traits have IMO great synergy. Maybe I'm not doing something right, but whenever I play agri civs, I tend to have some happines issues (yes, I know about the slider, but it's not always an option) due to the rapid growth and not many luxuries being available for trade. Having cheap temples solves this before you can secure some more luxuries and build marketplaces. Plus cheap temples are also great for conquering new territories, since expanding you borders prevents the AI from puting cities in stupid spots.
I've clearly been watching your channel too long, but in another video you said Expansionist is better on higher difficulty (except for Sid) since the odds of popping Barbarians scales with difficulty. Here, you say it's worse on higher difficulty since the AI's extra units clear the maps. So which is it? This is the hard-hitting journalism the civ iii community demands! :)
Hah! Both factors come into play, but I would generally say better. The AI often just leaves huts up for some reason.
I know these vids are now four years old, but even then Civ 3 was close to 20 years old.
I'm not trying to be critical, as Civ 3 is the last Civ game I've played, because I think the newer ones, starting with Civ 4, were deliberately broken (units unable to traverse mountains).
Any particular reason why you put so much effort into making numerous vids about such an old game?
The channel started because I wanted to draw players in to the multiplayer community.
From there, I kept posting because I love the game, I'm good at the game, and it's fun having a RUclips channel.
Scientific and seafaring are my favourite traits, followed by agricultural and industrious, the other traits i dont really care about them. I mostly play maps with lots of ocean on it, so Byzantines or Dutch for me most of the time, Persia and Carthage i like too.
I beat all my games without switching out of the default government (Tyranny?)
Was I exploiting a glitch? It just seemed that it was always a 'Bad Idea' to switch to any other gov.
I like the Mayans best. I can see why Iroquis is better in the end, but the Mayan industrious trait is very strong early game.
I don't know if you considered this in your ratings, but militaristic trait produces more great leaders which can produce armies and armies can do wonderful things.
Yes, in fact this is the chief reason militaristic is a decent trait.
Awesome vid! I think the rundown of civs is great. How do you think the rankings would change if you got to pick the map settings you were playing on before starting? Like, how would a niche civ rank if it got its preferred map settings vs. a generally good civ on it’s best map settings combination? I guess that would be a completely separate list that would rank civs by ability to win with them.
Seafaring, Agri, and expansionist would all be very strong traits. Religious and scientific would become relatively weak I think.
The synergy would be way different too. Zulu and Mongols would definitely be at the bottom, on maps where expansionist is good, militaristic tends to be bad. England and the byzantines would be very strong civs. The Hittites might even be pretty good.
Interesting video but those screeching audio issues are really painful.
You are truly the master of this game! Thank you very much! Is this documentation somewhere online?
What do you mean by documentation?
@@suedeciviii7142 Hi sir! Like your PowerPoint slides etc. Are they maybe on Google drive somewhere? I just like to read it carefully before playing the game. :) Thanks for the good videos btw!
@@nickklok4955
I haven't posted the slides online sadly, want me to email them to you?
Also, check out my recent video "how to get good at civilization 3". There's a link to a bunch of articles and forum posts containing information about the game that isn't in the civilopedia.
Ween
@@suedeciviii7142 Sorry sir, didn't see you already replied. I've seen the video, many thanks!!!
I like to play on huge maps with 15+ AIs. I used the Vikings on an Archipelago on Warlord difficulty (hardest I had ever played at the time) and came in second. Spain kind of got away, unfortunately.
I like the industrious the best.
Its always good regardless of map and start.
You need like 50% less workers, that means more gold.
How realistic are those realizations about civilizations, I mean... if those would go for a future-start match, the commercial trait for the Iroquois could mean that those have an Indian casino somewhere in the town... and some other funny stuff like that... O.o
Hah! We had to ban agricultural in future start because it was too strong. It just let you get to drafting size too fast.
We makes sense. In a post-apocalyptic "restart" type situation on earth, being agricultural would be really strong.
Great video man, but i am quite sad that the america is that low, I play monarch and always rush through the ancient age and prebuild for sun tzu, then i start to dominate the game
They're good on maps with a lot of land, if you can get your golden age via wonders.
Great video, very informative. Just wanted to note that negative synergy is called antagonism.
Ok, so an old geezer question:
Carthage and Spain get back Commercial instead of Seafaring. Still so low, or they would be a bit higher? Carthage, especially, since it would have same traits as French, which are 15th.
Carthage was underrated on this list.
Com is only good when paired with a strong UU or an early game trait, so rel com Spain would be awful.
I think I was actually too nice to France here. I was wondering why this was such a tough question!
I always played Persia back in the day because I figured it had the best traits and it always bugged me how easy it was to waste a GA with them.
It's not a wasted GA. Early despotism GAs are very powerful as long as you dump the gold and shields into something useful (Typically conquering or building ancient era wonders). The immortal is among the easiest units in the game to conquer with, so just investing the GA shields into more immortals is a fantastic use of a GA.
A simple and historically accurate fix for Rome would be to give Legions the ability to build roads. This would give the Legions utility, mobility, and open up new strategies.
Honestly I think they're fine. They're a solid unit.
I applaud the detail you put into the video but why the indifference for Rome? You had more to say about lower ranking civ’s. I’ve played Rome probably hundreds of times, always on low levels and have had massive success with them. I’ve won the game every way that is possible with Rome while building all wonders of the world except one or two in most games. So Suede do you not like the Roman civ? BTW I’m a huge fan of the actual Roman civilization. Just wondering, great job on the video as a whole.
Mid tier traits, mid tier UU, and not much synergy. Rome struggles at higher difficulties because they lack tools that allow them grow (No offensive UU, no agri/ind). If they can't grow, they can't take advantage of commercial's reduced corruption. They can do a rush with archers/Legions, but they lack flexibility.
Suede CivIII thanks for the added info.
Just found your channel, so you may have done a video about this, but: have you done civ 3 faction analysis for the conquests in civ 3 complete?
No, sorry. I do talk a lot about the factions when I play through the conquests, either on stream or in videos, but it's part of longer playthroughs.
Was there a particular conquest or faction you were curious about? I could maybe try and find a relevant segment.
@@suedeciviii7142 Hey that’s fine, mostly wanting to figure out how to not be owned by rome in the rise of rome conquest. Best luck I had was with Greece but on higher difficulties I usually get steam rolled
@@DustBornKnight Usually ally with every civ vs Rome turn 1. That or go for fire catapults. It gets very hard if you let them get the advanced Legion units.
I did a playthrough where I conquered Rome as Egypt if that interests you.
Just playing demigod game with random settings and civs(I randomed Russia) and started on isolated island worst possible start for exp also had incredible bad luck with my curraghs i think i found other civs somehwere around 200AD.
I managed to get Gl at least to catch up but then i noticed i dont have iron/saltpeter nothing on my island was great land but not single res well i decided to continue anyway to try Cossacks so i managed to get few cities on continent and got myself saltpeter and Cossacks are only reason why i didnt get uterly crushed had some cannons/trebs and few cossacks so i decided to war strongest civ in game which was India i was heavilly outnumbered but manage to get on top beacuse of this UU so i cant agre they are bad on higher diff levels unless we talk about Sid.
Also science wasnt that bad either for me as i coould get uselles tech and trade them for gpt i dont think i would catch with AI if i was something else other then science.
If Scandinavia is rank 19 Russia should be really close simply because power of their UU and really great timing for GA.
I want to know the source of my idiocy. I've played this game for 20 years nonstop and am now playing demi-god level but seldom get above last place by 1 A.D. Am trying the touted Iroquois but to no avail. There is something basic that I'm not getting with any civ I play at this level. FYI - I re-start until I get a decent starting square, play random civs and landmasses, and tend to be aggressive - starting wars early to get cities or concessions. Help!
Send some save files to suedeciviii@gmail.com
And demigod is hard! If you can win on emperor you're good at the game.
@@suedeciviii7142 Suede, would've replied sooner but I was immersed in an Iroquois demigod game where , for some reason I actually was doing quite well and I'm not certain why. - I watched some of your games he and noticed that you built warriors - which I never do. I hate warriors - they just seem like feckless placeholders. But then, that's probably why I fail miserably at higher level games. I will send you over some saves and maybe you can show me my fatal flaws. Thanks much!
Could you beat sid difficulty with 7 AI players? I tried but i failed, i always 1 era behind them which is annoying and for the government question why Republic is the best? Also why my gold starts to decrease when i switched to republic
I can't say that I have.
I did a video on governments. TLDR, you have to manage unit support very carefully in republic, or your army will bankrupt you. Disband outdated units, and grow your cities to size 7+ to increase the free unit support you get.
At 15:11 and 19:15 you mentioned the "multiplier bonus". What's that?
Basically, synergy between the traits.
Imagine one trait gives +5 shields, and another gives +25% shields. The +25% adds on to the +5.
Same thing with Greece and the Byzantines. They get their libraries faster because they're cheap, and the bonus gold from the com/sea trait gets funneled into the libraries.
Other than the +1 food in the city center for freshwater access, what good is the agricultural trait? Is there anything else it does I'm not aware of? For some reason I'm blanking on this despite having played the game on and off from its release. Are aqueducts cheaper? Agri wonders half cost?
First of all, +1 food is absolutely insane. In despotism that will typically be a 50% increase in growth.
When you're out of despotism you get the bonus in all cities. Not just cities with freshwater. Weird how it works that way but this actually gives the government good scaling, as it keeps on providing benefits long after pretty much every trade except commercial have stopped being useful.
You get cheap aqueducts, which really helps you get decent unit support in republic ASAP.
Irrigated desert tiles get +2 food instead of +1, making bad starts a lot more rare.
And you start with pottery. Not a valuable trading tech but typically the one with the most immediate use.
@@suedeciviii7142 First of all, thanks for the snappy response! I realized as you were making your main point about how much of an impact that "measly" +1 food makes, that during my testing in debug mode last night of almost everything that can affect the city center tile yield, when it came to planting a city on resources, the food yield absolutely never increased, only shields and gold (I know you mentioned this in another video), and even those had exceptions of course (furs didn't give the +1 shield as expected). This throttling of food bonuses must have been on purpose- food is so crucial an advantage in the outset of a new game that they made sure you had only a few things that could boost it from the beginning of a new settlement. For example, think planting your settlement on a flood plain will give you three food in the city center? Nope, nixed down to 2 like most other tiles. Other side of that coin- planting on a desert tile doesn't leave you with only 1 food in city center, it's still normalized to two again. Balance. And yet.....it's all still so freakin' complex!
Follow-up questions- what fraction of cities on continents or pangaea would you say end up having freshwater access? 1 in 4? 1 in 5? If the +1 food only applies to those select freshwater-access cities before switching out of despotism as you said, (implying the bonus is nixed by the desp. penalty but otherwise would apply to all cities no matter the freshwater?), then having only a handful of cities with faster growth should shape other decisions, such as where to place the one or two granaries you recommend building. Should these faster-growing cities in the depo. phase focus on being settler factories, or military unit factories?
Cheap aqueducts, super helpful for sure! And cheap solar panels and recycling cent.....oh, never mind. 🙂
It is ridiculous how many tiny little rules this game has, with addendums for the exceptions to the rules that are overridden by this other rule........ad infinitum ad nauseum! Players like myself and many others in the comments learning new things about the game even 20 years later.
Just for the city center tile yield alone, here's a list of the things that can affect it- underlying tile yield, government type, resources, freshwater access, civ strengths, sea access, river adjacent (separate from a lake's effects in one regard), settlement size, golden age, capital or not....and I'm sure five more things I haven't thought of.
Is there any hope of me ever being able to look at a few patches of land before my intrepid settler caravan of 10,000 hapless souls, and in an instant be able to calculate in my head how much food, shields and gold I'll get from it by planting on it?
Sorry for the eye strain, I'm a stickler for details when I want to be. One reason I posed this question while being aware of much of the details already, is precisely because there are SO MANY small little-known rules NOT covered in the Civilopedia, or that are a direct contradiction to a false statement in the Civilopedia. I figured asking the premier online expert who still has a love for this endlessly-replayable game would be the one to give me as thorough an answer as you did.
Off to do more testing! Hat tip to you again, mighty sir!
@@suedeciviii7142 Sorry but one last question- are you saying that the +1 food for being agricultural normally applies to every settlement irrespective of freshwater access, it's just that the effect is nullified by the despotism penalty, but then countermanded only when there's the ADDITIONAL bonus of having freshwater access?
For example- city center = 2 food, +1 for being agri = 3 food, but despo penalty knocks anything at 3 back down to 2 (so back to 2 food), but if you also have freshwater access (yet another +1 food), the calculus is now 2 + 1 - 1 + 1 = 3....and 3 is 50% more than 2? This would make sense since you said after leaving despotism you get it in all cities......and therefore +4 food in agri civs' cities with freshwater access? Off to test again!
@@suedeciviii7142 Okay you were very precise in your wording about this mess. You do NOT get 4 food in the city center for the combo of 1) being agricultural, 2) planting next to fresh water, 3) being out of despotism. It's still only 3. Therefore there doesn't seem to be some set of rules countermanding one another, it's simply set up that being agricultural helps you conditionally in despotism, and then universally once you're out of despotism. How nice of them to not explain that. How blessed to have Suede to convey it to us chieftains, lol.
@@alightinthedarkages9494 Yeah I simplified a bit, but technically it's tied to the despotism penalty. So in anarchy you also won't get the bonus food unless you're on fresh water.
I think I'm pretty good at making bad choices, because the exact two worse civilizations in order was the two nations I decided to start a game with shuashuh
9:29 Play them for the challenge, basically.
16:05 Jack of all trades, master of none.
I have a 1 city culture victory on deity as them on my channel :)
This is kind of a very nichey questions. I like to play America and was kind of sad to see it ranked so low. I'm not going to argue with the ranking because I simply don't know enough. I like to take something that is not the best and learn to master it and get the most possible from it. Like flathead engines ( : < ). Any tips specific to playing America? I don't usually play at high difficulty levels just to keep the game moving in the small chunks of time I carve out to play.
Part of the reason I ranked America so low is they really fall off on higher difficulties because their golden age is impossible to get.
So play on Warlord or something and their a midtier civ.
Choose the right map, (60% water Pangea maybe) and they are well above average :) Just make sure to build enough scouts to get those extra huts.
As for tips for America: they have very strong early game traits. Try to expand very rapidly, and trade techs frequently to try to get out of the ancient era as soon as possible. If an enemy is blocking your expansion, try for an early war.
Maybe grab either The Pyramids or The Hanging Gardens. Then go for Copernicus' observatory in the middle ages, and that should give you a well timed golden age. If you miss the Pyramids or the Hanging Gardens, The Hoover Dam can be your industrious wonder.
Thanks! Some of that I already do. Warlord, yep! Like to play archipelago. I expand rapidly and attack ruthlessly. Tend to grab too many wonders that don't do me any good. Your tutorials have already added fun and a faster pace to my games by showing me wasted effort!
I'm also very hesitant to encourage new players to build wonders, but with America I'd encourage you to pick up wonders with strong effects throughout the game. Your traits won't be any use late game, but if you can use your early strength to pick up wonders with big global effects that last the whole game (Like Sun Tzus, The Pyramids, JS Bach's, or Smith's Trading Company) that can make up for your lategame weaknesses
@@SootHead If you like archipelago, try a bigger map, or a 60% water map. If you can stand the longer game time that is.
Whats up with the sound?, it kills my ears prriodically
The Portuguese are shook.
I feel really stupid, but what OS are you on? It looks like a modded version of Windows but could also be Linux.
Windows with classic shell
@@suedeciviii7142 ty
I love the Mayans for all the free workers I get early in the game.
expansionist is massively underrated here. 99% of beakers on deity and sid comes from meeting the AI ASAP and trading. warriors are often simply too slow to make it happen, costing the whole game. you can also use scouts for resource denial, because f the AI.
If you putting a hyper focus on early trading wouldn't seafaring be better? No point meeting the AI early if you have no leverage. Pottery is an undervalued tech, alphabet is the most valuable. And curraghs are faster than scouts, and work on all map types.
I always play Germany because when the panzer charge is insane late game
Years ago we did civ reviews on the CFC forums circa 2004.
But yeah agri good exp bad and iroquois OP.
I think I've seen one of the threads your talking about. The point values made the end results a little wonky and their UU ratings were insane.
@@suedeciviii7142 I wrote some of them, I thought the Indians got under rated.
Think they've been archived, I wrote the Rule Brittania guide.
It was so long ago lol. I read the Arabs high for all the same reasons you did but some thought I was nuts.
I rate Dutch higher than you because of deity and sid games. Think I beat sidusing them, deity first win was Rome.
Mostly agree with your list 80% the other 20% are minor quibbles.
@@roryhebberd9766 Honestly even I have some quibbles to my own list. I rated Zulu/Mongols too high. And Korea too high.
India is fantastic, they're one of the few commercial civs that can fall behind early and still make strong use of the trait. Because Elephants can always be used to conquer, being really beefy and requiring no resources. And with alphabet, they won't fall behind in tech before then.
@@suedeciviii7142 up to a point it's subjective. The guy we rated them with ranked India and England low. I have a different epinion;).
For some reason I always get Inca as my neighbour or second closest civ when I play with England. I get tired of it and decided to hand pick my opponents.
do you play with culturally linked locations? There is a bug that means that setting doesn't work as intended and instead just means you basically only get Civs from North and South America.
Ive always been a huge fan of germany since i was a kid. Tech rush, then sweep the map with high tier units.
It doesn't have any development traits though :( Scientific on its own sounds great on paper but really you need Ag or Ind to outgrow the enemy.
@@suedeciviii7142 yah that's true, gotta get lucky with city rushing sometimes. I gobble up the the little civs early too to make up for it.
Some light wars early for Germany can pull their strengths together, agreed.@@st0rts11D4
I only have the vanilla civ 3, in that game, would the Iroquois still be the best civ? In vanilla civ, they are religious and expansionist
Expansionist is a bottom tier trait, so no. Their UU is still godly though.
IIRC industrious use to be stronger (100% worker speed increase instead of 50%). So the best civs in vanilla C3C were industrious. I think Persia was very good, as was Egypt.
I disagree a bit for expansionist.
In first turns, you may increase your scientific research more by scientific exchange with other civs than search them on your own. This means that in first turns your science level depend by how many contacts you have before other civs exchange themself. In this contest, starting with a scout is the best opportunity (except if you are alone on the island/continent).
However expansionist trait is unuseful in middle and advanced game.
I think we agree here. So you're saying it's inconsistent, that it depends on hut results and how many civs you meet? I'd agree with that. Great trait on certain maps but just does not give consistent value.
Describing the Byzantines as bargain-bin Greece is perfect on multiple levels.
it's kinda crazy how many UU were changed with the expansion. the kossaks e.g. had 6 attack and 4 defense, making them a really good choice for attacking AND defending. same with the french musketeer: 3 attack, 4 defense. now it's at 2 attack and 5 defense. useless for attacking now :/.
My favorite is the Gallic swordsman. Increased in cost. Twice. Then they reduced it in cost again with conquests.
@@suedeciviii7142 i actually like the egypt horse chariot the most. you can spam them so easily, it's crazy. i think to get one gallic swordsman you can build two egypt chariots. that equals 4.2 (2.1x2) to 3.2 if you count the points together. plus you only need horses as a ressource instead of iron. and those chariots were also already available in the standard game (without the conquest expansion). i also like the persian swordsmen, though they can be countered with riders quite easily. the roman legions are tougher to crack. but jeah, the gallic swordsmen are one hell of a good unit. they are like a crappier knight version that is cheaper and can be built fearly early in the game.
@@Daxter250 I know right? But so many people say the war chariot is a bad unit.
The earlier you get the unit, the better it is. So the Gallic is not just a shitty knight. It's better than a knight, since it's much more cost effective against spearman than knights are against pikes.
@@suedeciviii7142 i actually meant is as a compliment. its just mediocre in terms of attack and defense points compared to a knight (and i friggin love the knight!). i totally agree that its a great early unit with the only drawback that you have to pay 40 shields instead of 30. aside from the war chariot im actually not sure if an other UU can beat the gallic swordsman. it's so mobile and versatile and that golden age you can get from the unit helps greatly in a huge war (and that in turn can manifest ya position early on). maybe the iroquese UU can keep up. having 3 attack on a rider while only costing 30 shields is damn great.
I would put France, Netherlands and Mayans higher than you put them, though it seems like you weigh the unique unit higher than I do.
I think the traits are actually, all things considered... decently well balanced. (At least, if you make the assumption of random land mass. Obviously seafaring civs are overpowered on archipelago maps.)
This is 100% not true for unique units. Some are insanely strong, some are downgrades. So because of this, I think the UU has a lot more sway in making a civ good.
My noob ass always played with Rome. I thought it was hilarious to hear what you had to say about them mid-video.
FYI I still lose to AI on Regent. Still a noob.