We are playing with both extensions, an we are wondering if we are the only clan to experience strong disbalance between the Civs...?

To start with, we feel a strong bias towards tech victories, so we have introduced a house rule that every movement costs one trade (per unit).

We have many military victories, many tech, and some culture.

Not so many players are trying trade, don't really know why right now...

It seems that our games are over before we get the first level III wonder,

so we introduced another house rule that with the discovery of level >1 techs, the

every player can remove a wonder, bringing a new wonder.

We never ever had a Panama Canal or UN (I don't even know other level >II wonders).

So here are our experiences with some civs, can you guys confirm, or are we missing some vital strategies for some of the weak civs...?

Greek:

Together with the city policy of Rationalism, we had a tech victory in the seventh round (in spite of our house rule). Once the Greek have a head start in tech, the "no one other has/researches the free tech" is no obstacle any more.

So we restricted Greek Rationalism to *either* spend 6 or 11 trade, not both.

Still, Greeks are bloody strong tech'ies.

Arabs:

With the Arabs getting 2 culture for every spent resource token, and massive use of techs that give culture or trade for resource tokens (Riding, Currency e.g.), make the Arabs a civ to fear. It feels like a culture machine.

Moreover, culture cards are astonishingly effective in protecting from military aggression.

Spain:

Gain a *really* good head start with the "building for free" ability. I had a couple of

victories with Spain, but I also have to say that Spain does not give a particular advantage on a kind of victory other than military (building barracks for free, speed +1 :-# )

Mongols:

Had a good rush with them, but if everyone is prepared, the power of the mongols dissipates with time, just like the largest empire of all times perished...

So rush or lose.

Russia:

With stealing (err... "copying") one tech per turn, if you manage to reach another city

and this guy has a tech you don't have already.

Never won, as far as I remember.

Germany:

Is usually considered not attractive in our group, even if you plan something military.

US:

Also not considered attractive. If you have to convert trade to hammers, you have

done something wrong anyway.

One free Great Person improves city resources a bit.

Egypt:

One wonder from the start, but there is good and not so good ones. But anyway,

with a little effort in one city, one could build such a wonder, and even choose which

one.

One building for free (but nevertheless being a city action) does not impress me,

since the hammers are there anyway (maybe one has to top them up a bit).

China:

Resurrecting a unit after battle is cool at the start, but impacts less later on

in the game. Still good.

Getting 3 culture for each hut/village is mediocre: Capturing some five huts

or villages is likely, so you get 15 culture. Not bad, but also not overwhelming.

I am now running out of time, will post some more civs later.

Looking forward to your comments and suggestions to balance the civs :-))

Cheers,

Rob

P.S.: Is there anyone who has ever sent a caravan? :-)

Hey,

First thing you should read the FAQ, there are changes to civ traits (Greece (gets culture instead of trade), Egypt (wonders can't be obsoleted) , Arabia (gets 1 culture instead of 2)) which balance them better - 'advanced' version.

Link to FAQ http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/civilization/news/Civilization%20FAQ_v2.0.pdf

Your house rules seem quite harsh, especially 1 trade for movement since sometimes even 1 trade becomes research or not situation. It also prevents civilizations to use their starting place to collect 6 trade during 1st turn since you have to spend one or more for movement. What is more, there are culture cards to help you protect against rushing aggressors, or you have to plan your movement accordingly to first player token, so you won't get attacked.

Trading phase is not so popular among us either, probably because everyone is too greedy, and are really not into helping others BUT if you have a constant winner among you, its really great thing to do(helps you defend yourselves or slow down winner), since this game is against winning person at the moment while trying to win by yourself of course.

As for wonders, during our games, good ones(ancient) get picked up 2nd, 3rd turn, revealing II tier. But I admit modern wonders are built really occasionally. Obsoleting wonders for research, in my opinion, is also unfair, coz you have to do nothing but research to ruin other's chance for victory (or huge bonus). It is possible to obsolete wonders from the market the same way you destroy them in game - using monarchy(tier I) or the one where you have to use any two resources (up to tier II). Wanna be wonder destroyer or dispose of a nasty one? Research accordingly.

We usually end up with a military victory or culture victory. Everyone wants to conquer world, or as much villages and huts as possible so investing coins into military and building barracks to be able to intimidate opponents to get back is very popular.

Cultural cards comes more as a side help to battle your way to victory or harm in any possible way, but if combat power sooner or later balances between players , then it is likely to change tactics for cultural victory (feeling safe and devoting to arts). Of course for races like Arabia, Rome, China culture way is much more frequent even in war zone

As for technological victory - it happens, usually depending on race or relics/great persons and etc. I would say it is depending on situation coz you have to have cities generating lots and lots of trade (for using rationalism) or get 'exchange of ideas' or similar advantages to get ahead in technologies.

Economic victory is rare and hard to achieve since there plenty of culture cards which discard your coins and after losing battle you can also lose coins.

We could discuss civilization advantages and disadvantages for ages, depending on a situation. It's a clear way for some of which are specialized on some sort of thing, but my favorite ones are that let you adapt and does not bind you to 1 way of victory.

For example:

Spain - you are right, it doesn't give you any particular advantage on any kind of victory, but it is the beauty of it as you free to choose what to build. You can go for a expensive wonder (sometimes even without building program) by placing few mines/navies, or get lots of trade with barracks/shipyards or even some culture for that matter. It gives you +1 speed, add 'natural religion' and you get 4 speed with your armies which enables you to explore AT LEAST 3 tiles if you are 1st player (more if not, its really best to be 2nd on the first turn ) and 3 buildings you don't want to research but need it.

Russia - we play that it is enough to reach building in the outskirts (or city itself, whichever you prefer) to steal tech. Communism allows you to have +1 battle hand size, which combined with few barracks should scare a lot of players and let you come to their neighborhood to steal a tech. What is more, same communism generates same amount of hammers as the one that makes most allowing you to build cities with nothing but trade allowing you to use 'rationalism' to its full potential.

Egypt - yeah, it's a lottery. If you get good wonder its super great, if not - well, you have to manage. On the other hand, you can get 6 trade 1st turn, allowing you to research and build cities with only few hammers (just enough to buy flag, you can build for free) increasing number of trades you collect even more. Also your wonders cannot be obsoleted - which is huge advantage if you get to build a good one.

US - gives all the freedom you want, it is easy to build expensive stuff by selling your excessive trade for double the hammers than others. So you focus trade buildings, being able to trade them for lots of hammers. Person is a thing of luck, and may sometimes push you towards one or other path. With some you can manage 6 trade 1st turn.

We played this game lots of times, as far as I can conclude on civilizations, there are no weak ones. Given right circumstances (or creating ones) everyone can easily win, of course with some it is much more easier to achieve. In my opinion, the weakest of them all are Zulu (gives 2 extra artillery units, lets you pick up villages without a fight and create cities near huts), but even with them if you manage your early game right, you can achieve great power.

My advice is try to use every civilizations potential to the maximum. Focus trade for ones that gives you hammers, focus military for securing huts/villages (you always can pick up the ones near you later) and exploration, research techs that you have resources to use (especially if you find spies), spend all the culture cards rather than just advancing on culture track and disposing half of them to use one and so on..

Hope it was not boring to read and good luck in your conquests for glory

Hi Arviss,

thanks for your post; no - it was not boring to read

Embarrassingly, we really overlooked the last 3 paragraps of the FAQ 2.0

Thanks for sticking our noses into these...

For our house rule (1 Trade/Movement): yes, it is harsh, but it

hampers tech and military victories (with at least the latter of these seeming to be very

frequent amoung your clan also) and forces you to be a bit more planful, tactically.

As a consequence, I would say we now have a somewhat even distribution of victories

(with economic still being uncommon, need to promote this a bit).

Fortunately, we also do not have the same winner every time, would be terribly

boring...

You are mentioning culture cards against rushing aggressors. I agree that later in the game, the cards can be quite helpful. But early on, one would have to buy quite a lot of cards to get

the right ones, hampering your strategic victory aim (if it is another than culture victory).

From your words I sense that you are all quite war mongers, right?

Of course it is fun to rush and battle, but we made the experience that, in general,

in a game with more than 2 players, it seems to be more clever to spend for one's own

civ, than to hamper one other.

With 4 players, one would have to hamper 3 others to reach the same effect as advancing

yourself.

Of course, sometimes it is easy to hamper someone, but usually this does not go unrevenged. In the end both of the two are losing, and the others are instigating, laughing (and winning... ) Especially preventing the second/third city with roaming flags is popular.

The same goes for trade phase: Our theory is that two players helping each other is better than doing nothing, because the other players are virtually falling behind with each mutually helpful action in trade phase.

From a military standpoint, we often find ourselves in a Mexican standoff. Who shoots first, loses...

For this reason, we often have non-aggression pacts or "give me now, I will give you more later"-kind of agreements. Breaking these without a really good reason will exclude one from the - how to name it - "club of trusted players", so no more mutually beneficial actions.

For our obsoleting wonders house rule, I probably wasn't precise enough, sorry for that. Only wonders on the market will be removed, not the ones of other players. So we get to see some higher level wonders.

As for flexible civs like Spanish or America, we feel that this flexibility in changing victory type does not really pay off. You have to choose one type and then concentrate on it in order to win. Choosing one victory type, you won't have that much of a [dis]advantage if another player chooses the same type. So you can choose what fits you best independently from others. If one feels a need for changing, something went wrong already. Holding a lot of culture cards will help for any other victory as well, of course, but still one is slower than a guy who is pumping his tech tree from the beginning.

Of course there is exceptions to the rule, but in choosing a flexible civ I am somehow betting on having to change the strategy in order to make use of the civ's advantage. But I don't want to get in this situation anyway.

Thanks mate for giving your view, I think I have learned something from it

(and not just the last three paragraphs in the FAQ )

If you have more, let me know!!

Good luck to you as well, but also to your mates, so it will be

good tight matches!

Cheers,

Rob