So in recent discussions I often heard the term (not) 'well designed' civ.
I think this could have many meanings and I am interested in finding out what the consens on that is.
So I am asking you to:
- name a civ that is well designed in your opinion and
- why
And maybe:
- name a civ that is poorly designed and
- why
I will start:
Japanese is a well designed civ, they have no OP bonuses but sureley have an indentity with trebs, top tier infantry and fishing ships, also slight eco buff with lower costs, but nothing overwhelming, many situational buffs that just work well together, they have an answer for almost everything without having access to everything.
Khmer is a poor designed civ because they have gimmicky bonuses like garrison houses and farms and also rely so much on ele
I think having gimmicky bonuses or features makes a civ poorly designed for me, like tatar sheep, khmer farms/houses..
I think this could have many meanings and I am interested in finding out what the consens on that is.
So I am asking you to:
- name a civ that is well designed in your opinion and
- why
And maybe:
- name a civ that is poorly designed and
- why
I will start:
Japanese is a well designed civ, they have no OP bonuses but sureley have an indentity with trebs, top tier infantry and fishing ships, also slight eco buff with lower costs, but nothing overwhelming, many situational buffs that just work well together, they have an answer for almost everything without having access to everything.
Khmer is a poor designed civ because they have gimmicky bonuses like garrison houses and farms and also rely so much on ele
I think having gimmicky bonuses or features makes a civ poorly designed for me, like tatar sheep, khmer farms/houses..