You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

General Discussions
Moderated by Maffia, LordKivlov, JimXIX

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.71 replies
Age of Empires III Heaven » Forums » General Discussions » Civilizations that You DO NOT Like
Bottom
Topic Subject:Civilizations that You DO NOT Like
« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
Timerover
Skirmisher
posted 05-06-09 10:46 AM EDT (US)         
We have had a thread on favorite civilizations, so I thought it would be interesting so see what civilizations people DO NOT like, and why. Here is one list for starters.

Aztecs: They had just about the bloodiest religion ever known, and fought wars simply to get human sacrifices. I cannot even conceive of playing them, even to playtest my naval changes.

Sioux: Lots of cavalry, and I am not that comfortable with cavalry in playing. I also would much rather have seen the Inca in the game, rather than the Sioux.

Ottomans: The automatic production of villagers drives me nuts, as I would much rather control what is produced and when.

Japan (honorable mention): I keep looking for the button to nuke myself.

India (honorable mention 2): I play them so I can used my modified Ironclad as their Portuguese ally. Seeing a guy on an elephant building a trading post or town center is just plain WEIRD. Besides that, I have studied the use of war elephants in history quite a bit, and while I view the how the Ensemble design staff worked War Elephants into the game as quite good and innovative, the historian part of me is screaming, NO WAY. War Elephants had a very strong tendency to be dangerous to both sides. Unfortunately, there is no provision for elephant panic in the game.

Nail to the mast her holy flag,
Set every threadbare sail,
And give her to the god of storms,
The lightning and the gale!
AuthorReplies:
As_Saffah
Scenario Reviewer
posted 05-06-09 01:18 PM EDT (US)     1 / 71       
@Aztecs: IIRC, multiple great civs in human history went through a phase of this type. It usually ended with the overthrow of priest-kings and other such cults of power in favor of the more straightforwardly brutal, but far more practical, warlord or apostate.

Ancient Hebrews most likely practiced a very limited and select form of human sacrifice. The horror we are intended to feel when Abraham puts the knife to Isaac is probably based on a collective memory of such a past.

Ancient (pre-Republic) Romans used to throw babies in the Tiber for the river god. Blame Republic, emphasis on rule of law, and increasing Greek influence (and through Greeks, Semitic abhorrence for human sacrifice) for ending the deaths of babies in the Tiber.

Human sacrifice was a large part of early iron age Celtic communities. They ran a volume of human sacrifice that was higher than that of early Rome, but less than that of Aztec classical period. It was enough to turn Caesar's stomach. It had already passed from the sacred-victim stage to the "let's rid society of undesirables and political opponents" stage. This probably predicts volume escalation more than any other transition. Good thing Caesar came along when he did amirite?

Ancient Germanic peoples also probably used human sacrifice (Tollund man, Egtvedt woman, Grauballe man) but these are in areas where Teutonic and Celtic peoples overlapped, so it's not certain who did what first. Certainly a people at a disadvantage to their neighbors (Celts positively owned Germanic communities in the Bronze age) might be tempted to adopt a brutal rite to "gain the edge" of their enemies.

Carthage, (Babylon,) etc. As with the Celts, outside domination shut down a hemorrhage in human lives, often children and infants, offered to the gods. From the 5th century BC onwards, the practice grew from a very select few offerings to a wholesale and desperate culling, mostly in response to serial defeats in battles and loss of influence in the Mediterranean. Seems that peace and prosperity have a lot to do with resisting the compulsion to offer a child to the gods.

Aztecs revived some rites from the Mayans, who adopted rites from the Olmecs and whatnot. Who knows? Like other human sacrifice traditions, it was probably rooted in a limited, select type of adult human sacrifice, and different interpretations of the role of human blood in the cosmos led to rampant increase in volume and decrease in selectivity/sanctity of the rite. Eventually it turned on its own people, and failing the Spanish, would have probably resulted in a bloody overthrow or loss-of-confidence betrayal to an enemy warlord without an obligation to the thirsty gods. Sick and tired of constant war, the neighboring states (who believed and shed as much blood as the folks in Tenochtitlan) probably would have come to a sobering consensus that human blood wasn't really all that necessray for the sun to rise every day. Enter animal sacrifice.(See Carthage)

Incas had their own tradition of drugging, stunning and mummifying teenagers, especially girls. Again, the Inca were in deep doodoo with their neighbors, and one or more of them didn't sit well with Incan necromancy and probably would have overthrown them given another 25-50 years. The volume and types of human sacrifice weren't at that time so blatantly politically motivated, though, so it would be for different reasons.

Ok, back on topic - civs I hate:

Spain is dull as hell except on the water.
Iro are boring. They are the quintessential compromise - a few OP infantry, some European style cannons, some poor cavalry and a meh navy.

Actually, on reflection I have something significantly bad to say about almost every civ except Sioux. I like cav, I like raids, I don't like fussing around with all the fiddly bits of the game such as walls and houses. Sure, they are historically woefully inaccurate but hey, I just close my eyes and think of them as bits and bytes, and it works ok for me.

Crunkatog on ESO
Bart331 balance suggestion: aztec: remove civ
Voltiguer: Ender, Sioux in 1.04 will be a top civ, no matter how many layers of Sioux goggles you put on
schildpad on Elephants: ...their mansabdar unit sucks so hard it looks like a black hole
Crunkatog on Steam.

[This message has been edited by As_Saffah (edited 05-06-2009 @ 01:25 PM).]

Droideka_11
Skirmisher
posted 05-06-09 01:41 PM EDT (US)     2 / 71       
Timerover got pwned.

I don't have a civ that I don't like. But, I do have a certain match ups that I hate.

Spanish vs British, Port, Dutch

I almost always lose in this match up

"Rot's given a free pass simply because he's Rot." - theferret
As_Saffah
Scenario Reviewer
posted 05-06-09 02:24 PM EDT (US)     3 / 71       
Not my intention to pwn anyone, Rover is good peeps and I'd hate to see him get in a snit over some blab on the interwebs.

I used to be the same way about Russia, hated going against booming civs because at the time, strelet spam was pr. useless

Crunkatog on ESO
Bart331 balance suggestion: aztec: remove civ
Voltiguer: Ender, Sioux in 1.04 will be a top civ, no matter how many layers of Sioux goggles you put on
schildpad on Elephants: ...their mansabdar unit sucks so hard it looks like a black hole
Crunkatog on Steam.
Droideka_11
Skirmisher
posted 05-06-09 02:38 PM EDT (US)     4 / 71       
Not my intention to pwn anyone, Rover is good peeps and I'd hate to see him get in a snit over some blab on the interwebs.
Welll, too bad, u pwned him anyways.

Just kidding guys, not trying to instigate anything.

"Rot's given a free pass simply because he's Rot." - theferret
somme
Skirmisher
posted 05-06-09 02:47 PM EDT (US)     5 / 71       
Sioux: Siege dance is lame and I hate playing against raids

Aztecs: Too strong in some aspects but at the same time fail to function like a normal civ.

Ottomans: Too hard to pick what they're going to do and fast revolution is disgusting.

ESO : Pcfreak8
"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is." -Jan L. A. van de Snepscheu
A pessimist is usually right and never disappointed.
Any history buff knows that nothing stops a cannon like a good uppercut. - BeatnikJoe
Droideka_11
Skirmisher
posted 05-06-09 03:17 PM EDT (US)     6 / 71       
Somme where u been?

"Rot's given a free pass simply because he's Rot." - theferret
Emperor_Kyle
Skirmisher
posted 05-06-09 03:27 PM EDT (US)     7 / 71       
Russia. I'm a "quality over quantity" kind of guy.

ESO2: Kyle_The_Brave
Clan: Proud Officer of Trỉρℓε ΣņτễηţϠ, [TΣ]

"Why make your own inspirational quotes when you can just read the side of O_Man's Ssips juices?" - A wise prophet
"The best way to die is to spontaneously combust during a drum solo battle with Lars Ulrich" - The Blair
Timerover
Skirmisher
posted 05-06-09 04:17 PM EDT (US)     8 / 71       
As_Saffah, I am fully aware of the instances that you mention, although there is some question as to the extent of human sacrifice with respect to the Celtic Druids, as there is suspicion that much of what Caesar recorded might have been propaganda to justify his actions in conquering Gaul. I will not even touch the comment about the Hebrews.

I will spare the rest of the forum a detailed analysis of your comments. The Aztecs operated on a different order of magnitude from the rest of the civilizations mentioned. That would depend on whether or not you viewed the Roman games as entertainment or a carried over religious rite that got seriously out of control. Either can be argued. I am not exactly a fan of playing Rome either in Rise of Nations, and I have not played Rise of Rome in Age of Empires as I have just recently purchased the game to use on my Windows game box, aka Dell computer.

Nail to the mast her holy flag,
Set every threadbare sail,
And give her to the god of storms,
The lightning and the gale!
ckei
Skirmisher
posted 05-06-09 04:29 PM EDT (US)     9 / 71       
Dutch, they just sit in their base and wait till they go to fortress

O "All you big boys stay back and let me do my thaaaang"O
ChrisTheMean
Skirmisher
posted 05-06-09 04:47 PM EDT (US)     10 / 71       
Spanish: not enough good units to make up for their relatively crappy eco. Pike/falc/lancer or pike/bow colonial is just kind of boring to me...

Iro: I get their strengths, but I feel like I should be having more fun playing with them. Forest prowler raids/ambushes are the only fun think with them IMO...

Brits: Very popular civ, just not that fun to me. Seems like you have thrown your (rock/scissors/paper) before you even start. Manor boom+get rushed=you lose, you rush+they rush=you probably lose. Its like, 'ok, if he doesn't attack for 8 minutes or FF well, I'm good'. Improved grenade rush is cool though...

Regarding the initial post: I mean no offense, but it seems relatively narrow-minded to not play a civ based on it's religious practices, gory as they may be, without recognizing the injustices/atrocities committed by each and every colonial power. BTW, FU coyote runners with fast warcheif are rad.

For example :
Dutch:Slave trade (other civs did this too of course)

Brits/Americans: Exploitation/decimation/displacement of Indigenous Americans

French: Napoleon was no Hitler, but he was certainly no Santa Claus either

Germans: don't get me started

Spanish: basically slaughtered an entire civilization (hey, full circle, back to Aztecs!)
etc...

I, however, still play this COMPUTER GAME as German and French and have no ethical problem with it because it is, as I said, a COMPUTER GAME.

ESO:ChrisTheMean
N3O Clan Website
Of myChinese Confucian Confusion FF MarneusCalgar said, "It sounds like an 70's kung-fu movie." And it is.
Droideka_11
Skirmisher
posted 05-06-09 04:53 PM EDT (US)     11 / 71       
I mean no offense, but it seems relatively narrow-minded to not play a civ based on it's religious practices, gory as they may be, without recognizing the injustices/atrocities committed by each and every colonial power.
This.

"Rot's given a free pass simply because he's Rot." - theferret
CrazyLunatic
Veteran Musketeer
posted 05-06-09 04:59 PM EDT (US)     12 / 71       
I have studied the use of war elephants in history quite a bit, and while I view the how the Ensemble design staff worked War Elephants into the game as quite good and innovative, the historian part of me is screaming, NO WAY. War Elephants had a very strong tendency to be dangerous to both sides. Unfortunately, there is no provision for elephant panic in the game.
Despite how dangerous War elephants were, they were used by Indian armies (IIRC they used to throw spears/arrows down from the elephant at the opposing army while the elephants trampled everything)

Anyway, my least favorite is probably ottos since I always tend to lose vs them

QUACK
O_man0
Skirmisher
posted 05-06-09 05:35 PM EDT (US)     13 / 71       
Aztec. Mass too freaking well! They can mass better than russia when theyre units are BETTER!!!

And of course.... Japan... We know why...

1st Leiut. with Russia , Master Sergeant with everything else.
My skill level is incalculable!!! Its been forever since I played seriously...
Mike Sass: Culverins are like Garrichistos, only theyre cannons.
Timerover
Skirmisher
posted 05-06-09 05:47 PM EDT (US)     14 / 71       
Slightly off topic
Despite how dangerous War elephants were, they were used by Indian armies (IIRC they used to throw spears/arrows down from the elephant at the opposing army while the elephants trampled everything)
That is a pretty good description of the normal use in pre-gunpowder times of the use of War Elephants. They were also used as a means of blocking cavalry, as horses could not stand the smell of the elephants and would not go near them.

However, the British discovered when they reached India that elephants would not stand up to gunfire. The British had their heavy guns pulled by elephants until a battle was imminent, and then switched to ox teams, the oxen being about as responsive to gunfire as a lump of clay. Training reliable elephants for tiger hunting with firearms was a long and involved business. Sir Samuel Baker, a British hunter and explorer in the late 1800s, in his book Wild Beasts and Their Ways, has a fair number of interesting accounts of the fun of hunting tigers from the back of an elephant. Definitely not the safest of activities, being on the back of a stampeding elephant while going through fairly thick forest or jungle.

Nail to the mast her holy flag,
Set every threadbare sail,
And give her to the god of storms,
The lightning and the gale!
buggy123
Skirmisher
posted 05-06-09 05:58 PM EDT (US)     15 / 71       
Civs I don't like:

Spain, Iro, Sioux

I can't seem to get the gist of them
As_Saffah
Scenario Reviewer
posted 05-06-09 06:05 PM EDT (US)     16 / 71       
Regarding the initial post: I mean no offense, but it seems relatively narrow-minded to not play a civ based on it's religious practices, gory as they may be, without recognizing the injustices/atrocities committed by each and every colonial power. BTW, FU coyote runners with fast warcheif are rad.
It's kinda hard to play Aztecs and not get your nose rubbed in their affairs - Ruthlessness, flower wars, Temple of Xipe Totec support, etc.

But that's ok, I like playing Tecs in FFA and I always think of it in terms of "hey, this will prevent the unnecessary deaths of dozens of coyote men trying to outrun musket fire, that will make my jags a better meatshield for my arrow knights. It's like health insurance, man."

It's also curiously the only civ in the game where religious figures and sacred names are used by name and given a direct role. Even the Asian religions are given very cursory, superficial and altogether positive, peaceable applications. The Great Buddha is a wonder, it's got an innocuous power of granting a lot of insight (into what your enemy is up to) and what you do with that info is up to you. The Karni Mata and the Temple of HEaven boost your eco and give you resources and villagers. The Toshogu Shrine makes all your shrines better...etc. Secular wonders for military might, religious wonders for economic and spiritual well-being.

I think the single major difference is that for each Asian civ, there are millions of believers who have influence over purchasing power and would probably raise a stink if their traditions were put in a frank or harsh light. However, there are few if any adherents to the old Aztec state religion, so Ensemble felt at liberty to go ahead and make Cuauhtemoc a cheeky, morbid bastard, and from each god comes a very concrete military bonus. Not very many Mexicans standing up and decrying this particular aspect of their ancestors, are there. The greatest irony of all is that probably the best Support card of all, Xolotl Support, is placed in the hands of the ancient Mexican Grim Reaper, the Hand that Takes, or the Ace of Spades.

Crunkatog on ESO
Bart331 balance suggestion: aztec: remove civ
Voltiguer: Ender, Sioux in 1.04 will be a top civ, no matter how many layers of Sioux goggles you put on
schildpad on Elephants: ...their mansabdar unit sucks so hard it looks like a black hole
Crunkatog on Steam.

[This message has been edited by As_Saffah (edited 05-06-2009 @ 06:19 PM).]

Derek_Zoolander
Skirmisher
posted 05-06-09 07:58 PM EDT (US)     17 / 71       
I wish Saffah was my dad. Her knowledge of history just made me .. "happy".

Formerly Pandar.
ESO: Derek_Zoolander
CrazyLunatic
Veteran Musketeer
posted 05-06-09 09:18 PM EDT (US)     18 / 71       
I wish Saffah was my dad. Her knowledge of history just made me .. "happy".
umm.... that sounds wrong... :O

timerover, actually elephants are quite possible to tame. Going on an elephant to look for tigers isn't as dangerous as it seems, the human will be safe from the elephants back since tigers will rarely attack an elephant.
There is actually a tourist tiger park in India where tourists can pay money to go on an elephant ride through the jungle park (with a tour guide though).

QUACK
As_Saffah
Scenario Reviewer
posted 05-06-09 09:26 PM EDT (US)     19 / 71       
luke I am your father...*hiss*


Crunkatog on ESO
Bart331 balance suggestion: aztec: remove civ
Voltiguer: Ender, Sioux in 1.04 will be a top civ, no matter how many layers of Sioux goggles you put on
schildpad on Elephants: ...their mansabdar unit sucks so hard it looks like a black hole
Crunkatog on Steam.
ultimitsu
Skirmisher
posted 05-06-09 10:03 PM EDT (US)     20 / 71       
I dont like Mongolia, at its peak it killed off a lot of beautiful civilisations in West Asia and part of Middle East, what they had done was a lot worse than Hitler - killing off every man, raping every woman and enslaving every child, then burnt their cities to the ground. 500 years later they still cant establish a proper civilisation, Mongolia today is one of the most isolated country, poor and backwards.

[This message has been edited by ultimitsu (edited 05-06-2009 @ 10:09 PM).]

buggy123
Skirmisher
posted 05-07-09 00:49 AM EDT (US)     21 / 71       
Actually, the mongolians established the Yuan dynasty in China. They conquered pretty much half of the world. What's more is that they were able to conquer russia in a winter campaign...
I don't like Mongolia, at its peak it killed off a lot of beautiful civilizations in West Asia and part of Middle East
Not true, the mongols were cruel but cunning. They absorb the culture of those it conquered rather than "killing the m off" or imposing their own.

The reason the mongols fell was because of the caste system where the conquered were usually at the bottom. This led to endless revolts and rebellions which the wore the empire down.

Once the great Khan was dead power struggles ensued and the empire collapsed. Its rise and downfall is somewhat similar to the Romes.
worse than Hitler - killing off every man, raping every woman and enslaving every child, then burnt their cities to the ground.
Hitler was considered the extreme of evil because what he did was systematical and planned out. The mongols only killed the man who had the potential to resist them.

Women were considered loot of war like money or goods. I'm pretty sure a lot of cases like that occurred. For example, the Christians crusaders burned down most of the holy land and city, raped the women and abused the population even though they were suppose to be "freeing it from the infidels"
ultimitsu
Skirmisher
posted 05-07-09 01:21 AM EDT (US)     22 / 71       
1, Mongolians did establish Yuan in china, reducing their population from 120 million to 60 million in the process. how is that relevant to your point?

2, Mongolians were the most destructive empire ever existed and destructed more cultures than any other empires. Most empires at their peak also did a lot of conquering, but after gaining control they generally act much more humane towards the defeated. Whereas Mongolians killed everything.
Generally in military strategy, Genghis Khan, his successors and generals preferred to offer their enemies the chance to surrender to their rule without resistance and become vassals by sending tribute, accepting residents, and contributing troops to avoid a large war. The Khans guaranteed the populace protection only if they submitted to Mongol rule and the populace was obedient. Sources record massive destruction, terror and death if there was resistance.

For example, David Nicole notes in The Mongol Warlords, "terror and mass extermination of anyone opposing them was a well-tested Mongol tactic." If the offer to submit was refused, the Mongol leaders would not give an alternative choice but would order massive collective slaughter of the population of resisting cities and destruction of their property such as happened during the invasion of Khwarezmid Empire, Kievan Rus', Baghdad, China, Armenia, Georgia, Poland, Hungary, northern Iran, etc.
wiki

3, check above link, one can also view that Mongolian's Massacres were equally planned, and in much larger scales than Hitler's (this is not to say Hitler was not the evil that he is, point is simply that Mongolians were much worse)

[This message has been edited by ultimitsu (edited 05-07-2009 @ 01:35 AM).]

buggy123
Skirmisher
posted 05-07-09 01:52 AM EDT (US)     23 / 71       
1, Mongolians did establish Yuan in china, reducing their population from 120 million to 60 million in the process. how is that relevant to your point?
I was just stating that they did establish an empire based on the Chinese one. So they did form a civilization...kinda
2, Mongolians were the most destructive empire ever existed and destructed more cultures than any other empires. Most empires at their peak also did a lot of conquering, but after gaining control they generally act much more humane towards the defeated. Whereas Mongolians killed everything.
They did not kill everything. Sure there were lots of death, but death is inevitable in wars and conflicts. Also, because they absorbed the cultures, once the mongol rule ended many previous powers sprang back up.

Because the mongols absorbed these cultures, they helped spreading the customs and beliefs throughout the world. Although, beliefs challenging the Mongol ways were quickly abolished.

The Mongolian Massacres had reasons. Many of the victims resisted the Mongol rule and were this killed. I agree it was a larger scale but there was a cause. Hitler, on the other hand, massacred he Jews who never opposed him or went against him. I'm pretty sure you can see the difference.

I agree that the Mongols are very destructive, but we must not only remember the bad side of events. There was some positive influence by them as well.
Droideka_11
Skirmisher
posted 05-07-09 01:54 AM EDT (US)     24 / 71       
Mongolian campaign was epic if anyones played AoE2.

"Rot's given a free pass simply because he's Rot." - theferret

[This message has been edited by Droideka_11 (edited 05-07-2009 @ 01:55 AM).]

ImperialLobster
Skirmisher
posted 05-07-09 02:11 AM EDT (US)     25 / 71       
yeh it was great
i always cheated at china wall tho...

KEEP
CALM
AND
CARRY
ON
≤≤≤≤≤See my YouTube channel for some crazy pointless crap!≥≥≥≥≥
« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires III Heaven | HeavenGames