Civilizations Game Styles

It is characteristic of the games in the series that some civilizations are faster to attack than others. We can classify civilizations into: rush, late game and mixed.

Being Rush, a civilization with aggressive characteristics, attacks and control of the map.

Late game civilization with economic and scientific focus, with good defenses to ensure development.

And mixed, civilization with aggressive and defensive characteristics.

Reading what was revealed about the civilizations on the site, I came to the following conclusion:

Chinese - Late game
Why: The Chinese have unique gunpowder units, which should only be released at ages III and IV. In addition to having the dynasty system, which requires a lot of resources. Therefore, I believe it is a late game civilization.

Delhi Sultanate - Late game
Why: The Delhi Sultanate focuses on research and advocacy. It also has the unique war elephant unit, which must be released at age III or IV. Given this, I believe it is a late game civilization, as it will need time to complete research and stay in front of opponents, and time to have a good amount of your most powerful unit.

English - Mixed (?)
This one I’m not so sure. The defensive characteristics of the castles seem to me like something to guarantee the city’s defense until it reaches its peak of power in the late game. But the longbows exclusive unit, which seems to be very cheap and quick to produce, should give the British the chance to attack early. Light infantry can also be purchased earlier. I believe this is a mixed civilization.

Mongols - Rush
A civilization with “hit and run” tactics, without walls or castles, with the possibility of moving all the buildings around and thus guaranteeing map control. You will definitely want to strike early with this nation.

French - Late game (?)
A civilization focused on cavalry, with unique cannons and trade advantages. It seems like a late game civilization to me, because of the high costs to produce a considerable amount of heavy cavalry and powder cannons. I believe the French player should focus more on developing the economy than attacking early.

Abbasid Dynasty - Late game (?)
A civilization that grows stronger as buildings are built around the “house of wisdom”. You can also advance the age without having to designate villagers to build a landmark. This one I’m not so sure about, but I believe it’s a late game civilization, due to the Wisdom House updates.

Holy Roman Empire - Mixed
A civilization focused on the religious units, the prelates, who can pay off the villagers, making the resources to be collected more quickly. It also has good defensive characteristics, its buildings will have more hit points if built close to one of the landmarks. Furthermore, the age III milestone will enable the recruitment of 5 soldiers at the time of 1. I believe it is a mixed civilization, as it gets strong over time, but it is also strong in the beginning/middle of the game, due to its economic impetus and the rapid recruitment of troops.

Rus - Late game (?)
According to descriptions, it is a civilization with rapid economic growth, with good defensive capabilities, stronger stockades, and a religious unit that serves as military support. I believe it is a late game civilization, due to the numerous economic and defensive incentives.

This is all speculation. What do you think? Would they change any?


The game can’t be balanced when some civilisations are only good in early or only in late game.

It might be able to balance those civilisations on Arabia on 1v1 but the game is much more than just this.
Rush or Lategame focused civilisations can break 2v2 (3v3, 4v4 even more) or treaty if they add that.


When they describe the civs in interviews they sound so one-dimensional. A good early game infantry civ can also be a good late game siege civ and can also have interesting cavalry options, etc. if you can describe a civ in one minute somethings not connecting.


I often wonder if you’re a troll despite having a mod banner. Statements like:

is an oversimplification that’ll just lead to pointless discussions. It’s as if you didn’t play the game and didn’t learn how to transition and have a counter army or rely on your civ’s strengths to remain strong throughout the match.


For the part about describing a civ in one minute. Isn’t one of the most tried and true design exercises to able to describe something in as simple a way as possible? It is a very good skill to have to be able to simplify things.

1 Like

I guess we are talking about different things. They repeatedly only raise a couple small things about each civ. That’s not high level mastery of a complex subject. That’s one dimensional design.

you can not really though this is just a summary of what the web page states, which simplay gives an Overview and general gameplay idea.
WHich is fine to do in 1 minute.

I mean we all know that not even all kinds of landmarks for each civ are mentioned in the overview, nor are their effects.

All we know is the civ, their geneal bonuses and their UU. Thats easy to say in a minute for anything.

Its like describing different car brands with their general specifics, but not talking details about engine differences etc.