Most difficult nation

[The Black Captain]

Is there a consensus as to which nation is the most difficult to play and succeed in conquering the world(s)?

[Peter Ebbesen]

Depends on world.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Peter Ebbesen:
Depends on world.

And on the victory conditions. And on the world settings. And on what AIs are used, or the skill of the human players.

In short, the question is too broad/vague.

[Teraswaerto]

Carrion Woods Pangaea probably.

[General Tacticus]

Starting position can make a lot of difference. If you mean conquer the World in the World Map scenario, for example, then Mictlan has a very good starting position, while Ulm's is really awful. In fact, I spent weeks trying to find a way to survive it against impossible AI's, before finally finding a strategy that made it possible... whereas my Mictlan attempt succeeded on the first try. And yet I consider Ulm far easier to play than Mictlan.

I would say that nations with no access to good heavy infantry are harder to play (Mictlan and Pangea come to mind), but that may be my play style...

[Gandalf Parker]

The best one is the one that most matches your playing style. The worst one is the one which most does NOT match your playing style.

Seriously. Ulm and Arcos are often listed as easy to win with but personally I do badly with Ulm because I play too defensively and cautiously. And I do bad with Arcos because I neglect to pay enough attention to magic research. But thats one of the great things about this game.