Most difficult nation

[LordArioch]

I think I've heard Gandalf talk about the stealthiness of Pangea and Man enough to bet they match his playing style.

Personally I see why Pythium is a wonderful nation in theory, but I can never quite use it right. I can use Arco however. Carrion woods pangea is probably infamous as being the trickiest for most people to use. I don't have it figured out at all.

[Gandalf Parker]

Actually Im not sure which one matches my style most. Probably Jotun because it allows for strong defensive play and is forgiving to forgetfulness.

Its my hacker tendencys that control my choices. I have a strong dislike for menus, defaults, and obvious choices. For me its no fun to try and win with the obvious choice so whatever seems to be the underdog will get my most attention.
I think I have the most fun with Pangaea though.

[Peter Ebbesen]

I have to admit to a liking for Jotuns as well - especially the Niefelheim theme.

There is something to be said for ordinary troops that are so tough they can rack up a series of major battle inflictions through combat - and still be a force to be reckoned with.

There is nothing quite like looking through a Niefel or Jotun pack after a series of heavy battles and checking which interesting afflictions they have ended up with.

(And seing Niefel giants RUN DOWN fleeing heavy cavalry is a sight to behold )

[moodgiesanta]

Myself, I do poorly with resource-expensive countries. Not Jotun, but other countries that have cheaper alternatives, because I have such a tendency to mass-produce cheapies. That's why Mictlan is so fun for me, since your strength lies in your hordes of wussy troops drawing fire from the people doing the real damage. Ulm, regular flavor, is hard for me, being a defensive, research minded fellow, as is Black Forest Ulm, of those races that I have played more than one game with. I can't stand having all those resource heavy troops. I'd take a bajillion Mictlan warriors being blessed to the nines and having their javelins magically guided and having wicked demons come in after the opponent had been softened by my hordes. I don't like slow dudes that are produced in my castles and are expensive and have weak-o mages.

So for this game, I really think you have to say it is a matter of playstyle. If you like high magic and billions of blood slaves along, Mictlan is good. If you like wicked heavy infantry and a dominion that withers your opponents mages but not your smith dudes, Ulm with a heavy drain scale is good. If you like big giants, go with Jotun, etc.

[Ctennyson]

I do poorly with Ulm. I just cant make them work. My only serious victory came when I had a resource rich secondary castle, 2 mines churning out +50 resources, and an Indep long bow in that province. So the only time I won with Ulm, I played them like they were Man. lol.

I keep trying to make Niefelheim work, too, because they are my favorite in-flavour nation/theme, but the mages are SO expensive, with no good researcher options, you need indy researchers, which there is no guarantee of. Love the theme, though, so I keep trying.

I did ok with Arcos, but nowhere as near as well as you hear about around here.

[Psitticine]

I seem to have the most problem with Mictlan. I enjoy them all the more for it, actually, but I'm always pleased when I'm doing well as them. That's directly related to my comparitive inexperience with blood magic, which I don't care for so much.

[PDF]

I'm rather a wargamer type, so am only able to succeed with nations that have sound strong heavies - Ulm, Arco, Pythium, Abysia - and suck with more subtle nations like Pangea, Mictlan, or R'lyeh.
Maybe Pythium is the easiest IMO : just stack Principes, add some Standards, get some indy archers, back with Theurgs+Communicants

Contrary to Peter E I'm not that easy with Jotuns - troops are very expensive, never numerous and I get easily mobbed... Plus I still have difficulty with Blood economy.

Never played Atlantis, they seem so weak ...