Revisiting Playable Countries

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Revisiting Playable Countries

      This discussion is as old as the map itself. Once again, I find myself wondering which countries on this map are genuinely "playable," aside from the base 25 countries. Once again, I have put myself in a position to request that there be more playable countries in this map. 25 is not enough, given the balance of power, and will continue to not be enough until there is otherwise.

      I've done this a few times before, but because of 1.5, I recently had to change my criteria on what makes a playable country. Previously, the conclusion I came to was "any country that produces all 5 resources." Now, it's a bit more than that. See below.

      For the sake of organization, I have organized the remaining countries that aren't already playable into 3 categories: Class A, Class B, and Class C playable countries. The criteria for these classes are as follows:

      -Class A- (Playable)
      Minimum 5 cities
      Produces all 5 resources

      Class A is the type of playable country that should just be playable. We've all been waiting on it, and really they should've been playable to begin with.

      -Class B- (Playable, albeit difficult)
      Minimum 3 cities
      Produces all 5 resources

      Class B is mostly playable, in that it technically produces all 5 resources, but players will definitely struggle to get their country off the ground. When it comes to deciding whether or not to make this country genuinely playable, I would handle matters on a case by case basis. Some Class B's are better than others.

      -Class C- (Technically playable, but not recommended)
      Minimum 1 city
      Produces at least 4 of the 5 resources; one must be rare materials.

      In my personal opinion, a Class C playable country is the bare minimum to be playable. It is not easy, or even fun, but it's technically possible. Just... don't expect a victory anytime soon. Once again, best handled on a case by case basis.

      Now with these criteria out of the way, let's have a look at what meets these criteria respectively.

      ---Class A---
      -South Africa (6 cities)
      -Egypt (5 cities)
      -Netherlands (10 cities)*

      *9 of the 10 Dutch cities are colonies. However, due to the sheer amount of resources coming from the colonies, one could argue that it is more than possible for this country to be playable.

      ---Class B---
      -Greece (4 cities, low Goods)
      Greece would be a challenge, only producing ~1200 goods per day, but is technically a class B country. I think it's doable.
      -Iraq (4 cities, low Oil)
      A strangely positioned, strangely resourced country. Only has 1 oil province, but that can be rectified rather quickly. Arguably more playable than Greece.
      -Venezuela (4 cities, low Grain)
      Similar to Greece, Venezuela is lacking in one of its resources, but the shortage is not severe enough, in my opinion, to omit the playability of this country.
      -Peru (4 cities, low Grain)
      See Venezuela; well positioned, with good neighbors to cover the shortage.
      -Portugal (4 cities, low Grain)
      Our first 4 city country with colonies! Portugal has a rather unique situation, in that it controls vast territory and resources with a small homeland. Definitely not impossible, and I would say its provincial holdings more than account for the shortage in grain.
      -Columbia (3 cities, low Oil*)
      Here we have our first 3 city country, and I must say, it would definitely be a challenge to play. Unlike the previous 3 countries, however, Columbia may have 2 shortages, but the difference lies in the severity of the shortage. Instead of 1 province per resource, Columbia gets 2, making the shortage less extreme.

      *notice how I said low Oil, and not low Oil/Rare. My personal opinion? You need oil more than you need rare materials. I think 1600-1700 is enough production early game.

      -Bolivia (3 cities, low Oil)
      See Columbia.
      -Finland (3 cities, low Steel)
      A rather unique situation, Finland produces a LOT of oil for such a small country, but has a crisis in steel and grain. Would be a challenge, as it is sandwiched between both Sweden and the USSR, but definitely not impossible, when considering its starting army.

      ---Class C--- (or as I like to call 'em, "last resorts")
      -Siam (1 city, High goods)
      Siam, or Thailand, is well positioned, but lacks major resources. Siam only has one province per resource, and only one of these is a city, which is Bangkok. Though it has a large amount of goods, it has a small supply of every other resource. I will say, however, 1.5 made Siam arguably more playable than it used to be.
      -New Zealand (2 cities, missing Goods)
      New Zealand has 2 cities, as opposed to the usual 1, but completely omits goods, making early play a challenge. Has a decent(ish) supply of grain and steel, as well as rare and oil.
      -Ecuador (1 city, missing Steel)
      I strongly recommend against making this country playable. Though it has the criteria of a class C, its positioning is such that playing as Ecuador would generally be unfair to the player. Also serves as a good buffer for Peru, thereby making Ecuador a poor choice for a country. Nevertheless, it meets the criteria.
      -Belgium (2 cities)
      Belgium actually has a plethora of resources, but almost all of these are located in the Belgian Congo, making play difficult. Best for the players who desire a challenge.
      -Switzerland (1 city, missing Oil)
      Once again, Switzerland falls onto my "technically playable" list. However, it has been severely nerfed in 1.5, with only one province to produce troops, instead of the usual 3. Play with caution.
      -Norway (2 cities, missing Steel)
      With 2 cities, playing as Norway is no walk in the park. Completely missing steel, making early and mid game a challenge. A strong starting army, however, which could be used to secure some early resources from Sweden.
      -Saudi Arabia (2 cities, low Grain/Goods)
      Though the Saudis have plenty of oil to spare, as well as rare materials, calling this country difficult to play as is being polite. Poorly positioned, with few options to expand, it will be interesting to see how players handle such a difficult country.
      -Afghanistan (1 city, low Goods)
      Surprise! Another 1 city country that technically produces all 5 resources! Actually, playing as Afghanistan isn't impossible, due to the fact that all of your neighbors lack a major military in your area. However, with only one city, gameplay would definitely be a challenge. With your resources, however, you could become a power. At least, for now.
      -Chile (1 city, missing Goods)
      Oh lord.
      Chile was a difficult country to play as to begin with, but with the omission of its goods in 1.5, Chile is now bordering impossible. Still, it meets my criteria, and if you can summon an army out of thin air, you just might have a chance.

      Any countries I missed? Any countries you think you could make an argument for? Let me know down in the comments. I'll have to be redoing my guides on Tibet, Persia, Yugoslavia, etc. later on, due to 1.5, but that's a discussion for a later day.

      Thank you for reading, have a nice day!
    • Nicely put.
      Most of these countries don't have enough cities/resources to win or, if they do, are poorly positioned because either completely isolated (S. Africa) making it impossible to get the necessary amount of points in time, or surrounded by powerful neighbors (Netherlands).
      The only underdog country I can realistacally see win a historical game would be Egypt, with some skillful play and a lot of timely alliances.

      I did try Saudi Arabia once and except for the oil it was atrocious lol. At least the profuse trades in oil helped me stay alive for a while.
    • JesterTheSheep wrote:

      Yes, though I figured it was made clear by the tags.
      I could not see the tags on mobile and I don't think expecting a subject to be in the title or introduction is all that alien.

      I do not know if I agree with your article. Many players already do not like how skewed the odds are in the 25player historic map. I won 3 historic maps, once as Romania, once as Nationalist China and once as Soviet Union but the difference between playing these countries is quite big. Playing as Romania the only reason I was able to win was because the Soviet Union player went inactive. Had the Soviet Union decided I needed to go off the map at the start of the map there would be nothing I could do about it. This would be way worse if you would play a country like the Netherlands. Having 10 cities is worth nothing if you are not able to defend a cluster of them and they are adjacent to a plurality of players.

      I really like the map as it is, though making even harder countries playable might not be the best solution for this map in terms of fixing the balance of power as you call it. Giving some countries less of a disadvantage or putting them in positions where working together makes more 'automatic' sense would have my preference. Give country A a LOT of steel and hardly any oil and country B the reverse while being around the same local major power for example.

      The 25historical map is a weird map because if USSR and USA teams up with Germany the game is decided. Changing this could make it more feasible to play other countries but the major ones and have a decent chance of success.