Iaro's Civ Rankings

Well I finally decided to do it, rank the civs from 1-31. I know others have done it as well but mostly in tiers which after doing this ranking, I can see why. It is very difficult to rank them and took a lot of changing things around. Had been wanting to do it for a while since the game has only been out for 10 years but finally got around to it. Do note these rankings are based on Civ 3 Complete Edition which I think is the same as Conquests. Also I play primarily on Emperor and have played all Civs at lest once. I have played a handful of Demigod games with mixed results. I have never played Deity or Sid. Some day, maybe but for now I enjoy Emperor, even though I have gotten to the point where I win every time. Thought I would add that since higher level players may disagree with the rankings. Also to make notes, some of my opinions, I state as fact (ie best starting tech). I understand these are only opinions and am not so arrogant as to honesty believe they are fact.

First I will give a breakdown of how I came up with the rankings. First thing I did was rank the traits. Since the traits, for the most part, last throughout the entire game. I then looked at starting techs. Reason for this is the early game is obviously the most important. Any beeline across the tech tree is very important so as not to fall too far behind early. Thus I placed starting techs that you can research horizontally from the start at higher value. The third factor was obviously the UU's. I put the least weight on the UU's but they were obviously still a major consideration as a handful I consider to be game changing.

First I will give a ranking of the traits along with reasons of why. I more or less rated the traits loosely by grouping and not so much 1-8 other than what I feel is, hands down, the best (Agricultural) and worst (Seafaring). This is from both personal experience and other poster's opinions.

Best
1. Agricultural. Hands down the best trait. Early food bonus is game changing. It offers cheap aquaducts and hospitals and you can get 2 food from deserts. Since population is the key to Civ 3 these is the most-important factor without a doubt. The only demigod games I was able to win on have been with agricultural civs. Also, look at how well the AI is able to play agricultural. Even the AI's idiocy has a hard time screwing it up and they are always one of the most powerful civs. Nothing I hate more than seeing Aztecs or Mayas on my borders at the beginning.

Great
2a. Scientific. Free tech at beginning of each age is huge. Cheap libraries, universities and research labs also a tremendous boost. Better chance at scientific leaders is a crapshoot but still a nice trait.

2b. Industious. Faster workers is so powerful in the early game is all that needs said.

Good
4. Commercial. Less corruption is great. Some like this trait the most but I it is hard to quanitify it unless you are able to compare games side by side. However, I still find it to be a very solid trait.

Average
5a. Expansionist. This trait is a crapshoot and only valuable in the first half of the Ancient Age. Crapshoot meaning it is up to luck if you pop, and/or find, any good huts. However, it can be huge if you could pop a couple good huts early. By using the scout you only can get good things from huts and not barbs.

5b. Militaristic. Another crapshoot trait. Works better in the law of large numbers. You are going to end up with more armies but getting them early is more the key since they can be built once you build the MA

5c. Religious. Great if going for a cultural win. Also can be very powerful if used properly. By that I mean you can switch back and forth from Monarchy and Republic once war wariness kicks in. However, I usually don’t find myself needing to switch that often. I normally use Republic and once war wariness kicks in I will sue for peace under highly favorable terms.

Worst
8. Seafaring. Worst trait hands down. Faster ships and 1 more commerce in center square of cities and metros. I typically play Pangea or Continents is one reason why but even when I play Islands I don’t find it that advantageous. Faster ships are nice but that’s about it. Seafaring wouldn’t be nearly as bad if commerce bonus was in any sized town on the ocean. How many productive cities do you even found on the ocean (possibly 6-8). By the time they are up to city size the bonus isn’t even noticeable. Also would be nice if ocean squares fetched something more but they don’t.

Now, on to the starting techs. Not going to list these out but I do find Alphabet as the best. Reason being is that it gives you a beeline for Philosophy and free tech. This is nice because it seems the AI neglects that path more but finds subsequent tech, Writing, very valuable. After that there is a bit of a drop off with a lot of parody. I do find CB as the worst just because it is cheapest and the AI doesn’t value it at all. More weight was put on techs you can research horizontally (Alphabet and Bronze Working). CB is a horizontal research as well but leads to Mysticism which is a another low value tech to the AI.

Third aspect to my rankings is the UU. Again didn’t rank these out but did put value based on what it replaces, cost compared to replaced unit and special abilities. I do think the Immortal is the best UU in the game. I find it to be the one UU that is actually game changing. Extra attack for same price of swordsman is awesome. Move these through with a few catapults and you are nearly invincible. Also because of their 2 defense they don’t need protection until after the Ancient Age. Another game changing unit is the Mounted Warrior. I never build horsemen unless I’m the Iroquois. Horsemen are just too week for their cost (same price as swordsmen) and with an attack of 2 and defense of 1 you need catapults to help bring down cities and spearmen for protection, in essence negating their 2 movement. They are also very expensive to upgrade to Knights. However the extra attack Mounted Warriors changes all of that. Furthermore, there is no need to upgrade to Knights since its only 1 less attack and better to just build Knights or not even research Chivalry at all and keep MW’s around till Cavalry. Who cares about a defense of one if no one can catch you. Worst UU, and I think everyone would agree, is the F-15. Comes far too late in game to have any value and I’m not sure its advantage is over a jet fighter (Stealth?). A close second would be the Carack since its special trait (crossing oceans) is only good about 1 tech then all civs can do it. Other than that each unit is commented on in my list.

That is basically my criteria in a nutshell. So now time to get to the list. Decided to do the list as a countdown (31 thru 1) as opposed to the other way. Here it is:

31.) Zululand (Expansionist, Militaristic) (Pottery, Warrior Code)
-Pottery 2nd best starting tech
-both traits are crap shoots that can be great or can be worthless
-worthless 2 move defensive UU. Only possible value to escort horseman rush?

30.) Portugal (Expansionist, Seafaring) (Alphabet, Pottery)
-2 best starting techs
-worst trait synergy in game. Seafaring worst trait overall
-worthless UU whose special ability only lasts for about one tech (crossing oceans)

29.) Spain (Religious, Seafaring) (Alphabet, Ceremonial Burial)
-Alphabet best starting trait, CB is worst
-expensive low value UU
-Seafaring is worst trait

28.) Mongolia (Expansionist, Militaristic) (Warrior Code, Pottery)
-Pottery 2nd best starting tech
-both traits are crapshoots that can be great or useless
-UU doesn’t require iron, movement over hills and mountains but would rather have one more defense point for 10 more shields

27.) England (Commercial, Seafaring) (Alphabet, Pottery)
-2 best starting techs
-nearly worthless UU, usually build these only to set off Golden age
-Seafaring is worst trait

26.) Americans (Industrious, Expansionist) (Masonry, Pottery)
-Pottery is 2nd best starting trait
-Expansionist is crap shoot that is only good for first half of ancient age
-worst UU in game

25.) Scandinavia (Militaristic, Seafaring) (Alphabet, Warrior Code)
-Alphabet is best starting tech
-Seafaring is worst trait and Militaristic is crap shoot trait
-expensive UU, needs protected, amphibious assaults, best attack for middle age, doesn’t upgrade

24.) Hittites (Commercial, Expansionist) (Pottery, Alphabet)
-crap shoot 2nd trait
-best 2 techs to start with
-good value UU

23.) Egypt (Industrious, Religious) (Ceremonial Burial, Masonry)
-CB is weakest starting tech
-weak UU with limitations (can’t go thru swamp, wetlands or mountains)
-Religious can be useful tech if used properly.

22.) India (Commercial, Religious) (Ceremonial Burial, Alphabet)
-good extra, hit point, no iron UU
-have best and worst starting techs
-religious trait is good if used correctly

21.) Carthage (Industrious, Seafaring) (Alphabet, Masonry)
-good high priced UU
-best starting tech
-worst 2nd trait

20.) Japan (Militaristic, Religious) (Wheel, Ceremonial Burial)
-only civ to start with Wheel which give benefit for early tech trades
-CB is weakest starting tech
-good fast UU that doesn’t require horses can defend and attack
-average traits, militaristic is other crap shoot tech

19.) Arabia (Expansionist, Religious) (Ceremonial Burial, Pottery)
-pottery 2nd best starting tech, CB is worst
-expansionist is crap shoot (can be great or non-factor depending on luck)
-good UU but would rather pay 10 more shields for extra hit point knight

18.) Germany (Scientific, Militaristic) (Warrior Code, Bronze Working)
-late average UU
-average 2nd tech

17.) Byzantium (Scientific, Seafaring) (Bronze Working, Alphabet)
-great UU
-best starting tech
-weakest 2nd trait

16.) Babylon (Scientific, Religious) (Bronze Working, Ceremonial Burial)
-great for culture
-average 2nd trait
-average UU
-CB weakest starting tech

15.) Russia (Scientific, Expansionist) (Bronze Working, Pottery)
-good starting techs
-Expansionist is crap shoot that is only good for about the first half of Ancient Age
-average late UU whose special ability needs to be accompanied with artillery units

14.) China (Industrious, Militaristic) (Warrior Code, Masonry)
-average 2nd trait
-no horizontal research
-good fast UU

13.) Rome (Commercial, Militaristic) (Alphabet, Warrior Code)
-best starting tech
-good UU
-traits are slightly above average together

12.) Korea (Scientific, Commercial) (Alphabet, Bronze Working)
-good 2nd trait
-good UU
-best starting tech

11.) Ottoman (Industrious, Scientific) (Masonry, Bronze Working)
-great traits
-good but late high priced UU

10.) Aztecs (Agricultural, Militaristic) (Pottery, Warrior Code)
-average 2nd trait
-weak UU
-no horizontal research

9.) France (Industrious, Commercial) (Alphabet, Masonry)
-good 2nd trait
-good UU
-best starting tech

8.) Celts (Agricultural, Religious) (Ceremonial Burial, Pottery)
-high priced solid UU
-CB weak starting tech

7.) Greece (Scientific, Commercial) (Bronze Working, Alphabet)
-good 2nd trait
-good UU
-best starting tech

6.) Inca (Agricultural, Expansionist) (Masonry, Pottery)
-UU below average
-no horizontal research

5.) Netherlands (Agricultural, Seafaring) (Alphabet, Pottery)
-worst 2nd trait
-good UU
-best starting tech

4.) Maya (Agricultural, Industrious) (Masonry, Pottery)
-great traits
-UU average
-no horizontal research

3.) Persia (Industrious, Scientific) (Bronze Working, Masonry)
-great traits
-best UU

2.) Sumeria (Agricultural, Scientific) (Bronze Working, Pottery)
-great traits
-UU average

1.) Iroquois (Agricultural, Commercial) (Alphabet, Pottery)
-good 2nd trait
-best starting tech
-great UU

Feel free to post and comments, criticisms or corrections.

Thanx
Iaro

England should be higher, as should the Zulu and China.

IaRo said:

I have never played Deity or Sid.

Click to expand...

At least you're honest, I guess. Expansionist ends up FAR worse than Seafaring on Sid just about in all circumstances, (unless maybe you have barbs on, which I don't know why you would do on Sid), since you can't pop a settler on Sid, nor can you get techs, while you can on any other level with an Expanisonist tribe. It doesn't matter what level you play, expansionist on Sid just makes it easier to scout the map, and all too little else.

IaRo said:

It offers cheap aquaducts and hospitals and you can get 2 food from deserts.

Click to expand...

No, the agricultural trait only offers cheap aqueducts.

The militaristic trait only gives you cheaper barracks and a greater probability of getting a promotion in a battle. It does not increase the probability of spawning a leader.

I don't see much evidence that you've played for many different conditions. In truth, to do this correctly, you need to take into account playstyle, desired victory condition, map type, and perhaps even difficulty level, if you wish to rank the tribes meaningfully. The game has too many complexities which get ignored by a ranking without taking into account which victory condition the tribes get ranked for.

For instance, suppose you want to play an OCC diplomatic, space, or 20k game. Who plays the easiest? The Byzantines, since the free tech proves invaluable, you have cheap science buildings, you start on the coast for The Colossus, and you have extra commerce, which you can really use. They come in 17th on your last.

As another example, in general, which tribes play best for a 100k game? Pretty sure that most people who've played these/have thought about will agree 1. The Celts, 2. The Sumerians, 3. The Babylonians. But Babylon ranks 16th on your list.

As another example: the Seafaring trait. On Sid, a lot of games get played on an 80% archipelago map to slow down the AIs and isolate them. But, how do you make contacts then? With curraghs and galleys, and the extra movement of such ships really helps out, as does the decreased probability of your boat sinking. Faster moving ships can also make invasions easier. This really applies to any desired victory condition on an 80% map.

Also, consider 20k games. If you take a look at the HoF tables, you'll find that for every sized map, the Demi-God, Deity, and Sid games basically have gotten *littered* with Seafaring tribes. Yes, you'll find Persia and the Aztecs on Tiny maps, but even on those maps you'll find lots of entries with Seafaring tribes. Why? Because it comes as easiest to play 80% archipelago maps, the extra commerce pays off when you don't have all that many cities early, you start on the coast for the Colossus, you can more easily get contacts with curraghs/galleys, and you start with Alphabet. Cheap harbors can also very much help.

If you want to do a standard, large, or huge SS or diplomatic game on Chieftain as fast as you can, it gets hard to find a better choice than Russia (Persia, Ottos, Sumeria in some situations) with sedentary barbs, since you can pop your through the ancient age, and you have the scientific trait. But, they end up 15th on your list.

For most militaristic games pretty sure I'll take China over the Inca just about any day of the week. Moonsinger picked China for her Huge Sid Conquest game.

Pretty much all scientific tribes can out research the Iroquois. So, for any space or diplomatic game, pick a scientific tribe over the Iroquois.

If you rank tribes, you need to do so by victory condition.

Ive always found Impis super-effective

For sure the game settings and victory conditions have a large impact on any rankings. If I take Iroq for a Sid game, it is not becasue they are AG. I would pick Comm over AG in many settings.

UU's are so important in some settings and conditions. AWDG often cannot be won without a superior UU for the AA.

Even after countless games, I still have not played many types of games and would be careful about trying to rank nations.

Aggie is helpful, but sometimes for micromanaging it can be a PITA!

I agree, ranking the Civs isn't easy and so much is subjective and dependant on play style. Thought I'd give the rankings a try and see what others thought.

vmxa said:

For sure the game settings and victory conditions have a large impact on any rankings. If I take Iroq for a Sid game, it is not becasue they are AG. I would pick Comm over AG in many settings.

UU's are so important in some settings and conditions. AWDG often cannot be won without a superior UU for the AA.

Even after countless games, I still have not played many types of games and would be careful about trying to rank nations.

Click to expand...

I agree, ranking the Civs isn't easy and so much is subjective and dependant on play style. Thought I'd give the rankings a try and see what others thought.[/QUOTE]

Deciding what's crap is totally dependent on your strategies goals and the settings. Some uus you defined as crap may have significant stategy possibilities and some traits and starting techs also have perspectives.
I don't play above Emperor but in Emperor-regent range there are some additional strategies.
Militaristic and Warrior code enable archers ASAP and open for Archer rush strategies coupled with fasty barracks. Impis can indeed accompany a vet horsemen for early rushing. Pottery is the cheapest tech of all starting techs and can be researched/traded while using settler first approach.
Regarding special UU strategies:
Berserk: If fighting pikemen/musketmen can allow for direct assault with less artillery support, i.e yellowlining gives enough victory chanses and those are useful up to tanks and don't require resources.
Carrack: I find that it's most important trait is 2 attack, allowing decent chance to sink everysthing up to frigate, Navigation is indeed one tech away but why waste time in researching it.If it triggers a golden age then if the level is Emperor or below one can take a good shot at Adam smith wonder Which is among the most powerful: 3 free gpt per core city.
Cossack: One can save a lot on unit support with those. Using the normal cavalry/artillery combination one can use much less units and gain insta-promotions and increased shot at leaders.
Dromon: Ultimate unit for all maps except large pangeas, every other map have much higher percent of coastal cities and every civ have several coastal core cities where the lethal bombard (without escorting...) kicks in. Used them extensivly for Byz conquest victories on standard pangeas.
Man-O-War: If the AI isn't to advanced this ship can use it's combination of bombard and enslavement to gain ships from naval warfare. Sometimes those things breed like rabbits filling the seas and with no drain on the treasury.
Samurai: You wrote it's powerful but I find it very powerful: This open the way to fast escort of cavalry stacks and insta-reinforcements to beleagered cities
Still I think some uus are useless like conquistadors and several others or useful in a game limiting way like Hwachas ( to make a difference on needs to bring 5 hwachas at minimum per defender in a city and to support all that stuff I struggle being republic).
Still, the Alphabet is among the best starting techs.
CB is probably one of the worst because who is going to build a temple as one of his first builds. When I decide I need temples I usually have at least 5 cities, an operating settler factory and possibly a rush stack constucted so by then I will find a way to get CB (Trade,pop,extort,research), in addition it's also cheap.

p.s.
Unfortunatly the makers didn't made the strongest civ trait possible: One which will unlock halved price granaries.

Interesting. Korea and Greece have the exact same traits. You rated both UUs as good and still, Greece is 5 positions higer than Korea. I believe you rate the good Hoplite higher than the good H'wachi??

And as Spoonwood said, it's almost impossible to create such a rating list. There are so many factors that influence the choice of civ.

In my very personal book (HoF gamer):

1. Iroquios and Celts for conquest/domination games. Celts also for 100K games (on all levels/maps)
2. Russia for low level (up to Monarch) Diplo and space ship games on maps at least small/standard sized)
3. Persia for almost all other diplo/ss games. (high lvl, tiny maps) and also good for 20K games.
4. Byzantines for high level 20K games.

It has been a while but a long tme ago we rated them by tiers which are a general guideline because it depends so much on playstyle, map settings and difficulty level. No offence if you an only beat the AI on demigod using agricultural civs you suck. My first deity victory was in 2003 using the Romans and that was a month or 2 after I got the game.

The Iroqous are probably the best civ as a general rule but if you want a fair ranking of the civs the closest suggestion I can make is pick you map size but have everything else as random. Even Agricultural trait isn't that great when you have no water nearby. If you pick a map that favours your civ and reload until you get an ideal/good start then yeah.......


Seafaring and Commercial civs can also research surprisingly quickly as they get a massive advantage towards racing for philosophy.

Zardnaar said:

It has been a while but a long tme ago we rated them by tiers which are a general guideline because it depends so much on playstyle, map settings and difficulty level. No offence if you an only beat the AI on demigod using agricultural civs you suck. My first deity victory was in 2003 using the Romans and that was a month or 2 after I got the game.

The Iroqous are probably the best civ as a general rule but if you want a fair ranking of the civs the closest suggestion I can make is pick you map size but have everything else as random. Even Agricultural trait isn't that great when you have no water nearby. If you pick a map that favours your civ and reload until you get an ideal/good start then yeah.......


Seafaring and Commercial civs can also research surprisingly quickly as they get a massive advantage towards racing for philosophy.

Click to expand...

I am not sure to whom you are answering. But I hope you did not reply to my statement! I did not write that I need an agri civ to beat demigod, or deity...

This is my full reply to the first post in this thread.

I play at monarch and emperor levels and that's what I think of ranking units and civs

What is required from unique units: That they come in reasonable time to matter, don’t obsolete quickly and their use is comfortable with the overall strategy of the player.

Early expansion is usually the determining factor in each game and set the base to later stages. It’s very difficult to come back from weak start as the game is cumulative. Early expansion can be made by peace or by war and if made by war the uu comes into play.

Wars are won on the offensive even if they are defensive wars so the most important units are the main offensive units the player has during the war. Improvement of those units is instrumental to the success of the war.

Wars of expansion are mainly fought in mid-late ancient age. In mid-ancient age the civilizations are not organized fully and don’t have huge militaries, so every unit counts.
Ancient wars are won by two units: Horsemen and swords, not by spears so improvement to those units is the most important and the best units are good replacements of those two: MW, immortals, gallics and legions.

Mounted warriors are the best unique unit as they improve the basic unit main statistic by 50%, thus enabling the limited horsemen to become an efficient city taker, giving good combination of offensive power and speed. Gallics do the same and even have better defence but their cost is too much. Immortals are the best attackers for an era and a half but they don’t have the speed of gallic swordsmen. Legions are able to withstand counter-attacks but their primary function doesn’t improve.

The second tier of unique units are the archer replacements, giving the archers normal defence and making them independent of escorts, so the next tier are the bowman and javelin.

Medieval warfare is more organized then ancient but is also important to success. Medieval warfare uses two strats: Fast and siege.

Fast means knights and cavalry, siege means trebuchets and MDI. For me knights are too expensive to be used against cities and ensuring success with siege weapons prevents them from using their speed and no unique unit enables increase in the knight primary statistics-attack.
The cavalry unique units do that so I consider them better then the knight derived units. The cavalry replacements are the Sipahi and the Cossack. I consider the Cossack better as I combine cavalries with siege during most of their career and then the blitz shines more then the 8 attack of the Sipahi. Cossacks are more versatile on defensive situations as they can decimate enemy aggressive stacks faster then Sipahi, especially if defensive artillery is used. One can add their leader fishing capabilities.

Following them is the odd Berserk, enabling early 6 attack unit (and amphibious) thus enabling taking cities surly without siege. Then follow the knight unique units: Ansar, Rider, Elephant, Keshik, Samurai. The knights are good for pillaging, sneak attacks and general combat in the open so speed is the best improvement, then follows defence and then the other abilities so the order is: Rider, Ansar, Samurai, Elephant, Keshik.

Together with them come the unique defenders: Hoplite and swiss pikemen. Swiss pikemen for me are better then Hoplites as escorts are more important in the middle ages and having very cheap and good escorts for medieval siege stacks is a good idea. Hoplites can escort archers better then spears but the AI is too disorganized to mount significant counter-punch at that time.
Then come the other unique defenders: Musketeers, Numidians and Impi. Of those the best for me are Numidians, a versatile unit that can counter-attack archers and Horsemen but too costly, the cost difference prevent pop-rushing them quickly as spears could be rushed, then come the Impi. Impi allow “safe” pillaging of enemy resources and enable the escort of horses without losing speed.

Musketeers are the worst of the unique defenders- 25% improvement only, expensive and quickly obsolete unit.

Other units are chariots, quick warriors and the Hwachas: I prefer Hwachas, Hwachas in good number enable totally “safe” conquest as all defenders could be killed by them then the chariots and in the end the warriors: Enkidus, chasquis and jaguars.

Conquistadors are pillagers by nature and are supposed to be expendable but 60 shields… If the cost would be 40 shield they could promote to the knight replacement units but at 60 shields they way much expensive.

The overall tiers for me are:
1) MW, Gallic swords, Immortals, Berserks, Legions, Cossacks and Sipahi. (+Dromon)
2) Riders, Ansars, Bowmen, Javelins, Samurai, Swiss pikes and Elephants. (+Man-o-war)
3) Numidians, Hoplites, Keshiks, Impis, Musketeers, Hwachas and war chariots(+Carrack)
4) Pantzers, enkidus, 3MC, chasquis, jaguars and conquistadors (+F15)

The other units are non-land units, Non-land units are map dependant and are more difficult to asses. I would say that the best of them is Dromon, early bombard, early sea control, maritime speed and else make them comparable to first-tier land units. Man-o-war, dominating half an era is second best with it’s enslave ability and for me is comparable with 2nd tier land units. Carracks, enabling more serious chances during caravel days are 3rd tier and the F15… Only conquistadors are worse.

Timing of Golden ages is an important thing but even late ancient “despotic” GA is useful as it can enable me to finish off an AI and acquire needed room and quicken the republic transition. Early ancient GA is much less useful as food is the most important resource then, not gold and not shields. Late industrial German GA is also problematic but by then Germans can get medieval wonder driven GA. I usually consider the GA timing as not the first consideration in unit ranking.

Overall civ rankings:

For me traits are more important for ranking civilizations then units ,so good trait combination can put a civilization in the first tier even without any unique unit. Having both good traits and units is of course preferred. Generally I think that Ision’s tiers are the most correct with Iroquis as the “best civ” while the “worst civ” is probably Spain. The only change I would do is replacing Byzantines and the Netherlands in their respective tiers.

Why don't you open a new thread for this.

I think there is a lot to argue about your evaluations.

Of course everyone invited to argue. This is my personal opinion tied to my standard strategies of conquest.
The strategy is REX, then late ancient war to get space, then switch to republic and have a building phase (science, aquas and markets)and only then start conquering the world.
In any way I usually use siege tactics from medieval on so thats the reason I value knights so low and use cavalry in siege also (against muskets or above). I lose the speed but conserve the cavalry.
Bombard stacks for me is the sure way to victory.

I don't want to open a new thread , there are too much threads doubling each other and this may double similar threads.

shl7070 said:

Generally I think that Ision’s tiers are the most correct with Iroquis as the “best civ” while the “worst civ” is probably Spain.

Click to expand...

As Calis said a lot to argue with. The Iroquois will have less trouble getting a contact to build the Colossus on say Demi-God or Deity than the Spanish will. The whole idea of a linear ordering across all victory conditions for tribes just doesn't make sense once you've played different types of games at different levels.

Regarding victory conditons I played all except culture. I'm bad at culture and build it late (after securing some room).
I didn't played all the levels. I'm still scared of playing DG or above because I'm not totally comfortable with Emperor. I can now win it but it's not easy for me and requires some luck like decent starting location (1 cattle or wheat). I didn't play all civs but did tried all traits.

I still can feel the difference and it's large between the tribes for my strategy. Like games that are quickly won with Iroquis and Persia and drag on with Rome and Portugal. I finished standard pangeas in early AD with most "first tiers" but with "third tier" it took much more time and effort, dragging till industrial ages.
Of course I can observe the strength of AI and it is approximatly proportional to tiers. In most situations Low tier civs are weak or getting wiped out sooner or later by their bretheren.

Zardnaar said:

No offence if you an only beat the AI on demigod using agricultural civs you suck. My first deity victory was in 2003 using the Romans and that was a month or 2 after I got the game.

Click to expand...

@ Zardnaar - although you claim this is not your intention, your post is offensive. Whomever you addressed (not only if it is you, Calis), nothing is won by letting anyone know that you believe he "sucks".

Not even in Kiwi-English, where many words are used (and pronounced!) differently.

By the way, I have lived/studied/worked in Otago-Dunedin about twelve years ago. That was a great time, and I am still in contact with some of the guys there.
So from Europe to the other end of the world. Sweet as!

templar_x

templar_x said:

@ By the way, I have lived/studied/worked in Otago-Dunedin about twelve years ago. That was a great time, and I am still in contact with some of the guys there.
So from Europe to the other end of the world. Sweet as!

templar_x

Click to expand...

Where is Otago-Dunedin?

21.) Carthage (Industrious, Seafaring) (Alphabet, Masonry)
-good high priced UU
-best starting tech
-worst 2nd trait

Click to expand...

I would say Carthage are good on high level Island maps, if you are going for a 20k victory, I have used Carthage on Deity and their UU really helped against early attacks from the AI.

The techs they have along with France mean early Mathematics giving access to zeus and catapults, and you can also go writing.