BNW Deity Tier List

Hmm... the problem I always run into with the Dutch, is that you generally start somewhere with one type of luxury (like 8 copies of it in your expansion area), and a couple of other more unique luxuries. It's actually difficult to consistently trade away your last copy of your primary luxury (especially once tensions get high, and you're literally forced to trade it for 4gpt) throughout the game. Not usually an issue in the early game, but by mid-game, it gets complicated.

Also, what starts out as a +happiness gain in the early game if you have trade partners, quickly becomes a -happiness UA by mid-game, when the AI doesn't have enough luxuries to trade you and you start needing the happiness just to keep growing. I do like the grass start bias (it's really one of the best ones for the capital + tradition). But, without India's UA, the Dutch start running into actual happiness problems by mid-game going 4-city tradition, which makes it even harder to continue using their UA. Do you do 3-city instead like India until Ideologies? Do you run Patronage and keep two CS mercantile allies? Exploration? 4-city Netherlands is actually rather tough to keep up with.

I consider Netherlands toward the top of the tier, but not on par with the higher tier. Compare with Aztec's or Siam's growth bonus for examples of higher tier civs. Or, think of Russia UA is effectively a trading UA that gets an average some 45 x 5 = 225 gold per 30 turns (or 300 gold if you use the 2gpt per 1 resource trick/exploit) resource per city from its UA in the early game (horses and iron), without having to lose 2 happiness... and it only gets better as the game goes on instead of worse, and there's a hammer bonus, which is very nice for early game. On the other hand, despite a better start, I don't think Netherlands is ultimately significantly better than even India (same grass start). The two civs you used for comparison were America, a military civ (difficult to compare, since they are a mid-late game military civ), and Carthage, probably the weakest civ in the tier, very recently moved up from bottom tier. If you instead compared with the other non-military civs in the tier (France, Indonesia, India), Netherlands would look more at home.

Really? I don't seem to have this problem myself. Some spacing might be required, but really, I don't tend to find this particular problem that you have. Though you're right trading away all of your primary luxuries gets a bit harder in the mid-game, that's where secondaries come into play. Honestly, if you liken it to Arabia's Bazaar (Which in itself is more powerful then the UA, it just comes into play later), just think of how often you have issues getting rid of your double resources with that.

If you find a few good trade partners early game (There's probably always one or two that will stick with you throughout the game, not every civ will end up hating you after all), you should be able to monitor their supplies turn by turn, and swoop in once they have a second lux. Trade the 1v1 trade, and watch as after 30 turns, they'll come back to you asking to renew it. It does require some micromanagement, yes, but it's worth the effort. That way, their UA tends to read almost like the Commerce final policy for me in that I get 6 happiness instead of 4.

The key to using the UA well is the flexibility it should give you. Swoop in fast on second luxuries, and from that point on you should be able to dictate whether you want the UA to read "+2 Happiness" or "-2 Happiness +7 GPT". Generally speaking, first lux goes towards getting some GPT to get my economy up and running, second one goes towards countering that happiness loss, and after that it all depends. The map should dictate your way of playing here.

Really, their UA is stronger if you micromanage it. Then the Polder comes into play, and you start racking up food rapidly. You name Siam and the Aztecs as foodmongers. Siam needs to make constant investments to keep the food rolling in, which can be an issue in the earlier game. I'll give you the Aztecs, freaking love the floating gardens. In turn however, all the Dutch need is a decent city site. Those few marsh tiles that'll be in your early rings don't matter, Rotterdam/Utrecht will be working the grass around it anyway until Guilds. If you get a flood plains city, things are even better. This also makes Rotterdam/Utrecht great sites for your Guilds as they'll have huge food producing tiles to counterbalance it without the need of setting up a food trade route.

I tend to play the Dutch with 3/4 cities (the 4th really depends on how many new luxes I can grab, needs to be 2 to make it worthwhile), of which 2 tend to have at least 3 polders within their territory. This is of course once again slightly map dependant, but I find I can do this with reasonable success. Tradition, go tall, and if Amsterdam has polders, Monarchy becomes even more fun. In the mid game, work out how the friend blocks lay, and use the Sea Beggars to wreak havoc on your enemies. It works out very well for me, usually. In the early game, you'll want a slight detour through Guilds and, if you needed the economy boost from your UA, Construction to get both defenses and colloseums up to counteract the unhappiness. Then go right back on path to the Universities.

They're somewhat map dependant, yes, I'll grant you that. They need at least ONE solid port city, and if you see flood plains, beeline a city there. But as noted before, if there's swamps around, the AI loves to leave them alone so you should be able to take them for only slightly worse polders (4 food come medieval is still a lot).
I do however say that both France and Indonesia need more work to do what they want. Indonesia is far more map-dependant then the Dutch (Though the Candi buff helps) and their UU is far too unpredictable and poorly positioned to truely work. France's UA is far more limiting, their UI is pretty good but not as powerful as the Polder (Which, in turn, IMO is probably not as good as the Terrace farm, but still a good second) and their UU is just a buffed normal unit without anything truely interesting, whereas the Dutch have a UU that's on a good tech path and can rule the seas for a good time to come. India, in general, has a UU that comes at a wrong time and an UB that, while not poor, is far from spectacular either. I'd say that the Dutch are above those.

Which is why I'd say they should move up a tier, with the annotation that they're stronger depending on map conditions. I just feel they kinda fall in between the two tiers depending on the way the dice rolls in a 50-50 way, they're certainly better then the tier they're in, but would likely be among the worst of the tier above. Though I'm not quite sure what Portugal is doing in a higher tier then the Dutch...
 
I'd say they should move up a tier, with the annotation that they're stronger depending on map conditions. I just feel they kinda fall in between the two tiers depending on the way the dice rolls in a 50-50 way, they're certainly better then the tier they're in, but would likely be among the worst of the tier above. Though I'm not quite sure what Portugal is doing in a higher tier then the Dutch...

That's fair and well reasoned. There's been some mentions here and there in this thread (5 for moving them up; 1 for moving them down; 1 that they shouldn't move down from the old mid tier, which is .5 steps higher than the current one). I'm going to move them up, and I've already added the " symbol.

As for Portugal, it's pure gold bonus in a peaceful non-Pangaea game (not terribly difficult if you have a focus on gold and trading, which you should, being Portugal) gives you more effective gold than Greece's UA... and you can decide what to do about it yourself. You also get some extra gold for each caravel (Nau) you build as a bonus, and +20 happiness if you decide to use the gold for other things besides CS (like buildings, units, RA, maintaining a humongous army/navy, etc). There is zero chance I'm moving Portugal down now that we've moved Greece up.
 
There is no way France is lower tier but Polynesia is bottom tier...
Exhibit A: Polynesia Deity Pangaea (game I just played) :lol:

Spoiler :


Proof of difficulty:
Spoiler :


Sure, 38k culture in 300 turns is pretty standard for deity AI
Spoiler :
/


but it is dwarfed by my culture... 58.9k in under 300 turns is the record for me... and SOH is not even finished yet...
Spoiler :


You don't see 800+ cpt in a standard game every day, let alone on deity difficulty (except if you rig the conditions to be Siam with loads of culture CS in a huge map)
Spoiler :


My case: seriously man, move Polynesia up one tier as they hardly are as useless as Denmark. France sucks in comparison to them in terms of culture.
Here, they are the only civ who can salvage a "meh" snaky coastal start into an amazing one with their moais (and probably the only civ who can reach 1k tourism without a salt start or whatnot).
 
Policies and ideology path? I haven't tried playing them as tall before....

Also, odds of getting a map where your cities have access to two coasts of workable land is lowwwwww. This list is for no-restarts. Your start is very good for Poly... and rare. It happens less than 50% or the time on any of the balanced map types, except maybe small continents. You would normally have 75% of that culture production from moais. I'll play another Poly game over the weekend and see though.
 
Policies and ideology path? I haven't tried playing them as tall before....

Also, odds of getting a map where your cities have access to two coasts of workable land is lowwwwww. This list is for no-restarts. Your start is very good for Poly... and rare. It happens less than 50% or the time on any of the balanced map types, except maybe small continents. You would normally have 75% of that culture production from moais. I'll play another Poly game over the weekend and see though.

Freedom all the way. (civil society is so important as moais do not provide any food whatsoever) Here I filled out tradition, rat, aesthetics in no particular order, then 9 in freedom, 2 in exploration, and commerce opener. Ridiculous number of policies for 300 turns, and without Oracle too.

Getting two coasts (aka a peninsula or strait) happens in around half my games with Poly. Problem is they rarely are connected (unless you go all the way around the continent) and hence food ships might not get through early game. Here I was very lucky I was able to build a "canal" city and that all my cities have their optimal placement on one side of the coastline (very often your lux will spawn on both sides, meaning you will have to build cities facing both coasts).

Nonetheless usually you have plenty of tiles for Moai since they can be built on whatever resource, even strategic ones. Here is simply an extreme example but usually 600+ tourism is doable in my average games.

(anyone who's played Korea often knows the pain of getting a start like mine where after you go tall your citizens are left working those +2 food water tiles because of very little land. My start was rather underwhelming if I had to play any other civ to say the least, because of only maybe 6-7 resources total in the 3 rings of my cap as opposed to, say, my record of 15 on a non-legendary start game)
 
Okay, this is now the third Polynesia Deity game I've played. I'm even on small continents plus for extra coasts! I'm on a peninsula for my capital and first expansion (the two coasts in my capital only touched on 2 tiles and the peninsula for my first expansion didn't have any moai combos for the two coasts). Pumped out two more cities in areas that gave at least 3 4+culture moais for endgame. Caveat: it was a half tundra half desert start w/o river or mountain, but I had three deer, horses, iron, 2 fish, 2 sheep, 4 copper, an oasis, and the peninsula, so it wasn't awful I thought. Some CS luck led to me picking up a religion without much effort. So, there's always that.

This is still much worse than France.

Problems:
1. Moai chains are for endgame only. They don't connect strategic/luxury resources!!! so you can't chain many of them up beforehand. E.g., you won't get a +4 Moai. Not that +3 moais are bad for their era, but they also waste 2 additional tiles that can't be worked. If you're having the growth you need for science on deity, especially on an coastal start, you can't afford that many unworked land-tiles. You also don't have the gold to buy tiles. So, although you get Moais early, they don't do much until end game. You'll only be able to work 1 (or at most 2) while sustaining growth.

2. Early game gold is awful (caveat, I had a sort of iso-start, where there was only 1 city I could trade with... and it wasn't coastal, so I needed a camel). I really miss my land city connections. Tradition helped here vs Liberty, but it was still very bad. Harbors come very late when your science is awful (heck I was almost able to STEAL the tech by the time I got to it). It's obvious that the game was not designed to let you expand so far on the water so early. Especially when you add to the upkeep of a couple of maori warriors for exploration.

3. They're actually pretty bad on islands. The city itself breaks up the moai coast!!! So, you need a snaky coast on each side, and a place to place your city that still has access to the sea. Uhhh, very hard to find. I'm actually going to change their designation from * to ". Polynesia runs out of workable tiles quick. The culture bonus keeps the borders expanding to match up, but these cities coastal hit their limits HARD. Can't imagine how it'd be on archipelago. But, I image you'd go Liberty there (and run into even more gold problems). Anyway, oddly, as Polynesia, snaky-type land is much better than 90% of the islands the map generator generates. You keep playing Pangaea maps... but that's maybe because Pangaea/Fractal maps are actually better for Polynesia than Continents/Small Continents/Archipelago!?!?

4. Growth is so bad. The combination of using up multiple unworked tiles (even one +3 moai requires 3 fairly specific tiles if you don't want to cut into any resources) and a coastal start (where half to a third of the tiles in your city limits are unworkable anyway) is very bad. It's fine in early game, but by mid game, you're doing a very delicate balance of food routes because your good workable tiles are all used, or reserved for Moais. Your growth doesn't pick back up again until hospitals/freedom's second tier tenant/fertilization. There's a large gap in there where you're just not growing while other civs are. Having any tundra/desert tiles will hurt your cause even more. And, since you usually get at least two types of land in any start, and there are only 6 types of lands... that start happens at most 40% of the time.

5. Related: Science is bad, because of your growth issues. On the bright side, they don't really need to fight for artifacts. Take what you can get, and you can turn digs in your own lands into artifacts. This is a pretty good bonus for Deity, where it can be difficult to catch up to the AI's tech/production by Archeology without a science/growth bonus (and you have to build in ~5-10 turns to actually reach the foreign dig sites). This does not change the fact that you'll hit hotels/airports/internet slower than even France.

You are only the second person on here to think Polynesia is fine. I've played enough of them by now to know that I least I personally will not do as well with them as France. And, I haven't seen many people on here thinking they're good enough to be on another tier. All of this, combined with

My question to you KB, since you play a lot of Poly: Are these all random starts that you're lucking out on, or are you only showing the best games? (your starts don't look like they're super-re-rolled, since they usually lack starting mountain/river/hill trifecta) the start bias will favor areas with more coast, but the fact that you avoid desert/tundra consistently is pretty amazing, especially tundra, which tend to have more coastline than other tiles) And, when do you hit internet? Turn 296? On Deity, that's cutting it incredibly close to when the game may reasonably end (since you have to then buy GMs and move them to the civ).

In any case, I'm not moving Poly up unless a lot of other people push for it. And Denmark got better too with the fall patch so the overall strength of the bottom tier is better.
 
Problems:
1. Moai chains are for endgame only. They don't connect strategic/luxury resources!!! so you can't chain many of them up beforehand. E.g., you won't get a +4 Moai. Not that +3 moais are bad for their era, but they also waste 2 additional tiles that can't be worked. If you're having the growth you need for science on deity, especially on an coastal start, you can't afford that many unworked land-tiles. You also don't have the gold to buy tiles. So, although you get Moais early, they don't do much until end game. You'll only be able to work 1 (or at most 2) while sustaining growth.

2. Early game gold is awful (caveat, I had a sort of iso-start, where there was only 1 city I could trade with... and it wasn't coastal, so I needed a camel). I really miss my land city connections. Tradition helped here vs Liberty, but it was still very bad. Harbors come very late when your science is awful (heck I was almost able to STEAL the tech by the time I got to it). It's obvious that the game was not designed to let you expand so far on the water so early. Especially when you add to the upkeep of a couple of maori warriors for exploration.

3. They're actually pretty bad on islands. The city itself breaks up the moai coast!!! So, you need a snaky coast on each side, and a place to place your city that still has access to the sea. Uhhh, very hard to find. I'm actually going to change their designation from * to ". Polynesia runs out of workable tiles quick. The culture bonus keeps the borders expanding to match up, but these cities coastal hit their limits HARD. Can't imagine how it'd be on archipelago. But, I image you'd go Liberty there (and run into even more gold problems). Anyway, oddly, as Polynesia, snaky-type land is much better than 90% of the islands the map generator generates. You keep playing Pangaea maps... but that's maybe because Pangaea/Fractal maps are actually better for Polynesia than Continents/Small Continents/Archipelago!?!?

4. Growth is so bad. The combination of using up multiple unworked tiles (even one +3 moai requires 3 fairly specific tiles if you don't want to cut into any resources) and a coastal start (where half to a third of the tiles in your city limits are unworkable anyway) is very bad. It's fine in early game, but by mid game, you're doing a very delicate balance of food routes because your good workable tiles are all used, or reserved for Moais. Your growth doesn't pick back up again until hospitals/freedom's second tier tenant/fertilization. There's a large gap in there where you're just not growing while other civs are. Having any tundra/desert tiles will hurt your cause even more. And, since you usually get at least two types of land in any start, and there are only 6 types of lands... that start happens at most 40% of the time.

5. Related: Science is bad, because of your growth issues. On the bright side, they don't really need to fight for artifacts. Take what you can get, and you can turn digs in your own lands into artifacts. This is a pretty good bonus for Deity, where it can be difficult to catch up to the AI's tech/production by Archeology without a science/growth bonus (and you have to build in ~5-10 turns to actually reach the foreign dig sites). This does not change the fact that you'll hit hotels/airports/internet slower than even France.

You are only the second person on here to think Polynesia is fine. I've played enough of them by now to know that I least I personally will not do as well with them as France. And, I haven't seen many people on here thinking they're good enough to be on another tier. All of this, combined with

My question to you KB, since you play a lot of Poly: Are these all random starts that you're lucking out on, or are you only showing the best games? (your starts don't look like they're super-re-rolled, since they usually lack starting mountain/river/hill trifecta) the start bias will favor areas with more coast, but the fact that you avoid desert/tundra consistently is pretty amazing, especially tundra, which tend to have more coastline than other tiles) And, when do you hit internet? Turn 296? On Deity, that's cutting it incredibly close to when the game may reasonably end (since you have to then buy GMs and move them to the civ).

In any case, I'm not moving Poly up unless a lot of other people push for it. And Denmark got better too with the fall patch so the overall strength of the bottom tier is better.

1. Moai are good for satellites (where you can food focus and then not worry about production so much) allowing them to expand their borders much more quickly; play normally until mid to endgame then turn all your tiles to Moai for the final blow OR use food ships. You don't have to "reserve" the tile for Moai, feel free to build that pasture or farm and play normally! Late game you can always change it to Moai when you have all your tourism buildings.

2. Actually I play almost exclusively Pangaea and the ability of their cargo ships to pass through oceans make trading with sea routes incredibly easier. I usually go for food ships early game but if I wanted gold routes I could easily get them. I fail to see how their gold output would be any worse than any sea-oriented civ. Sure connecting your cities will wait til compass, but even then, I feel that compass is a really cheap tech (and you will be getting galleases if you are near an aggressive neighbor anyway; and once you get them galleases that can enter deep water can focus fire much better) Moais late game once they generate gold will boost your gold almost as if you had a golden age.

3. Archipelago and perhaps small islands (haven't played small islands) are really bad for Poly (somewhat counter-intuitively) since archi especially means all islands are linked by shallow water, rendering your UA useless as other civs have equal access to the entire globe as soon as they hit sailing and optics; with Poly sometimes I don't worry about expanding that early because their UA allows them to access islands surrounded by oceans (and even on Pangaea these islands sometimes are still pretty big). Also your food ships, which are the shining jewel of Poly's early game, once your capitol grows to huge sizes, the capitol runs out of tiles to work anyway on archi!

4. Food ships. If you plan to spam moai (I would only do this for my cap; my satellites just need about +4 culture from 2 adjacent Moai or so to help their borders along) then use food ships. There's a small problem with Pangaea in that sometimes you spawn near the edge and there's ice blocking the route; but usually you can manage one food ship (and if you get sick of it you can ALWAYS PLAY WITH SEA LEVEL: HIGH) :devil: . Actually I find that with Poly and any other sea civ, my capitol's growth is much better and faster once I reach 3 food routes (easy enough with sailing, AH, and then either engineering or compass) and I can actually work mines and moais without inhibiting my growth! I get desert starts a lot too (but flood plains is A-OK!) but I rarely get tundra starts; just my expansion spots might have tundra. But tundra is not that bad if you can get Aurora Dance. In whatever case mid to late game food ships are really powerful, and my satellites need only be size 15-20 or so to be somewhat useful (easily doable even with the worst desert-ish terrains but you will need to invest a couple of food ships there; I'll post SS illustrating this point when I have time) Actually just look at Nuku Hiva in my game which was settled mainly to block the English :lol: and still it reached its 20s despite not having a single freshwater farm and only 2 seafood tiles. My capitol actually was not all that food-rich either but 30 food from ships is a lot of food.

5. See 4. Poly is indeed bad for going wide in BNW as small cities will hurt you more than they will help. Having a super tall capitol is the way to go, and the science isn't particularly worse than any civ without a science bonus, like America.

Of course I only show my sub-300 CV games since they show the power of Poly. As you know not every deity game can be winnable by CV, no matter what civ you play; actually not just with Poly, with everything most of my victories are CV-turned SV (especially if my faith output is low then CV is impossible so I changed my plan to SV), but those are boring and in that regard Poly is just a civ with some culture bonuses, so I have no interest in showing them. By the way, I usually hit internet sometime around 240 at the earliest to 260-ish 270... if I estimate I'm only going to hit it at 290+ then why would I go for CV? :lol: I'd usually know before then CV looks impossible. (depends on whether or not I go straight for it or if I decide to finish Hubble first then bulb my way to internet with saved up GS, which usually happens a turn or two right after Hubble is built) I see you misunderstood my SS as hitting internet at t296, no, t296 is the turn of my victory! (I hit internet a long time ago but my last GM had to swim across the world to get to Greece as I feel that gifting one of my cities to him would not make for as pretty a screenshot)

To sum up, I think Poly suits a very particular play style that is:
1) Very tall (send all your food to capitol) with capitol focus early and delayed expansion (I usually are on 2 cities for quite a while in the majority of my games, but I have won a CV with just 2 cities before, and plenty of times SVs even).
2) Peaceful and friendly. Your bias and UA makes defensive combat on the coast early game very easy. Combined with the fact that you probably will not forward settle on someone means usually I have no problems with diplomacy. Plenty of friends for gold and RAs most of the time. Late game the AI as everyone knows sucks with naval combat and several subs can sink a whole armada.

Most of the time when I lose on deity, it's not by the AI launching their ship (very easily blocked by trading away all their aluminum early on as well as keeping tabs on where they are getting their aluminum (from CS); it's from getting wiped out early to midgame by the likes of Shaka or Ashurbanipal. Polynesia is one of the safest civs to play in this regard.

P.S And actually, I fail to see how France is better; musketeers are just muskets with slightly increased strength (and I'm not a warmonger anyway) and chateaux on the other hand give no food or production bonus either and do not get bonuses from clumping up like Moai and the tourism boost from chateaux themselves are negligible. City of lights certainly helps CV but to make it worth the while you need to have had an amazing start where you've grabbed some theming wonders aside from Louvre; also it is useless for changing plans to SV as I'm pretty sure the theming bonus does not give extra culture whereas Moai culture is culture which is able to be used for anything.
 
KB, I think you've managed to make a bad civ workable with one very specific strategy... but that doesn't mean it's not still a very underpowered civ.

(For the record, I of course did not save any tiles for moais, and built the appropriate improves on them beforehand. I also did run 2 food routes at all times to my NC/Observatory city, which was not my capital, because my capital was tundra/desert and that wouldn't make any sense. In early game, if you run 3 food routes, you won't have enough gold to upkeep your buildings, since you only have 3 routes. I started running a third food route only after banking, but in retrospect, I guess I could have started that at compass instead, since the harbors gave a good amount of gold.)

France is not about musketeers. They might as well not exist for all I care. The chateau is +2 culture, which is not +3/4, but it also doesn't take up an additional 2/3 land tiles. Moais have this bad habit of becoming more powerful the more you have of it, and to do that you'll necessarily disconnect a bunch of your strategic/luxury resources. They are only very situationally useful in the early/mid game. Chateaus are immediately useful and provide almost as much culture (makes up for it by also providing a gold) while taking up only ONE tile. This is much much better for early game and will actually give France the vital policies faster than Poly. Further, after flight, they become +3 tiles, just in time for that culture to actually make a difference in a tourism victory (massive defensive culture is pretty useless in a CV). Ultimately, their per-city tourism bonus is less than Poly's but not by that much. Then, for going tall, the UA will add +14 tourism on museums and national wonders alone. Even if you miss all the early wonders (Sistine, Globle) and catch up on Ufizzi/Lourve/Broadway, you'll get another +20. If you're on the coast, Sydney is +4. That's a total bonus of +34 minimum, +46 maximum pre-internet (and especially important, pre NVC). That's an additional 34-46 culture's worth of tourism... or something like ten worked moais. Let's call it 40 to simplify.

A city with a regular coast gets 6 worked moais, and 12 is a reasonable maximum amount of coast. Let's call it 9 endgame moais per city at a 3.5 average (few 2s, few 4s/5s, mostly 3s). That's 31.5 per city x 4 for ~125 bonus tourism. France has ~5 workable chateaus per city at 3 culture per, for 4 cities of 60 tourism bonus, add to 40 from UA is ~100 bonus tourism. THEN, you add the NVC tourism, which will give a 100% bonus to one city. Poly's bonus gets you an additional 35 (being generous, since your best end-game moai city and the city where you build your wonders may not be the same) for ~160. France's UA gets you an additional 55 (being stingy, since your capital probably has the most chateaus) for ~155. When you add landmark placement (or double placement with moais), France clearly pulls ahead.

Whoa! Similar tourism bonus! The difference of course, is that France has to find 10 artifacts and hit wonder breakpoints (which is not that hard after the first two). Whereas Poly has to find ridiculous landmass starts, spread out to potentially weird locations, and be behind France in culture and gold for the entire game. But, keep in mind also, that without the great works themselves (if Poly does not get them), Poly's tourims output will be less than France with artifacts. On a random start, those are pretty big negatives. I'm also giving Poly a pretty ideal start here. If Poly has only a regular coasts, it'll suffer the same negatives, and its final tourism output will also only be half of France's.

The game design for Poly is really to go wide, because they can generate moais pretty much everywhere and get +2 tourism per (but, this is much more difficult to pull off on deity). The way you play, France should be hands down the better civ. Have you tried playing France the exact same way you play Polynesia?
 
Sorry if I am interrupting your discussion, first time posting (I recently got back in Civ 5). I believe Sweden should be moved to Middle Tier or at least put ^ to this Civ. I don't really see how Sweden is considered worse than Spain when Spain can be entirely RNG Civ and only considered Mid Tier if it is continents/archipelago because of the counquiztador. If you get NW u are a god if u don't get a NW - civ with an ok UU and another crappy UU.

So Sweden should be atleast getting a ^ because it is actually kinda flexible Civ with many strategies behind the UA and UU that rocks the industrial era(March please). Personally I also really like the start bias(tundra) but you know that cause you said your favourite is Russia. Actually I rolled nice number of salt starts with that bias :).

Imo Sweden added ^ and Spain added ". Open to discussion, also sorry if my english is bad(not native).
 
I'd agree Sweden should be mid-tier, especially looking at the description:

these civs are good, they can be as good as top tier civs in certain circumstances, but they are often affected by factors outside of their control.

The only thing that prevents Sweden from being the best domination civ without a mobile archer unit is the awful tundra start bias they were cursed with in Brave New World. This puts them in a similar situation to Brazil, who is already situated in the mid tier.
 
Sorry if I am interrupting your discussion, first time posting (I recently got back in Civ 5). I believe Sweden should be moved to Middle Tier or at least put ^ to this Civ. I don't really see how Sweden is considered worse than Spain when Spain can be entirely RNG Civ and only considered Mid Tier if it is continents/archipelago because of the counquiztador. If you get NW u are a god if u don't get a NW - civ with an ok UU and another crappy UU.

So Sweden should be atleast getting a ^ because it is actually kinda flexible Civ with many strategies behind the UA and UU that rocks the industrial era(March please). Personally I also really like the start bias(tundra) but you know that cause you said your favourite is Russia. Actually I rolled nice number of salt starts with that bias :).

Imo Sweden added ^ and Spain added ". Open to discussion, also sorry if my english is bad(not native).

Tundra sucks. You may be used to dealing with it but it still sucks and there isn't really arguing it (it is strictly worse than Grasslands in pretty much every way..) I do think Sweden is pretty good myself, though.

You're right that Spain is probably the most hit-or-miss of all the civs out there, but when they're good they are really good, and getting a NW happens a decent amount of time (especially since finding it first gives you the gold to go settle it immediately). When they miss out they really miss out, but when they are good they are really, really good, and it does kinda balance them out. They are RNG but average out to be decent.

I don't really consider the conquistador a big enough bonus to argue them as better on Archipelago - yes their ability only really works on those maps, but the Conquistador comes out pretty late to be settling more cities...
 
The way you play, France should be hands down the better civ. Have you tried playing France the exact same way you play Polynesia?

:lol: I'm not sure I can play France the way I play Poly (not unless they get a coastal start with good defensive terrain like Poly does); being land-locked without the ability to go over oceans before everyone means expanding quickly takes priority. Which means pissing off neighbors, which means, well, you get the picture.
(and when poly does have to expand along the coastline even if it's forward settling, defending is so much easier when only YOUR units can enter ocean and a single trireme can block a whole carpet of units on the coast)

Since caravans are only half as effective as food ships, I would not work Chateaux tiles in my capitol until midgame, nor would I think of constructing them if the tile has freshwater, for example. Gold tiles suck in general with the advent of trade routes, and I dunno I'm not really starved for gold as Poly (but then again I'm one of the people who don't want to dump 1000 gold packages into CSs either), not if other civs send their ships to me.

I think I tried BNW France ONCE on Immortal in my earlier days (and everything France does, Brazil does better, except for the start bias; chateaux does have the fort bonus going for them though; I play Brazil quite often so I never had the urge to go France) but I'll give them another try (although I'm quite scared of getting wiped out militarily on deity TBH but under peaceful conditions with good production and wonders I'm sure they can be pretty great) otherwise life will simply be harder in general as France I think :lol:
You mentioned a handful of wonders, but only Sistine and Louvre can/should be obtained on a regular basis; sometimes you will even lose Louvre if an AI goes exploration while you tech to scientific theory. AIs LOVE Uffizi (and you need to build PT), and you seriously do not want to waste GM on great works. So I'm just seeing maybe a +6 base tourism for world wonder theming and +7 from Oxford, museum, and Hermitage. (now I maybe wrong but is France's UA multiplicative with Aesthetics finisher or additive?)

btw Sweden sucks but will become a godly civ on a huge map where you have 10+ friends.
 
you seriously do not want to waste GM on great works
... if you are playing serious and try to get the fastest win. I personally enjoy collecting works for Broadway or Sydney Opera for theming bonuses because it is my idea of fun, but yes it is less efficient than post-Internet concert tour rush (provided they give you Open Borders or have no military to prevent your GM from entering their territory in case you have to DoW).

Also, can Firaxis, like, buff Byzantium? The civ is sooo difficult to play; not in the sense that it takes skill, but in the sense that it takes huge effort to get anywhere while playing them. I mean, anyone could play Arabia/Korea with their left foot and closed eyes, and still win.
 
Well, yes tundra is that bad, no argue(i like it personally because it is harder to win the game with that start).

I am suggesting for both civs to be added the special marks after them. We judge a civ by both their UA and their UUs/UBs or rather the combo of it(Starting bias and game settings come only after). So Spain does not have any synergy but only depends on luck( You know that the chance of you getting hit by an asteroid in the USA is 700 better than winning the lottery. Or getting both eldorado and fountain:). Luck should not be considered), whereas Sweden is actually suiteble for any victory type with it's GPG (SV,CV), CS alliances (Diplo) and nice UUs (Domination). Overall that is enough for me to put ^ for them.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Spain a lot but Sweden is as good as them and that is actually all the games.
 
btw Sweden sucks but will become a godly civ on a huge map where you have 10+ friends.

The DOF bonus is barely even an issue with Sweden, I sometimes forget it exists. GP gifting is where Sweden gets its kicks; with a phenomenal UU and a pretty good UU that you only need to build 1-2 of to get the full benefit of you really want to go domination. You're going to be ending up with a lot of excess Generals and captured Prophets that aren't doing you any good. Gift them to city-states and enjoy the benefits of practically automatic allies. If you dip into Honor for the faster General production then you can keep up with Greece in the battle for alliances.

They're still pretty neat on water maps too, you don't get the benefit of the UU's but the classic Frigate/Privateer combo is still so derply overpowered that it doesn't even matter and the amount of Admirals you don't need when you're playing that way is downright silly. Sweden is probably the most suited for Autocracy Diplo if you're into that sort of thing, I think.
 
Sorry if I am interrupting your discussion, first time posting (I recently got back in Civ 5). I believe Sweden should be moved to Middle Tier or at least put ^ to this Civ. I don't really see how Sweden is considered worse than Spain when Spain can be entirely RNG Civ and only considered Mid Tier if it is continents/archipelago because of the counquiztador. If you get NW u are a god if u don't get a NW - civ with an ok UU and another crappy UU.

So Sweden should be atleast getting a ^ because it is actually kinda flexible Civ with many strategies behind the UA and UU that rocks the industrial era(March please). Personally I also really like the start bias(tundra) but you know that cause you said your favourite is Russia. Actually I rolled nice number of salt starts with that bias :).

Imo Sweden added ^ and Spain added ". Open to discussion, also sorry if my english is bad(not native).

If you read the initial post, ^ means the civ is better on Pangaea and/or maps with more joined land and less water/islands/coast. If anything, Sweden is a " because having an army and a navy will earn you great generals and great admirals.

On land-water balanced maps, civs with ^ and * and " and no markers at all are all on the same tier.

So, Sweden is ranked the same as the Huns, Ottoman, and Carthage.
 
Why is England so good? They are just a vanilla civ which doesn't get any benefit (oh well, faster work boats and triremes...) until longbowmen and spies show up. Are they really redeemed by the excessive power of SotLs?
 
Why is England so good? They are just a vanilla civ which doesn't get any benefit (oh well, faster work boats and triremes...) until longbowmen and spies show up. Are they really redeemed by the excessive power of SotLs?

You said it yourself, longbowmen (one of best units in game), SoTL (one of best units in game) and better boats, and the all important for autocracy dom when trying to maintain tech parity extra spy as well.
 
Why is England so good? They are just a vanilla civ which doesn't get any benefit (oh well, faster work boats and triremes...) until longbowmen and spies show up. Are they really redeemed by the excessive power of SotLs?

They're one of the few civs with both a land and sea UU, which gives them flexibility, which is very helpful because you can't control whether the AI settles on the coast or not. Add the fact that they have arguably the best archery UU (upgradable!) and ranged ship UU in the game (and their effectiveness are magnified by the humans being able to abuse range much better than AI).

The extra spy is also incredibly helpful to catch up, while you are beelining one of your UU techs. And, it is easier to level up a spy in the beginning than later, so you will have two rank 3 spies in no time. Then, if your world domination plans fall through, the extra spy can still help you secure a diplo victory in a timely manner (a rank 3 spy is kind of amazing at coups; having an extra one gives you a backup in case of a bad roll and lets you cover more ground, since it takes 5 turns to travel and set up with each CS, and you only get a ~20 turn warning about world leader vote).

They are described as the Mongols of the sea, but they're really much more flexible than that and unlike the Mongols, have gotten more powerful with each expansion (G&K added an extra spy and great admirals; BNW added the Exploration tree).
 
Top Bottom