BNW Deity Tier List

klaskeren said:

the extra production is more valuable than you think. It is what makes russia good.

Click to expand...

Yep. And selling double iron or horses at 2g per is possibly even more valuable than the bonus production. You can easily be at +20g/turn from that by t30. Russia is just awesome.

I appreciate how much thought and discussion has gone into OP and the thread. I think it is telling that the results are a bell shaped curve. That said, no updates since the Halloween Patch? Since early warmongering hate has been halved, it seems to me that civs like Assyria are now all relatively better?

Also, I think I would argue that, from the stated conditions, Venice is by definition mid-tier at best. Venice has solid bonuses, but they are quite unusual and constrained in play, and SV is pretty much off the table. By default, they get a great coastal spot to start, so I don’t understand their asterisk for “Potentially higher tier for Archipelago” since an archipelago would only weaken that advantage.

beetle said:

“Potentially higher tier for Archipelago” since an archipelago would only weaken that advantage.

Click to expand...

1. More likely to have more lucrative sea trades than pangea, continents, other standard style maps
2. Pathing issue of early naval units and and Venice UU means more likely early targets for the great galleass

Not that I'm in love with Venice but that's probably the rationale for the asterisk

SV might be unfeasible for Venice but they're like the Brazil of DV

I'm glad this thread is going again, even if most of these civs we've talked about four times already

Carthage's bonuses are aight but lacking. Do they beat Portugal for what you're trying to do with them? Probably not. Every pro-Carthage argument I've seen relies on culture tenets or religion bonuses and NOT on Carthage itself. What are free harbors worth to you? About 3 gold a turn in my book

The Dutch strike me as a little overrated here, but I guess it all depends on start. I've rolled dunno how many games with them and played a couple through but have never had much luck getting polders. Maybe I'm just unlucky, but it seems very, very situational to me.

I think the early warmonger buff definitely boosts some civs -- maybe Huns more than anybody. What's it worth to snipe a neighbor or two early? Might not be a bad way to play em. They were already the best early conquest civ

The early warmongering reduction benefits Mongolia too.

It seems that many people just assume that Mongolia = Keshiks and nothing more, but Mongolia is excellent for early warmongering as well thanks to the Khan's healing bonus. Early warmongering (when attacking cities) typically consists of composites/chariots attacking and melee units defending them, soaking up damage, and only attacking once the city's HP is drained. With Khans those melee units can heal 25 HP per turn in enemy land which is tremendous and allows them to last many more rounds against enemy city/unit bombardment, giving your ranged units more time to drain the enemy city's HP. I feel that Khans are severely under-appreciated for the early game.

Furthermore, Mongolia probably benefits from Honor (the left column only) more than any other civ: they get a free Khan instead of a GG, and Keshiks get a cumulative +100% experience bonus and +100% great general bonus. The great general bonus is further boosted by the experience bonus, so even without Honor, Keshiks are actually getting a double great general bonus. Lastly, ranged units (such as the Camel Archer or Chu-ko-nu) with Military Tradition get a rounded-down 4 XP for attacking cities (rounded down from 4.5), but Keshiks can get a nice 6 XP per attack.

robaker said:

The early warmongering reduction benefits Mongolia too.

It seems that many people just assume that Mongolia = Keshiks and nothing more, but Mongolia is excellent for early warmongering as well thanks to the Khan's healing bonus. Early warmongering (when attacking cities) typically consists of composites/chariots attacking and melee units defending them, soaking up damage, and only attacking once the city's HP is drained. With Khans those melee units can heal 25 HP per turn in enemy land which is tremendous and allows them to last many more rounds against enemy city/unit bombardment, giving your ranged units more time to drain the enemy city's HP. I feel that Khans are severely under-appreciated for the early game.

Furthermore, Mongolia probably benefits from Honor (the left column only) more than any other civ: they get a free Khan instead of a GG, and Keshiks get a cumulative +100% experience bonus and +100% great general bonus. The great general bonus is further boosted by the experience bonus, so even without Honor, Keshiks are actually getting a double great general bonus. Lastly, ranged units (such as the Camel Archer or Chu-ko-nu) with Military Tradition get a rounded-down 4 XP for attacking cities (rounded down from 4.5), but Keshiks can get a nice 6 XP per attack.

Click to expand...

While is does suck when it's time to upgrade Keshiks, if they can survive until the late game and upgrade to Modern Armor...they can be some seriously dangerous Modern Armor with all the upgrades they can have acquired.

consentient said:

Compare Sweden with Russia, as they both have tundra bias. One has buffs to great people, synergy with Honour, Piety, Aesthetics and Tradition, and the other has some extra strategic resources, which on Deity equals gold at best. And yet Russia is a tier higher. Something is wrong.

Click to expand...

Why do people never read the criteria? The top tier civs are top tier because they can -- and I am quoting the OP -- "win almost any victory condition with almost any start." Russia's bonuses won't work in the desert or the jungle; they are unreliable and fall off midgame. However, Sweden's bonuses are even less reliable. You can generally count on a couple horses/iron regardless of your start, but you can't count on the AI's being friendly, especially on Immortal/Deity. Often times, they want to be friends very early, when you don't have GP generation, and as the game goes on, they are less willing to be friends, especially when ideologies start to differ. There are some games where no AI will be friends with you for the whole game, and if you are going for Domination, you don't have an UA at all (except gifting GG's to City-States).

Ornen said:

SV might be unfeasible for Venice but they're like the Brazil of DV

Click to expand...

You can still do science with Venice because you can purchase in puppeted cities, and puppets are set to fill specialists asap. The lack of early GS's can compensated with Patronage policy which gives science from CS's. And finally, you will be rich enough to purchase spaceship parts when you fill out Freedom. Venice is not top tier for SV, but they can still do it.

Ornen said:

Carthage's bonuses are aight but lacking. Do they beat Portugal for what you're trying to do with them? Probably not. Every pro-Carthage argument I've seen relies on culture tenets or religion bonuses and NOT on Carthage itself. What are free harbors worth to you? About 3 gold a turn in my book.

Click to expand...

Except harbors establish early city connections, so you save on roads maintenance, on harbor maintenance, and get the gold from city connection. Plus, harbors extend the range of sea trade routes and add gold to them. Obviously, the UA sucks on Pangaea, but it can be nice on Archipelago.

Ornen said:

The Dutch strike me as a little overrated here, but I guess it all depends on start. I've rolled dunno how many games with them and played a couple through but have never had much luck getting polders. Maybe I'm just unlucky, but it seems very, very situational to me.

Click to expand...

You also completely ignore their UA which lets you swap 1-copy luxuries and stretch out on happiness, which is important at all stages of the game, and especially early on.

adcarrymaokai said:

There are some games where no AI will be friends with you for the whole game

Click to expand...

This is a tiny minority of games. I've played with Sweden a bunch of times and gone peaceful and I'd say the average # of DoFs I can sustain until ideologies is 3. After ideologies, it does become more difficult, but by then I'll have already had a swathe of GP.

and if you are going for Domination, you don't have an UA at all

Click to expand...

But you have 2 of the best UU.

Besides some hammers which are, I believe, more situational than the DoFs, Russia haven't got anything to put them above Sweden.

But I'm done arguing. It's pointless.

adcarrymaokai said:

Why do people never read the criteria?

Click to expand...

Exactly. The included maps are “...Fractal, Continents, Small Continents, and Earth. Assume no re-rolling starts, which means start bias and flexibility are taken into account.”

So, no reason to give undue consider to desert or jungle for Russia (or Sweden).

And finally, you will be rich enough to purchase spaceship parts when you fill out Freedom. Venice is not top tier for SV, but they can still do it.

Click to expand...

Freedom SV usually only needs to purchase the last SS part. Venice would need to buy 3 or 4! I really don’t think they qualify for “any victory condition” part of OP criteria. Yet, they are above the middle tier.

But does anyone know of GotM featuring Venice SV, or better yet, one of the Deity challenges?

I concur with others that there cannot logically be more than one tier difference between Sweden/Russia and Greece/Siam.

Are Swedes UUs 'some of the best in the game'? Don't have a lot of Sweden experience, but they seem like minor improvements on units that wouldn't normally do the heavy lifting. When you say 'some of the best you're comparing them to camel archers and cho no kus and battering rams and other game changers. Which I just don't see

Carthage's bonus is nice, but like I said, does it measure up to Portugal's for the same thing? Does it measure up to snagging a great religion with Celts or Ethiopia in the same scenario, or Incans or Mayans or any number of civs in the same position? At the end of the day, I still find free harbors underwhelming. Better on an island map, sure, but still unexciting.

beetle said:

So, no reason to give undue consider to desert or jungle for Russia (or Sweden).

Click to expand...

Are you sure? With civ's map scripting, you often find desert withing 6-10 tiles of tundra (and your starting location). Look at the ICL #11 Germany map, where you have tundra becoming desert after 2-3 grassland tiles. Or the ICL #10 Russia, where you run into desert 10 tiles from your cap. Or the DCL #13 Indonesia: when you explore the map, you see tundra quickly evolving into desert as well for Sweden and on the Ethiopia continent. There was also ICL # 8 Sweden, where desert began within 10 tiles of the original starting location. If you plan on domination, you are bound to get some jungle, as well. Or simply if you have room and desire to expand.

beetle said:

Venice would need to buy 3 or 4! I really don’t think they qualify for “any victory condition” part of OP criteria. Yet, they are above the middle tier.

Click to expand...

Venice can afford buying every SS part due to their UA. I don't think Venice is good for CV (even though people do manage OCC CV's), but they are in tier 3 anyway.

adcarrymaokai said:

Are you sure?

Click to expand...

Exceptions that prove the rule. Why is desert particularly hard on Russia’s UA anyway?

Venice can afford buying every SS part due to their UA.

Click to expand...

I don’t think double trade routes makes them that rich.

I don't think Venice is good for CV (even though people do manage OCC CV's), but they are in tier 3 anyway.

Click to expand...

Tier three is still above average. Is Venice above average for any VC besides diplo?

z284pwr said:

That is assuming you have the strategic resources to take advantage of the hammers. It seems a lot more situation than Sweden's great person generation which you can pretty much guarantee to have a few friends maybe enough to match Babylon's 50% on scientists

Click to expand...

Imho, strategy balance makes Russia OP. Probably top tier along Babylon. Without strategic balance, Russia is good at where it is right now. Strategic balance guarantees two horses and one iron, and that's on top of what you could already get to begin with.

You can definitely buy all or nearly all parts with a strong Venice game. Particularly if you manage the Big Ben/Mercantilism combo for 40% off.

The trick is to plan early for how you're going to stockpile the gold. Certainly a DOF with rich AI makes it even easier. On Diety, a friendly runaway AI can basically hand you a SV way earlier than you'd expect.

How on earth Siam is three tiers above Sweden I cannot understand. Sweden likely brings in much more from city states than Siam does because they actually have the ability to gain the alliances with little to no effort in the first place.

Siam's ability is mediocre, while the other uniques are quite nice. However Sweden has a powerful ability with one relatively powerful UU (Caroleon) and one irrelevant UU (Hakkepalliita).

Sweden's 10% GP generation for DoFs is also powerful and not hard to utilise. The two sections of the UA give Sweden a lot of versitility. Not only can Sweden, unlike any other civ, choose between tourism and CS influence on their cultural great people, but they can also choose between whether to play a peaceful game and generate scientists somewhere in the vicinity of 20-50% faster, or to play an aggressive game supported by a good UU in the Caroleon and the ability to get CS on their side by gifting away their Great Generals.

For me Sweden is upper tier, while Siam is somewhere between middle and upper-middle. I'm bewildered by the fact that they are considered Lower-Middle, along with Greece, when those are the only two civs that can be guaranteed to be compete for CS on deity without either going Patronage or being Venice (and therefore not being able to settle cities of course, a pretty significant opportunity cost).

Portugal, another diplomacy based civ, is also above Sweden and Greece despite having a mediocre ability, a mediocre UU and a somewhat good but awkward to utilise UI.

There are a few other placements strongly I disagree with, but this one stood out like a sore thumb. I must be missing something about Siam if they apparently "are guaranteed to have good starts and/or can salvage bad ones", same goes for Austria to a lesser extent.

Still, a pretty good tier list, I'll enjoy reading more of the discussion in this thread and look forward to hearing your counter arguments

I'm no experience Deity player, so my opinion might not be worth much, but is the Hun's free tech pretty versatile? Since it's animal husbandry it could theoretically get you a very early trade route, which is a huge science boost on Deity.

The benefit of free animal husbandry isn't getting caravans faster, but the ability to see horses straight away (especially helpful as the Huns), and the fact that since it's a high priority tech, it means you're going to be getting into your luxury techs faster, since you already have a few turns of science saved that you would have had to put into animal husbandry otherwise.

Unless I'm Babylon, Ethiopia or the Celts, I'll always start by researching Pottery, then Animal Husbandry, and in that time I want to build two scouts and a shrine, by which time I will probably have finished researching animal husbandry.

Caravans are an important build but you want to be getting your scouts, shrine and settlers, and potentially a worker and/or granary, out beforehand.

The +1 production from pastures is a very strong ability, though not quite as good as Russia's +1 from strategic resources.

I have been thinking about this more, and I think there is only three four tiers:

1. Top Tier: Babylon, Korea, Mayans, Poland
2. Above Average
3. Average (should be 50-75% of civs), and
4. Below Average

There is no bottom-bottom tier, mostly because the developers have taken pains to avoid bad civs.

Furthermore, I think “below average” is best done objectively by definition: Any civ without a UB, or with a UA or UB that is very compromised.

I enjoy debating, for example, if Russia or Sweden is better than the other. But I think this kind of tiering can be fairly objective. Am I wrong?

I think all civs can be defined and compared objectively, but so there are so many differing SUBJECTIVE approaches to how to measure it objectively.

An objective approach would mean endless comparisons, but AFAIC, the next best method is to play with the civs in the most similar conditions and see how they fared.

For example, Denmark have a really hard time on this list, IMO. Their UA and UU are great. Most maps have peninsulas or shorelines that can be assaulted, and if you beeline Metal Casting on Deity you can cause havoc to the AI, plus they can be upgraded into beastly Infantrymen.

A lot of the time, I think this tier list suffers from the fact that so many players don't set out with one VC in mind. Clearly if you are gonna play a sub-optimal strategy that doesn't commit itself, Denmark aren't gonna compare with Poland. But if you play to their strengths, they can be lethal. Compared with, say, the Iroquois, who will be mediocre on every map except the one covered in forest (Arborea?).

The fact that this has them on the same level just shows me that it's ill-thought-out, IMO.

I mean, Austria, 2nd tier. Garbage. Buying CSs is so inferior to having your own cities that it's untrue. In no way can they 'salvage bad starts' as effectively as is implied.

I think Austria are probably the worst civ, on balance.

Denmark would be able to perform much better than Austria. All you have to do is find iron. And that's not as situational as detractors might like to say.

I hear you saying that consensus for even four tiers is unlikely...

consentient said:

An objective approach would mean endless comparisons

Click to expand...

I think that is only necessary true if you are trying to be too granular. A Tier approach is much more feasible than civ-by-civ ranking.

the next best method is to play with the civs in the most similar conditions and see how they fared

Click to expand...

Too much RNG, but statistically sound with enough data.

For example, Denmark have a really hard time on this list, IMO. Their UA and UU are great. Most maps have peninsulas or shorelines that can be assaulted, and if you beeline Metal Casting on Deity you can cause havoc to the AI, plus they can be upgraded into beastly Infantrymen.

Click to expand...

Do you understand why OP would categorize Denmark as:

Potentially lower tier for Pangaea and Archipelago. Generally, these civs are more powerful where there is both land and coast, and less powerful where there is an imbalance in either direction.

Click to expand...

Are they not just fine with Archipelago? Seize units disembarks, set-up, fires, embarks. Archipelago should be great!