An alternative Deity Tier List (a.k.a. 'Don't Forget About Conquest')

The long houses add 1 hammer to nearby lumber camps build on jungle or forest tiles. How are long houses worst than workshops if they are like a workshop but with the extra hammer to lumber camps. If no one liked buildingllumber mills and keep forests alive then that couldbe a reason bbecause the longhouse ub does encourage users to keep a lumber mill when you can just chop them off.

Arguments have already been given but you just keep telling they're asinine, silly or weak Or your future interesting variants "short sighted, ignorant, wrong, etc".

Probably why people don't really want to discuss it with you but keep digging.

reddishrecue said:

The long houses add 1 hammer to nearby lumber camps build on jungle or forest tiles. How are long houses worst than workshops if they are like a workshop but with the extra hammer to lumber camps. If no one liked buildingllumber mills and keep forests alive then that couldbe a reason bbecause the longhouse ub does encourage users to keep a lumber mill when you can just chop them off.

Click to expand...

Longhouse doesn't work for jungles. And the +1 per forest replaces the +10%production of the workship so it's not extra.

Like Cromagus has said they are good in maps like Boreal but for your average Continent/Pangea/Fractal they ask for too much conditions to be truly considered a bonus. There are a lot of civ I don't really agree with like America and Persia but Iroquois being with the like of Byzantium is fine with me.

Acken said:

Arguments have already been given but you just keep telling they're asinine, silly or weak Or your future interesting variants "short sighted, ignorant, wrong, etc".

Probably why people don't really want to discuss it with you.

Click to expand...

I said it once. Literally once. And you continue to put words in my mouth. It's a wonder anyone would want to discuss anything with YOU. Keep posting these super useful posts though my friend. Don't worry, I'll take the moderator heat for your trolling.

Moderator Action: Please do not attack other site members. Calling someone a troll is to be one. Please report posts and move on, let us deal with it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

reddishrecue said:

The long houses add 1 hammer to nearby lumber camps build on jungle or forest tiles. How are long houses worst than workshops if they are like a workshop but with the extra hammer to lumber camps. If no one liked buildingllumber mills and keep forests alive then that couldbe a reason bbecause the longhouse ub does encourage users to keep a lumber mill when you can just chop them off.

Click to expand...

Its replaces the 10% bonus from workshops and doesn't apply to jungle.

Klesko said:

I said it once. Literally once. And you continue to put words in my mouth. It's a wonder anyone would want to discuss anything with YOU. Keep posting these super useful posts though my friend. Don't worry, I'll take the moderator heat for your trolling.

Click to expand...

What words ? What trolling ? Stop acting like a victim.

Moderator Action: Please report posts and let the staff tend to it. Arguing only continues the trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Klesko said:

I will say that your statement is asinine.

Click to expand...

Klesko said:

If you're going to conquer with them then you pick different techs than your silly chariot archer strategy and Iron Working DOES become relevant.

Click to expand...

Klesko said:

So that's a weak argument you are running there.

Click to expand...

Klesko said:

Weak argument again.

Click to expand...

And to be clear it's not really offensive as far as I'm concerned it's more that it doesn't show you're here to discuss it. I'll quote you on that one:

Many people are hard headed; they choose to see what they want to see and they choose to believe what they want to believe.

Click to expand...

Edit: I'm done with this. I've helped polluting this thread enough as it is.

@Resipsa, @acken

Thank you both for your answers, I really didn't know that. The 10% does seem like it would provide more in the overall long run though but I'm guessing that 1 hammer over 10% could have its advantages.

reddishrecue said:

@Resipsa, @acken

Thank you both for your answers, I really didn't know that. The 10% does seem like it would provide more in the overall long run though but I'm guessing that 1 hammer over 10% could have its advantages.

Click to expand...

Yeah obviously densely forested maps and tundra forests work in their favor. Boreal maps are excluded from the OP though so it leaves you with a civ that has no advantage on most random map results and requires some lucky terrain to just work normally.

The biggest issue with longhouses (IMHO) is that you have to actually *work the tile*... I think a lot of people (myself included) sometimes forget that. You look at a building like a stable, or stoneworks, and you see +1hammer from horses or whatever, and you think, "hey, this building is +2 production for 1 gold maintenance. That's a good deal, I'll build it!"

In reality though, it's a big compromise, because you're sacrificing growth to work 1food tiles, and whenever you aren't working those 1food tiles, the production bonus drops to the base +2, making it unquestionably inferior. It's the same thing with that stable. That 1g maintenance is all for nothing if you're focusing on growth, because you're not working that 1food3hammer horses tile.

In a game where technology rules, growth is everything. And if you're ignoring technology to focus on early warmongering, then longhouses only become relevant if you're warmongering inefficiently. By definition, UBs that are only relevant when you're playing inefficiently are themselves irrelevant. (In my opinion... and since I'm obsessed with min/maxing, take my comments with a grain of salt)

Unfortunately, this judgment applies to *most* UBs, UAs and UUs. The game balance is horribly off. The optimal path takes you far away from most of the things the designers put into the game:

Domination? Game's over before half the UU's are even accessible.
Culture? Sorry Pedro, the game's over before your ability becomes relevant.
Diplomacy? The game isn't won by leveraging your civ's CS-related advantages. It's won by out-teching the opposition.

This is why I started making a mod. I'm sick of having to choose between playing smart and actually using a civ's uniques.

So, this ranking system is quite relevant, and in the current state of things, Hiawatha is a slightly worse than neutral civ. But, to be fair to the original point Klesko was addressing... it wasn't always this way. Hiawatha *shouldn't* be useless. And if the game was more balanced, he wouldn't be. I certainly intend to address this in my mod. But, that's neither here nor there. Back to the rankings.

@Cromagnus:

On topic, I'd like to announce that I've moved a couple of civs around a bit, but I've been over my analysis, and I'm pretty happy with it.

That said, I still invite comments because I'm not infallible and there is still room for improvement

@consentient, I am really enjoying this and especially appreciate all the work you put into the first several posts. Thank you. I have no disagreements, just minor quibbles on a couple point values, and nothing that affects overall ranking. To that end...

consentient said:

Ottomans...
4. Prize ships. Since the main unit the Neutrals have that they are going to want to use for prize ships (Privateer) already have this promotion, it's not much of an advantage. On Deity, warring with Triremes and Caravels is really underpowered. UA rating = 1/5.

Click to expand...

Prize ships deserves at least 2/5. Yes, the neutrals have Privateers, but that unit steers you into the city-attack promotion line when, for prizing, what you really want is the ship-attack bonus. Yes, Triremes and Caravels are underpowered -- but in the beginning Triremes don’t face anything stronger. Later, a small group of Caravels can capture Frigates and Privateers. But where Prize really shines is with Ironclads (!) and Destroyers. The ability to stack prize with the ship-attack promotion line is very strong and lasts all game long. I understand you value city-attack more than ship-attack (hence the extra +1 to Sea Beggar), but I would argue that doesn’t really work unless you either (1) have so many ships you don’t mind losing one every time you siege a city, or (2) have the logistics promotion so ships can safely withdraw after attacking a city. The Ottoman UA helps with both of those!

@consentient, I don’t think you are consistent with starting bias. Sweden gets -1 for Tundra, but Russia does not. Morocco gets +3 for Desert, but Arabia only gets +1.

That said, I am actually okay with Tundra because it usually means (1) I can get a religion and (2) the AI don’t covet my lands so the early game DoW is less likely. Also, I would give the Kasbah UI 1/5 because it synergizes with the desert bias and is okay for dry flats and hills (assuming some non-dessert hills). A few civs have “avoid tundra” start bias -- so is that worth a +1?

Also, are you okay with Jungle starts? Brazil needs them, but don’t jungles (as compared to forest) actually work against Aztec? If you agree, then Zulu probably deserve a +1 for their “avoid jungle” bias.

Austria (and Inca) have hills starting bias. I think you have that worked into the UA/UI scores for the Inca, but not Austria. I would argue that a hills starting bias UA for the Neutrals would be worth a +1 on its own. Austria UB works on hills, which makes the start bias even more relevant.

Ref: Wikia Civ5 Starting Bias.

beetle said:

@consentient, I am really enjoying this and especially appreciate all the work you put into the first several posts. Thank you.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words. You are very welcome, and I'm glad you find it useful.

Prize ships deserves at least 2/5. Yes, the neutrals have Privateers, but that unit steers you into the city promotion line when, for prizing, what you really want is the ship-attack bonus. Yes, Triremes and Caravels are underpowered -- but in the beginning Triremes don’t face anything stronger. Later, a small group of Caravels can capture Frigates and Privateers. But where Prize really helps is with Ironclads (!) and Destroyers. The ability to stack prize with the ship-attack promotion line is very strong and lasts all game long.

Click to expand...

You make a good argument. I'll give it some thought, and see if I can test how effective (and game-easing) it is. I think I'm ready for another naval battle game, having recovered from the last one.

beetle said:

@consentient, I don’t think you are consistent with starting bias. Sweden gets -1 for Tundra, but Russia does not. Morocco gets +3 for Desert, but Arabia only gets +1.

Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing this out. I've brought Bazaars and Oil down by 1 each, since they were marginal anyway, and put the bias up to +3, so Arabia's score remains the same overall. I think they are in the right place. To my mind, they are as strong as Babylon, Korea, etc, but not better.

Also, are you okay with Jungle starts? Brazil needs them, but don’t jungles (as compared to forest) actually work against Aztec? If you agree, then Zulu probably deserve a +1 for their “avoid jungle” bias.

Click to expand...

Jungle starts are objectively worse, but you can get them a lot of the time as the Neutrals anyway. Avoiding Jungle is nice, but let's face it, the Zulus are already so OP. I thank you for pointing out the desert bias thing, but for Jungle I'm not yet convinced.

Austria (and Inca) have hills starting bias. I think you have that worked into the UA/UI scores for the Inca, but not Austria. I would argue that a hills starting bias UA for the Neutrals would be worth a +1 on its own. Austria UB works on hills, which makes the start bias even more relevant.

Click to expand...

Actually, a hill bias is IMO a double-edged sword. It often means less chance of a river and less farmable, 4 food tiles, in my experience. I like India's bias most of all. I never have a bad start with them.

Judging by this DCL, Arabia is quite strong, their UA works with their UB quite nicely. If the map had any more horses nearby, it would probably have made the Camels even better

Also, I once played an Immortal archipelago OCC, and I kind of anticipated being invaded from the seas so I had some Privateers as defense. I ended up with a significantly larger fleet when the remaining invasion forces decided "let's jet" Prize ships is massively underrated

consentient said:

I think they are in the right place. To my mind, they are as strong as Babylon, Korea, etc, but not better.

Click to expand...

Careful there! Stick with your initial principles! You just compared civ-against-civ instead of ranking against the Neutrals. Try and keep your objectivity, and maybe you will be a little surprised as to where the numerical ratings take you? I will point out that there is only a single point between some tiers. I think your initial tiers were excellent to frame the discussion and analysis, but that, in the end, tiers can only be determined by significant gaps in the point assignment as each civ is ranked against the Neutrals.

I've brought Bazaars and Oil down by 1 each, since they were marginal anyway, and put the bias up to +3, so Arabia's score remains the same overall.

Click to expand...

I have no arguments with any of that. Does the +50% caravan range deserve a +1? (Yes, cargo ships are still better than caravans, but +50% caravan range is still a significant buff over the Neutrals.)

I thank you for pointing out the desert bias thing, but for Jungle I'm not yet convinced.

Click to expand...

Okay, but what about tundra bias for Russia? Do they go down a point? Or does Sweden go up a point?

Actually, a hill bias is IMO a double-edged sword.

Click to expand...

I must concur, but while we are at it, if the Neutrals had forest start bias, you would give them a +1 for the easy early chops. The forest start bias does really not help the Iroquois (since, except for the bits outside any city radius, they need forests all game long), but it is great for the Celts, and they should get another +1 for that. Celts can well afford to chop because, while being relatively strong in the early game, after founding (or not) their UA is relatively weak to the point that it becomes irrelevant. The Celts only ever need the forest that touches their cities, so plenty for early chops most games. And if the Celts end up without much forest to chop -- well then they are probably in better shape for a faith-based pantheon and founding, so win/win.

beetle said:

Careful there! Stick with your initial principles! You just compared civ-against-civ instead of ranking against the Neutrals.

Click to expand...

I mean that Arabia are not as good as Babylon when you compare the advantages that each civ enjoy over the Neutrals. I'm not comparing them directly

Okay, but what about tundra bias for Russia? Do they go down a point? Or does Sweden go up a point?

Click to expand...

I think that for Sweden I applied the -1 because it does harm their game slightly. I don't think that it hurts Russia's advantages. Since most people will take a tall game with Sweden, and their advantages work best that way, the tundra bias hurts them more than it does Russia, who in all honesty are meant to go ICS on lower difficulties and full-on warmongering on Deity. Playing tall with Russia is just silly.

And I'm not applying modifiers for bias for every civ because I think it makes less than 1 unit of difference.

I must concur, but while we are at it, if the Neutrals had forest start bias, you would give them a +1 for the easy early chops. The forest start bias does really not help the Iroquois (since, except for the bits outside any city radius, they need forests all game long), but it is great for the Celts, and they should get another +1 for that. Celts can well afford to chop because, while being relatively strong in the early game, after founding (or not) their UA is relatively weak to the point that it becomes irrelevant. The Celts only ever need the forest that touches their cities, so plenty for early chops most games. And if the Celts end up without much forest to chop -- well then they are probably in better shape for a faith-based pantheon and founding, so win/win.

Click to expand...

This is situational though. It's true, in my current game (Budweiser Immortal) there are loads of forest to chop, Often, though, there aren't enough to make a point of difference.

Tundra hurts Russia less because iron spawns more frequently in Tundra which means alot more gold from a Tundra City.

Sweden is my pet civ and even I can acknowledge this effect.

Yeah, they're my favourite too! If I was ranking on sheer enjoyment of playing with them, Sweden would be in a Tier of their own. They are the only civ that are as much fun to play going H-C-A as going Tradition-Tall-Peaceful.

consentient said:

They are the only civ that are as much fun to play going H-C-A as going Tradition-Tall-Peaceful.

Click to expand...

Wait, I thought that part of the point of H-C-A is that it more fun than T-T-P?

Well that depends on the player, doesn't it? Me and Peddro obviously love that little animation when you kill a unit and gold comes out, killing 10+ units a turn, buying a couple of units a turn, etc. but some people are bored sh*tless of warmongering. I really encourage everyone to give it a try though.

I tried it a couple of times, I think I even went a fairly generic civ as in no significant warmongering advantages, and it kind of worked as in, I got it rolling in the same timeframes as you guys but I was still bored sh*tless, oh well