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

Indeed. Different strokes for different blokes, etc.

Okay, then what is with Sweden that makes them particularly fun to play going Tradition-Tall-Peaceful? Is it because then benefit greatly from fighting (for the GGs) but don’t need the cities?

Speaking of Sweden, I think the Hakkapeliitta UU deserves a point. Yes it is very awkward and not as good as a Khan (but then, nothing is), but if the Neutrals had it, you would give them a point for it.

I am very surprised that you love Sweden but have no fondness for the Hakkapeliitta. I build them with the medic promo, so they very much end up like a Khan (albeit one that needs its own tile instead of stacking). I do get tripped up though because the GG has slightly different movement rules than its escort.

Going TTP with Sweden means you are swimming in GP. You can give them away or use them depending on what helps you most in that moment.

The Hakka... is a lancer, which sucks, which lets a normal GG ride on its back, which is awkward and sucky, and I want to give my GG to CS, so they are actually totally useless, IMO.

I've built the roads ahead of my army so I don't need something to speed my units along, and I only need 1 or 2 GGs to go with the army because anything more is much, much better gifted.

@consentient, am I correct to assume that you don’t mind my quibbling? I have found your replies to be insightful, consistent, and more than reasonable. That said, you seem to have missed my question, doesn’t Arabia deserves a point for the +50% caravan range?

consentient said:

I only need 1 or 2 GGs to go with the army because anything more is much, much better gifted.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I only build one or two Hakkas -- so you are absolutely correct -- not worth even a single point for the UU rating! (They also buff the GG effect.)

For UU, you are assigning one point per free promotion (which seems fair), tempered by usefulness of the unit. The Carolean only gets one promotion but I think it worth 2/5 not 1/5. For melee units, March is unlocked after three terrain promotions -- so that in itself makes it more valuable than a level of Shock or Drill. Usually the value of a UU is largely dependent on if any special ability is retained upon upgrade. The way the Carolean UU promotion works is actually better than that! Since you know March is guaranteed later, your early melee units can take Cover and Medic instead. (This delays unlocking Blitz, but how useful is that for a 2-move unit?)

consentient said:

2. Sipahis. Lancers aren't much good anyway, and I'm not sure if the Sipahi is actually better than normal Lancers. More movement, more sight, better at pillaging, but weaker, so not so good in the one area that Lancers are already pretty bad (strength). I guess overall it could even out to a UU rating of 1/5.

Click to expand...

Just editorializing here, since the Winged Hussar also only gets a 1/5 rating, and it is clearly better than the Sipahi. But the Sipahi is weaker only on defense, and just 10% at that, so pretty irrelevant for a hit-and-run unit.

Also, I noticed that you list Formation 1 as bonus for WH, but all Lancers (including Sipahi and Hakka) get that.

beetle said:

@consentient, am I correct to assume that you don’t mind my quibbling?

Click to expand...

Please rest assured that I am glad of the discussion, and grateful for your insight.

The problems that polluted a few pages of this thread were in no way related to the actual list and I'd be sad if anyone concluded that I am not willing to discuss the list.

doesn’t Arabia deserves a point for the +50% caravan range?

Click to expand...

Yeah, you know what, I just missed it. I can see that I wrote 'Caravan range' in the list of advantages but never made a bullet point for it. I think it probably deserves a +1, yes. I will review the God tier at the weekend when I have better mental energy, and as you alluded to before, we could see a surprising result.

For UU, you are assigning one point per free promotion (which seems fair), tempered by usefulness of the unit.

Click to expand...

Actually, that's coincidental. How many points I have given is really only a measure of how I feel, intuitively, that the UU makes the unit better than what the Neutrals get. That's why Dromon is negative.

The Carolean only gets one promotion but I think it worth 2/5 not 1/5. For melee units, March is unlocked after three terrain promotions -- so that in itself makes it more valuable than a level of Shock or Drill. Usually the value of a UU is largely dependent on if any special ability is retained upon upgrade. The way the Carolean UU promotion works is actually better than that! Since you know March is guaranteed later, your early melee units can take Cover and Medic instead. (This delays unlocking Blitz, but how useful is that for a 2-move unit?)

Click to expand...

I respect your arguments, but I just don't think that with any one promotion I can give more than 1/5. First of all, Riflemen are not units that everyone uses, so I've tempered all infantry-line units based on the view that yes, I use them a lot, to great effect, but most warmongers build cavalry-line units, so if there were a cavalry unit that came with March, I would give it 2/5 because it is much more likely to be effective. This is not to introduce player subjectivity into the game completely, because the reasons why Cavalry are better than Infantry are clear, I think. People use them more for GOOD reason. Actually, I almost always take Blitz before cover, too, but then I do it far earlier than Riflemen.

Just editorializing here, since the Winged Hussar also only gets a 1/5 rating, and it is clearly better than the Sipahi. But the Sipahi is weaker only on defense, and just 10% at that, so pretty irrelevant for a hit-and-run unit.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm never gonna be too generous to Lancer units, really. They are just plain useless. When Pikes no longer cut the mustard, they get scarified to Crom in my games.

Also, I noticed that you list Formation 1 as bonus for WH, but all Lancers (including Sipahi and Hakka) get that.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction. I wouldn't know that because I don't use Lancers very much on account of...oh wait, I already bored everyone with this 10x before

Carthage too low, they're not great but better than almost everyone listed in tier 4 and 5 IMO. Cargo Ship ITRs feeding exclusively coastal expos is viable for vanilla civ for maybe 90% of rolls. Carthage executes the same strat but with quite a bit of early GPT that vanilla civ doesn't have access to. Even once vanilla civ is finally connecting up with roads, Carthage is saving on worker turns and tile maintenance. The early trade distance boost actually makes a difference on a surprising number of awkwardly shaped continents, too.

Like I said it's not that great, but it is early snowbally yield over vanilla civ, which is more than most of tier 4 and 5 can claim. Top of tier 4 would be a good spot for them IMO.

Nice idea for a alternative rubric, anyways.

I feel like 2/5 is a fair rating for Free Harbors, and how they make the game a bit easier to win by helping you out at the start. Where exactly do you think I've underrated them?

I'm currently skimming the first page, but I have something to discuss.

consentient said:

1. Theming bonus. Ok so how this works is you get a small bonus for any wonders which you build in your capital. No bonus for any other city. And on Deity, it's quite tricky to get more than 2 or 3 of the Wonders that have theming bonuses. So the total amount of tourism gained from this 'advantage' is quite small. I'll be generous and give this UA 1/5. Doesn't really make it easier to win a CV, just gives a higher TPT.

Click to expand...

Pardon me for this, but how did "double" translates to "small" to you? And 2 World Wonders is just about the right amount of wonders you need to win CV anyways. Sistine and either Uffizi or Louvre, building all three will make it more difficult to theme because there's still Hermitage. GT is nice, but not necessary. And with France, it would almost be like you built them all even if you only built 2. Broadway and Sydney Opera is detrimental because you need the GM bombs (and this is exactly why higher TPT helps CV. It's difficult to win CV if you don't culture bomb the AIs in Deity). Building Themed Wonders in separate cities also negates the extra TPT you get multiplied by NVC so other cities not having the bonus is kinda moot as well.

I agree that the tourism gets multiplied rather quickly, but the problem is that you don't get wonders on Deity in the first place. You can beeline for Sistine or Uffizi and still not get them. You still have chateaux which is nice, but all of that basically means your only bonuses are for culture victory. Again, the original list stated that top-tier civs are good at any victory condition with any start. France is good at 1 victor condition if they get a solid start. And the way land seeding works is France always has mediocre starts to "compensate" for theming bonuses and chateaux which hardly need to be compensated in the first place.

Which is still a very large advantage compared to an imaginary Neutral Civ. And not getting those Culture Wonders often is a factor of luck and yet Spain the ultimate gambling Civ is ranked at 3rd. It should be at 4th tier at least, 3rd would fit just right. Actually, I suspect that France could even win CV only with the National Wonders theming bonuses. Pretty sure Deau's Culture guide mentioned something about that.

adcarrymaokai said:

And the way land seeding works is France always has mediocre starts to "compensate" for theming bonuses and chateaux which hardly need to be compensated in the first place.

Click to expand...

Can you explain how this works? I thought start biases simply applied to the predominant terrain in a region, or if the start location was coastal. Do specific civs get more or fewer resources as a balance mechanism? Is there some place in the LUA files that you can see these factors?

GerrardCapashen said:

Can you explain how this works? I thought start biases simply applied to the predominant terrain in a region, or if the start location was coastal. Do specific civs get more or fewer resources as a balance mechanism? Is there some place in the LUA files that you can see these factors?

Click to expand...

I actually don't know and please don't quote me on this because I might be completely wrong... but in my experience, you often get poor starting location as France with a maximum of 2 luxuries. For example, as Venice, I feel like I am getting a lot more resources on my regular roll, and it makes sense, since Venice is the only city you have.

Then there are times when I never see marble as Egypt. It might be completely random, but I just feel like there is some sort of coding that prevents you from having too much at least in the starting location.

Erneiz Hyde said:

Which is still a very large advantage compared to an imaginary Neutral Civ. And not getting those Culture Wonders often is a factor of luck and yet Spain the ultimate gambling Civ is ranked at 3rd. It should be at 4th tier at least, 3rd would fit just right. Actually, I suspect that France could even win CV only with the National Wonders theming bonuses. Pretty sure Deau's Culture guide mentioned something about that.

Click to expand...

Well, we do have an imaginary neutral civ. It's called "The Iroquois."

By the way, I was talking about the original deity tier list, which places France and Spain in the same tier. I actually don't buy this tier list at all. For instance, I like both Arabia and Sweden, but they are simply not up to the tiers they are in. The reason why Maya, Korea, and Babylon are top-tier in the original list is because their bonuses come very early and scale throughout the game, making any victory condition easy because every victory condition depends on keeping up with research. Faster tech rate guarantees faster domination, among other things. Poland deserves its own tier, though.

consentient said:

I feel like 2/5 is a fair rating for Free Harbors, and how they make the game a bit easier to win by helping you out at the start. Where exactly do you think I've underrated them?

Click to expand...

The flaw is inherent to the attempt to discretize everything onto the same numerical scale. The ratings imply that Quinquerimes are 33% of the reason to play Carthage, whereas really they almost never come into play and 99% of the reason is the harbors. Or compare to Rome. The ratings imply that the Legion and Ballista are 1+1 = together just as good as the harbors. Or compare to Spain, where apparently Conquistadors are 50% more useful than the harbors, which I find extremely difficult to believe.

So if you ask me there are several ratings that are out of whack. Most of the problem is linearity error as you approach the rating of 0, but there are also instances of subjective rating mismatch.

Erneiz Hyde said:

how did "double" translates to "small" to you?

Click to expand...

For Louvre, which you actually can get more than the others, it means +16 rather than +8. It's not enough to actually make it easier to win. Whether or not you catch the culture leader is not down to whether you have 8 extra TPT, is it? It's more about whether he won the WF, if you got your religion into his cities, how many wars he's been in, whether he is Pocatello, which wonders he beat you to, etc. Which leads me onto...

And 2 World Wonders is just about the right amount of wonders you need to win CV anyways. Sistine and either Uffizi or Louvre, building all three will make it more difficult to theme because there's still Hermitage. GT is nice, but not necessary. And with France, it would almost be like you built them all even if you only built 2.

Click to expand...

Sistine and Uffizi are not wonders you can consistently get even one of on Deity. With a really great start, sure you can have both, but then the Neutrals could probably get them, and they would have marginally less TPT. France are in that tier because their UA is underpowered on Deity. On Emperor, maybe on Immortal, they are much stronger. When I played the Greece ICL, I built 22 Wonders and got a decent early CV. But it just doesn't work that way on Deity, does it?

Erneiz Hyde said:

not getting those Culture Wonders often is a factor of luck and yet Spain the ultimate gambling Civ is ranked at 3rd

Click to expand...

Did you read WHY Spain are third? Because their UA is given a balanced rating to reflect that sometimes it is 5/5 and sometimes 0, compared with the Neutrals. But they have decentish UUs and so are scoring points regardless. Even if there are no NWs in the game, they have more going for them than France.

Soffacet said:

The flaw is inherent to the attempt to discretize everything onto the same numerical scale. The ratings imply that Quinquerimes are 33% of the reason to play Carthage, whereas really they almost never come into play and 99% of the reason is the harbors. Or compare to Rome. The ratings imply that the Legion and Ballista are 1+1 = together just as good as the harbors. Or compare to Spain, where apparently Conquistadors are 50% more useful than the harbors, which I find extremely difficult to believe.

So if you ask me there are several ratings that are out of whack. Most of the problem is linearity error as you approach the rating of 0, but there are also instances of subjective rating mismatch.

Click to expand...

Yes rating these advantages is extremely difficult, but I opted for the Neutrals as the method of comparison because I think it's even more difficult to be fair with direct comparisons. Quinquerems never come into play, but they are slightly better than Triremes. It's not a reason to play them. People can obviously play what they want. But if they do choose Carthage, the advantages won't be as big as if they choose Spain, on average.

If YOU are comparing the ratings I have given for Rome's UUs with the rating I've given for Harbors, you're missing the point. The point is not that I am saying Ballistas + Legions = Harbors. I'm saying that each civ has the chance to have its advantages over the Neutrals fairly rated on the same system. Only the overall ratings are compared, in order to rank them.

TLDR: I know there are difficulties in the approach I've chosen, but I think there is merit in a numerical comparison and I think it's better than the alternatives, which are sheer conjecture and direct comparison.

[EDIT: I should say one more thing about these harbors. If this UA were so strong that it made the game much, much easier to win, in a way that could not even be compared on a 0-5 scale, then I would make an exception, as I have for a few other civs. But they're not. It's just a bit of extra gold and maybe happiness.]

- - -

This Tier list first germinated in my mind about the time that I won a really easy CV on Deity (my first) with Sweden and couldn't believe their UA was ranked so low on the other list.

For those who are unconvinced by my ratings system, might I suggest that you think about how you would improve it, and either lobby me with your ideas, or even start your own thread? It ain't as easy at you might think

adcarrymaokai said:

Well, we do have an imaginary neutral civ. It's called "The Iroquois."

By the way, I was talking about the original deity tier list, which places France and Spain in the same tier. I actually don't buy this tier list at all. For instance, I like both Arabia and Sweden, but they are simply not up to the tiers they are in. The reason why Maya, Korea, and Babylon are top-tier in the original list is because their bonuses come very early and scale throughout the game, making any victory condition easy because every victory condition depends on keeping up with research. Faster tech rate guarantees faster domination, among other things. Poland deserves its own tier, though.

Click to expand...

As I see it, a Civ is only ranked higher if its versatility *index* is high enough. This list was compiled in consistency with that for the most part except conquest was made a larger factor than in the previous list. That alone in my opinion is reason enough not to even consider France and Spain in the same tier, and certainly neither high up: France are basically a poor man's Brazil even though Chateau > Brazilwood however Carnival trumps City of Lights embarrassingly badly, but we all know that. On the other hand, as we have seen in DCL20, given a good enough start Spain slingshots in a tier really much higher that even the best Poland start can't compete with. Otherwise their UA is COMPLETELY negated and they're simply middle of the pack, Conquistador is a gimmick unit honestly and I don't really know how Tercios behave. Which reminds me, how much exactly do you get for finding ED as Spain? It's base 500 which doubles up because Spain and then adds 500 because Spain, right?

Arabia is definitely a top tier civ, because all of their abilities work really well for multiple strategies: Bazaars with or without using enhanced caravans can earn you extra money, desert bias suggests you should go DF + Piety which is REALLY good once you reform: You can Sacred Sites, you can Small Piety, you can Jesuit and list just goes on, I find EVERY Reformation belief really useful for the targeted VC. Camel Archers don't really need an explanation And since for an optimal game you never ever go Piety, that's saying a lot

Sweden are definitely not as all around potent force but their abilities work well when used properly.

You get 1000 gold for ED as Spain, but it's not just the 500 gold for every NW that pushes them into a tier above Poland when you find one first <T30 but the fact that you can go OWN and have such an early religion that you can turn that into whatever you want: units, culture, etc. Like I said in the intro, faith is a meta-value.

And Spain with LV and GBR, rare as they are, is just sillytimes. GBR on its own is broken silly, as I showed on DCL#3 but with Spain you will be tech leader before the Medieval.

And without NWs their UA disappears but they still have better units.

France are not map-dependent but difficulty-dependent and VC-dependent. Musketeers are slightly stronger than Tercios but Tercios have bonus vs. mounted which is huge given that you'll be killing knights and even Cavalry/Lancers with them.

It's obviously not just the faith, in the DCL20 we had Kili with double yield which was basically almost a free HG, and yeah, I settled GBR south on that map which made that city grow really big really quickly (as shown by the WF results). France is geared basically only for CV but Chateaus provide extra culture which at worst is useful for other strategies speeding up SPs, Spain without NWs are geared for absolutely nothing, so good Spain beats good France but mediocre/bad France is better than mediocre/bad Spain, if you know what I'm saying.

Sorry not to catch this sooner, but it has not been corrected since, so I am now rather than never...

kb27787 said:

I was delighted to find a lone archer sitting in the barb camp on t5 or so, when my warrior killed the archer, I got nothing... (I mean you get 22% brute (ugh), 22% handaxe (dunno why but to me they kinda stink with just one range...), 22% archer (the one people want) early, and there's a 33% chance you get nothing);

Click to expand...

KB, your next cleared barb camp had a 67% chance to spawn an archer. What you get is not random. The reward unit is set by the last unit you melee-kill-on-camp. So just avoid melee kills of brutes on camps! Yes, this may mean standing by an empty camp waiting for an archer to spawn, but that can be a one-time thing. If you only hunt barbs with archers (after one melee-kill-of-archer-on-camp), camps are unoccupied when you clear them (since archers cannot melee-kill) and you have 67% chance of spawning an archer and 33% chance you get nothing. If you want to barb hunt with warriors, then bring a worker with you to lure brutes off camp before clearing the camp. Empty camps spawn nothing (33%) or whatever unit was last melee-killed on camp (67%).

yes, I believe it was mentioned, but it you kill a unit in the camp with an archer and walk your melee unit to clear the camp, you CAN receive a unit from it regardless