Civ tier list?

Loucypher said:

The ability is a nice boon, but the Camel Archer + Bazaar make Arabia, not the ability.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, I generally turtle as much as possible and so I don't really count the UU towards civ rankings, but I can understand that others do. And you're right about the Bazaar being awesome, of course.

In other news, I haven't played a lot as Sweden and I always thought they were crap-tier, but after playing the recent Deity challenge -- WOW. The GP gifting is amazing and can really help one get through the happiness issues one often gets with 4 cities around turn 110-180 (e.g., when your cities start getting big but you don't have an ideology yet). I may have to play more with them, but if the tundra start bias isn't typically crippling, maybe they need to be bumped up a level.

Nice list Loucypher, and solid reasoning. I disagree with a couple rankings, but you're based in solid reason all around.

I think France is stronger than you're giving it credit for. No single aspect of the civilization stands out to me any more, but the total package is probably worth a promotion to low-mid. I find the trick is to Chateau in moderation, manually controlling Citizens or limiting their construction. The balance is between the added Gold/Culture and maintaining good food surplus/growth. The defensive bonus from chateaus (they count as forts) makes you more resistant to counterattacks too, so fighting near your border to exhaust the enemy works.

I encourage somewhat tall play to try and get a couple Wonders for Paris (plus your Hermitage and Oxford there). The Musketeer is good for leading a push into a neighbour's territory and claiming it as your own. Puppets will work Chateaus for the Gold/Culture, and like building Hotels. They can be annexed at your discretion later if you feel Airports are necessary.

Summary: pretty good at the militant approach to Culture instead of Brazil's peaceful route. Not the domination power they used to be with the foreign legion, but good for one victory condition is enough to promote out of the bottom tier for me.

MrDumpstertrash said:

Where do you out Sweeden? I personally love them (I know they aren't top tier). Full Patronage = OMG GREAT PEOPLE = Diplo V

Also Austria is way better than Venice, you become allies easily with missions. 1000+ gold grants you an annexed CS. Late game buy tons of CS for Science or strategic spots for Dom, while Venice gets you $ you have way fewer cities and you don't want to spawn many GS because it lowers your GM counter.

Lastly, have you played the Huns? Way better than generic. I captured / razed a whole continent by turn 130 epic speed consisting of Zulu Aztec and India (Emperor). That alone puts you in the lead for the rest of the game. I can't think of another civ that can do that that easily.

LAST THING I PROMISE. Maya Trash tier? Are you high?

Edit: You're probably not high
Poland SP thing is silly strong. I'll upload a save if you tell me how to.
Arabia boarders top tier

Click to expand...

Sweden is for me, in the Playable Tier.

I prefer Venice over Austria for their Unique Limitation of No Settlers (a nice play challenge for me a somewhat jaded Deity player) and how their Gold Generation outpaces everyone.

As a side note, I have played so many repetitive Domination Victories that I tend to downgrade Warmonger Civs in general on my list.

I like the idea of playing the Maya thematically, they have just never made me feel like choosing them has led me to a Victory I would not have achieved otherwise.

All that being said, these are nothing more than statements of my opinion, and so I hope they did not instead seem to be statements of fact about any of the Civs.

GoStu said:

Are you for real with this list? You've rated one of the game's strongest civilizations, the Maya, at the bottom for the elaborately detailed reason of "meh"? You've put Polynesia, a Civ with a dubious UI, lacklustre UU, and very map-dependant UA as top-tier? Poland, possibly the single most overpowered UA and a strong UB to back it up, and you've rated them mid-tier, behind Venice. You've rated all the warmongers low except the Zulu and Aztecs, ignoring a lot of what makes the Zulu good and totally missing what makes the Aztecs better than average (hint, it's the massive food bonus).


You have no idea how this game works. Your opinions are invalid.

Click to expand...

I am a little taken aback with my opinions as a Deity Players with 2000+ game hours being invalid due to not preferring Warmonger Civs.

The question I read was not 'Who Do You Think is Top Tier for Domination Victory' and instead I think the question you read may have been 'Who is the Best at Winning a Domination Victory the fastest.' If so, it is perfectly fine that we disagree since we are answering two subtly different questions.

DarkestOnion said:

I am a little taken aback with my opinions as a Deity Players with 2000+ game hours being invalid due to not preferring Warmonger Civs.

Click to expand...

You are also being questioned because it is your opinion that India is stronger than Poland. So yeah, that.

(And for the record, I rarely warmonger and pay almost no attention to UU when ranking or judging others' rankings.)

TheGrumpyBuddha said:

You are also being questioned because it is your opinion that India is stronger than Poland. So yeah, that.

Click to expand...

+1

Doesn't almost everyone agree that Poland is way strong?

MrDumpstertrash said:

+1

Doesn't almost everyone agree that Poland is way strong?

Click to expand...

Almost.

So for a newbie, Denmark is a bad choice!

rover6695 said:

So for a newbie, Denmark is a bad choice!

Click to expand...

They are good at war on water based maps, but otherwise have no inherent bonuses to help with other victory conditions, and on maps without water they lose a lot.

I see a lot of misunderstanding for Sweden, so Ill brake down each part of their uniques and explain how awesome they are.

-Nobel Prize: Gain 90 Influence with a Great Person gift to a City-State. When declaring friendship, Sweden and their friend gain a +10% boost to Great Person generation.

First off, for a simple declaration of friendship, you get +10% GP generation. With 5 friends you get 50% generation of GP, as much as Babylon, but for all of the Great People. And without mods the total theoretical amount you can get is 220%. So it gives an amount of flexibility. The Nobel Prize also gives you a direct option for a diplomatic victory, and works well with the other part of the UA. So you have a possibly incredibly flexible civilization with a way to win a diplomatic victory. But the UA isn't all of a civ...

-Carolean: Starts with march, which heals your unit even if it preforms an action.

March is up there with Logistics and for amazing promotions. It allows your army to keep moving, and able to hold a position. They would be pretty good on their own, but they have the other Swedish UU backing them up.

-Hakkapeliitta: Great General combat bonus +15% and transfers movement to a GG.

Well it does those two things only if the turns starts with those two in the same tile, but its not that hard to pull off. A good strategy is too attack the enemy riflemen, then pillage the tiles, while sending the GG of to the cannons. To make it even better, as most warmonger civs should go commerce, you should have the ability to purchase Landsknechts. They upgrade into Lancers, which the Hakka is a replacement for, and the Landsknecht can pillage without using a movement point. So its then a great general babysitting Sipahi.
Hope you see Sweden in a different light.
(Also you might want to pick early on which victory you're going for, as its hard to juggle both and warmongering gets people mad)

DarkestOnion said:

I am a little taken aback with my opinions as a Deity Players with 2000+ game hours being invalid due to not preferring Warmonger Civs.

Click to expand...

For someone who claims to have 2000+ game hours your lowly opinions of some of the best civs is what raises suspicion of how much you have really played this game.

Calling Inca trash and Persia too? Have you seen what people have done with them in the deity challenges? How exactly does a hill bias get you into more trouble than it helps? Some people had their best ever SV in the Inca challenge, hell I tried to make it more challenging just going 3 cities and still snoozed my way to a turn 280SV. The comments about Poland "faster SP not thrilling" is pretty amazing.

Have you even tried a deity challenge with civs you don't think highly of?(hint: beside Inca, Sweden, America, Persia there also have been over the past year Poland, Assyria, Greece, Aztec, France, Brazil challenges). Have you seen what Cromagnus did with Huns and honor and no expo cities? Have you submitted a single deity HoF game? Sorry but I have to agree with GoStu here. Your lowly opinion of some of these civs just don't carry much weight.

There is no trash tier civ in this game. It's just people that don't understand the civs.

teqofc said:

For someone who claims to have 2000+ game hours your lowly opinions of some of the best civs is what raises suspicion of how much you have really played this game.

Calling Inca trash and Persia too? Have you seen what people have done with them in the deity challenges? How exactly does a hill bias get you into more trouble than it helps? Some people had their best ever SV in the Inca challenge, hell I tried to make it more challenging just going 3 cities and still snoozed my way to a turn 280SV. The comments about Poland "faster SP not thrilling" is pretty amazing.

Have you even tried a deity challenge with civs you don't think highly of?(hint: beside Inca, Sweden, America, Persia there also have been over the past year Poland, Assyria, Greece, Aztec, France, Brazil challenges). Have you seen what Cromagnus did with Huns and honor and no expo cities? Have you submitted a single deity HoF game? Sorry but I have to agree with GoStu here. Your lowly opinion of some of these civs just don't carry much weight.

There is no trash tier civ in this game. It's just people that don't understand the civs.

Click to expand...

I was asked for my opinions all of the Civs, not as to whether my opinions were in line with any other people's opinions on all of those Civs. I did invite criticism however, and as such I am trying to respond politely here to any criticism of my opinions.

I tend to play Deity Random, and I try to work with whichever Civ I get most of the time. I have seen many players play better than I am able to, and rise to extreme challenges with my least favorite Civs as they score very early wins on Let's Play videos. My hat is off to them and I try to learn how to improve from their videos.

I have only recently become aware of HoF and I am unsure if; based upon some estimations of my opinions, if I am qualified to submit one without fear of being public-ally ridiculed for my likely sub-par performance. I am a good player but I have never felt like a competitive 'best player' and I am unsure how to become one, or if I should necessarily wish to put Fun in the backseat and Speed Winning in the front seat.

That being said, are their videos of Cromagnus in the game you mention?

DarkestOnion said:

I have only recently become aware of HoF and I am unsure if; based upon some estimations of my opinions, if I am qualified to submit one without fear of being public-ally ridiculed for my likely sub-par performance. I am a good player but I have never felt like a competitive 'best player' and I am unsure how to become one, or if I should necessarily wish to put Fun in the backseat and Speed Winning in the front seat.

Click to expand...

Nobody will ridicule you for a HoF game It's one of the hardest challenges of this game because you can't reload under any circumstances. Just winning is a good feeling, I don't care about speed wins. Very few people consistently submit speedy deity HoF wins anyway, especially SV. Thorak is the only one I've seen that has submitted a lot of fast SV wins.

DarkestOnion said:

That being said, are their videos of Cromagnus in the game you mention?

Click to expand...

No videos just this thread http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=519905

Illianor123 said:

They are good at war on water based maps, but otherwise have no inherent bonuses to help with other victory conditions, and on maps without water they lose a lot.

Click to expand...

That sucks. I always liked the Vikings.

I think for now I am most comfortable starting Tall, then expanding, being mostly peaceful unless a civ is threatening my ability to get land.
Which of these Civs I like make sense?

Denmark/America/Greece/Babylon/Sweden/Shoshone/Iroquis?

DarkestOnion said:

I tend to play Deity Random, and I try to work with whichever Civ I get most of the time.

Click to expand...

I would recommend simply choosing Poland, Incas, Mayans or Persians to play so you can learn how powerful these four civs can be.

rover6695 said:

That sucks. I always liked the Vikings.

I think for now I am most comfortable starting Tall, then expanding, being mostly peaceful unless a civ is threatening my ability to get land.
Which of these Civs I like make sense?

Denmark/America/Greece/Babylon/Sweden/Shoshone/Iroquis?

Click to expand...

Of the civs you listed:

- Denmark plays best towards some early aggression to get the most of the berserker and the UA to embark and pillage well. Problem is finding terrain where this matters.

-America is good at early game scouting, grabbing ruins and buying key tiles. The minuteman is good for a later push though.

-Greece's main strength is all early. Hoplites and Companion Cavalry own the board early on. Rushing with them is powerful, or at least zipping about to bully some CS. Later, all you have is the slower decay of influence, so you can hold allies easier.

-Babylon is a natural science turtle. Walls of Babylon are a slight defensive advantage over regular walls. Bowman is quite strong compared to ordinary Archer and is closer in strength to composite bows. Real strength is the early academy, and spawning GS like crazy afterward. You get ahead on science and leave the world in your dust.

- Sweden I'm a recent convert to. They're quite flexible. I now believe they're best starting tall and making friends. Later, go out and kick ass. Use joint warfare and manipulation to keep a few very close friends for the boost to great people. Meanwhile, dominate the world with Caroleans. Donating Great Generals is easy because you need one, maybe two total. The rest are free influence. If on a map that supports naval combat, Admirals are donation bait too.

- Shoshone are strong, but are really better at rapid expanding and grabbing land with the UA. Better played wide.

- Iroquois are better not played at all. Seriously dependant on a forest start and continuous forest, you either have to cook the map to cover it in trees or suffer all game long.

I've played often as Babylon.

I'd really like to play as another civ without making it a pain.
These are some I'd like to try:

America (For Dom)
Dutch
English
French

If I play as any of these on Prince or above am I really at a disadvantage?
Which of these is more practical?

For Prince or King, if you can get NC and universities up by around turn 140, plus a few archers to defend your cities, you can win fairly easily with any civ.

If you're used to babylon, you'll miss the free GS. No other civ gives such a big early bonus, so you'll have to adjust with expansion and growth.

All those civs are fine. America's not great, but each of its uniques is at least somewhat useful. The dutch let you trade luxes more than you would otherwise, and polders are great if you get the right terrain. England has nothing at all until late medieval, and then it suddenly becomes a domination powerhouse. I never play as France, but it's obviously geared to CV.

DarkestOnion said:

I was asked for my opinions all of the Civs, not as to whether my opinions were in line with any other people's opinions on all of those Civs. I did invite criticism however, and as such I am trying to respond politely here to any criticism of my opinions.

Click to expand...

Actually you volunteered. I really hate to pile on here but there are many aspects of your list that I find to be totally unjustifiable. The most egregious of which I have emphasized and briefly commented on, below:

DarkestOnion said:

God Tier
Korea
Babylon
Venice - Amusing and totally unique, but outdone by less restrictive trade civs. Mid-tier at best.
India - Technically has the largest sustainable population in the late game. Late game is worthless. UA is actually a nerf in the early game. Trash tier.
English
Polynesia - Every bonus is totally situational. A bizarre ranking.
Ethiopia
Shoshone
Siam
Germany - Useful UB but pales in comparison to many other civs. Mid-tier at best.
Zulu

Playable Tier
Assyria
Arabia - Selling Bazaar luxuries would be enough for god tier on it's own. High likelihood of Folklore/Petra is delicious gravy.
Poland - Best civ in the game AINEC. Still would be even if you took away the UU/UB. Solidarity is beyond broken.
Greece
Austria
China
Dutch
Morocco
Portugal
America
Aztec - Growth is king. Early culture from Barbs helps fill Tradition, too. They belong just below the OP tier of Poland/Inca/Korea/Babylon.
Celt - Most people would rate them slightly worse than Ethiopia. Very slightly. The difference is certainly not this much. They belong next to one another.
Indonesia
Ottoman

Trash Tier
Maya - Faith & Science UB. The extra GPs are very powerful and versatile. I honestly rate them a little lower than most but they can't be much worse than 5th-8th.
Brazil
Byzantium
Carthage
Egypt
France
Inca - Impossible to roll a bad map. Insane food/hammer/gold snowball from Terrace Farm & Great Andean Road. Extremely effective turtle and warmonger. Extremely versatile and blazing fast. God tier.
Iroquois
Persia
Rome - Not very flashy but 25% hammers to almost everything your expos will ever build is a lot better than a lot of other civs.
Spain - Really belong in their own "gamble" tier. Conquistador & Tercio might as well not exist. The only thing that matters is whether or not you can settle a good NW.
Danish
Huns
Japan
Mongol - ... do you even Keshik?

Click to expand...

Loucypher said:

-- snip --

Click to expand...

I agree with most of this list.

As a slight sidebar, I know everyone dumps on Byzantium (for good reason), but I would semi-seriously advocate for putting them in a "gamble" tier similar to Spain. You must chop-build Stonehenge. If you manage to pull that off they are actually a really good civ. Sometimes the AI is too quick, however. If you miss it you probably need to re-roll.