BNW Deity Tier List

No I don't understand at all, frankly. The only maps they suffer on are the ones with no ocean, like Great Plains or Lakes. On Inland Sea they are even great. You take control of the sea and just use it as a road to shoot across and assault the next victim.

On Deity having cutting-edge troops that last more than 10 turns is crucial, and with Berserkers coming at Metal Casting, it's really something.

consentient said:

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.

Click to expand...

I don’t think a sub-optimal strategy is expected, but flexibility with VC is. (Although, I must confess, that is not in OP now. Did I make that condition up?) Warmongering, and especially early warmongering, is helpful towards any VC. (Just like culture helps all VC, not just CV.)

consentient said:

No I don't understand at all, frankly. The only maps they suffer on are the ones with no ocean, like Great Plains or Lakes.

Click to expand...

OP list is Fractal, Continents, Small Continents, and Earth; with Pangaea and Archipelago covered by the annotations. Maps with no ocean at all would be a different condition, and is not addressed in this thread. I agree with you that Denmark is fine on Pangaea, so it seems to me they should have gotten the asterisk notation:

* = Potentially higher tier for Archipelago. Generally, these civs are more powerful where there is more ocean/coast.

Click to expand...

Exactly, beetle. On Deity, the fastest and most reliable way of winning (once you know how) is Domination. And so a civ that can dominate well at exactly the stage of the game when the AI either gets owned or begins to own you, is a good civ, not a bottom-rung one as the OP suggests.

Either we have a separate Tier list for each VC, or we recognise that any civ with a positive military advantage will be better than any civ that doesn't and has a UA/UB that is itself unexceptional.

Once again, I am comparing the relative positions of Denmark and Austria.

consentient said:

Exactly, beetle. On Deity, the fastest and most reliable way of winning (once you know how) is Domination. And so a civ that can dominate well at exactly the stage of the game when the AI either gets owned or begins to own you, is a good civ, not a bottom-rung one as the OP suggests.

Either we have a separate Tier list for each VC, or we recognise that any civ with a positive military advantage will be better than any civ that doesn't and has a UA/UB that is itself unexceptional.

Once again, I am comparing the relative positions of Denmark and Austria.

Click to expand...

Austria can warmonger better than Denmark, you can ally early CS and buy for 500 gold a fully developed city, 1-2 workers, and 5-8 military units around turn 60, combine that with 5-6 archers and you are ready to go. This is superior to deviating the tech path, going metal casting for berzerkers.

ds61514 said:

1. They get Artillery at Chivalry.

2. Free Caravansery in every city.

3. Desert Bias (Desert Folkore & Petra)

4. Bazaar gives them a Dutch+ ability.

Click to expand...

1. Bazar is great by itself is wow for trading with other civ!! (you get 1 copy you can trade 1... you get 2, you can trade 3!! you get 4, you can trade it to ALL OTHER CIVS)

2. and you forgot the fact your trade routes spread religion at double rate

combine those 2 that with Thite and Religious Texts, plus a strategic and wise use of a few missionaries, and you can pile up gold like crazy!!

Antagonise said:

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

Click to expand...

I agree that Sweden is amazing and should be rated much higher, but Siam is close to god-tier. You are missing something. Food, culture and faith from city-states can be very powerful and Siam gets even more of it. The extra food lets them grow their cities faster than almost anyone. The extra culture lets them churn through social policy trees faster than any other civ except for maybe the Aztecs. They easily salvage any bad starts with these bonuses.

beetle said:

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

Click to expand...

I'd say they are above average for everything in my experience - on deity those trade routes also bring science (often +4/+5 at the start) and are significant positive diplo boosts for the AI. I'd say they belong in the same rank as Morocco, whose AI provides similar 'secondary' benefits on deity.

crabe said:

I agree that Sweden is amazing and should be rated much higher, but Siam is close to god-tier. You are missing something. Food, culture and faith from city-states can be very powerful and Siam gets even more of it. The extra food lets them grow their cities faster than almost anyone. The extra culture lets them churn through social policy trees faster than any other civ except for maybe the Aztecs. They easily salvage any bad starts with these bonuses.

Click to expand...

Siam's UA is definitely stronger than Sweden's IMHO. I don't know why they are so much higher than Greece though, when their UAs are more or less comparable - you kill a barb camp with Siam or Greece, you're getting the same amount of 'bonus' food/culture/etc. - Siam faster, Greece for longer.

I'd rank their UAs better than Sweden because they essentially can give a big boost early game before you have the money to buy CSs, while Sweden isn't really going to have surplus great people to donate until at least mid game.

tpac said:

Siam's UA is definitely stronger than Sweden's IMHO. I don't know why they are so much higher than Greece though, when their UAs are more or less comparable - you kill a barb camp with Siam or Greece, you're getting the same amount of 'bonus' food/culture/etc. - Siam faster, Greece for longer.

I'd rank their UAs better than Sweden because they essentially can give a big boost early game before you have the money to buy CSs, while Sweden isn't really going to have surplus great people to donate until at least mid game.

Click to expand...

I agree about Siam's UA being better than Sweden's, but I think both are better than the Greek UA which is strong by the late game but takes a while to get there. With Siam it's a case of money (or food, or culture, in this case) now being worth more than money later. Social policies, extra population, pantheons and religious beliefs, are all worth more the sooner you get them. Early population growth in particular trumps almost everything and one good CS friend is enough for Siam to either get a significant head start on population or to finish Tradition faster than anybody else (which leads to more growth).

Similarly Sweden can take Honor and donate the Great General for a very fast, and likely permanent, CS alliance.

If Greece is to compete with these two civs for a strong early game it will be doing so mostly on the basis of its UUs.

Edit: Basically I think that in order to underrate the Siamese UA, you have to be underrating the effectiveness of at least one of three things:
-Early game population growth, which powers everything
-Food and culture gifts from city-state friendships and alliances
-Social policies, particularly the ones in tradition and particularly the finisher

consentient said:

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.

Click to expand...

You obviously have never thought of SELLING the married CS to an AI afterwards (and they cannot liberate it) have you? (while you retain the units you get, in return you get probably MASSIVE gold/gpt as well as other goodies, even world leader votes... sometimes up to several thousand gold's worth, easily enough a GIGANTIC profit... with the money you can then ally more CSs to repeat and speed up the process and this allows you to basically neglect your military as well)

With the gold, indeed, they CAN salvage bad starts by rush-buying everything they need as well as getting free soldiers/workers from CS. This is more of a late mid-to endgame thing however; early game you just need to make sure you don't get wiped out.

This is especially true on deity where AIs are usually SUPER rich.

No, they cannot salvage bad starts, but they can manipulate diplomacy by selling the right cities to the right civs very well. If you consider this an exploit, tell me of any warmongers who go domination who has never sold cities... (worse yet, trading gpt for lump gold then DoW after friendship expires)

crabe said:

I agree about Siam's UA being better than Sweden's, but I think both are better than the Greek UA which is strong by the late game but takes a while to get there. With Siam it's a case of money (or food, or culture, in this case) now being worth more than money later. Social policies, extra population, pantheons and religious beliefs, are all worth more the sooner you get them. Early population growth in particular trumps almost everything and one good CS friend is enough for Siam to either get a significant head start on population or to finish Tradition faster than anybody else (which leads to more growth).

Similarly Sweden can take Honor and donate the Great General for a very fast, and likely permanent, CS alliance.

If Greece is to compete with these two civs for a strong early game it will be doing so mostly on the basis of its UUs.

Edit: Basically I think that in order to underrate the Siamese UA, you have to be underrating the effectiveness of at least one of three things:
-Early game population growth, which powers everything
-Food and culture gifts from city-state friendships and alliances
-Social policies, particularly the ones in tradition and particularly the finisher

Click to expand...

But it's not like you have money to buy all the maritime/culture/etc. CS's early game, and in that respect it makes Siam and Greece's UAs similar in their advantages.

Let's say clearing a barb camp and returning a worker gives about 80 influence points to a neutral maritime CS in the ancient era, so +2 food in your capital (I'm gonna ignore the allied benefits for the moment).

It will degrade at 1 point a turn until below 30 when you are no longer friends. So an average civ will get 50 turns of 2 food for 100 bonus food.

Siam will get 50 turns of +3 bonus food for 150 bonus food.

Greece will get degrade at .5 instead of 1 - and get 100 turns of +2 for 200 bonus food!

In addition, for Greece, you'll get the extra happiness from luxuries for twice as long, and any strategics for twice as long - neither of which Siam will give you.

Siam's UA surpasses the Greek one mid to late game when you have lots of money to buy the CS's. If there are only 3 cultural CSs in the game, you can afford to ally with them permanently more or less. Then the Greek UA only really saves you money, while the Siam one will give you more culture.

As to the Swedish UA - it's definitely inferior early game. One - the only way to get an early great person is to use two policies in honor - a massive waste of two policies if you don't want honor, and that's certainly not going to help you complete tradition faster - for a bit more influence than clearing a barb camp and returning a worker. You aren't going to get lots of extra great people until mid game generally, and then it's saving you about a 1000 gold (and what great people are you sacrificing? You'd hardly sacrifice great scientists/engineers/artists (better for golden ages)/writers (better for social policies). Great Musicians maybe.

The Swedish UA is good for either early war - going honor, pumping out great generals and donating them for CS allies, or using the DoF to boost more of a mid to late peaceful game.

You don't need to buy all the CS, just a single one is enough to give Siam a powerful snowballing advantage. Maritime are the best, obviously. I think that 150 bonus food over 50 turns is better (much better, in fact) than 200 bonus food over 100 turns. Food is better the earlier it comes because it snowballs and brings with it the additional benefits of science, production, gold or whatever. "Money now" is worth more than "money later," even if money later is more money, because you can put "money now" to work immediately.

Furthermore gold is not the only, or even the main, way to make CS friends/allies, but even if it were it's not difficult to find the money to spend on CS - just spend the money you would otherwise spend on archers, workers, library, or whatever...I do this sometimes anyway even if I am not playing as Siam.

Siam's power is contingent upon which CS are around, but the only time they aren't better than Greece is if there are no Maritime/Cultural/Religious CS near them at the start, and/or few of those CS on the map at all. But early food beats nearly everything else in this game, and a single nearby maritime CS is nearly enough to put Siam in the upper echelon of civs and certainly salvage a bad start. A single nearby religious CS is enough to guarantee Siam a religion if they just determine that they are willing to put in the effort to ally with that CS (not difficult). I think that beats Greece pretty hard. Where Greece competes in the early game is not spending gold on CS, but using their UUs to accomplish other CS quests and make friends that will stay friends for a long time.

Greece is a better diplomatic civ, of course, because Siam is designed to win science victories, not diplomatic ones.

There have been a few threads on this topic and I'm sure all of these arguments have been gone into before in more depth than we have here. I think Siam had the strongest UA among Vanilla civs by far, and it's still a top 10 UA and Siam is still a top 10 civ. edit: and I didn't even mention Naresuan's Elephants!

beetle said:

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.

Click to expand...

I just realized that this would be a naive approach as it would result in characterizing England as “below average”.

2 spies and faster boats could never be average. England are incredible.

Right, England is incredible. They are proof by demonstration that lack of a UB alone is not enough to rank a civ as lower tier.

I'd put spain lower tier because the natural wonders are just insanely circumstantial, and say you get Old Looks Like a Butthole, you might actually not want to use the wonder.

I think Byzantiun shoul Be higher. Like upper-tier os upper-mid tier.

"= Both UUs of Byzantium are decent, nothing fancy, although I personally enjoy using dromons. The UA however is brilliant even moreso in BNW wherein Piety is available at the start. You'll need to play a heavy faith-based WIDE game - getting Pagodas+Mosques+Cathedrals, then finishing the Piety tree to get Sacred Sites reformation belief . Once this is done, you will have the fastest cultural victories you've ever had."

ENGLAND
"= I re-evaluaed my games as England, comparing GNK and BNW, and I have to say they definitely deserve to be near the top due to a very cool 1/2 of their UA.
= First and foremost they are still the BEST Civ when it comes to naval dominance- period. Both UUs are strong in their own right - the longbowman on land, the SotL on water. While the Civ leans on domination, part of the UA is having an extra spy - and in BNW this means an extra diplomat - which can be used effectively in trading for votes in the World Congress. This brings them up a notch in my opinion, allowing more control of the delegates."

England and byzantium aré both great civilizations but they have their own weakness in their uniqueness just like all the other civilizations. Byzantium has early dromons which are good at defenses when constantinople os un the coast. Cbs and early rushers wont be able to stand a chance if timed right. The extra belief for religion is really unique for byzantium because once the religion slots are over, byzantium would miss out on a religion with an extra belief slot. Not only byzantium would miss out but also the other civilizations because a religion with an extra belief os better than all the other religions. Piety would be recommended here because a reformation belief would make byzantium civilization even better.
England has the sotls and the extra espionage to steal ttechnologies whenever necessary. Not only that but espionage could be used to steal a technology and get that counter espionage going in case youre ahead in technology.

Byzantium are really not very good at Deity difficulty, especially since the last patch, because the UA is completely useless unless you can found a religion, which is not always possible. If, in the future, the developers patch it so Byzantium have some advantage which helps them found a religion, such as starting with a pantheon belief, then they would for sure be upper-mid tier, but they are kinda like Spain: all or nothing.

consentient said:

Byzantium are really not very good at Deity difficulty, especially since the last patch, because the UA is completely useless unless you can found a religion, which is not always possible. If, in the future, the developers patch it so Byzantium have some advantage which helps them found a religion, such as starting with a pantheon belief, then they would for sure be upper-mid tier, but they are kinda like Spain: all or nothing.

Click to expand...

Right, in order to get a religion you have to use piety and youll most likely get a religión. Tradition wont get you a religion in deity but at least piety will.