The best Civ 5 civ is....

man, you can't say that one civ that have exploration ua is best while spamming scouts and you play without barbarians. Heck, there are plenty barbaric people back 6000 years ago!
 
Arachnofiend said:
Well, pretty sure this is a troll account now. For shame, and to think I took the time to put together a five minute, 2:30 am tier list.
Click to expand...

Pretty much agreed with that list, but why is Russia so high? +1 hammer and extra goodies to sell off is good, but I don't know if it is enough to carry the Krepost and Cossack into the high-tier bracket. Especially since those strategic resources are random-based.
 
VilePilot said:
Standard map size
Standard time
Standard amount of other civs (8)
Standard amount of other CS (16)
Deity
Random map type
Ancient Era start
Allow Policy Saving

All other settings default


Quick Combat allowed (quick combat just removes the animations which speeds up the game dramatically)
Quick Movement allowed (same essentially as quick combat)
No ancient ruins
No barbarians
Click to expand...

A Let's Play done (with screenshots) of this would be very helpful for us to understand this. Can you demonstrate it for us? I'd like to see how the 6 scouting method works as well as filling out honor to go crush the world.
 
Vintage Port said:
A Let's Play done (with screenshots) of this would be very helpful for us to understand this. Can you demonstrate it for us? I'd like to see how the 6 scouting method works as well as filling out honor to go crush the world.
Click to expand...

1. Cut a hole in a box.
2. Put a troll in that box.
3. ???
4. Profit!
 
Exploring the map using only scouts as Polynesia isnt even the best strategy for them.
 
_megafone_ said:
OP is a hilarious troll.

God tier - Ethiopia, Korea, Mayans, Babylon
Water tier - Polynesia, Ottomans
Trash tier - India, Denmark, Greece, Songhai, Egypt, America, Celts
Middle tier - Everything else =P

You could rank the middle tier civs between themselves but that'd be nitpicking IMO.
Click to expand...

Songhai, Egypt, America, and the Celts don't belong in the "Trash tier." Songhai has a really strong early game with its UA and mud mosques. Egypt has the burial tombs. The Celts are guaranteed their choice of a pantheon, the pictish warriors are solid, and celidh hall is pretty good.
 
You have to value the starting bias of the civs:
- America's river bias is really good plus tiles discount and extra sight makes them quite confortable to play with.
- Arabia desert bias being desert folklore and Petra as OP as they are turns them into one of the best civs.

India if you manage the initial unhappiness (ally mercantiles, river happiness pantheon) is a strong civ.
 
Not much left to talk about, as Sidor pointed out above.. But i'll give it a shot. Polynesia absolutely rocks on archipelago, no question about it, together with England and Carthage, to be fair. But Polynesia - the best civ out there? Not Babylon, not Inca, not Spain, not Arabia, not even Korea? Man, you have to stop playing Polynesia and discover a bunch of overpowered civs out there. :D Good gaming.
 
The more "ifs" you need to put before you explain how good a civ is, the worse it is. =P

I like Korea, Ethiopia and Babylon above everything else because even on a flat tundra start their bonuses are amazing and put them on top of the others. The "trash tier" is open to discussion, heheh.
 
I think the most powerful depends on your desired victory conditions. Babylon and Korea rock in Science... China and Mongolia play nice at war. France and Egypt at culture and the greeks and siam at diplomacy.
 
therottweiler said:
I think the most powerful depends on your desired victory conditions. Babylon and Korea rock in Science... China and Mongolia play nice at war. France and Egypt at culture and the greeks and siam at diplomacy.
Click to expand...

The thing, the science civs are great all-around civilizations. Science is key in anything(even culture) and having a science boost puts them far above anybody else. That's why Babylon, Korea, Inca and Mayans are always very highly ranked.
 
Speaking of Civs and their "ranking"...

I decided I would do a domination victory, Standard/Standard with a Random Civ on a Pangaea. I ended up with Spain which worked out well as I haven't played Spain yet. When the map plays to the Civs strengths, wow...

Turn 6 or 7 I find Mt. Sinai (1st). 500g, purchase a settler and go settle next to it. (16faith by working the wonder for 1 turn = first pantheon). Stop working the wonder and grow the city. Then work it again and found and enhance a religion by turn 80. Also purchased a missionary before enhancing. Turn 76, 3 city NC and also built Temple of Artemis and Zeus. Already took Austria's capital and will take Greece any turn now. Education will be ~turn 95-100 (I forget exactly what turn I'm on but I'm only a few turns from Education). I will have all the funds I need to rush buy 3 Uni's. I may annex Austria's capital soon as well.

I don't even know what to do with all my $ lol.

My only regret is not sending my scout further to the SW as I wasn't the first to find El Dorado :crazyeye:

I did rake in 900g in the first 50 turns finding Nat Wonders though. It's been fun :eek:
 
Arachnofiend said:
Well, pretty sure this is a troll account now. For shame, and to think I took the time to put together a five minute, 2:30 am tier list.

God Tier
Ethiopia
Inca
Maya
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing against the list, but I am wondering what the reason is for putting these specific civs in the god tier. What exactly makes them better than the other civs?

For ethiopia, your guaranteed a religion and will have strong defense early game or perhaps all game. But I honestly only see these as strong when playing deity. On all difficulties less than deity, you will most likely get a religion, and even on immortal you will get one half the time without even trying with any civ. The 20% combat bonus also becomes less useful when the AI doesn't start the game with half an army. My point is, how can you say this civ is god tier when it only performs so much better than other civs on one difficulty level.

As for the incas. They are essentially guaranteed cities that can grow population in areas where other civs couldn't. But in most games hills aren't a problem preventing a city from growing for other civs. Being able to move over hills quickly and build roads for free on hills is nice but also map dependant. I suppose the start bias and UA/UI means the inca will average a decent start more often than other civs, but then again decent starts aren't hard to come by.

Maya, the other two civs seem strong to me and I can understand why some people would put them in the top tier, but the mayas, I don't only want to know why it was put in god tier, I also don't understand it at all. Their UB is one of the stronger UBs, their UU will either get little use or non at all, and their UA completely screws over your ability to generate the type of GPs you want in late game. They actually happen to be one of my favorite civs, but much of the time I play them, I'll often at some point think 'if only they had no UA at all'
 
dpunk said:
I'm not arguing against the list, but I am wondering what the reason is for putting these specific civs in the god tier. What exactly makes them better than the other civs?

For ethiopia, your guaranteed a religion and will have strong defense early game or perhaps all game. But I honestly only see these as strong when playing deity. On all difficulties less than deity, you will most likely get a religion, and even on immortal you will get one half the time without even trying with any civ. The 20% combat bonus also becomes less useful when the AI doesn't start the game with half an army. My point is, how can you say this civ is god tier when it only performs so much better than other civs on one difficulty level.

As for the incas. They are essentially guaranteed cities that can grow population in areas where other civs couldn't. But in most games hills aren't a problem preventing a city from growing for other civs. Being able to move over hills quickly and build roads for free on hills is nice but also map dependant. I suppose the start bias and UA/UI means the inca will average a decent start more often than other civs, but then again decent starts aren't hard to come by.

Maya, the other two civs seem strong to me and I can understand why some people would put them in the top tier, but the mayas, I don't only want to know why it was put in god tier, I also don't understand it at all. Their UB is one of the stronger UBs, their UU will either get little use or non at all, and their UA completely screws over your ability to generate the type of GPs you want in late game. They actually happen to be one of my favorite civs, but much of the time I play them, I'll often at some point think 'if only they had no UA at all'
Click to expand...

I don't know what his reasonings are, but I agree with the Inca being god-tier. The population growth is huge for any kind of game except for domination. The movement bonus really helps for everything, especially domination with crossbows/CB's. And they have a hill start bias, making them more likely for a mountain start as well(I think).

I wouldn't put Ethiopia and the Mayans in the top 3, but in the top 6 for sure. The Steele and the Pyramid are probably the two best buildings in the game. An early religion will make the whole game a lot easier and it will spread much better than a later-founded religion would. The Long Count works both ways, but I think it definitely helps the early game where you can settle the GS at turn 62/72 and then use the GE for a wonder that you normally can't get.

My tier order would probably be:
1) Inca
2) Babylon
3) Korea
4) Mayans
5) Arabia
6) Ethiopia

Inca before Babylon because they're more versatile all-around for any victory condition.
 
Well I definitely see why some people would put ethiopia in top tier. They are solid overall and one of the safer civs to play. It's hard to get 'screwed' in the start with ethiopia.

I'm going to try out some more inca games but I can't help but think their would be a lot of games where their will be little use of the UB and the UA ends up being negligible. Certainly on the correct map the opposite could happen and they could be quite strong. It seems people like to put civs in high tier that are quite safe to play and I would say the incas are also a civ that's pretty safe.

Personally I usually go in games with domination victory in mind at the beginning and that's often how they end. In my experience, on pangaea I definitely feel france is one of the stronger civs especially if your planning on going 2-city liberty domination.

Do you guys like to rate civs based on all victory conditions or would you have a different list for specific victory conditions? I know a lot of people rate korea and babylon high because they are science based which is good for all victory conditions. But personally I feel korea is just too slow in the beginning to be good for domination and both the UUs actually make taking cities more difficult IMO.
 
Unresolved said:
I don't know what his reasonings are, but I agree with the Inca being god-tier. The population growth is huge for any kind of game except for domination. The movement bonus really helps for everything, especially domination with crossbows/CB's. And they have a hill start bias, making them more likely for a mountain start as well(I think).

I wouldn't put Ethiopia and the Mayans in the top 3, but in the top 6 for sure. The Steele and the Pyramid are probably the two best buildings in the game. An early religion will make the whole game a lot easier and it will spread much better than a later-founded religion would. The Long Count works both ways, but I think it definitely helps the early game where you can settle the GS at turn 62/72 and then use the GE for a wonder that you normally can't get.

My tier order would probably be:
1) Inca
2) Babylon
3) Korea
4) Mayans
5) Arabia
6) Ethiopia

Inca before Babylon because they're more versatile all-around for any victory condition.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with the civs in your top 6. Though I would probably put Arabia higher. That desert start bias is strong if you invest early in a shrine/ally a religious CS/get lucky with goody huts because DF guarantees early religion. And for having access for the best place on the map for Petra ofc.

I think mine would be:

1) Mayans (strong early faith and science bonuses from UB create a nice snowball and UA is amazing if you get it before turn 72ish(?) and you can delay archery for a few techs)
2) Babylon (the snowball effect of early GS and not having to research the bottom of the tree initially, due to bowmen, can easily shave 20+ turns off of any victory)
3) Arabia (amazing economic advantages mainly from UB but also UA, desert start bias and possibly 2nd strongest UU behind the keshik)
4) Inca (strong growth bonuses via UI, economic bonus from roads on hills and military bonus for moving on hills)
5) Eithopia (love the stele and their UA is perfect against the city spamming AI)
6) Korea (I love their UA, getting science from a GA specialist or from planting a GE guarantees that science never falls behind when focusing on culture or production and only amplifies it when pushing science hard)

I think those 6 would be "God tier" for me.
 
dpunk said:
Well I definitely see why some people would put ethiopia in top tier. They are solid overall and one of the safer civs to play. It's hard to get 'screwed' in the start with ethiopia.

I'm going to try out some more inca games but I can't help but think their would be a lot of games where their will be little use of the UB and the UA ends up being negligible. Certainly on the correct map the opposite could happen and they could be quite strong. It seems people like to put civs in high tier that are quite safe to play and I would say the incas are also a civ that's pretty safe.

Personally I usually go in games with domination victory in mind at the beginning and that's often how they end. In my experience, on pangaea I definitely feel france is one of the stronger civs especially if your planning on going 2-city liberty domination.

Do you guys like to rate civs based on all victory conditions or would you have a different list for specific victory conditions? I know a lot of people rate korea and babylon high because they are science based which is good for all victory conditions. But personally I feel korea is just too slow in the beginning to be good for domination and both the UUs actually make taking cities more difficult IMO.
Click to expand...

The science civs and early faith civs just allow you so much flexibility initially and because they aren't dependent on certain maps, make them strong (I don't consider the Incan map dependent). You have to remember that strong science gives you access to better military units sooner so in a way they are just as viable for domination and maybe more so than most with the exception of Attila and Genghis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Nizef
Quest for Glory - Deity Challenge #5
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Rhodro
R
M
Planting a Great Person
Replies
19
Views
1K
billby
billby
H
[BNW] Quest for Glory - Deity Challenge - Off shoot
Replies
3
Views
532
consentient
consentient
Eagle Pursuit
April Challenge Discossion Thread - Three Stars Each
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
UWHabs
U
K
[BNW] How many cities is best for Immortal and large maps?
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
consentient
consentient
Top Bottom