The best Civ 5 civ is....

dpunk said:

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 tier list I posted is for all victory conditions though I would definitely say that it would be more accurate to post different lists for each victory condition, perhaps even splitting up land and water maps since so many civs are affected by that.

Ethiopia/Inca/Maya are my god tier because they could conceivably go for any victory condition and be more effective at it than a theoretical civ that doesn't have any particular advantages and is just average overall. In hindsight I could have put Babylon and Arabia in there; I leave out Korea for the same reason you do, though any list that excludes domination from the calculations would put them at or near the top.

I ranked my top 6 civs on overall flexibility for any VC. The only reason I put Babylon as #2 is because their UA is not very good for CV, but amazing for the other 3. With the Inca, you are nearly guaranteed a good production city with at the very least, an average population.

jungleman3955 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'd agree that babylon is a good civ for domination. Writing is only one tech off the military line and before xbows it's usually a good idea to get at least writing anyways.

With babylon your not going to have any medieval/ren UUs but after construction you will always have a slight tech lead and becomes more pronounced as the game continues.

Korea doesn't benefit from their UA until universities, which then allows you to tech to xbows slightly faster than another civ that also picked up universities at the same time, but still slower than a civ that beelined xbows. With xbows your hopefully working on at least your second capital. And your better off with xbows than the siege unit for taking cities. With korea you will be taking that next capital a good 10-20 turns later than another civ unless you beline for xbows before universities. But if your going to do that, I'd much rather pick a civ that has strong med/ren UU.

Your mid/late game tech lead has to make up for that. Building wonders also helps korea tech faster, but with domination will slow you down with most wonders.

I'm not sure when korea would start pulling ahead in tech, but during ren era your probably ahead 1 or 2 techs, considering other civs with good medieval/ren UUs and korea isn't really going to be pulling ahead military-wise until industrial era. And given civs that have industrial UUs I would say even a bit longer.

The few times I've played korea for domination I'll often get stuck in a position once I get hwachas and think it may just be better to switch it all up to a science victory, especially if I got universities before xbows. And at this point, korea can make this switch quite easily. But would you still consider it one of the stronger civs just because the civ is strong but not best suited for a victory condition you originally planned for? Would you consider a civ strong because it has a higher chance to win, when it will usually take more turns?

I suppose it really depends on the map layout and more importantly, map size. I can see how such a tech advantage would be useful on a large/huge map for domination, where getting to late techs before victory will most likely happen.

edit: I'm not saying korea should or shouldn't be top tier, I'm a bit bias toward domination games since it's what I usually play and just pointing out I don't think korea is one of the better civs for that VC.

dpunk said:

I'd agree that babylon is a good civ for domination. Writing is only one tech off the military line and before xbows it's usually a good idea to get at least writing anyways.

With babylon your not going to have any medieval/ren UUs but after construction you will always have a slight tech lead and becomes more pronounced as the game continues.

Korea doesn't benefit from their UA until universities, which then allows you to tech to xbows slightly faster than another civ that also picked up universities at the same time, but still slower than a civ that beelined xbows. With xbows your hopefully working on at least your second capital. And your better off with xbows than the siege unit for taking cities. With korea you will be taking that next capital a good 10-20 turns later than another civs.

Your mid/late game tech lead has to make up for that. Building wonders also helps korea tech faster, but with domination will slow you down with most wonders.

I'm not sure when korea would start pulling ahead in tech, but during ren era your probably ahead 1 or 2 techs, considering other civs with good medieval/ren UUs and korea isn't really going to be pulling ahead military-wise until industrial era. And given civs that have industrial UUs I would say even a bit longer.

The few times I've played korea for domination I'll often get stuck in a position once I get hwachas and think it may just be better to switch it all up to a science victory, especially if I got universities before xbows. And at this point, korea can make this switch quite easily. But would you still consider it one of the stronger civs just because the civ is strong but not best suited for a victory condition you originally planned for? Would you consider a civ strong because it has a higher chance to win, when it will usually take more turns?

I suppose it really depends on the map layout and more importantly, map size. I can see how such a tech advantage would be useful on a large/huge map for domination, where getting to late techs before victory will most likely happen.

Click to expand...

A popular method of domination(particularly in higher difficulties) is to beeline to either Artillery or GW bombers. Korea's UA won't really do much if you go for Artillery, but it will help for GW bombers.

I feel like if you haven't taken any capitals by the time you get to Flight someone else is going to win before you're done conquering.

Nah, I've done a few games and you're not really slowed down by waiting. You can always take a capitol or two before you hit Flight. The main point is to beeline Flight and not detour into Plastics. Once you get airplanes, you can basically run through civilizations if you've properly out-teched them.

Ok since this thread is not deleted. On pangea maps Babylon or Mongolia might be better, but on continents and archipelago you are at a disadvantage vs the AI.


If I make a lets play thread for polynesia should I post it in this one or in a new one?

My point is that pangea maps are trivial even on deity so it doesn't matter what civ you play. If you are trying for a sub 200 science victory or something on pangea standard, than play babylon. But across a random spawn on pangea, archipelago, and continents polynesia is the best IMO because you end up making contact with all civs and CS 100 turns or so earlier.



What I am trying to accomplish with Polynesia is a rugged strategy that doesn't require pangea maps to work. All of these supposed great Babylon deity games that people keep posting are all pangea maps spawning on flood plains next to a mountain, which essentially makes the difficulty king level or lower as opposed to deity.


I have also completely given up on founding a religion on deity. It's hard enough against civs who spawn right away with 2 settlers and have increased based production, it's even worse with wonders that provide the massive amounts of +faith that they currently do.


There are not many things that are impossible in civ, but it is impossible to found a religion before the AI if they start next to a +faith wonder. Those things are the bane of my existence of developing a strategy on deity, which by my own specifications needs to work nearly 100% of the time and not be defeated in any way by map conditions.

can polynesian triremes move on open ocean or is it only embarked units that get the UA?

I can see how polynesia would be good on archipelago because you could sell lux's earlier. But I don't think you will be signing any RAs sooner.

Yeah, Polynesian ships can navigate oceans immediately. Allows for some hilarity where your Galleases can poke enemy Triremes while it is impossible for them to counter attack.

dpunk said:

can polynesian triremes move on open ocean or is it only embarked units that get the UA?

I can see how polynesia would be good on archipelago because you could sell lux's earlier. But I don't think you will be signing any RAs sooner.

Click to expand...

I'm mainly interested in the friendly status with 16 CS by turn 120ish.

I played a game somewhat recently on either small continents or large islands as ottomans with pledge/aesthetics, friended the majority, teched science/naval. I'm not sure polynesia would be that much faster considering your mainly waiting on the social policy and not exploration.

Al though in the case your going for cultural victory maybe polynesia would be a good civ in that case? Their actually one of the few civs I've never played.

Arachnofiend said:

The tier list I posted is for all victory conditions though I would definitely say that it would be more accurate to post different lists for each victory condition, perhaps even splitting up land and water maps since so many civs are affected by that.

Ethiopia/Inca/Maya are my god tier because they could conceivably go for any victory condition and be more effective at it than a theoretical civ that doesn't have any particular advantages and is just average overall. In hindsight I could have put Babylon and Arabia in there; I leave out Korea for the same reason you do, though any list that excludes domination from the calculations would put them at or near the top.

Click to expand...

You can go tall with Korea and use their UA to hit Physics/Steel very early (Philosophy first, then teching militarily), and go conquering. The bonus is versatile enough that it helps anywhere. And who ever really needs a lot of Trebuchets to take down cities? Hwach'a is a huge upgrade over those IMO.

_megafone_ said:

You can go tall with Korea and use their UA to hit Physics/Steel very early (Philosophy first, then teching militarily), and go conquering. The bonus is versatile enough that it helps anywhere. And who ever really needs a lot of Trebuchets to take down cities? Hwach'a is a huge upgrade over those IMO.

Click to expand...

Babylon or Maya are better for this. Korea doesn't shine without specialists (i.e. university). Korea would be better for a push to something after Education, like Artillery or Flight.

Polynesia looks hilariously underpowered on paper, but in practice it's very powerful. Games are over by turn 100.

dpunk said:

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.

Click to expand...

UB? You mean Terrace Farms?
The thing is, even without mountains, you can make farms on hills.
So initially, it's 1f2p in a hilly normally low-food area, and with Fertilizer, those Terrace Farms on regular hills become 2f2p.

And that's the worst case.

There is often some mountains nearby.
Not always, but usually.
And usually more without conquering range.
Obviously the food from these mountain-adjacent farms is insane.

Free roads on hills? Half price railroads? This allows for trade routes immediately without gold cost that is so important early on.

Normal movement on hills is incredible in war.

Inca is easily in the top 5 overall civs. Personally #1 on my list because as mentioned, they can do it all.

VilePilot said:

Polynesia looks hilariously underpowered on paper, but in practice it's very powerful. Games are over by turn 100.

Click to expand...

I can agree that on water maps they are very strong for domination.

But there are too many scenarios where they really aren't a good civ.

One of the reasons people don't like water maps is because of how poorly the AI does on them.
Polynesia just gives you even more of a boost against the AI, as they do not fight well with water.

I think you've made it quite clear you like Polynesia, but they are in no way one of the strongest civs overall.
In selected situations, sure.
Overall, they are very far down on the list.

made a fast list (probably very bad xD)

for domination:

tier 1
Arabia
Maya
Huns
China

tier 2
celts
Ethiopia
Japan
Babylon
America
Korea
Sweden
Songhai

for SV (peaceful)

tier 1

Maya
Korea
Babylon

tier 2
Arabia
Inca
Ethiopia
Dutch
India

culture VC (peaceful)

tier 1

Egypt
Korea
Byzantine
Ethiopia

tier 2

Siam
Inca
India

In a deity game, most of the time you want to go to war, so the domination civs are most attractive

3) Arabia (amazing economic advantages mainly from UB but also UA, desert start bias and possibly 2nd strongest UU behind the keshik)

Click to expand...

Camel Archer vs. Keshik is an interesting argument. While the Keshik has faster movement, faster promotions/generals and enjoys Kahn bonuses, the Camel Archer is just a much stronger unit "out of the box" (ranged 21 vs the keshik's 16). Both are knight replacements. Both can move after attacking.

A Camel Archer with promotions and a normal general is pretty damn deadly. Not sure the Keshik is really "better". Keshiks need to have larger groups, with Kahns, to really be a deadly force. By contrast, a few Camel Archers on their own can be just as devastating.

Then again, if you're attacking a lot of city-states .... Keshiks might have the upper hand.

ense7en said:

I think you've made it quite clear you like Polynesia, but they are in no way one of the strongest civs overall.
In selected situations, sure.
Overall, they are very far down on the list.

Click to expand...

Well, ense7en, you are obviously an elite civ player. I'll let you take over from here. Good luck.

Romans.

VilePilot said:

I chose to rush culture instead of composite bowmen, and now I get aesthetics on turn 99 and on turn 128 I get friendly status with 16 CS.

Click to expand...

What do you need friendly status with CS if in your words "if the game is not over in 120-150 turns you are doing it wrong" I guess you might have few more caps to go and happiness issues, but I doubt it.

Please post a save of a pre t150 win on deity with non cooked settings with any civ and I am sure you will have people clamoring to know the secret.

Some how I don't see it coming... Especially if you turn barbs off, "I don't like them", yes they do eat those six automated scouts so let's turn it off...