BNW Deity Tier List

Landsknecht

I was just wondering -- Do the zulu promotions lead to March, Medic, Cover etc. in the same way as drill and shock?

Unfortunately no. The Buffalo promotions are separate and don't unlock anything else.
That's why I usually go to drill/shock III -> March (Alhambra really helps with this--45XP March! but it's hard to get on Immortal/Deity) then into the buffalo promotions.

I just won a game with the Dutch, turn 448, on king.
I don't see why they don't get more love, the Sea Bagger is an awesome unit.

Greece should get more love too, the HL is awesome.
Am I missing something on these two?

Also....Denmark, are they really that bad for a non domination victory?

rover6695 said:

Also....Denmark, are they really that bad for a non domination victory?

Click to expand...

Hum, if they are going for a war induced cultural victory and their target is either coastal or near coastal, that will be their edge compared to generic civ.

Similarly if someone has conquered city states, Denmark can use their UA as an edge liberating (with city states normally coastal)

Other than that, their UA doesn't have any advantages on top of generic civ. But you can win victories against the AI as generic civ. (Just slower than if playing a civ with more advantages towards your chosen victory)

rover6695 said:

I just won a game with the Dutch, turn 448, on king.
I don't see why they don't get more love, the Sea Bagger is an awesome unit.

Greece should get more love too, the HL is awesome.
Am I missing something on these two?

Click to expand...

Standard response engage:

Soffacet said:

Being near the bottom of a tier list doesn't mean that a civ can't win. It just means that a civ offers comparatively less than others in most situations, making games with that civ slower and more difficult on average.

Click to expand...

Winning a game on King has no bearing on a Diety tier list. In fact, winning a single game on Diety has no bearing on a Diety tier list. A tier list measures average strength under standard conditions for n=infinity.

Additionally, "Sea Beggar is awesome" and "HL is awesome" are incomplete claims as they pertain to a comparative tool such as a tier list. You need to argue that they are better than the bonuses provided by the civs currently rated above them.

On the merits, the Sea Beggar is a nice but ultimately fluffy unit that comes relatively late and only contributes to one win condition, and only on certain maps. East India Company is the main reason to play Dutch, as it provides good early snowball potential... with the right terrain and enough scoutable neighbors. Polders are also nice but again dependent on terrain. The Dutch perfectly fit the middle-tier list description of "strong bonuses that are sometimes affected by factors outside of their control."

Greece fits with the low-mid description of "mediocre bonuses." Neither of their units do anything important, and an experienced player rarely has any issue maintaining CS alliances as a generic civ, and therefore has no need of HL. Greece also has a thematically comparable civ (Siam) that it is weaker than in 99% of situations.

rover6695 said:

I just won a game with the Dutch, turn 448, on king.
I don't see why they don't get more love, the Sea Bagger is an awesome unit.

Greece should get more love too, the HL is awesome.
Am I missing something on these two?

Also....Denmark, are they really that bad for a non domination victory?

Click to expand...

1) The Sea Beggar is cool but it's not enough to be game-deciding on its own. Frigates are more useful than Privateers en-masse, so they're not the decisive advantage on the sea that the Ship of the Line is for England. Having Logistics & Supply right out the door makes for a strong unit, but it's really a convenience thing.

As to the UA; it has some marginal utility early-game, letting you pull in some extra gpt by selling your first luxuries while preserving some Happiness.

The Polder is very strong but you need some luck to use it. The three points above make the Netherlands potentially strong but "needing an uncommon start" or "good bonuses beyond their control". They can top out around the top tier Civs but often will not because of any of the following: map not suitable for UU, UA did almost nothing, or UI not possible to exploit.


2) RE: Greece. The Hellenic League is a fairly marginal UA. It saves you some effort maintaining relationships with CS's, but over the shorter length of a Deity game there's not actually that much time or that many allies for you to really exploit this to the fullest.

People seem to give Greece extra points because Alexander is possibly the most effective AI opponent. This is almost entirely due to his solid strategy and good AI flavors to make it happen, rather than any particular bonuses from units or UA.


3) Denmark ONLY has military advantages and even those are small. They get some convenience when Embarking/Disembarking for attacks. Amphibious attacks are a... rarity, and are honestly best avoided even as Denmark due to the potential for getting slaughtered wholesale while embarked. The Ski Infantry are pretty forgettable. Berserkers can do some damage but are outshone by many, many other uniques.

rover6695 said:

I just won a game with the Dutch, turn 448, on king.
I don't see why they don't get more love, the Sea Bagger is an awesome unit.

Greece should get more love too, the HL is awesome.
Am I missing something on these two?

Click to expand...

As has been said before, the Dutch are very map dependent. Roll a start with lots of floodplains and a coastal capital, and they could easily be upper tier. Roll a landlocked start with no coast or floodplains/marsh in sight, and they're lower or even bottom tier. While they're one of my favourite civs to play, the middle tier is a great spot for them. The UA is moderately useful, helping with early/midgame happiness problems or netting some much needed gpt esp. in the early-game; Sea Beggars are pretty cool for naval conquest and farming gold, with lots of promotions but they are melee; Polders are amazing but whether you can build them or not is luck of the draw. Also they come a little bit late in the tech tree, not abominably late but it still sometimes leaves you wishing you could build them earlier.

Regarding some other placements. I made a petition to bump Zulu up a tier (you can see the argument a page or two back), what does everyone think of that?

Also Inca. While Terrace Farms can be amazing for growth, they're also terrain dependent. Without mountains they're no better than a normal farm, and the UA alone wouldn't be enough to rank them so high. If they rolled a flat start (unlikely but still possible due to hills start bias) they have only half-price roads and the slinger to go on. A good civ for sure, but if they don't get a mountainous start their biggest bonus--the Terrace Farm--is suddenly down the drain.

And Mongols, why only Mid? I mean...Keshiks...

59saintdane said:

Also Inca. While Terrace Farms can be amazing for growth, they're also terrain dependent. Without mountains they're no better than a normal farm, and the UA alone wouldn't be enough to rank them so high. If they rolled a flat start (unlikely but still possible due to hills start bias) they have only half-price roads and the slinger to go on. A good civ for sure, but if they don't get a mountainous start their biggest bonus--the Terrace Farm--is suddenly down the drain.

Click to expand...

The start bias makes it extremely unlikely to roll no capital TF tiles, and there are always expansion mountain ranges unless the map is cooked. Even if the dirt is no good for TFs, that just means that it is likely that the dirt is very good for generic civ, which makes Inca very consistent.

America, Zulu, and Aztec need to be bumped at least a tier.

renton555 said:

America, Zulu, and Aztec need to be bumped at least a tier.

Click to expand...

+1. Haven't really played Aztec, but definitely America and Zulu.

Aztec maybe. Keep in mind that you're comparing them to every other civ above them for "generic" usefulness. (Regardless of map, victory condition, etc.)

America and Zulu have *some* advantages, but nothing compared to most of the civs above them.

Aztec however, have significant growth and culture bonuses, and these are useful for all victory conditions.

Aztec is extremely well rounded. Very strong for all victory conditions. Their only weakness is the jungle start, which can be turned into a strength if you can found a couple of jungle cities on rivers that become super-tall science powerhouses that work every specialist with secularism. The culture from kills amounts to at least a free social policy or two in the early game if you're diligent about barbs, making aztec kind of a Poland Lite, more so if you attempt to engage in some constructive wars for post NC expansion. They're strong for cultural victory also as the 15% food bonus makes your city able to work the guilds earlier than other civs.

I would put them at lower than poland or maya but probably higher than korea.


America's sight bonus is pretty great for a lot of tactical reasons, even if you aren't war mongering. The tile discount is a great synergy for liberty, which is usually a huge money sink for other civs. Zulu is probably over-rated by a lot of people but I think it deserves a bump.

I'll buy that. I feel like Aztec could be good at fighting wars of non-conquest, continuously farming culture from enemy units while taking little to no warmonger or happiness hits.

Aztec is very strong, I would put them up with the 2nd level of Arabia, Ethiopia, etc. Growth and Culture are central to everything. Their only negative is their starting bias.

Honestly though, jungles can be very good tiles once you have universities up and appropriate policies and techs researched. Your trading post jungles will be giving off 2 gold, 2 food and 3 science for a total tile yield of 7--pretty darn good.

I'm not sure how starting bias has anything to do with Universities or Trading Posts. You can nearly always find jungle to expand to later on when you actually have those things. Starting in the jungle is nearly always bad because hammers.

It's not bad its just slow to start. In a similar way, coastal start with 6 sea resources is not bad, it's just slow in the beginning. Having a capital in the jungle is a lot different than expanding your 5th city there. It will have the highest population and the national college, so the university jungle bonus will count for a lot more. And it isn't as if there aren't hills to work. They just have to be chopped to be revealed, which takes worker time.

If all slow starts were bad, then no one would go tradition over liberty.

Aztecs: one of my favourite civs to play for extra food and a faster opening of tradition. Jaguars are a nice frontline when kept up to date. Jungle start can hurt bad on deity as the AI is already ahead of you ad the slower start will do you no favours. Probably good where they are.

America: Being overrated. Easy stuff out of the way first: the B17 is of no consequence. Either you are ahead in science at the point, or you are about to lose to a spaceship. It is SO late in the tech tree that it almost never changes anything. Now, the Minuteman is a pretty good infantry UU, but an infantry UU is not going to get you any higher than mid-tier alone. The extra sight is probably the best aspect, for faster exploration and snagging an extra ruin or two. Those extra ruins could be anything from a nice early faith to a useless map of a patch of ocean. The tile buying discount I've found to be an okay bonus but nothing I've used extensively.

Zulu: very very good warmongers and literally nothing else. Given the terms of the discussion (play every start given, no re rolls, NOT Pangea) and they're not as attractive for deity play. To play domination in those circumstances you've got to plan in a mass embark and intercontinental assault. No fun.