Civ tier list?

rattlejaw said:

Assyria's excellent.

Their UA lets you commit to military buildup without falling too far behind scientifically, and if it ever runs out because you've taken the tech lead ... who cares? You've already won the game, and the UA took you there*.

I don't think they're at the absolute summit, because unlucky maps can really hurt a civ that's forced into war (and preferably early war) to benefit from its uniques, but they're a very solid civ and certainly somewhere near the top.

Also, the science penalty really doesn't matter, particularly if you manage your conquests properly. I went heavy puppet empire in my Assyria playthrough and was pulling in something like 1200 beakers per turn towards the end.


* And, frankly, if you have such a tech lead that you're getting nothing, chances are it's time to move up to a higher difficulty.

ed: Also, the building isn't amazing, but it's not bad either. It's something you can put up to house stolen writing earlier than you can afford to put up amphitheatres, and the XP boost is okay. 3 x XP building + Autocracy + Library = 70 XP out the gate. That may seem like a bit of a waste considering you need only 60 to get the third promotion, but let's say, for kicks, that you also get Brandenburg Gate (either built or stolen) -- your newly built units are now considerably closer to a fourth promotion, particularly if you've gone Honour somewhere along the way.

ed2: Math. Not my strong point.

Click to expand...

Hm... Yeah, I am still back down to Emperor to test out the new mechanics of BNW, my game with Assyria somehow sucked, even though I outteched everyone by far... Should really move up to Immortal again, or even Diety, because BNW seems so easy now. Maybe I will have to play a few more games on Immortal or Diety with them.

Maybe Celts would be lower tier, but lets not forget that they have a UB that gives 3 happiness per city. I've heard people say that it came to late in GnK, but in BNW there is no such thing as "too late" when it comes to happiness.

PDMX said:

Assyria: Assyria has a great unique unit, but the unique ability is situational, because once you outteched your neighbor, you get nothing out of it. However you can fully focus on one part of the tech tree, while constantly filling up the other side through conquest, but the 5% science penalty will hit you pretty soon. So you get a free tech, but you will get all future techs even slower. This makes the unique ability a truly double edged sword. The unique building is rather poor, because there are more than enough slots for great works of writing available in the early game due to Amphitheaters. The royal library does not offer anything else, except that additional GW slot.

Click to expand...

For the Assyria UA. You still get the tech if you raze whatever you capture as long as you take a city you will get a tech and you won't need to take a tech penalty just because you are burning down everything near you.

Royal library is 10 XP which all your military units in domination need. It brings them closer to those levels they need right off the bat and I find it pretty valuable. It's writing slot isn't that valuable but all the free XP you can get is nice when domination is the goal. If you do manage to fill up writing slots I guess the little tiny bit extra can help since you just want to lower your unhappiness penalty you get for culture when you take autocracy.

When I played Assyria I turned the world into a fireball of burning cities and didn't suffer a bigger tech penalty then anyone else going for domination would suffer from it.

JustinianIV said:

Maybe Celts would be lower tier, but lets not forget that they have a UB that gives 3 happiness per city. I've heard people say that it came to late in GnK, but in BNW there is no such thing as "too late" when it comes to happiness.

Click to expand...

Their UU is also pretty cool.

It's just a weak UA

PDMX said:

Hm... Yeah, I am still back down to Emperor to test out the new mechanics of BNW, my game with Assyria somehow sucked, even though I outteched everyone by far... Should really move up to Immortal again, or even Diety, because BNW seems so easy now. Maybe I will have to play a few more games on Immortal or Diety with them.

Click to expand...

They are better then because it's harder to constantly beat the AI in tech in diety.

This game has way too many situational things for a tier list to matter. Even the one listed earlier is about pangea. Ottoman is weakened big time by a pangea but on a small continents archipelago you get to see his near infinite navy make him dangerous.

Difficulty also effects it or start conditions and amount of AI's some people just work better with as many other players as possible. Sweden with 22 people on the map can get a maximum of 210% increase to the great people spawning using his UA. Siam on a large map with 42 City States can end the game with insane food bonuses all around.

Spain and it's dice tier? The Huns on small maps?

There just isn't enough of a general case on this map. You can have some that are generally weaker and some that are generally stronger but the rules aren't as hard due to all the variables.

TIER 1
Babylon
Korea
Assyria
China
Inca

TIER 2
Persia
Arabia
Maya
Poland
Siam

TIER 3
Shoshone
Austria
Carthage
Polynesia
Aztec
Rome

TIER 4
Portugal
Dutch
English
Ethiopia
France
Venice

TIER 5
Brazil
Byzantine
Morocco
Greek
Celt

TIER 6
Huns
Ottoman
Mongol
Iroquois
Zulu

TIER 7
Egyptian
Sweden
Indonesia
Songhai
America

TIER OH DEAR
Russia
Denmark
German
Japan
India


TIER WTF!?
Spain

God tier:

Arabia
Babylon
Greek
Korea
Maya

Click to expand...

To me, that's the definitive list, one that I had long believed. I do not know how the BNW civs fit in, though.

JustinianIV said:

Maybe Celts would be lower tier, but lets not forget that they have a UB that gives 3 happiness per city. I've heard people say that it came to late in GnK, but in BNW there is no such thing as "too late" when it comes to happiness.

Click to expand...

I tried Celts on Immortal. It was... meh. They're clearly not on Egypt's level anymore. The UA is just a pure early game bonus that lets you have a competitive religion even while going tradition/liberty. Forests are a pretty bad start bias (probably second worst to tundra) and your cities will have trouble growing in the early game . The happiness bonus is still too late. It's not that improved from G&K. The problem with the Celts is that it doesn't do anything particularly well. Frankly, France/Brazil or even India will have better/comparable culture games. It's not a good sign when one of your closest comparison civs is India (I'd give the edge to Celts, but it's no longer a wtf? sentiment).

On lower difficulties, Celts are even worse relatively-speaking.

top tier:
arabia
germany
babylon
persia
ottomans
rome
china
brazil
poland
assyria
mid tiers:
france
aztec
siam
mongolia
england
potugal
greece
songhai
morroco
shoshone
india
ethiopia
lower tier:
ethiopia
iroquis
egypt
indonesia
japan
russia
venice
zulu
america

God Tier
Korea (Pure Science w/Rationalism)
Babylon (Walls of Babylon, Science Based UA)
Venice (So much Gold!)
India (The happiest of the Tallest Civs)
English (On Water Maps they are brutal, English Longbowman, Ships of the Line)
Polynesia (On Water Maps they are brutal)
Ethiopia (Stele is incredible)
Shoshone (Land-grabbier than America)
Siam (City States FTW)
Germany (Amazing Puppet Empires, Steal Barbs, Hanse)
Zulu (Impis)

Playable Tier
Assyria (Siege Towers too conditional, and War Stealing Techs means Warmonger Penalties)
Arabia (Venice’s less powerful cousin)
Poland (slightly faster SP’s don’t thrill me)
Greece (if pursuing Diplomatic Victory)
Austria (Venice’s other less powerful cousin)
China (Paper Makers and Cho-Ko-Nus)
Dutch (Sea Beggar is brutal on Water Maps)
Morocco (bit too dependent on Desert Tiles for my taste)
Portugal (Feitora and Nau make them borderline Playable/Trash for me)
America (reduced cost Tiles fits my play-style, even though I should waste Gold like that)
Aztec (generic Warmonger Civ with Culture for Warmongering isn’t bad)
Celt (Ethiopia’s less powerful Faith cousin)
Indonesia (only UU with a negative ability, Unique resources are nice though)
Ottoman (only useful on Water Maps, but even then not optimal)

Trash Tier
Maya (meh)
Brazil (too dependent on Golden Ages)
Byzantium (England’s less powerful Sea Cousin)
Carthage (meh)
Egypt (good for nothing but Wonder Spamming)
France (meh)
Inca (Hill Bias gets me in trouble more than it helps)
Iroquois (meh)
Persia (too dependent on Golden Ages)
Rome (generic Warmonger Civ)
Spain (Conquistador sounds great, but isn’t)
Danish (generic Water Warmonger Civ)
Huns (generic Warmonger Civ)
Japan (too dependent on Iron for Samurai)
Mongol (generic Warmonger Civ)

Just my thoughts, and certainly I am open to discussion on my opinions on any Civ.

DarkestOnion said:

God Tier
Korea (Pure Science w/Rationalism)
Babylon (Walls of Babylon, Science Based UA)
Venice (So much Gold!)
India (The happiest of the Tallest Civs)
English (On Water Maps they are brutal, English Longbowman, Ships of the Line)
Polynesia (On Water Maps they are brutal)
Ethiopia (Stele is incredible)
Shoshone (Land-grabbier than America)
Siam (City States FTW)
Germany (Amazing Puppet Empires, Steal Barbs, Hanse)
Zulu (Impis)

Playable Tier
Assyria (Siege Towers too conditional, and War Stealing Techs means Warmonger Penalties)
Arabia (Venice’s less powerful cousin)
Poland (slightly faster SP’s don’t thrill me)
Greece (if pursuing Diplomatic Victory)
Austria (Venice’s other less powerful cousin)
China (Paper Makers and Cho-Ko-Nus)
Dutch (Sea Beggar is brutal on Water Maps)
Morocco (bit too dependent on Desert Tiles for my taste)
Portugal (Feitora and Nau make them borderline Playable/Trash for me)
America (reduced cost Tiles fits my play-style, even though I should waste Gold like that)
Aztec (generic Warmonger Civ with Culture for Warmongering isn’t bad)
Celt (Ethiopia’s less powerful Faith cousin)
Indonesia (only UU with a negative ability, Unique resources are nice though)
Ottoman (only useful on Water Maps, but even then not optimal)

Trash Tier
Maya (meh)
Brazil (too dependent on Golden Ages)
Byzantium (England’s less powerful Sea Cousin)
Carthage (meh)
Egypt (good for nothing but Wonder Spamming)
France (meh)
Inca (Hill Bias gets me in trouble more than it helps)
Iroquois (meh)
Persia (too dependent on Golden Ages)
Rome (generic Warmonger Civ)
Spain (Conquistador sounds great, but isn’t)
Danish (generic Water Warmonger Civ)
Huns (generic Warmonger Civ)
Japan (too dependent on Iron for Samurai)
Mongol (generic Warmonger Civ)

Just my thoughts, and certainly I am open to discussion on my opinions on any Civ.

Click to expand...

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

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.

DarkestOnion said:

God Tier
Korea (Pure Science w/Rationalism)
Babylon (Walls of Babylon, Science Based UA)
Venice (So much Gold!).
India (The happiest of the Tallest Civs)
English (On Water Maps they are brutal, English Longbowman, Ships of the Line)
Polynesia (On Water Maps they are brutal)
Ethiopia (Stele is incredible)
Shoshone (Land-grabbier than America)
Siam (City States FTW)
Germany (Amazing Puppet Empires, Steal Barbs, Hanse)
Zulu (Impis)

Playable Tier
Assyria (Siege Towers too conditional, and War Stealing Techs means Warmonger Penalties)
Arabia (Venice’s less powerful cousin)
Poland (slightly faster SP’s don’t thrill me)
Greece (if pursuing Diplomatic Victory)
Austria (Venice’s other less powerful cousin)
China (Paper Makers and Cho-Ko-Nus)
Dutch (Sea Beggar is brutal on Water Maps)
Morocco (bit too dependent on Desert Tiles for my taste)
Portugal (Feitora and Nau make them borderline Playable/Trash for me)
America (reduced cost Tiles fits my play-style, even though I should waste Gold like that)
Aztec (generic Warmonger Civ with Culture for Warmongering isn’t bad)
Celt (Ethiopia’s less powerful Faith cousin)
Indonesia (only UU with a negative ability, Unique resources are nice though)
Ottoman (only useful on Water Maps, but even then not optimal)

Trash Tier
Maya (meh)
Brazil (too dependent on Golden Ages)
Byzantium (England’s less powerful Sea Cousin)
Carthage (meh)
Egypt (good for nothing but Wonder Spamming)
France (meh)
Inca (Hill Bias gets me in trouble more than it helps)
Iroquois (meh)
Persia (too dependent on Golden Ages)
Rome (generic Warmonger Civ)
Spain (Conquistador sounds great, but isn’t)
Danish (generic Water Warmonger Civ)
Huns (generic Warmonger Civ)
Japan (too dependent on Iron for Samurai)
Mongol (generic Warmonger Civ)

Just my thoughts, and certainly I am open to discussion on my opinions on any Civ.

Click to expand...

-Egypt is not trash tier guys. lol ... just play them and see out for yourself. Egypt is either god-tier, or simply tier 2.
Egypt is like civilized version of Huns... similar style unique unit for early war, except Egypt gets wonder boost, and happyness boost (where as Huns get unique unit and hammer boost early game)

-Neither is Mongolia trash tier, IMO... If you put Arabia into god-tier. Then automatically that makes Mongolia, at least, mediocre tier.

-Maya used to be god-tier. They are no longer in modern patch of BNW...
In earlier versions, like G&K, they still are god-tier. However, in modern version of BNW- Maya was heavily nerfed . Their unique ability was changed so that it always resets the great person counter (the Mayan great person is NO LONGER free - unlike Poland's FREE social policies).
In earlier versions, Mayan great person was free, but no longer. This came as a surprise to me since I haven't played them since a long time. But, Maya is still probably between mediocre tier and tier 2.

These lists just prove how often people play the actual civ. Sounds like they play it once or twice, don't really understand it and so therefor call it trash. Inca and Aztec on a trash list? WTF?!?

Sweden is another good example as I see it on several "trash" lists. Sweden is a top tier civ for 3 reasons

1. Always has a "Get out of jail card". With GP donations you can always sneak out a DV. Just need enough science to get you to globalization and it's pretty much a win.
2. Peaceful games almost as good as Babylon. Got 5 DoF? That's 50% bonus to GP generation. Great for science or culture victory. Realistically you are probably only going to have 1-3 friends after ideology but that's still a nice bonus.
3. Good for war too. Again GP donation will help gain influence help war with neighbors and you get a rifleman with free March. The Hakka isn't shabby either.

I really haven't met a civ I consider trash. Some are more map dependent than others like Polynesia, Spain and Indonesia but they are still good civs. I might have not liked a civ initially but then I read on how others play it to understand the strengths I come around to really liking it. A good example is Denmark, I didn't understand these guys at all until I watched someone own with them. The free pillaging means you can really setback your neighbors early progress with just a scout. Once you get a few zerkers you can just keep those tiles perma razed.

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...

You hit the nail on the head. I didn't even notice the Polynesia part, as I was to busy being upset with the rest of the list

If a civ has a * next to it, that civ is on a higher tier when dealing with Pangaea and other land-heavy maps.
If a civ has a ^ next to it, that civ is on a higher tier when dealing with Archipelago and other water-heavy maps

Basically:

God Tier = Will almost always win. These civs have such powerful advantages, it's insane.
High Tier = Great civs, might be worse in certain situations, but are in general almost always good picks.
Upper Mid Tier = Good civs that might be either overspecialized or too unfocussed, or need certain starts to work.
Lower Mid Tier = Decent civs that have a few downsides to prevent them from being truly good, but if the dice roll works out, they can do very well.
Low Tier = Civs that aren't trash, but don't offer enough to justify picking them over pretty much any other civ, really.
Bottom Tier = The worst. Sure, they can win the game, but whatever job they want to do, another civ is almost always better at it.
Gamble Tier = Spain


God Tier:
Babylon
Korea
Poland
The Maya

These are the only four who will always, no matter the maptype, dominate the game. Three of the four have science bonuses, which are huge, though the stronger the scientific bonus, the lower the flexibility. Poland gets a free oracle each era. That says enough.

High Tier:
Arabia *
England ^
Ethiopia
Celts
China
Egypt
Inca
Shoshone

From here on, let's go by them one by one. Arabia is a dominating force and will have a lot of gold, but on watery maps they'll find their Camel Archers less powerful, and their UA becomes worse. England is great in Deity for spy-tech-catchup. They hold themselves well on land with 2-range-gatlings in the late game, and on the sea they obviously rule. Ethiopia and the Celts are both here for flexibility granted by near-guaranteed religion. China has a stronger early game, has a powerful UU and in general is among the best of the warmongers. Egypt is flexible due to free happiness building - a rare commodity - and they can attempt wonders other civs won't dream about. The Inca are near-god-tier due to their massive cities in locations others won't dream of building, combined with army flexibility. The Shoshone have the best early game of all civs, leading to snowballing advantages.


Upper Mid Tier:
Mongolia *
Rome
Siam
Venice
Morocco *
Aztecs
Persia

Mongolia does one thing good but it does it SO good, they're pretty high up, but they falter on water maps. Rome is flexible and can get sattelite cities up to snuff easily. Siam's huge benefits from CS's helps them go various directions depending on what they find. Venice will have all the gold to do whatever it wants, but is on the vulnerable side. Morocco is defensive, rich, but not very exciting. The Aztecs can have gargantuan cities even without lakes, and will be able to get quick culture through barbarian farming. Finally Persia is the definition of a boring but effective civ. They're not bad at anything. At all.

Lower Mid Tier:
Netherlands
Portugal
Zulu *
Greece
Sweden
Austria
Assyria *
Huns *
Russia

Netherlands are the best at early wealth, but they do need specific terrain for their other strengths to come into play, however they can settle inhospitable marshlands. Portugal is rich, but not nearly as much as Venice and also doesn't have any other true strengths. The Zulu are a warmonger through and through, but the Impi isnt as effective as a Keshik. Hence Mongolia > Them. Greece's gold saving through not spending it on CS isn't as big as you'd think and their UU's are useless. Sweden requires a specific gameplan and has an annoying starting bias, but they can be oh so explosive. Austria is hampered by needing a few turns before CS annexation and a poor UU, but their UB does help, keeping them decent. Assyria wants to be an early warmonger, just like the huns, and they're certainly good at what they do, but early warmongering is frowned upon especially in the lategame. Russia is all about exploiting that extra production and some gold from trading away early iron/horses, as well having larger borders, but they aren't as flexible as top-tier civs.


Low Tier
France
Polynesia ^^^^^^
America
Brazil
Carthage
Germany
Indonesia ^
Japan ^
Songhai

France may have a decent culture game, but it comes into play late, leaving them vulnerable. Chateaus dont seem to yield enough either. Polynesia is ONLY good on very heavy water based maps, otherwise they're kinda crappy. America is the definition of a vanilla civ, but they have a few useful tricks at least. Brazil has a very slow start to the point of being tedious, but they can blow you out with sudden huge tourism. Carthage has early game gold, larger trade routes...and once other civs reach navigation they're bad again. Germany's Hanse is their saving grace, but you can't trade with other civs if you want to abuse it, nor run the usual better internal trade routes. Indonesia's Candi is a good building and if you can settle some other lands you're in good shape, but they're too map-reliant. Japan wants a coastal start with Iron to do anything, but if you do have some sea resources, it's smooth sailing. Songhai, finally, has good bonuses at it's core - they're just not strong enough each on their own.


Bottom Tier
Denmark
Iroquis
Byzantium
India
Ottomans ^

Denmark is great...at a gameplan that BNW doesn't appreciate. Ski Infantry is in contention for worst UU, too. The Iroquis have the distinction of having the only UB that's worse then the building it replaces, along with a meh UU and an UA that is too restricted. Byzantium would've been great if they just had any form of faith-producing bonus...ANYWHERE. Dromons are nice for sniping though. India was once the definite bottom of the barrel, but with one HIGHLY specific playstyle, you can grow some massive cities...and that's it. The Ottomans finally are build to be pure warmongers, but Privateers already have their UA (And earlier ships don't do much warmongering anyway), and their UU's, while decent, won't carry them the entire game.

Gamble Tier:
Spain

Find Uluru, Siri Pada, Great Barrier Reaf, Lake Victoria, Mt. Kailash, Mt. Fuji, El Dorado, King Solomon's Mines or Fountain of Youth in settleable distance? You're God Tier. If not? Well, Conquistadors are still a decent unit and a way to still get those wonders.

Loucypher -- I think you have a very solid list there, but I wouldn't say Arabia is God Tier on Pangea, which is what you're claiming.

I'd personally say they're pretty close to it. Perhaps I should rephrase, civs with a * preform better on Pangaea and such and probably worse on Archipelago, and vice versa for ^. But that's open for interpretation.

5 turns for annexing a CS is nothing. How often do you lose an ally after 5 turns? They are late game dominant. Austria btw

Loucypher said:

I'd personally say they're pretty close to it. Perhaps I should rephrase, civs with a * preform better on Pangaea and such and probably worse on Archipelago, and vice versa for ^. But that's open for interpretation.

Click to expand...

Interior trade routes are often so important for growth that I find Arabia's ability doesn't necessarily come into play. Obviously, with Arabia you'll be more likely to make them external but I don't find the advantage to be humongous.

TheGrumpyBuddha said:

Interior trade routes are often so important for growth that I find Arabia's ability doesn't necessarily come into play. Obviously, with Arabia you'll be more likely to make them external but I don't find the advantage to be humongous.

Click to expand...

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

Really depends on Level. I play Deity, and there's a great thread for Deity already. At lower levels, Egypt is very easy to play - just wonder spam.