BNW Deity Tier List

Slow and bad are Civ synonyms. If you start Aztec in jungle and another Aztec in plains with everything else being equal, the jungle start will fall behind and never catch up. +50% from NC boosts jungle beakers by a total of 1 per tile, which is insignificant.

In your previous post you said that the jungle start was a weakness yourself, and in my previous post I said that all things considered Aztec are an extremely strong civ, so I don't know why you two insist on arguing over this.

Also, Tradition is faster than Liberty, so I'm not sure where that came from.
 
I think England should be higher. Also the Huns' should be higher too because their unique unit is excellent for early rushes as it does not require horses to build and the production boost from pastures and free animal husbandry tech is nice too.
 
Maybe it's time for a reminder on what the categories are. I'm deliberately ignoring the "Top" and "Bottom" tiers for the time being, and leaving out which Civs are where for the moment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upper Tier: these civs are great, they are guaranteed to have good starts and/or can salvage bad ones.

Upper-Mid Tier: these civs are very good, they can be as good as upper tier civs under most circumstances.

Middle Tier: these civs are good, they have solid bonuses, or strong bonuses that are sometimes affected by factors outside of their control. They will often not perform at the level of upper tier civs.

Lower-Mid Tier: these civs are pretty good, they either have overall mediocre bonuses or ones which are strongly reliant on factors outside of their control. Rarely will they perform at the level of upper tier civs.

Lower Tier: these civs are decent, they have bonuses that are unspectacular, or extremely burdensome to manage. On average they still work well enough to be considered "balanced".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Reading that over, I read that as "Upper", "Middle", and "Low". Upper Civs are guaranteed to have a strong game - their starts are going to be strong (e.g. Arabia) and/or their exact start isn't that important because their nice bonus doesn't really depend on it. (e.g. Celts, Ethiopia). These Civs are always going to be solid contenders for the player as you will never really be in a bad spot.

Next comes the Middle tier, and it's subdivided into three parts based mostly on how likely they are to do as well as the tier above them. Upper-Middle will be that good more often than not - their bonuses are solid and usually work, but they can sometimes get boned by terrain (think Rome, with a weak Capital location). Next comes the Middle-Middle; their bonuses are again solid and can let them compete with the Upper tier, but are less likely to happen (Think Netherlands - amazing with Flood Plains or Marsh, unremarkable without. Think Aztecs - with a good Lake they have amazing Food, or with some Production they do really well, otherwise struggle in the jungle). After that is the Low-Middle: their bonuses will occasionally let them perform at the level of those Upper, but that's unlikely (Think Sweden - if he escapes the Tundra start, he's great. Otherwise, not so good).

Finally is Low tier. With a solid start, these Civs will be decent, but otherwise will just not hold up well. A lucky India will be able to grow some big cities and do all right for himself, but he'll never be a powerhouse. Okay, but just never the best.

Top and Bottom tiers don't really fit into the above discussion: they're almost totally off the curve in their respective directions. Top Tier is so good that it doesn't matter what start they get. You could stick Babylon in a flat, dry Plains start and it would be almost entirely irrelevant - he'd still be competing like an Upper tier. In the other direction, the Iroquois almost need an in-game editor to give them an advantage by covering the world in trees, and it still wouldn't give them the kind of bonuses the Upper tier enjoy regularly.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Okay, now that that's said...

America needs a GOOD start and is screwed without it. Washington's extra sight can't find him something that's not there - seeing ruins first hinges on there being a bunch of ruins in his vicinity right away. No guarantees there. Otherwise, regular scouts do an adequate job of spotting city sites and such. In wartime, it's a convenience for spotting for artillery. In real warfare, seeing farther would mean something. In Civ, it's far less important. About the tile buying discount: I have a hard time justifying any gold on tile purchasing early-on, when the discount matters most. I've got Libraries, Granaries, and Units to pull together before I fall behind in growth, tech, or army. The B17 is irrelevant. The military game is either won or lost by the time Radar comes online - the difference between B17s and Bombers isn't really important vs. the AI anyway. The Minuteman is cool, but one decent infantry unit doesn't justify promotion out of "Lower" to me.

The Aztecs are right where they belong. Lakes and/or decent Production Jungle starts aren't all that common. Get either/or and Montezuma's laughing all the way to the endgame. Get neither and you're at a disadvantage, because you can't build <snip> to get out of early game, fall behind, and suffer against the AI.

The Netherlands are fine too - like I said above: get a good start for the Polder and things are great for William of Orange. Fail to get a good start for it and you've got a much smaller bag of tricks. The Sea Beggar is a very strong version of the Naval unit that doesn't do the heavy lifting in Naval warfare. The Dutch East India Company is a small but reliable early game bonus.

Moderator Action: Please do not try to avoid the autocensor.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
All the Aztecs get out of a lake tile is 4 food, right? It's nice to have access to that as early as The Wheel, but really they don't need lakes, they just need any fresh water to build their UB, the real power of which comes from the +15% food bonus, which lets them grow cities taller than pretty much anyone else and combines absurdly well with the fact that Aztecs can finish Tradition faster than almost anybody. It's true they will have a slow start if there are no hammers around their capital but they can survive it and the presence or absence of a lake isn't a gamebreaker unless there are a lot of lake tiles.
 
Maybe it's time for a reminder on what the categories are. I'm deliberately ignoring the "Top" and "Bottom" tiers for the time being, and leaving out which Civs are where for the moment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upper Tier: these civs are great, they are guaranteed to have good starts and/or can salvage bad ones.

Upper-Mid Tier: these civs are very good, they can be as good as upper tier civs under most circumstances.

Middle Tier: these civs are good, they have solid bonuses, or strong bonuses that are sometimes affected by factors outside of their control. They will often not perform at the level of upper tier civs.

Lower-Mid Tier: these civs are pretty good, they either have overall mediocre bonuses or ones which are strongly reliant on factors outside of their control. Rarely will they perform at the level of upper tier civs.

Lower Tier: these civs are decent, they have bonuses that are unspectacular, or extremely burdensome to manage. On average they still work well enough to be considered "balanced".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Reading that over, I read that as "Upper", "Middle", and "Low". Upper Civs are guaranteed to have a strong game - their starts are going to be strong (e.g. Arabia) and/or their exact start isn't that important because their nice bonus doesn't really depend on it. (e.g. Celts, Ethiopia). These Civs are always going to be solid contenders for the player as you will never really be in a bad spot.

Next comes the Middle tier, and it's subdivided into three parts based mostly on how likely they are to do as well as the tier above them. Upper-Middle will be that good more often than not - their bonuses are solid and usually work, but they can sometimes get boned by terrain (think Rome, with a weak Capital location). Next comes the Middle-Middle; their bonuses are again solid and can let them compete with the Upper tier, but are less likely to happen (Think Netherlands - amazing with Flood Plains or Marsh, unremarkable without. Think Aztecs - with a good Lake they have amazing Food, or with some Production they do really well, otherwise struggle in the jungle). After that is the Low-Middle: their bonuses will occasionally let them perform at the level of those Upper, but that's unlikely (Think Sweden - if he escapes the Tundra start, he's great. Otherwise, not so good).

Finally is Low tier. With a solid start, these Civs will be decent, but otherwise will just not hold up well. A lucky India will be able to grow some big cities and do all right for himself, but he'll never be a powerhouse. Okay, but just never the best.

Top and Bottom tiers don't really fit into the above discussion: they're almost totally off the curve in their respective directions. Top Tier is so good that it doesn't matter what start they get. You could stick Babylon in a flat, dry Plains start and it would be almost entirely irrelevant - he'd still be competing like an Upper tier. In the other direction, the Iroquois almost need an in-game editor to give them an advantage by covering the world in trees, and it still wouldn't give them the kind of bonuses the Upper tier enjoy regularly.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Okay, now that that's said...

America needs a GOOD start and is screwed without it. Washington's extra sight can't find him something that's not there - seeing ruins first hinges on there being a bunch of ruins in his vicinity right away. No guarantees there. Otherwise, regular scouts do an adequate job of spotting city sites and such. In wartime, it's a convenience for spotting for artillery. In real warfare, seeing farther would mean something. In Civ, it's far less important. About the tile buying discount: I have a hard time justifying any gold on tile purchasing early-on, when the discount matters most. I've got Libraries, Granaries, and Units to pull together before I fall behind in growth, tech, or army. The B17 is irrelevant. The military game is either won or lost by the time Radar comes online - the difference between B17s and Bombers isn't really important vs. the AI anyway. The Minuteman is cool, but one decent infantry unit doesn't justify promotion out of "Lower" to me.

The Aztecs are right where they belong. Lakes and/or decent Production Jungle starts aren't all that common. Get either/or and Montezuma's laughing all the way to the endgame. Get neither and you're at a disadvantage, because you can't build <snip> to get out of early game, fall behind, and suffer against the AI.

The Netherlands are fine too - like I said above: get a good start for the Polder and things are great for William of Orange. Fail to get a good start for it and you've got a much smaller bag of tricks. The Sea Beggar is a very strong version of the Naval unit that doesn't do the heavy lifting in Naval warfare. The Dutch East India Company is a small but reliable early game bonus.

I agree with your post, except with your analysis of the Aztecs. The Jungle start is inconvenient but the culture and growth are very strong and consistent. You don't actually need a lake for the FG, any fresh water will do. 15% base food is an overwhelming advantage that will catch Aztecs up to any civ but Poland.

Under the stated definitions, they deserve upper-mid tier. (2nd highest tier)
 
Likewise Sweden deserve Upper Mid because even with a tundra start they often get enough food and hammers, plus their UA is better than any of the other Mid-tier civs mentioned.

What is the deal with Rome? Their UA is meh, and their uniques are effective for such a short time on Deity. Upper Low at best, IMO.
 
I agree with your post, except with your analysis of the Aztecs. The Jungle start is inconvenient but the culture and growth are very strong and consistent. You don't actually need a lake for the FG, any fresh water will do. 15% base food is an overwhelming advantage that will catch Aztecs up to any civ but Poland.

Under the stated definitions, they deserve upper-mid tier.

All the Aztecs get out of a lake tile is 4 food, right? It's nice to have access to that as early as The Wheel, but really they don't need lakes, they just need any fresh water to build their UB, the real power of which comes from the +15% food bonus, which lets them grow cities taller than pretty much anyone else and combines absurdly well with the fact that Aztecs can finish Tradition faster than almost anybody. It's true they will have a slow start if there are no hammers around their capital but they can survive it and the presence or absence of a lake isn't a gamebreaker unless there are a lot of lake tiles.

Yes, the lake tiles aren't a necessity. I do appreciate how crazy good the 15% more food is too; work 5 4food tiles and three more food magically appears! To me, the UA is more about front loading social policies more than getting many more: it's probably about 1-3 more depending on kills. The Jaguar is good synergy with the UA to get Tradition done very fast.

It's just a big "if" in the production column. Stealing workers is almost a necessity and taking more than one from city states is a huge impact - this means very difficult bullying or very early wars.

I can maybe support a single-tier bump just for raw food and tradition completion, but I'm not fully convinced. The if factor is still quite high.

Likewise Sweden deserve Upper Mid because even with a tundra start they often get enough food and hammers, plus their UA is better than any of the other Mid-tier civs mentioned.

What is the deal with Rome? Their UA is meh, and their uniques are effective for such a short time on Deity. Upper Low at best, IMO.

Tundra starts are really wretched - My experience is that it's hard when you can't get the 4 food of civil service farms or even the 3 food 1 production of civil service plains farms. You're playing down an apple or a hammer, assuming you have a river to farm next to. Deer are okay but getting more than 2 by the capital is lucky.

The UA is better than "meh", try it out. 25% more production to your satellite cities is really big when played right. For every 4 buildings you pop out it's saving you enough hammers to squeeze in an extra unit. Meanwhile the Legion helps get your road net online faster and is very strong, stronger than pikemen.
 
Yes, the lake tiles aren't a necessity. I do appreciate how crazy good the 15% more food is too; work 5 4food tiles and three more food magically appears! To me, the UA is more about front loading social policies more than getting many more: it's probably about 1-3 more depending on kills. The Jaguar is good synergy with the UA to get Tradition done very fast.

I feel that this is actually underselling how good the building is when that +15% base food is stacked with other food and growth bonuses, like the ones in tradition, and how early it comes, and how the Aztecs get access to bonuses like Tradition's free aqueducts faster than most. The synergy is very good and the bonuses are pretty consistent, dependent only on fresh water. Yes, stealing workers can mean very early wars, but the Aztecs have a warrior UU and get culture from kills. Early war lets you finish Tradition faster which lets you grow faster. You don't need many units to wage early war because Jaguars dominate in the jungle and because you are only concerned with kills and worker steals, not with taking cities.

As for how much use you get out of the UA throughout the remainder of the game that's entirely up to you.

I think the Aztecs are better than all of the civs listed as "Upper-Mid Tier" except for England and China, so I guess that is where I would stick them.
 
Tundra starts are really wretched - My experience is that it's hard when you can't get the 4 food of civil service farms or even the 3 food 1 production of civil service plains farms. You're playing down an apple or a hammer, assuming you have a river to farm next to. Deer are okay but getting more than 2 by the capital is lucky.

Three deer is doable depending on your city placement. Also you can usually spend 4 turns moving out of really wretched Tundra if its that big of a detrator. I think Sweden is equivalent to Russia (who also has Tundra Bias) the OP doesn't because he values strategics at a flat 2 gpt. It's been my experience that selling all of your luxuries when you are Russia is a fairly difficult proposition. I value them at 1-1.5gpt even though you can sell them sometimes for 2gpt.
 
I don't think some people understand just how insane the Aztecs UB is. The 15% growth bonus is actually better than it seems. The multipliers are added from base food instead of surplus food, unlike all other growth bonuses, (except ToA) so the extra food is much higher than usual.
 
Likewise Sweden deserve Upper Mid because even with a tundra start they often get enough food and hammers, plus their UA is better than any of the other Mid-tier civs mentioned.

What is the deal with Rome? Their UA is meh, and their uniques are effective for such a short time on Deity. Upper Low at best, IMO.

Sweden and Songhai establish a very similar CS/Warmonger cycle, where one buys allies with city loot and the other does so with extra generals, writers, and musicians. Songhai has +2 gold and culture per city and doesn't have the tundra start, though. Sweden's UU's balance that out quite a bit. I would rate them very similarly, and the upper tiers are already too crowded.

Yes, the lake tiles aren't a necessity. I do appreciate how crazy good the 15% more food is too; work 5 4food tiles and three more food magically appears! To me, the UA is more about front loading social policies more than getting many more: it's probably about 1-3 more depending on kills. The Jaguar is good synergy with the UA to get Tradition done very fast.

It's just a big "if" in the production column. Stealing workers is almost a necessity and taking more than one from city states is a huge impact - this means very difficult bullying or very early wars.

I can maybe support a single-tier bump just for raw food and tradition completion, but I'm not fully convinced. The if factor is still quite high.

You should be able to steal at least 1 worker from a CS and 1 more from a neighbor in 99% of games. You can steal more from the CS if you decline to make peace immediately. The AI will very rarely march on your cities, they usually just mind their own business once you leave their sight radius and offer you crappy peace deals until the military scores equalize.

Production problems will put your early BO behind by some number of turns, but eventually the jungle will be cleared out and you'll be sitting on 15% base apples for the rest of the game, which as you know scales hammers, beakers, and gold simultaneously. That growth will eventually slingshot Aztec past the equivalent empires of nearly any other civ. Growth is king, after all.

I made an error in my last post, where I referenced the tiers in your post and did not notice that they are not the same as the tier designations in the OP (which add "top" above "upper" and "bottom" below "lower." Using the definitions of the OP, I mean to advocate Aztec for "upper" tier, at least equal and probably superior to Ethiopia/Celt/Siam/Shoshone and certainly Austria. In all honesty I thought that is where they already were, or at least, that is where they are on most other tier lists. I guess I had not read the OP carefully enough to notice, or I would have raised this issue earlier.
 
America needs a GOOD start and is screwed without it. Washington's extra sight can't find him something that's not there - seeing ruins first hinges on there being a bunch of ruins in his vicinity right away. No guarantees there. Otherwise, regular scouts do an adequate job of spotting city sites and such. In wartime, it's a convenience for spotting for artillery. In real warfare, seeing farther would mean something. In Civ, it's far less important. About the tile buying discount: I have a hard time justifying any gold on tile purchasing early-on, when the discount matters most. I've got Libraries, Granaries, and Units to pull together before I fall behind in growth, tech, or army. The B17 is irrelevant. The military game is either won or lost by the time Radar comes online - the difference between B17s and Bombers isn't really important vs. the AI anyway. The Minuteman is cool, but one decent infantry unit doesn't justify promotion out of "Lower" to me.

I'd argue the opposite. Not to retread the tradition vs liberty debate, but IMO the main value of going liberty, and why I choose it over tradition in 60+ percent of deity games I play, is that it sort of guarantees a good start. It's easier to get 4 cities up, with a few archers, a national college before turn 85-90 and universities by 110-120 if you go liberty. Going tradition pushes those time tables back, but you get mid-late game growth snowballing benefits for that. And I think the tile buying bonus helps to mitigate one of the major crappy things about going liberty, that you have to buy border expansions a lot. Yeah, its a pretty worthless UA if you always go tradition.

Also, I think you are glossing over the broad benefits of the +1 sight advantage. It aids in scouting early scouting, allowing you to get more ruins and meet more CS in fewer moves. It also makes it a bit easier for you to see invading forces in time to bribe AI's. It's extremely beneficial to warfare, not just spotting for artillery but also for knowing when to push your army farther into enemy territory without risk of loss. It's difficult to quantify the exact value of the +1 sight advantage, but it's more than you're making it out to be. Washington is a strong renaissance-industrial era warmonger, and doesn't belong on the crap tier with denmark and ottomans.




The Aztecs are right where they belong. Lakes and/or decent Production Jungle starts aren't all that common. Get either/or and Montezuma's laughing all the way to the endgame. Get neither and you're at a disadvantage, because you can't build sh*t to get out of early game, fall behind, and suffer against the AI.

All monty needs is 2 or 3 cities on rivers. And the UA is extremely good. The only thing I don't like about Aztec is that I'm always frustrated with city placement because the river adjacency is so important that I have to sometimes settling in otherwise suboptimal locations, but this only speaks to the overpowered nature of the UB.
 
I'd argue the opposite. Not to retread the tradition vs liberty debate, but IMO the main value of going liberty, and why I choose it over tradition in 60+ percent of deity games I play, is that it sort of guarantees a good start. It's easier to get 4 cities up, with a few archers, a national college before turn 85-90 and universities by 110-120 if you go liberty. Going tradition pushes those time tables back, but you get mid-late game growth snowballing benefits for that. And I think the tile buying bonus helps to mitigate one of the major crappy things about going liberty, that you have to buy border expansions a lot. Yeah, its a pretty worthless UA if you always go tradition.

Also, I think you are glossing over the broad benefits of the +1 sight advantage. It aids in scouting early scouting, allowing you to get more ruins and meet more CS in fewer moves. It also makes it a bit easier for you to see invading forces in time to bribe AI's. It's extremely beneficial to warfare, not just spotting for artillery but also for knowing when to push your army farther into enemy territory without risk of loss. It's difficult to quantify the exact value of the +1 sight advantage, but it's more than you're making it out to be. Washington is a strong renaissance-industrial era warmonger, and doesn't belong on the crap tier with denmark and ottomans.






All monty needs is 2 or 3 cities on rivers. And the UA is extremely good. The only thing I don't like about Aztec is that I'm always frustrated with city placement because the river adjacency is so important that I have to sometimes settling in otherwise suboptimal locations, but this only speaks to the overpowered nature of the UB.

I go liberty most of the time too but my style is quite different. I aim for super strong finish while falling behind in mid game. I usually open with 7 to 10 in the first 100 turns. Sometimes if lucky I can get 7 or 8 by turn 80. I would settle for 6 if there's just no land and settling too far makes defense very difficult. My NC can go up as late as turn 120 (i prioritize guilds for machu Picchu before philosophy) and universities on turn 150 (workshops first). I will mostly be behind by at least 10% literacy until flight where I could level up with the top AI. From then on science/domination/diplo can all be pursued easily with the exception of culture. Victory times for SV can generally be under 300 turns even without rationalism, but faster with rationalism or piety (faith purchase GS with glory of god).
 
I don't think some people understand just how insane the Aztecs UB is. The 15% growth bonus is actually better than it seems. The multipliers are added from base food instead of surplus food, unlike all other growth bonuses, (except ToA) so the extra food is much higher than usual.

Agreed, it is one of the very best uniques in the game. As far as UBs go only the Mayan Pyramid, Ethiopian Stele and Arabian Bazaar can possibly be considered in the same league as the Floating Gardens, and the Aztec UA is better than Ethiopia's or Arabia's. True, they don't have camel archers, and they aren't guaranteed a religion, but they will likely have the highest pop capital by turn 100, which counts for a lot, and their cities will grow taller than anybody else's because the building increases base food.

A note about the Inca. It was mentioned a few pages back that the Terrace Farm isn't that great if you don't have mountains, but in fact it can be built on hills that are not next to rivers. Other civs would have to mine those hills, but the Incas can add more food yield to their tiles than other civs even without mountains, and can therefore grow their cities to taller heights than other civs can, just like the Aztecs. I rate them Upper Tier for sure.

Sweden and Songhai establish a very similar CS/Warmonger cycle, where one buys allies with city loot and the other does so with extra generals, writers, and musicians. Songhai has +2 gold and culture per city and doesn't have the tundra start, though. Sweden's UU's balance that out quite a bit. I would rate them very similarly, and the upper tiers are already too crowded.

You don't need to capture any cities to generate great people for Sweden though, and Nobel Prize will help even if you are not warmongering. If it wasn't for the tundra start I think Sweden would be easily seen as a top 10 civ. As it is, vs the stupid AIs, Nobel Prize is incredibly powerful. It is not difficult to get many DoF's if you are trying to, even if you are warring. I would rate it as one of the very best UA's. Even if you get no DoF's it's better than anything that any other diplomatic-oriented civ has. It provides a consistent bonus (90 influence for a great person is amazing) and is extremely easy to use to great effect. Sweden games practically win themselves, and I think they are an upper-mid tier civ at worst if diplomatic victories are seriously considered as equal to other victory conditions.
 
Not sure if it was discussed, but I think Carthage on water maps (archipelago/tiny islands) is mid or even upper-mid tier. Free early harbors are just so powerful when all of your cities are coastal, and with free harbors you get immediate benefits from Liberty and Exploration.

You don't have to build roads and pay maintenance on them and you don't have to pay maintenance for harbors, all the while having city connections with the capital. It gives a nice early gold boost and synergizes well with Meritocracy social policy. You can expand rather fast and adopt Messenger of the Gods Pantheon which boosts your science. It really helps on water maps where early trade routes may be hard to come buy. Speaking of trade routes, harbors increase the range of sea trade routes b 50%, so you have better options for your cargo ships early game,

Finally, with Exploration, you get 3 hammers per coastal city (plus 1 hammer from Republic!), 1 happiness for each harbor, and 1 gold for each harbor. Those early gold bonuses really start snowballing Carthage into the mid- and lategame, while most other civs suffer on water maps, even the top-tier Arabia or Shoshone.
 
Compare Sweden with Russia, as they both have tundra bias. One has buffs to great people, synergy with Honour, Piety, Aesthetics and Tradition, and the other has some extra strategic resources, which on Deity equals gold at best. And yet Russia is a tier higher. Something is wrong.
 
Compare Sweden with Russia, as they both have tundra bias. One has buffs to great people, synergy with Honour, Piety, Aesthetics and Tradition, and the other has some extra strategic resources, which on Deity equals gold at best. And yet Russia is a tier higher. Something is wrong.
Its the early hammers.
 
Why is Greece three tiers below Siam? Their UAs are functionally almost equivalent. Does this date from before the pledge protect nerf or something (when you could sit at 30 with all the CSes)? I mean the Wat is nice and all, but I wouldn't give it three tiers nice.

Compare UAs:

Basically both get you 1500 GP worth of benefit from a city state for 1000 GP worth of donation - Siam faster, Greece longer. (i.e. a +2 food for 30 turns martime becomes +3 for 30 for Siam, +2 for 45 for Greece)

Advantages Siam's UA:

Faster is usually better than longer (i.e. in a case with one religious city state neighbor and a race to a religion). Though with happiness, longer is probably better.

Experience boost for donated units

Advantages Greek UA:

Get all the benefits of happiness from a city state luxury and strategic resources for longer (which Siam doesn't give = no +50% more oil or such)

Treats every city-state territory (even ones you are at war with!) as friendly territory for the double healing rate - a great perk in war and early exploration
 
Its the early hammers.

That is assuming you have the strategic resources to take advantage of the hammers. It seems a lot more situation than Sweden's great person generation which you can pretty much guarantee to have a few friends maybe enough to match Babylon's 50% on scientists
 
Compare Sweden with Russia, as they both have tundra bias. One has buffs to great people, synergy with Honour, Piety, Aesthetics and Tradition, and the other has some extra strategic resources, which on Deity equals gold at best. And yet Russia is a tier higher. Something is wrong.

the extra production is more valuable than you think. It is what makes russia good.
 
Top Bottom