Civ ranking thread

Some changes to the OP, most notably the first look at all the civs' respective scores. The Inca has so far been the community's top civ--amazingly, receiving a perfect score from everybody! Also, from now on I'd appreciate it if each tier was in alphabetical order--it just makes it a lot quicker for me to enter the data.
 
Figure I ought to put in my opinions, for science!

My ratings are less about which civs are most powerful, more about which ones I enjoy playing. I've played each civ at least once, but I'm only including the civs I think of off the top of my head.

Top Tier:

Babylon
Spain
The Dutch

High Tier:

America
Mongolia
Russia
The Aztecs
The Huns
The Inca

Mid Tier:

Indonesia
Japan
Morocco
Venice
The Zulu

Low Tier:

Assyria
Denmark
France

Bottom Tier:

Austria
Polynesia
 
The problem I have with the tiers as stated is that the weakest of civs "have weak bonuses and are often very situational," but that's given as the description of the second-lowest tier. In my opinion there aren't any civs that "have near worthless or highly situational uniques" if you play to the strengths of the civ! Even Denmark's Berzerkers are a mediocre but consistent bonus. I think India's UA sucks because it doesn't let me play the game the way I usually want to, but I can't call it worthless because the potential happiness benefits for a wide empire are kind of ridiculous IF you can swing it.

I know what the five or six bottom-tier civs are in my mind, but I don't think they're bottom tier by the definition given. So, any tier list I give is either going to be ridiculously heavy at upper and mid tiers and completely lacking a bottom tier, or will have to use different defintions.

Poland gets pulled down because for all its versatility, the UB is good, but not great, and the UU is a lancer, which takes it from awesome to average (were to to replace cavalry, it would likely move it up a spot alone). The UA is what gets them up there, but it's not good enough to move it up to the top for me.

The UA is 7 policies over the whole game and finishing your first tree faster than almost anyone else, and opening rationalism on the turn that you enter the renaissance era...this is deceptively powerful in general because of the timing of things. The UB is good, not great, I agree. The UU is excellent if the terrain is right. Its promotions are very strong. It has higher combat strength than a regular Lancer, synergizes with the Ducal Stable and is much more useful than regular Cavalry. It's also available earlier than Cavalry and gives you a reason to build more Pikemen and Spearmen earlier in the game. These are strong units that are often underutilized because they upgrade into Lancers, but these Lancers are quite strong and remain so until Bombers appear.

Poland is top tier at all victory conditions but especially domination. Warmongers want lots and lots of social policies. If you go for domination with Poland you will better appreciate the value of the UA, UU and UB.

America and China, to me, are pictures of "average." Arabia and Mongolia are with them there because there is no real plan B (Arabia can get some advantage from their Bazaar economically). Dominate with ranged knights or die trying. The Zulu have the same issues, they win or lose on war, without much to fall back on.

Japan gets so little. Were the AI better, it might get bumped up a spot, based on the Zero getting a use. The Samurai and Bushido just aren't enough to make up for it though, as they are ok and mediocre respectively.

I agree with much of this, except that China is a top tier dominator civ on Pangaeas, and an upper tier civ on continents (I don't recall having played them on other map types). The paper maker is a fantastic building that comes very early and replaces a building that you will build in every single city you make and EACH paper maker you build is essentially +3 gold per turn over a library, which is 300 gold over the first 100 turns of its existence, and gold matters the most. This is very very strong. So you are getting a strong start with China no matter what. In my experience they get a better first 100 or so turns than Carthage almost always.

Right after the first 100 turns or so, you get Chu-Ko-Nus and you conquer the world very easily with your army that is significantly better than anyone else's army, because you have CKN's and Art of War. If you are not close to global domination by time your CKN's are no longer getting the job done then you should still be in a better position than almost any other civ would be at this point.

In many ways, Russia's UA is an inferior Hun UA, and with a forgettable UB that won't even make it into most cities and UU that is hardly better than the original...

I agree that the UU and UB are not very strong, but Russia's UA is better than the Huns' by quite a bit. +1 production on Horses and Iron (even unimproved!) is IMO slightly better early on than +1 production per pasture most of the time, and later on when more strategics are revealed Russia's UA is a very strong production bonus indeed. This isn't even taking into consideration the double quantities of horses, iron and uranium.

Iroquois are upper tier. Their UB is almost always an improvement, and in their starting area, normally a MASSIVE one, and their UA saves worker turns early, and we already talked about worker turns. They're pretty darn close to top tier. I can't understand why people don't love them.

People want to chop all their forests well before workshops come about because hammers now > hammers later. It's all about getting those Settlers up so your city can get back to growing, or getting that NC up as fast as possible. I think the Iroquois can be very strong if the map conditions are right for the reasons you listed. The worker turns saved and the gold saved from roads not built CAN sometimes, depending on map conditions, make up for the hammers you aren't getting from chopping down the forests that you will need to become a production powerhouse with the Longhouse by the midgame. Sometimes it works beautifully and it all comes together, and sometimes there just aren't any forests, or there aren't any in good city locations. The reason people don't love them is that they demand a deviation from what is seen as the "optimal" play style. The more "optimal" that play style is perceived to be, the more that weakens civs who "can't" play that way, because what they get out of deviating from the optimal play style has to be that much better. Also the fact that the Mohawk is a Swordsman replacement (a pretty good one, IMO) is also seen as "awkward" and something that pulls them away from the "standard" tech path. In my opinion they're lower mid tier, mostly just because what other civs have is stronger.
 
OK for what it's worth: (equal distribution between tiers)

Top

Babylon
Germany
Korea
Maya
Persia
Poland
Sweden
The Huns

Upper

Arabia
Celts
China
Egypt
Inca
Shoshone
Zulus
Venice

Mid

Aztecs
Assyria
Brazil
England
France
Mongolia
Polynesia
Russia

Lower

Austria
Byzantium
Carthage
Ethiopia
Greece
Japan
Morocco
Siam

Bottom

Denmark
India
Indonesia
Iroquois
The Netherlands
Ottomans
Portugal
Rome

Not rated: Songhai, Spain, America (not played enough on higher difficulty levels) and they are most certainly on the cusp of different tiers. Spain can be devastating, even broken, but can be completely mediocre.
 
The problem I have with the tiers as stated is that the weakest of civs "have weak bonuses and are often very situational," but that's given as the description of the second-lowest tier. In my opinion there aren't any civs that "have near worthless or highly situational uniques" if you play to the strengths of the civ! Even Denmark's Berzerkers are a mediocre but consistent bonus. I think India's UA sucks because it doesn't let me play the game the way I usually want to, but I can't call it worthless because the potential happiness benefits for a wide empire are kind of ridiculous IF you can swing it.

I agree, and it's not easy to call something situational or not. Note my ranking came before the criteria, but, let's look at Poland.

Top tier UA, upper tier UB, and mid teir UU. I know most people will have Poland as top tier, but the sum of their parts would likely be upper.

How about Babylon? Top tier UA, but a mid tier UU that depends on very early war and putting off construction and has nothing kept on upgrade (but if you plan for early war...), and a bottom tier (by the definition of highly situational) UB that is unlikely to make the difference between losing a city or not.


I know what the five or six bottom-tier civs are in my mind, but I don't think they're bottom tier by the definition given. So, any tier list I give is either going to be ridiculously heavy at upper and mid tiers and completely lacking a bottom tier, or will have to use different defintions.

Due to start biases, almost all civs end up with a great unique or two, and those that don't often have a great unique or two anyway. Depending on how harsh you are on the "bad" side of civs, half the game at least could be top tier. After all, Spain has an insane UA and all maps have natural wonders, so...top tier? The minute man has some of the best parts of any unique slapped on the same unit, so...top tier? Denmarks units can heal 50 health in enemy lands by pillaging, twice everyone else, so...top tier? India simply gets an insane amount of happiness no one else gets starting early mid game, so...top tier?


The UA is 7 policies over the whole game and finishing your first tree faster than almost anyone else, and opening rationalism on the turn that you enter the renaissance era...this is deceptively powerful in general because of the timing of things. The UB is good, not great, I agree. The UU is excellent if the terrain is right. Its promotions are very strong. It has higher combat strength than a regular Lancer, synergizes with the Ducal Stable and is much more useful than regular Cavalry. It's also available earlier than Cavalry and gives you a reason to build more Pikemen and Spearmen earlier in the game. These are strong units that are often underutilized because they upgrade into Lancers, but these Lancers are quite strong and remain so until Bombers appear.

Poland is top tier at all victory conditions but especially domination. Warmongers want lots and lots of social policies. If you go for domination with Poland you will better appreciate the value of the UA, UU and UB.

The UA is good, I agree. It's the biggest reason I consider Poland as good as I do.

We also agree on the UB.

We also don't really disagree with the Winged Hussar, but I find the big boon, the pushback, lacking. It's rarely stronger than contemporary units, so doesn't get it that often. Of course, when it does, with how the AI at higher levels blankets the field in units, it can be devastating, but even getting the push on muskets is terrain dependent.

I think it comes down to where the sum of these things belong, and, to me, it's upper, not top. That being said, some personal bias, perhaps...as much as I want to like Poland, I can't. I can't win with them on King (I am now playing Immortal and winning enough to keep me here, with most civs).

I recognize that they should be good, but I haven't had good experiences, so maybe if I had success with them, my mind might be more in favor of moving them up. Looking at them, I don't see them as overly amazing overall, and lack of success with them backs up the judgement that they are good but not great.

I agree with much of this, except that China is a top tier dominator civ on Pangaeas, and an upper tier civ on continents (I don't recall having played them on other map types). The paper maker is a fantastic building that comes very early and replaces a building that you will build in every single city you make and EACH paper maker you build is essentially +3 gold per turn over a library, which is 300 gold over the first 100 turns of its existence, and gold matters the most. This is very very strong. So you are getting a strong start with China no matter what. In my experience they get a better first 100 or so turns than Carthage almost always.

Right after the first 100 turns or so, you get Chu-Ko-Nus and you conquer the world very easily with your army that is significantly better than anyone else's army, because you have CKN's and Art of War. If you are not close to global domination by time your CKN's are no longer getting the job done then you should still be in a better position than almost any other civ would be at this point.

China, in my mind, has lots of good points, but nothing that stands out as amazing, bar the paper maker giving 2 gold and doing away with maintenance (it's not exactly equal to +3 gold). Everything nudges them toward domination, and they are good at it, and it's not to the detriment of other VC's. Overall, in my mind, that makes them a solid, unspectacular civ.


I agree that the UU and UB are not very strong, but Russia's UA is better than the Huns' by quite a bit. +1 production on Horses and Iron (even unimproved!) is IMO slightly better early on than +1 production per pasture most of the time, and later on when more strategics are revealed Russia's UA is a very strong production bonus indeed. This isn't even taking into consideration the double quantities of horses, iron and uranium.

Double quantity of early resources has never helped me much, and later, I only care if I'm going for domination (normally) and in that case, Autocracy has me covered.

I admit that I value the free animal husbandry highly, and those early hammers are the most important ones.

Their mediocre UU and UB, mixed with what I consider an unimpressive UA might be lower tier, but the tundra start bias is what pushes them to the bottom.


People want to chop all their forests well before workshops come about because hammers now > hammers later. It's all about getting those Settlers up so your city can get back to growing, or getting that NC up as fast as possible. I think the Iroquois can be very strong if the map conditions are right for the reasons you listed. The worker turns saved and the gold saved from roads not built CAN sometimes, depending on map conditions, make up for the hammers you aren't getting from chopping down the forests that you will need to become a production powerhouse with the Longhouse by the midgame. Sometimes it works beautifully and it all comes together, and sometimes there just aren't any forests, or there aren't any in good city locations. The reason people don't love them is that they demand a deviation from what is seen as the "optimal" play style. The more "optimal" that play style is perceived to be, the more that weakens civs who "can't" play that way, because what they get out of deviating from the optimal play style has to be that much better. Also the fact that the Mohawk is a Swordsman replacement (a pretty good one, IMO) is also seen as "awkward" and something that pulls them away from the "standard" tech path. In my opinion they're lower mid tier, mostly just because what other civs have is stronger.

They do require a different play style.

Normally, many of the forests in my capital are chopped. I want a high pop capital, anyway, so I need the space for farms, unless I'm on plains.

I think the big problem people have with the longhouse is not realizing how good raw is against percent increases.

You only need 1 forest being worked for every 10 hammers otherwise to make it even, which often isn't hard, and forests become good tiles because they give production like mines, but with 1 food. Building a building, with a factory, nuclear plant, and building a building with a windmill (just because that makes it even off, you can use other things), it's 1 forest for every 15 hammers, and 1 forest for every 19 hammers when building spaceship parts with all percent modifying buildings.

Iroquois production is likely to outpace everyone else for most of the game, given their start bias. They'd have to get unlucky not to, and their start bias also means more forest to chop. They need farms, plantations, mines, etc. just like anyone else, after all. Lumbermills don't come too late, either, so the forests you keep aren't sitting there forever, even when they lack deer, fur, or truffles.

The UU isn't amazing, due to being a swordsman. It's good, even great for defending, but it is likely to come a bit later, due to the fact the Iroquois aren't exactly warmongers, though I have had games where I was able to remove someone from the game with a fast upgrade without iron. I do prefer it to Steel (for longswordsmen) though, since Mohawks are able to hold their own pretty well in forests until Rifling, allowing me to put off Steel for a while longer than I might otherwise feel safe doing, and the carryover upgrade is one of the single best in the game.

Infantry upgraded from Mohawks can basically set up impenetrable positions in forests or jungles. Upgraded Minutemen might be better overall, but they don't sit there and laugh at bombers, nor are they strong enough in any situation to be able to put off future military techs, like the Mohawk.
 
The problem with longhouse is that its a penalty-balanced unique in a game where there are few enough of these. The only other one i can think of from the top of my head is the chukonu (extra attack but crippled CS) and india's UA. The point of a unique is to give a civ an advantage over other civs in a specific area. If the longhouse gave the hammer per forest in addition to 10% hammers, we would marvel at how great the UB is, but iroquois still wouldn't crack the top tier. Civ 5's balance is simply very poor, so much so that the civilization choices might as well be a difficulty slider.
 
Okay, so I see there's some objections to the descriptions of the tiers. I basically just came up with them off the top of my head, so any suggestions are welcome. What would you like to change them to?

Also, @Rootfelleren, I would personally argue that for Poland and Babylon, the amazing UA more than makes up for the lackluster UB and UU. Their UA alone often exceeds the combined bonuses other civs get.
 
WOW, Inca is rated that good?!!? OK time to take a break from the big war plans I am making in the Songhai Immortal Challenge game and at least bang out the start up for an Immortal Inca game.

I guess I don't have enough experience with Inca to judge them as top tier. If I had to play and win a game to save my life I'd flip a coin between Babylon and Poland.
 
Agreed, Neilkaz. Although Poland is definitely > Babylon. Several times I have tried the same build order on Deity, same SP etc, up to T150 with both Babylon and Poland, with a liberty domination build, and only minor situational differences. The extra SPs from T0 to the renaissance make such a huge difference that really Poland has in fact no peers at all.

I'd put Babylon on a par with the other 6 civs I listed in my Top tier, but Poland is stone-cold crazy.
 
Okay, so I see there's some objections to the descriptions of the tiers. I basically just came up with them off the top of my head, so any suggestions are welcome. What would you like to change them to?

I would just make it about preference, or whatever criteria the voters want to use.
 
... Let's look at Poland.

Top tier UA, upper tier UB, and mid teir UU. I know most people will have Poland as top tier, but the sum of their parts would likely be upper.

You say "sum" but what you are actually doing is binning each individual bonus according to a discretized scale, and then averaging all of those results together. As it pertains to Poland, this process clips the power of Solidarity to the arbitrary level of "top tier" and then weighs it down by attaching the UU and UB as components of an average, as opposed to being strictly an improvement/addition over generic civ.

Solidarity is not just good, it's completely overpowered and broken. Usually a UA is similar in power to a Social Policy, so you could conceptualize Poland as having seven UAs. Social Policies eventually convert into hundreds of applies, hammers, beakers, and/or gold per turn (and other miscellaneous but useful boosts).

So, people are really understating things when they say that Solidarity is top tier or even that it's the best UA in the game. Solidarity is so good that it single-handedly makes Poland by far the best civ in the game. As in, Poland would still best civ in the game even if it had no UU or UB.
 
Alright, here's what I got:

Top tier:
Babylon, England, Ethiopia, Inca, Korea, Maya, Poland, Siam, Shoshone

Upper Tier:
Austria, Arabia, Aztecs, China, Egypt, Mongolia, Morocco, Persia, Sweden, Zulus

Mid tier:
Brazil, Carthage, Celts, Germany, Huns, Iroquois, Portugal, Rome, Spain, Venice

Lower-mid tier:
America, Assyria, Byzantium, Greece, Indonesia, Netherlands, Ottomans, Russia, Songhai

Bottom tier:
Denmark, France, India, Polynesia, Japan

How about Babylon? Top tier UA, but a mid tier UU that depends on very early war and putting off construction and has nothing kept on upgrade (but if you plan for early war...), and a bottom tier (by the definition of highly situational) UB that is unlikely to make the difference between losing a city or not.

Babylon's UA is more than top tier. It's an absolutely ridiculous, and snowballing, science advantage once it gets going. The UU and UB are there to give Babylon a little more reason to expand in the beginning than they otherwise might and to help them get away with single-mindedly racing up the tech tree towards Education a little more than the average civ can. The UU is halfway between the power of an archer and a composite bowman. It means that the units you do build to protect your early expansions go further, and it means you can kind of use your archers as if they were poor man's composite bowman. That's very good when you consider how many techs it takes to build composite bows and none of them are on the way to Philosophy. The UB is semi-situational but it definitely lets you take more risks with your early expansions. It adds as much HP as a regular Walls, Castle and Arsenal put together, and it's cheaper to build than regular walls (which actually are situationally useful). I think that's not bad at all, but if you are sure that you definitely will not lose the city regardless then it's obviously worthless.

BUT, the UA is so strong that it completely overshadows the other uniques, really. Even if you never build archers or walls, Ingenuity will put you far ahead of the pack. I think this is pretty uncontroversial.

We'll have to disagree on Poland, but I'm glad you brought up start biases because I consider Poland's to be excellent in general but especially for their UB and UU. You should not have trouble using the pushback ability on the WH. Add a great general if you really need one. There is no reason to get this unit too late to make use of it even if you are not going for Domination, unless you decide you don't want to use it, which is fine, because like Babylon, and Korea, Poland's UA is so strong you can ignore their other uniques completely if you want to.

China, in my mind, has lots of good points, but nothing that stands out as amazing, bar the paper maker giving 2 gold and doing away with maintenance (it's not exactly equal to +3 gold). Everything nudges them toward domination, and they are good at it, and it's not to the detriment of other VC's. Overall, in my mind, that makes them a solid, unspectacular civ.

It's not exactly equal to +3 gold, but if you're going to build a library in every city on your way to getting the National College before turn 100 at the latest, then it does work out to +3 GPT over a civ who does the same thing but builds libraries instead of paper makers. A penny saved is a penny earned. This building works beautifully for going wide which works very well with Crossbow rush, let alone Chu-Ko-Nus. Usually, the more cities you have, the less value each library has, but not so with China.

The Huns are better at dominating small enough Pangaeas, the Mongols are better at dominating Pangaeas in general, and England is usually better at dominating any non-Pangaea, but other than that, China IS the best civ for conquest.

I think the big problem people have with the longhouse is not realizing how good raw is against percent increases.

You only need 1 forest being worked for every 10 hammers otherwise to make it even, which often isn't hard, and forests become good tiles because they give production like mines, but with 1 food. Building a building, with a factory, nuclear plant, and building a building with a windmill (just because that makes it even off, you can use other things), it's 1 forest for every 15 hammers, and 1 forest for every 19 hammers when building spaceship parts with all percent modifying buildings.

Iroquois production is likely to outpace everyone else for most of the game, given their start bias. They'd have to get unlucky not to, and their start bias also means more forest to chop. They need farms, plantations, mines, etc. just like anyone else, after all. Lumbermills don't come too late, either, so the forests you keep aren't sitting there forever, even when they lack deer, fur, or truffles.

The UU isn't amazing, due to being a swordsman. It's good, even great for defending, but it is likely to come a bit later, due to the fact the Iroquois aren't exactly warmongers, though I have had games where I was able to remove someone from the game with a fast upgrade without iron. I do prefer it to Steel (for longswordsmen) though, since Mohawks are able to hold their own pretty well in forests until Rifling, allowing me to put off Steel for a while longer than I might otherwise feel safe doing, and the carryover upgrade is one of the single best in the game.

Infantry upgraded from Mohawks can basically set up impenetrable positions in forests or jungles. Upgraded Minutemen might be better overall, but they don't sit there and laugh at bombers, nor are they strong enough in any situation to be able to put off future military techs, like the Mohawk.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with all of this, especially about the Longhouse, it just takes a little longer to get going than I would like, and my starts have maybe not been so consistently good.

Arabia: Best UU in the game arguably. A chance to get the uber-Pantheon Desert Folklore, and a great UB, and double oil to either sell or upgrade former Camels to tanks eventually. If they don't get DF however they are not nearly as strong.

Brazil: They are amazing once they get going but they do take too long to get going because Jungle starts suck and aggressive neighbours will get aggressive before Brazil gets going. Jungle start is worse for Brazil than for Aztecs because Brazil has no growth advantage and no units that move quickly through jungle except scouts. Brazilwood camps are great but cannot compare to the Aztec UB for catching up to the civs who didn't have to waste worker turns chopping jungle. I really like Brazil but they are pretty much a vanilla civ with a jungle start bias for the first half of the game! If they get a good start though, with lots of production and luxuries and jungle to settle in, sacred path pantheon etc, they will be much better than most civs because their late game abilities are incredibly powerful. In general this civ is weaker on the highest difficulties and in multiplayer.

Sweden: Nobel Prize is OP in single-player where the AI is not programmed to care how many other AIs are giving you +10% GP generation and it synergizes with the other half of the UA. Even if you get no DoF's, 90 influence for a GP gift is a consistent and powerful bonus. As of BNW there are more great people than most civs know what to do with anyway, and you can generate Great Generals just by fighting. Finally, Caroleans are a very nice unit. The downside is the tundra start, which isn't as quite as bad as it's often made out to be. It is intended as a counterbalance to their amazing UA. This civ would be rated higher otherwise.

Austria: Hill start bias is maybe the best in the game. Spending gold to acquire a grown and developed city-state AND its units is very powerful even after this ability was nerfed hard. Coffee House is a pretty good UB and Hussars are a nice little Cavalry replacement if you are going for domination. With three sight and +1 movement they can easily spot for your artillery.

Morocco: Maybe a tier higher than they would otherwise be because of the desert start bias and the potential to get Desert Folklore. If you get Petra in a nice city you will have the best city in the game. If you don't get enough desert to make use of your uniques you can always go and conquer some! The bonus that Berber Cavalry get from fighting in Desert (+50%) is actually bigger than the bonus they get from fighting in your territory (+25%). The bonuses also stack - in your own territory on Desert hexes, they fight as strong as landships! Finally these bonuses are kept on upgrade so conquer a bunch of desert, which probably has oil under it and then upgrade these to landships and they start to get really ridiculous. It's still not as good as Camel Archers though. On maps that have a very large amount of desert Morocco is probably the best civ in the game. In multiplayer games the UA is not as powerful.

Russia: The extra hammers that Russia can get from Horses and Iron early on, the double quantities, and the very large number of extra hammers available starting in the industrial are enough to keep them out of the bottom tier for me anyways, and enough to salvage the tundra start, which is not so bad for going wide. I actually feel it handicaps Russia much less than Sweden because with Russia I have almost no desire to go with Tradition.

Huns: Starting with Animal Husbandry is mostly about getting Horse Archers that much faster. I consider Horse Archers a top 5 UU. The Huns' uniques synergize very well. On some maps they are by far the best civ, on others they are fairly weak.

Ottomans: Still a little underrated. Prize Ships + Barbary Corsairs should give you the strongest navy and your uniques ensure you can fight on land as well. Janissaries are one of the better UU's, the best in the warrior line.

Spain: Obviously difficult to rank. I think I rate them higher than most. In most games it is not hard to find and secure a Natural Wonder even if you have to do it with early conquest using CB's. I think I find a Natural Wonder before other civs in the first 50 turns, roughly half of the time. If Spain does not get to work a Natural Wonder with One With Nature pantheon early in the game, they can still find the Natural Wonders and get the gold and the double happiness, and they can always conquer the NW's or steal them with great generals if they really want to. Tercios are a decent UU. If they start next to El Dorado, they pretty much win the game.

Zulus: Make Ikanda, beeline civil service and then spam Impis. Add siege units. If Pangaea, you probably win easily. This is one of the better civs for domination.

Germany: Much early production saved by acquiring Barbarian units, and then the Hanze is a nice production boost attached to a building you were going to make anyway that comes early enough to make a difference. Panzers come late but seal the deal when they arrive as tank spam is legit as of the most recent patch.

Byzantium: Weak on Deity where it's quite hard to get a religion at all, nevermind a good one, this civ is not as bad in multiplayer or on lower difficulties. As long as you do actually found a religion, your UA will ensure that it is at least a decent one, But, depending on the over civs in the game, you may still find yourself losing out on the best religious beliefs. You'll never beat Ethiopia or the Celts or the Maya, or even Rome if they're trying, to a religion. Both Byzantine UU's are underrated, especially the Dromon. Upgrading units that already have Logistics and Range into Galleasses and Frigates is pretty awesome. Both units are primarily for early defense while staying on the top half of the tech tree but they can be used offensively.

Shoshone: Top tier civ because of the strong start which snowballs. Strong start comes from the pathfinder as well as the UA, which grabs tiles for you and therefore lets you work better tiles earlier in addition to securing them for your empire. This works out to many extra early hammers, apples and gold, and the defensive bonus means you don't have to invest as much in defense as you otherwise would. My favourite thing about them however is that they are the only civ to start the game with a scout, and scouts are what pretty much everyone builds first of all. Also an early CB puts you in complete control of your neighbourhood.
 
Haven't read the wall of text yet, just a couple comments:
-I wouldn't say that China's the best domination civ; that title would probably in my mind go to Mongolia, because Keshik+Khan combo is just crazy. Their ability to cover terrain so much faster than with an Xbow rush means you'll be facing a weaker army when you get to your opponent's capital. China and Zulu are still up there though, and I think they're pretty close to each other.
-The problem with Ottomans is that you get Prize Ships with Privateers, making the UA only useful on triremes and caravels.
 
Haven't read the wall of text yet, just a couple comments:
-I wouldn't say that China's the best domination civ; that title would probably in my mind go to Mongolia, because Keshik+Khan combo is just crazy. Their ability to cover terrain so much faster than with an Xbow rush means you'll be facing a weaker army when you get to your opponent's capital. China and Zulu are still up there though, and I think they're pretty close to each other.
-The problem with Ottomans is that you get Prize Ships with Privateers, making the UA only useful on triremes and caravels.

I agree that Mongolia is often better at dominating especially on Pangaea maps. I put China ahead in my mind because the Paper Maker practically guarantees them a strong start (which I value highly), while a bad roll (poor start, lack of horses, Zulu neighbour etc) can put Mongolia a little bit behind schedule. I agree about Keshik+Khan. One of the strongest synergies in the game.

The idea with the Ottomans is that you only have to build one ship. You capture the rest and you end up with the biggest navy, at a huge maintenance discount. This civ can be Upper Tier at domination if all capitals are coastal.
 
Yeah but what I'm saying is you can do that with any civ once you unlock Privateers. So the Prize Ships component of the UA is only useful for a short window of time on Triremes and Caravels--though Caravels are more suited for scouting than combat anyway. The maintenance discount is going to be useful for sure though.
 
Yeah but what I'm saying is you can do that with any civ once you unlock Privateers. So the Prize Ships component of the UA is only useful for a short window of time on Triremes and Caravels--though Caravels are more suited for scouting than combat anyway. The maintenance discount is going to be useful for sure though.

Good points, though as you say, Caravels are more used for scouting, as are Triremes. Getting a few early can mean great early scouting, meaning gold (and science if you are meeting other civs who are ahead of you).
 
Agreed, Neilkaz. Although Poland is definitely > Babylon. Several times I have tried the same build order on Deity, same SP etc, up to T150 with both Babylon and Poland, with a liberty domination build, and only minor situational differences. The extra SPs from T0 to the renaissance make such a huge difference that really Poland has in fact no peers at all.

I'd put Babylon on a par with the other 6 civs I listed in my Top tier, but Poland is stone-cold crazy.

Thx,,,yeah if I had to play on Deity (just Immortal so far) I think I'd go with Poland noting that Bab strats to stay at one city and build an immediate NC might end up with little dirt left to settle.

I tried 3 games as Inca on Immortal and am not very impressed as starts have basically sucked. Game 1 started more in the jungle than Monty or Pedro can and rerolled instantly as with no mountains this certainly wasn't a map to try Inca on. Game 2 it seems that I am in the great plains and things have gone less than good. Game 3 started in the tundra and very hemmed in by Poland and again a terrible start, but I took one Polish city and I think now that I can upgrade to X-bow, Warsaw will fall (difficult terrain for war vs them slowed me).

No where is there anything looking like this Deity challenge start which would make Inca rock. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=531989
 
Thx,,,yeah if I had to play on Deity (just Immortal so far) I think I'd go with Poland noting that Bab strats to stay at one city and build an immediate NC might end up with little dirt left to settle.

I tried 3 games as Inca on Immortal and am not very impressed as starts have basically sucked. Game 1 started more in the jungle than Monty or Pedro can and rerolled instantly as with no mountains this certainly wasn't a map to try Inca on. Game 2 it seems that I am in the great plains and things have gone less than good. Game 3 started in the tundra and very hemmed in by Poland and again a terrible start, but I took one Polish city and I think now that I can upgrade to X-bow, Warsaw will fall (difficult terrain for war vs them slowed me).

No where is there anything looking like this Deity challenge start which would make Inca rock. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=531989
I have never seen a lot of mountain ranges in maps except for Pangaea. But otherwise, the free maintenance and no movement penalty on hills is actually the best thing about Inca. Not the terrace farms.
 
I have never seen a lot of mountain ranges in maps except for Pangaea. But otherwise, the free maintenance and no movement penalty on hills is actually the best thing about Inca. Not the terrace farms.

No I'm pretty sure it's the Terrace Farms.
 
I have never seen a lot of mountain ranges in maps except for Pangaea. But otherwise, the free maintenance and no movement penalty on hills is actually the best thing about Inca. Not the terrace farms.

Sorry, I should've said that I was playing on Pangaea and rolled these lousy starts.
 
Top Bottom