Civ ranking thread

Inca don't need mountains. but it's a good idea to settle near mountains to get lots of food from the Terrace Farms. As to whether Inca's UA or UI is more important, they're actually both incredible. Even if there are no hills on the map, Inca's UA reads at worst "pay only half cost for roads." I don't think I've ever had a bad start with Inca, even if it means I only found a couple of cities. This civ can easily go wide or build very tall if there are a few mountains.

Shoshone and Poland are my two favourites as well. They are pretty much good for whatever you do, Shoshone because of the insane early game bonuses, and Poland because 7 extra social policies throughout the game is amazing.

top:
Huns
Egypt
Ethiopia
Spain
Babylon
Poland
Arabia

Upper:
Zulu
Russia
Maya
Inca
Korea
Shoshone
China
Persia
Rome

Mid:
Aztec
Celts
Germany
Netherlands
Austria
Morocoo
Greece
Ottomans
England
Siam
Mongolia
America
Songhai
Assyria

Low:
Indonesia
Iroquois
Byzantium
Denmark
Japan
France
Sweden
Polynesia
Portugal
Carthage

Bottom:
Venice
India
Brazil

Vitruvius said:

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.

Click to expand...

The no movement stacks nicely in a game I am playing with the bonus from Mt. Kil. Now my x-bows can take 4 steps a turn in hills.

This is nice along with other bonuses but I just don't see them in the same league as Poland or Babylon.

With no-reroll and random maps.

Top :
Huns, Egypt, Babylon, Poland, Arabia.


Upper:
Venice, Mongolia, Celts, Zulu, Russia, Maya, Inca, Korea, Shoshone, China, Austria,
Siam

Mid:
Spain, Persia, Ethiopia, India, Rome, Aztec, Germany, Netherlands, Morocoo, Greece, England, America, Songhai, Assyria, Portugal, Indonesia

Low:
Ottomans, Japan, France, Sweden, Polynesia, Carthage

Bottom:
Denmark, Byzantium, Iroquois, Brazil