Civ rating

So the civs with the largest area should win the most often?
I think you're way too optimistic on Ethiopia's starting position (although it has improved vastly) and too pessimistic on Germany's culture. Mali's chance is close to 0 unless you fix France's avarice. Netherlands, Khmer and Portugal can win anytime so starting situation should be higher.
The other thing is that the starting situations for civs are markedly different if you play the medieval civs with 3000 BC start. E.g. you can NEVER build the Notre Dame as France. Maybe you can include a chance component (e.g. Germany can be really lucky and get lots of barbs).
 
If it's got to do with strength, then Khmer's elephants are way more than what's enough to conquer India, while Ethiopia's puny swordsman and axeman are just useless against Egypt's war chariots and the barb camel archers. Netherlands and Portugal have just the right units to counter an early invasion, so their strength is actually better than you assigned.
 
I can routinely conquer the entire classical world with the Greek starting units (well just the two phalanxes, don't need the warriors), so how they don't have the strongest starting position is a mystery to me.
 
Just making sure but these ratings are from the opening screen where you choose your civ right? Has anything changed?
 
Love the diagrams, Rhye. The visual really helps understand the civs a lot better. Can anyone draw any conclusions based on the figures? I would say, the more large and pentagonal the shapes, the more potential the civ has to be dominant. England, Japan, Spain, and Rome come to mind. But it also seems like those civs are the least lasting in their dominance. In my games, the AI in nearly all of those games succumbs to collapse, or at the very least, a distinct shrinking in power later on. Some criticisms of the diagrams follow:

-I would say America has better culture than it's being shown in the diagram. In my experience playing the civ, the cultural boundaries expand exponentially. Especially Denver.

-I agree with pacifist that the Ethiopia starting position is far too optimistic. Though I've posted a thread about how much it surprised me as a civ, its starting position is not as great as is represented.

-Shouldn't Mongolian trade be better? I mean, we are talking about the civ that presided over the golden age of the Silk Road...

Well done, Rhye!
 
with strength, I don't mean strictly military strength. Trade, production, etc.

Culture takes into account the possibility of founding religions too.

In generals, ratings take into account hidden modifiers.

With starting situations, not only starting units, but other factors (how many techs, which years, how many barbarians around, how much space around to colonise)

Those are the opening screen stars. However, if you all agree with some changes, I can do that. As long as the sum of the ratings more or less represents that civ's overall strength.
 
Has anyone else noticed the "Triangle" civs? America, Arabia, Germany, India, Mongolia, Russia? With the exception of India, they all seem to have the potential for enormous contiguous empires. But even India can have a pretty big contiguous country. Any other observations?
 
Reminds me of my Wii age (not my actual age which is less) with the diagrams...
 
ambassoon said:
-I would say America has better culture than it's being shown in the diagram. In my experience playing the civ, the cultural boundaries expand exponentially. Especially Denver.
Click to expand...

Well it really does depend if you're the human player or not. AI America I would say culture is relatively weak absent of several major civs collapsing. As the human player you make even Mongolia into a cultural powerhouse without much effort.

Anyone think France could use some change?

I would change France's production from 3 to 2 and change their starting situation from 2 to 3; they are at least as strong initially as the other European civs and more advanced than all the classical civs before it.

Is there a reason Russia doesn't get 5 for growth and production? If any civ deserves a 5 star growth I think it's Russia with their vast lands available with few if any rivals. And while the Russian lands aren't quite as production-friendly as Germany or America the sheer number of Russian cities one can build will surely rival them so I would say 5 stars for either production or growth.

India's trade may be too optimistic considering how isolated they are for much of the game.
 
I was always curious about that "hidden modifiers" thing... Rhye, can you please help me to understand something. Suppose America has 5 star for production and Ethiopia has 2:

1) Does this mean that ANY building, unit or Wonder would be cheaper for USA, compared to Ethiopia? Statue of Liberty costs about 1500 hummers for Ethiopia and about 1000 for America.

2) Would this proportion hold throughout the game no matter what era you are?

3) Germany has "5" for production, just like America. Would Statue of Liberty cost for them exact the same amount of hummers as it is for America.

4) Where do the Great People accounted in this Pentagonal approach? I also noticed that Great People can have different strength -- sometimes Great Engineer for another civ can finish 700+ hummer buildings, but for SoL the American Engineer delivers only some 600. I think the same is true for the amount of beakers Great People deliver via bulbing.
 
The Q-Meister said:
I would change France's production from 3 to 2 and change their starting situation from 2 to 3; they are at least as strong initially as the other European civs and more advanced than all the classical civs before it.
Click to expand...

Well, it depends on whether fate razed Frankfurt for the AI, because otherwise France will never get iron unless it conquers Rome. I never have production problems if I build Constance and conquer either Spain or Germany to start. And I agree that their starting situation is much better than Spain's (more units, more cities, more potential to squat).

Has anybody tried to reverse the Hundred Year's war yet?
 
The Q-Meister said:
India's trade may be too optimistic considering how isolated they are for much of the game.
Click to expand...

Do you think trade is only takes into account the amount of :commerce: commerce you generate via trade routes :traderoute:? I thought the total amount of "Commerce" :commerce: civ can generate is also somehow included under "Trade" category.
 
AnotherPacifist said:
Has anybody tried to reverse the Hundred Year's war yet?
Click to expand...

As England, I led an invasion force into Northern France and conquered Brest in about 1500 (so a bit after the historical loss of England's continental possessions). Also in the game, France had not built/flipped an Atlantic city, allowing me to effectively cage in their colonial ambitions, since I controlled the English channel. They had Marseilles, but perhaps they were not OB'd with Spain, because the only colonies they ever managed to create were in Algeria.
 
No, what I meant was: has anybody reversed Tigranes' early British conquest of France? All we need is a couple whipped boats and 2 good seaports, and those 4 lone longbowmen will be history.
 
France starting location is 2 because it's boxed in, with a dangerous neighbour. While Spain has an advantage in accessing the sea.
Russian vast land is counted in starting location mainly.
Generally, more modern a civ is, more it is avdantaged by modifiers to catch up. Though it doesn't mean that there are 5 levels of modifers and that same stars equals same hammers. It's just a summary.

I'd invite you to collect all the proposed changes together.
Please consider the totals too, to be consistent with your perception of how easy or hard a civ is (both to play and played by AI, but not counting UHV)

CHI 17
ROM 17
ENG 17
GER 17
JAP 17
ARA 16 (17 in vanilla, because Turkey is not present)
AME 16
FRA 16
SPA 16
GRE 16
RUS 16
TUR 16
IND 15
MAL 15
PER 15
MON 15
NET 14
POR 14
CAR 14
EGY 14
KHM 14
VIK 14
BAB 14
ETH 14
AZT 13
INC 13
MAY 13
 
I'm not really sure what all the categories stand for.
Culture and Production are pretty obvious.
Does trade refer to resource trade, trade routes or overall commerce?
Does growth refer to population growth or potential for territorial expansion?
And does starting situation mean stuff like like quality of land, starting techs, resources, nieghbors and that kinda stuff?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
[BTS] Mayan Domination Victory on Emperor under version 1.181 of RFC
Replies
1
Views
983
Gen1_
G
A
[vanilla] Leader title changes erratically
Replies
1
Views
376
Bonyduck Campersang
Bonyduck Campersang
C
Civ 7 (windows) will no longer start
Replies
0
Views
141
clemenslinders
C
Lazy sweeper
NO LEADERS on start - new idea thread
2
Replies
27
Views
932
Albertan Civfanatic
Albertan Civfanatic
M
  • Poll Poll
Poll: What's the strongest Civ for humans in 5.0 alpha
2 3
Replies
47
Views
6K
redrum68
redrum68
Back
Top Bottom