BNW Deity Tier List

[OwlRaider]

At the very least they could get it to recognize obstacles and understand the difference between a defensive and defenseless city to attack. Avoiding bottlenecks and single file attacks shouldn't be that difficult.

The AI in SC2 is significantly better at avoiding bottlenecks and single file attacks than the AI in SC1 was. The SC2 AI even recognizes the need to make air units when it can't attack from the ground. Although it's obviously not as quick to realize these things as a human would be.

It has to throw some ground units at the problem first before it realizes that it should make air units. They may have applied some sort of trial and error approach.

It's called the Monte Carlo method in computer science and it's indeed as close as it gets for a computer to mimic a human's thought process. Basically the AI runs a predetermined number of simulations acting in a purely random manner as long as it abides by a predetermined set of rules. Than it computes the result of each simulation according to certain criteria and determines the best course of action based on which actions scored the highest.

There are other methods but they aren't feasible for very complex games like Civilization, as opposed to simple games like Chess with a very limited set of possible moves and outcomes. There are issues with it however. For one it gets exponentially more resource intensive the more simulations it has to run, so complex games get insanely resource intensive, and in that regard Civilization is significantly more complicated than SC2(strictly from the number of options perspective not game skill, competition or anything like that). For another, due to the trial and error evaluation of random actions, the AI doesn't actually follow a certain coherent logic and thus doesn't actually learn anything that it can later reuse in other similar situations. It has to run all the simulations again from scratch after every move to determine what the best next move is which often leads to some odd conflicting behaviors as changing even a small thing can completely alter the following simulations. And lets not even talk about how much work it takes to program all these simulations and how much it will further slow the game down, and it already gets bogged down in the late game, especially on large and huge maps.

 

[Mrdarklight]

I'm going to have to argue for Sweden being higher than it is.

All of the top tier civs have one thing in common: they don't need anything to win, except what they start with. Korea doesn't need friends, or allies, or resources even, to win. It just builds tall and cranks out science. It can literally be at war with everyone and every CS on the map and still win. Everything it needs to win comes with the Civ.

This is unlike, say, Brazil. Brazil needs jungle to win a culture victory. If it doesn't have access to it, it will almost always lose. Polynesia needs certain kinds of coastline on the map, or it can't generate enough culture. So neither of these civs can win if circumstances are wrong.

Sweden is one of the civs that needs nothing else: It has all it needs to win just due to its bonuses. Nothing can stop them from cranking out GWAMs and buying off every civ in the game. They can be at war with the whole map, and have the crappiest cities, and as long as they can stay alive, they can win, because all they need for a diplo victory comes with the civ. They build the GWAM buildings and just stay live long enough to buy off every single CS.

The only thing that can stop them is another civ that has an advantage with CS's... which is basically Greece. I just finished a game where I had Greece as a next door neighbor, and I knew he had to be destroyed, so between me and the Maya, we eliminated him. After that, it was only a matter of liberating one city from a dead civ (in this case, it was Polynesia) to vote for me for World Leader. Unfortunately I had to liberate them from the Zulu, who were outscoring me by more than two to one. But I did it, and had every CS as an ally, and won.

I'd put them at LEAST Upper Tier.

 

[stormtrooper412]

erm, Brazil don't really need many jungle tiles, their UI isn't really all that great, it's just good. Their main power comes from abusing their UA to generate stupidly strong tourism bombs

 

[Chum]

Uhh, yeah, Brazil doesn't need to be located in the jungle at all. Brazilwood camps are cool and all, and a great bump on the trading post, but that is not at all what gives them their cultural powerhouse status.

 

[Plumfairy]

All of the top tier civs have one thing in common: they don't need anything to win, except what they start with. Korea doesn't need friends, or allies, or resources even, to win. It just builds tall and cranks out science. It can literally be at war with everyone and every CS on the map and still win. Everything it needs to win comes with the Civ.

Almost none of the civs *need* anything. With a couple exceptions (e.g. Venice) you can use any of the many strats posted here with any random civ and still win. The 3-city honor domination strategy, for example, doesn't rely on any special ability or UU.

The particular scenario that you seem to be implying is that Korea does OK even if they're completely isolated, whether because of diplomacy or because of geography. And that's true... but then again, that's kinda specific to Korea. They really *do* perform OK when completely isolated, thanks to their amazing science & mid-game turtling traits. And that's why Korea is widely considered one of the top tier civs. But comparing civs in complete isolation is a strange way to determine which are the best. Complete isolation rarely happens, and it completely bypasses so much of the game, and consequently so many of the bonuses that other civs enjoy.

Sweden is one of the civs that needs nothing else: It has all it needs to win just due to its bonuses. Nothing can stop them from cranking out GWAMs and buying off every civ in the game. They can be at war with the whole map, and have the crappiest cities, and as long as they can stay alive, they can win, because all they need for a diplo victory comes with the civ. They build the GWAM buildings and just stay live long enough to buy off every single CS.

Again, this is kind of a strange way of putting it. Nobody (including Sweden) can really "crank out" GWAMs. Once you build & staff the relevant guild hall, they're built at a certain rate that isn't incredibly fast. Granted, you can slightly boost the rate with certain policies & whatnot, but you can never really achieve an explosion of GWAMs with which you can single-handedly conquer the world via city-state gifts. At best, GWAMs produce a nice occasional city-state bonus every now & again for Sweden. (And that's assuming you don't choose to use the Artists & Writers for their more standard uses.)

In fact, I think Sweden is one of the civs that suffers most from isolation. Sweden *wants* at least one neighbor so that they can remain at war & generate hordes of Great Generals, which are much better candidates for city-state gifts.

Don't get me wrong... Sweden is a good civ. But its UA is hardly overpowering, its UU are pretty nice but not amazing, (they're no Impi, that's for sure) and their tundra start bias *seriously* sucks. All in all, "Lower-Mid tier" seems like a reasonable place to put them.

Of course, every person's personal civ ranking will vary from the OP's list, based on their skill, playstyle, and adaptability. For instance, I really dig Polynesia, and I do well with them on pretty much any map except a Pangea w/out inlets. Similarly, personally I would put Spain in the "Upper" tier, since I can convert their UA into *some* sort of major advantage 3/4 of the time. On the flip side, I've never really clicked with Sweden and based on my experiences I would place them in the "Lower" tier, although I understand their theoretical strengths & I've read plenty of accounts from people (such as yourself) who have gone gangbusters with them.

 

[consentient]

I'm going to have to argue for Sweden being higher than it is...I'd put them at LEAST Upper Tier.

They were a lot higher on my list, which is, I think more realistic, since it compares the civs with an objective reference point, and because it recognises that turtling to fast SVs is not the easiest way to win.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=544761

 

[Mrdarklight]

My point was, Sweden doesn't rely on any thing external, except of course city states, but it has everything it needs to ally them automatically.

The Inca, for example, really need hills next to mountains to shine. Siam needs CS allies, but it doesn't have any special way to get or keep allies. The Celts, which I think are a pretty mediocre civ, need forest near their cities. The Iroquois need forest period. The top civs don't need anything - no special terrain, no CS friends, no special units, to win the game on any difficulty.

The reason most of the bad civs are bad is that they need something external to happen, or exist, to use their UA to its greatest effect. Byzantium needs a religion, but the harder the difficulty level is, the less likely they will get it. The Inca need hills next to mountains. Etc. Etc.

 

[Plumfairy]

My point was, Sweden doesn't rely on any thing external, except of course city states, but it has everything it needs to ally them automatically.

Sure, but why is this a criteria? The civs that need something usually start near it. Inca almost always start near mountains (assuming there are any mountains on the map), Iroquois & Celts always start near forests, etc.

And to be honest, even when Sweden gets rolling, their abilites aren't all *that* great. I mean, relatively early city=state alliances are definitely nice, but most civs' ability are pretty nice. And to get those alliances, Sweden has to burn a great person. When you're burning your 2nd (or 3rd, or 4th) GG, that's not a sacrifice at all. But if you're burning a Great Writer, or a Great Artist, or something like that, well... it's probably worth doing, but that's definitely a cost.

The reason most of the bad civs are bad is that they need something external to happen, or exist, to use their UA to its greatest effect. Byzantium needs a religion, but the harder the difficulty level is, the less likely they will get it. The Inca need hills next to mountains. Etc. Etc.

Well, I would say that the bad civs are bad because their special abilites are either innefectual (e.g. Portugal) or impossible to use on higher levels. (e.g. Byzantium)

A lot of people seem to categorize some civs as "situational", and I'm guessing that's what you're getting at. (i.e. some civs aren't at all situational, so they're better) And I see what y'all are getting at. Spain, for example, pretty much doesn't have any bonuses if there aren't any natural wonders nearby. And I kinda agree; it's because of Spain's situational nature that I consider them "pretty good" rather than "top tier". But I would argue that most civs naturally start near whatever it is they need to do well.

But since you mention the Inca, the reason why I consider them top tier is because even in those rare situations where you're not near mountains, they're *still* pretty good. Their roads are half-price even on flatlands, and their increased movement over hills is valuable on any map. Not all maps have mountains, but they *all* have hills.

 

[Mrdarklight]

It's usually not a good idea to compare civs directly, but let's compare Sweden's UA to the Incas, in the situation where they don't have many hills near mountains. Let's say you have 5 cities, and you save money on every single road tile (they're all on hills). You're going to save, on the outside, maybe 25 gold a turn.

Compare that to the happiness, growth, military units and faith you get from the CS's, and it's nothing even close.

So, situational is the difference between actually having a UA that is useful every time, and one that is diminished or even useless, and its a pretty big deal. Heck, if the Iroquois always had forest, they'd be a pretty good civ, and if Byzantium always got a religion, they'd be good too.

Being situational isn't always bad, but it's a disadvantage compared to the civs that don't have that problem, which is basically all the top tier ones.

 

[Plumfairy]

Fair enough.

I think their hill movement bonus is enough of a benefit to make the Inca w/out mountains to be as good as Sweden. Its both a small peacetime benefit (workers can move around quicker, and they can start work on hill tiles the same turn they move onto them) and a major benefit in war.

In comparison, Sweden has their 2 UU, both of which I find completely useless. But again, this is me not clicking with the civ rather than an inherent weakness. Lots of people seem to love their unique infantry unit. (Their unique lancers don't get much love from anybody.)

*shrug*

This is probably why every person's tier list will be different.

 

[Plumfairy]

One other thing, actually:

Heck, if the Iroquois always had forest, they'd be a pretty good civ, and if Byzantium always got a religion, they'd be good too.

The Iroquois almost always *do* have forest, unless you're playing a weird forest-less map. And I really dig playing them, and I think they do quite well with their self-founded cities. The biggest problem with them (IMO) is that any cities they capture are kinda crippled. The AI usually chops forests, and without forests Iroquois' cities are actually *worse* than average because their UB doesn't grant +10% hammers.

Since this Deity Tier list assumes that the player will do at least a little conquering, the Iroquois come out looking pretty weak. That doesn't diminish my love for them, though. Yes, their forest roads tend to be kinda useless. But they're still really really cool.

 

[beetle]

I'm going to have to argue for Sweden being higher than it is.

This thread gets periodically bumped, but it looks like adwcta has not posted to CFC for a couple years. If you want to make a coherent argument for changing Sweden’s ranking, I would strongly encourage you to do so on consentient’s thread as he has a coherent methodology.

One thing to note though, when you try to be objective about it, is that the civs balance is actually quite close. If you assigning point values, you will not have a standard deviation between the best and worse. If you are frugal with the points, as consentient was, it is only Poland and Venice that has any space between the rating on the next civ below and the next civ above.

It turns out that there are not really tiers. Which is actually kind of neat, because then debate can go on indefinitely!

But if there were tiers, Sweden would not be in the top one.

 

[Chum]

It's usually not a good idea to compare civs directly, but let's compare Sweden's UA to the Incas, in the situation where they don't have many hills near mountains. Let's say you have 5 cities, and you save money on every single road tile (they're all on hills). You're going to save, on the outside, maybe 25 gold a turn.

Compare that to the happiness, growth, military units and faith you get from the CS's, and it's nothing even close.

What do you give up for that?

I'm being serious here. You seem to think that Sweden = Allies with everyone, and that's not the case. It's not even close to the case. Everything you do has a cost. That first great general gets you THIRTY TURNS of allied from 0. That's it. How long does it take to generate the 2nd one? That gets you a different CS, but there's still SIXTEEN of them on a map. And if you're going to make the claim that you should be handing over anything other than musicians too, well, you have a serious tradeoff to make there.

Sweden is fine where it is. It is not a ZOMG powerhouse civ. They're a neat civ with some neat bonuses that can do some neat things, but they are absolutely not under any circumstances Inca.

 

[beetle]

Sweden is fine where it is.

I respectfully disagree with that. I think they are above average and this tier list has them as below average.

The difficulty is that, absent some kind of rating system like consentient developed, what constitutes average? All of the civs (well, except Venice) have clear advantages, so are they all above average? Obviously, that is not helpful, so I think you would have start by getting consensus on the civ or two that is the mediocre, and work up from there. But even a question like: Is this civ better or worse than Spain? -- ends up being very controversial.

I think there are 1-6 in the top tier (with debate over a couple members), a bunch of civs that are good, a bunch that are okay, and just a few (1-5) that are clear under performers. Which I think gives all due credit to the developers. You have 43 civs with widely varying abilities, yet the balance is very good!

 

[Sclb]

The problem with this list is the lack of systematic objective way to rate the civ. On the other list by Consentient, there is actually something called a neutral civ that is being compared, and on this one it's fairly arbitrary. The other problem with this list is also most of the UU aren't really factored in correctly and assume every game is science based. Sweden can be slightly higher.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

The problem with this list is the lack of systematic objective way to rate the civ. On the other list by Consentient, there is actually something called a neutral civ that is being compared, and on this one it's fairly arbitrary. The other problem with this list is also most of the UU aren't really factored in correctly and assume every game is science based. Sweden can be slightly higher.

Unfortunately, playing on Deity is a science game no matter what. If you don't have an edge, you may not do well against certain civs. Acken's Babylon domination playthrough shows just how fast and easy you can clear a map with a science advantage.

Also, there is no such thing as a neutral civ in the game. You can't make a good argument out of a bad concept. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯ The longevity of this thread only attests to its insights.

 

[consentient]

Also, there is no such thing as a neutral civ in the game. You can't make a good argument out of a bad concept. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯ The longevity of this thread only attests to its insights.

Non sequitur. You say it's a bad concept, but you don't actually support your argument whatsoever.

And you and I both know that the only reason you scuttle out to say this is because you can't stand me and hate the idea of people posting to my thread instead of this one.

Moderator Action: Please drop the personal commentary.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Mrdarklight]

That first great general gets you THIRTY TURNS of allied from 0. That's it. How long does it take to generate the 2nd one? That gets you a different CS, but there's still SIXTEEN of them on a map. And if you're going to make the claim that you should be handing over anything other than musicians too, well, you have a serious tradeoff to make there.

This would be a fine point if GGs were the only ones you had to give. GGs are good if you're at war a lot and have a surplus of them, but you've got all those GWAMs to give away too. My last game, I had every CS on the map allied, and had several GWAMs standing around waiting for a CS to drop out of alliance. And that doesn't count cash gifts and quests you do for them also.

It really sounds like you haven't given Sweden much of a play-through, if you think only GGs are useful for gifting. Or you're thinking of Sweden as a Cultural civ, which it isn't, necessarily. It's much better for diplo.

Of course you can't really go cultural with Sweden if you give away your GWAMs, which means that a CV is probably not the way to go with them. Focus on diplo and you'll be swimming in allied CS's.

 

[Sclb]

Of course you can't really go cultural with Sweden if you give away your GWAMs, which means that a CV is probably not the way to go with them. Focus on diplo and you'll be swimming in allied CS's.

I wonder what difficulty you're used to playing. Of course you can go diplo victory but this is deity list and you'll have to reach certain SP quick enough to have a chance at winning diplo. Optimal way to do it is to use GW to plow through ideology once you get WF won with culture CS allied asap. You save GA to use them for golden age for extra culture, preferably after you got Chichen Itza or Universal Suffrage on top of WF if you can make that happen. Nowhere do you need to use any of them for great works, and certainly I wouldn't donate them to CS. GM on the other hand is useless unless going culture victory, and they're always donated. I say this many times, winning quick deity diplomatic victory has nothing to do with allying CS. Allying CS is so easy in the game with proper tech and SP. Winning quick is about either good science to reach information era early, or be able to kill off all but 2 AI civs. Killing all but 2 AI civs is difficult to do quickly on deity btw.

 

[Chum]

This would be a fine point if GGs were the only ones you had to give. GGs are good if you're at war a lot and have a surplus of them, but you've got all those GWAMs to give away too. My last game, I had every CS on the map allied, and had several GWAMs standing around waiting for a CS to drop out of alliance. And that doesn't count cash gifts and quests you do for them also.

It really sounds like you haven't given Sweden much of a play-through, if you think only GGs are useful for gifting. Or you're thinking of Sweden as a Cultural civ, which it isn't, necessarily. It's much better for diplo.

Of course you can't really go cultural with Sweden if you give away your GWAMs, which means that a CV is probably not the way to go with them. Focus on diplo and you'll be swimming in allied CS's.

Like I said, there's a cost to all of that.

You're opening honor, so you're warmongering. That's great. Know what you're not doing? Growing your population. So how are you staffing all these guilds? Population needs to come from somewhere, and you're producing military units to create great generals. So, first things first.

1) Where are all these techs coming from? D&P is a long way from construction, hard to get a writers guild up early when you're prioritizing Comp Bows. Acoustics is a long way from Chemistry, and are you saying you'd rather prioritize GM's than get Muskets and Cannons?

2) Where is the population to work these guilds coming from with no city and growth bonuses? How many cities can you pump out while pumping out military units? You have no Collective Rule, you have no growth bonuses from tradition to build cities with high population. You probably need to spend your trade routes on gold since you have higher unit maintenance than normal. If you can devote the population to work them, how are you maintaining your growth or production levels in your cities?

3) Finally, there's a tradeoff there for everything other than GM's and GG's. GM's have no 'bulb" function that's useful for non CV, so I have no problem with you donating those. Generals, like I said, you can of course donate. But you're missing out on serious culture production (Production you probably need so that you can get policies because you didn't pick an infrastructure tree first) by donating writers and serious gold/hammer/culture production by donating artists. Both of those are an actual cost - you're choosing to ally a CS instead of using them for their other purpose. You can't just say "Well, all these CS bonuses are better than other civs!" when there's that baseline use for them.

I don't think Sweden is a cultural civ, but it's pretty obvious that EVERY civ needs culture on some level, even warmongers. To use your GW/GA in that manner deprives you of that culture, and how are you going to warmonger effectively with 50+ turns between policies?

Like I said before, they're not bad, but they absolutely don't shine as bright as you think they do. I like playing them, I like playing games with Gustavus, but I wouldn't say he's top tier in any category.