BNW Deity Tier List

[beetle]

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.

Between GMu, GG, and mostly-used GPr — that is plenty to go around!

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.

It is just one data point, but I was still struggling with Immortal when I gave Sweden a try for Diplo VC at Deity. It was very easy. No, I do not think they are top tier, and it is quite peculiar how the aspects of the UA seem to conflict with each other, but IMHO they are quite strong.

 

[jungleman3955]

Sweden is very average.

The only positive thing they have going for them is their UA and in relation to other UA's it's okay. The thing is, allying CS is extremely easy, especially ones close to you. The modifier on GP generation is very small and you would at best get 1 extra GS before game's end.

March is utterly useless on melee units. Melee units are only meant to fortify positions and occupy space so the best use you can make out of this promotion is healing up between fortified positions. The only melee unit worth using offensively is the impi.

These bonuses are super average and to top it all off they get the worst start bias in the game.

Overall I fail to see how anyone could objectively rate them higher than average.

 

[GenuineRisk]

I've never had a peaceful game where I haven't had at least 3-4 DoFs that lasted almost the entire game, so that is a 30-40% GPP boost for doing absolutely nothing, plus free influence from all those useless Prophets/Generals/Admirals/Musicians.

In a warmongering game, I think it's pretty clear how important city-states are, and Sweden's UA is second to only Greece in terms of getting/maintaining CS alliances. Honor Sweden is a proven and potent Deity Domination strategy.

I can't see how any experienced player could rank Sweden less than average. I personally rank them just below the consensus top-tier civs. (I wrote this tier list off the instant I saw rubbish civs like Venice, Rome and Morocco being rated above average... in fact, you could turn the list upside-down and it'd almost make more sense)

 

[Plumfairy]

The only melee unit worth using offensively is the impi.

And Janissaries! Actually, Berzerkers are decent for offense as well.

But yeah... I agree with you about March in general. I've seen lots of ppl raving about how awesome the Swedish UU is, but I just don't get it. March isn't a particularly useful promotion, IMO.

 

[beetle]

I love March! That said, it was Sweden’s free promotion that started me experimenting with Cover -- and Cover is what I value most nowadays.

 

[jungleman3955]

I haven't even looked at the tier list, just skimmed the last few pages to see a person or two raving about sweden and trying to make out that they're one of the best civs in the game, but they're not.

@beetle yea march is a fun promotion especially on ranged units but its hard to get there seeing as I usually go for range/logistics first

 

[jungleman3955]

This is how I would go about rating the civs for single player deity.

Tier 1 - bonuses are consistent and game changing

Babylon, England, Inca, Korea, Persia, Poland

Tier 2 - bonuses are consistent and strong or situational and game changing

Arabia, Aztec, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, Huns, Maya, Russia, Shoshone, Spain, Zulu

Tier 3 - bonuses are consistent and mediocre or situational and strong

America, Austria, Celts, Greece, India, Indonesia, Mongolia, Rome, Siam

Tier 4 - bonuses are consistent but weak or situational and mediocre

Assyria, Brazil, Byzantium, Denmark, Germany, Morocco, Netherlands, Polynesia, Portugal, Songhai, Sweden

Tier 5 - bonuses are inconsequential or situational and weak

Carthage, France, Iroquois, Japan, Ottomans, Venice

 

[adcarrymaokai]

Tier 1 - bonuses are consistent and game changing

Babylon, England, Inca, Korea, Persia, Poland

England bonuses are not consistent because there are no water maps, and Inca bonus is inconsistent if there are no hills and mountains.

 

[Aea]

Practically speaking, a map with no hills or mountains is an extremely outlier. Especially with that start bias.

I'm also pretty sure at least 95-99% of games played are on maps with water, whether it's Pangea or Continents or something else. England is pretty versatile though even without the opportunity to build a navy. Not Tier 1 versatile though, but those Longbows and Extra Spy are nice.

 

[jungleman3955]

England gets a UU replacement for the premier military unit of the reneissance era and that unit is probably the most efficient for timing pushes in the game (granted much less so on deity) in the crossbowman. On top of that it gets a frigate replacement which is also the premier naval unit until battleships (unless peeps are wasting coal on ironclads). This allows it a great deal of flexibility on how to war.

England also gets an extra spy which, I believe, is underrated. It allows you to catch up faster in techs via stealing or allying an extra cs or spying on your two closest neighbors immediately. Lastly, England has a coastal starting bias which is one of the better starting biases in the game b/c of internal cargo routes. The bonuses individually are strong and fairly consistent. As a whole, for me at least, it pushes England near the top.

Inca are an exceptional civ at playing sim city with their ability to grow tall while maintaining high production via terrace farms. This bonus is strong and consistent especially considering their starting bias of hills (which generally speaking are more likely to have mountains). But what pushes them over the top for me is their ability to move on hills. It completely changes warfare and cities that are a nightmare for other civs to assault make no difference to the inca. And the half cost on roads (free on hills) is very nice early game for liberty empires.

 

[Hans Tork]

England gets a UU replacement for the premier military unit of the reneissance era and that unit is probably the most efficient for timing pushes in the game (granted much less so on deity) in the crossbowman. On top of that it gets a frigate replacement which is also the premier naval unit until battleships (unless peeps are wasting coal on ironclads). This allows it a great deal of flexibility on how to war.

England also gets an extra spy which, I believe, is underrated. It allows you to catch up faster in techs via stealing or allying an extra cs or spying on your two closest neighbors immediately. Lastly, England has a coastal starting bias which is one of the better starting biases in the game b/c of internal cargo routes. The bonuses individually are strong and fairly consistent. As a whole, for me at least, it pushes England near the top.

Inca are an exceptional civ at playing sim city with their ability to grow tall while maintaining high production via terrace farms. This bonus is strong and consistent especially considering their starting bias of hills (which generally speaking are more likely to have mountains). But what pushes them over the top for me is their ability to move on hills. It completely changes warfare and cities that are a nightmare for other civs to assault make no difference to the inca. And the half cost on roads (free on hills) is very nice early game for liberty empires.

If you made the list for Single player deity and not MP,then you are wrong. England is decent but not god tier. The god tier civs in SP deity are Babylon,Poland,Korea,Maya.

Also Venice in single player deity is one of the best civs out there. With Venice it is very hard to lose on single player deity.

 

[beetle]

With Venice it is very hard to lose on single player deity.

Except that the better players will say it is very hard to lose on single player deity with any civ.

Except that Venice is no good for Dom or CV, and Diplo and SV both lock you into Freedom.

Also, Venice in single player deity is one of the worst civs out there.

 

[Hans Tork]

Except that the better players will say it is very hard to lose on single player deity with any civ.

Except that Venice is no good for Dom or CV, and Diplo and SV both lock you into Freedom.

Also, Venice in single player deity is one of the worst civs out there.

How is it the worst in single player deity. You have guaranteed Diplo win with Venice. You can always bribe your enemies with gpt and not to mention rush buying buildings and getting CS benefits.

Also I do not agree with that it is bad for Dom. You can rush buy tonnes of nukes,xcom etc It may only lack in CV but then again you can do a conquest CV.

I do agree that there is no worse tier civ in single player deity. If you go science/diplo then all civs can win it.

 

[GenuineRisk]

How is it the worst in single player deity. You have guaranteed Diplo win with Venice. You can always bribe your enemies with gpt and not to mention rush buying buildings and getting CS benefits.

Diplo is basically guaranteed with any civ. It's no accident that all of the civs which most players consider to be the best in the game are strong at science, and Venice is the worst science civ in the game. The 25% puppet science penalty, much lower great scientist generation and needing a Great Merchant just to peacefully "settle" a city are handicaps that cannot simply be ignored. Austria (not exactly the best civ) can basically do the same thing with CS without suffering any of these terrible penalties.

 

[Aea]

I think for a lot of newer players Venice is a safe Deity Victory. You simply can't lose.

 

[beetle]

How is it the worst in single player deity?

See consentient’s tier list which is so much less arbitrary than anything previous. Venice is the only civ with more than a point between it and its closest competator.

You have guaranteed Diplo win with Venice.

Freedom gives you a guaranteed Diplo win with any civ.

Venice is entertaining to play twice, once for Diplo and one SV.

Also I do not agree with that it is bad for Dom. You can rush buy tonnes of nukes, xcom, etc.

Interesting, since most people arguing that Venice can work for Dom talk about how you can use an early GMe to buy an unstoppable Medieval era army.

 

[Sclb]

You have guaranteed Diplo win with Venice.

You have guaranteed Diplo win with any civ which is partly why I never considered Diplo to be a win condition usually, and I also frequently lose Diplo WL vote on purpose to win by other conditions. Venice has additional handicaps that slows its science and can actually lose to a science victory if you get sufficiently strong AI. It's almost universally agreed that Venice is the worst civ by top players.

 

[adcarrymaokai]

See consentient’s tier list which is so much less arbitrary than anything previous.

How is this list arbitrary, though? It't main criterion is "any victory condition on any start." The reason why top tier civs are top tier is because their uniques work anywhere. Poland, Babylon, Maya or Korea are good regardless of map settings. You can play with no city-states--their uniques are still good. You can play great plains or small islands--their uniques are still good. They are good at any era and help with any victory condition.

Consentient's list is pretty much "undeniable top civ + best dominations civs." The fact that he puts Shaka at the top of the top-tier only shows that it is a domination-based tier list. Shaka has no bonuses to science or culture. Or anything else, for that matter. His entire kit revolves around domination. That's not any victory condition. I also wonder how well Shaka would do on tiny islands or some other unfavorable starts.

 

[beetle]

How is this list arbitrary, though? Its main criterion is "any victory condition on any start."

I say it is arbitrary because it is not consistent with applying its criteria. Also, ranking the civs is just too subjective. Plus OP gave up on the exercise.

One result of consentient’s approach is that it demonstrates how close the civs are. The tier idea -- which feels right -- falls apart with a point rating system.

 

[GenuineRisk]

Consentient's list is pretty much "undeniable top civ + best dominations civs." The fact that he puts Shaka at the top of the top-tier only shows that it is a domination-based tier list. Shaka has no bonuses to science or culture. Or anything else, for that matter. His entire kit revolves around domination. That's not any victory condition. I also wonder how well Shaka would do on tiny islands or some other unfavorable starts.

Nobody plays Tiny Islands. According to every poll I've seen, Pangaea/Continents/Fractal are by far the most popular map templates, and I'm certain that their popularity is even higher among regular Deity players. While I don't agree with consentient's tier list entirely, it is a fact that conquest does assist other VCs, and some Domination-oriented civs should be ranked highly as a result.

This tier list is arbitrary because it puts unequivocally bad civs such as Venice, Rome and Morocco in the upper half and unequivocally good civs like the Zulu, Greece and the Huns in the bottom half.