Do The Iroquois really suck?

[HEF]

@HEF
You need to elaborate your points. The Iroquois suck because they are specifically worse than a hypothetical "generic" civilization with no bonuses, due to the fact that they lose the 10% production bonus of a workshop. They are better, objectively, than Venice, but Byzantium is leagues better than either because Byzantium's bonuses are all actual improvements on the base generic gameplay, however marginal.

I did.

The limitations of the Longhouse is not going to result in a loss in the endgame, maybe slow the player down a bit but that's where strategy & tactics come into play, as well as other factors.

 

[beetle]

@HEF, right, you do not agree that the Iroquois bonuses are weaker than the vast majority of civs.

So, please explain how the Iroquois UA/UB/UU are better than those of a mediocre civ. Or maybe admit that your assertion is based on feelings and not math?

The limitations of the Longhouse is not going to result in a loss in the endgame…

Yes, one can win (at Deity even) with a civ that sucks. That does not mean that the civ isn’t terrible when compared to most of the other choices.

 

[beetle]

But that's just a subjective opinion, like any other here...

Many posters like to backup their assertions with data, making them much less subjective than others.

 

[HEF]

@HEF, right, you do not agree that the Iroquois bonuses are weaker than the vast majority of civs. So, please explain how the Iroquois UA/UB/UU are better than those of a mediocre civ. Or maybe admit that your assertion is based on feelings and not math?

I don't understand what you mean by 'UA/UB/UU'. That's why I answered no.


Personally, I believe you are wasting your time (and mine) trying to convince me why my gameplay choices serve my best interest.
The Civilization V series is one of the best strategy games out there. Sid really outdid himself and I haven't tried VI yet!

 

[Kimiimaro]

Many posters like to backup their assertions with data, making them much less subjective than others.

You mean linked power lists? These power lists were made by people. And even these people, while trying to be objective, will never make a fully objective list. That's because every Civ is different and good for some different victory and every Civ demands a different game style, different strategy. Each list will look different.
And don't forget that people like different game styles. I could also make a list and rank Venice as a high tier because I like tall play.

 

[inthesomeday]

Subjectively better. Venice is still the best Civ when you go for diplomacy, and being a best Civ for something really doesn't scream "the worst Civ" to me.

Venice is not the best Civ for diplomacy; sure, they can get more gold from trade routes but that shouldn't really be the source of a diplo victory. Venice loses out on growth, science, and flat quantity yields like faith and culture due to being restricted to one useable city. These things often are directly related to CS acquisition. For example, growth directly leads to production and science, and production lets you do things like build wonders and units (CS quests and encampment clearing, very important parts of keeping up with Deity gold). Then the flat yields are key for passive quests. Quests are incredibly important in the higher levels when just gold isn't enough to beat the deity, and then the techs like Forbidden Palace (banking) and diplomats (globalization). In fact, an important part of diplo victory on higher levels, reaching the info era or atomic to trigger the UN before AI gets to space, is something Venice struggles with because they can't have the science from many cities and population to keep up. Overall science and culture and production are STILL more important even than gold for a diplomatic victory and so the inherent failure of Venice (lacking land and population) remains extremely detrimental.

And about Byzantium, they are one of the worst Civs to me, simply because religion is a minor and unimportant factor to me, and there is no religious victory. Also, you have no guarantee that you get a religion when you play as Byzantium.

But that doesn't really matter. Even with no religion, even if Byzantium didn't have any unique units or abilities, they would still be better than Venice or the Iroquois because Venice and Iroquois are specifically worse than a Civ with no bonuses. The uniques of their civilizations are specifically detrimental to gameplay with them, while a civilization like Byzantium is at worst completely generic.

Except for Byzantium, there are some worse Civs than Iroquois, like Spain (without natural wonder, of course), India or Denmark.

India is definitely arguable as a worse than bad civilization but in a very standard play style of 4-city tradition their UA eventually becomes actually very powerful. The unhappiness in the early game can be crippling but on a long enough timeline they overcome it. Spain and Denmark are, again, just like Byzantium, completely generic at worst, which is still better than specifically detrimental, such as in the case of Venice and the Iroquois.

But that's just a subjective opinion, like any other here...

Personal enjoyment has never been an argument here. I prefer to play Siam or Germany than Babylon or Poland. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the bonuses of some civs are verifiably, mathematically superior than others because of the way the game is balanced, with some units, yields, or buildings being objectively better or more important than others for any victory type in any situation.

 

[beetle]

I don't understand what you mean by 'UA/UB/UU'. That's why I answered no.

Okay, so rather than ask for clarification, you just answered anyway?

UA is unique ability, Great Warpath in this case. UB is unique building, the Longhouse. UU is unique unit, the Mohawk Warrior. Every civ has its own UU (some have two) and UA. Many, maybe most, civs have a UB.

Personally, I believe you are wasting your time (and mine) trying to convince me why my gameplay choices serve my best interest.

No one has brought up personal interest in gameplay choices, and no one has tried to convince you that the Iroquois are not enjoyable to play.
But the assumption is that you are a rational human being. Debating about the relative merits of each civ is something that many of us find entertaining. All the more so when someone has a defensible minority opinion.
I am interested in convincing you that, compared to most of the other options available, the Iroquois are a relatively weak civ.

The Civilization V series is one of the best strategy games out there. Sid really outdid himself and I haven't tried VI yet!

Agreed.

 

[poxpower]

Yes they are trash tier.
The only way to abuse them is to pick Arborea, legendary start and to restart until you get a bunch of forest deer and forest truffles. Then you must get the pantheon that gives food from camps or faith from forest.
Only then do you get some kind of decent bonus out of the longhouse and you can have a pretty OP capital in the midgame.
With the NQ mod (v10) the longhouse also gets the 10% production back and the food camp pantheon also gives +1 faith.
So with longhouse, granary and pantheon, a forest deer will give you 4 food, 2 hammers, 1 faith.
So there's a way to make Iroquoi not totally suck ,but even on such a map you won't get better finish times for any victory condition than with an average civ, or a good civ like Inca who gets tiles like that for free with Terrace farms.

 

[beetle]

You mean linked power lists?

I have never head of a “linked power list”. Can you explain or provide an example please? Is that your own term, or do other people that phrase?

That's because every Civ is different…

Just because every Civ is different, it does not follow that batches of them are objectively weaker than other batches. Sure, Venice is good for tall play. But replace them with any other civ on the same map, and that other civ would win faster. That does not mean that any other civ would more fun to play. And sure, Venice can easily be larger than any other civ map-for-map.

 

[Kimiimaro]

I have never head of a “linked power list”. Can you explain or provide an example please? Is that your own term, or do other people that phrase?

You say that other posters support their statements with data - and I only saw links to some other power lists. That's what I mean. My statement probably didn't make very sense in English, I guess...

Just because every Civ is different, it does not follow that batches of them are objectively weaker than other batches. Sure, Venice is good for tall play. But replace them with any other civ on the same map, and that other civ would win faster. That does not mean that any other civ would more fun to play. And sure, Venice can easily be larger than any other civ map-for-map.

Not the diplomatic. This is the think I disagree with both you and @inthesomeday. I say that money is the main thing in the diplomatic victory, and nobody does gain money better than Venice.

Venice is not the best Civ for diplomacy; sure, they can get more gold from trade routes but that shouldn't really be the source of a diplo victory. Venice loses out on growth, science, and flat quantity yields like faith and culture due to being restricted to one useable city. These things often are directly related to CS acquisition. For example, growth directly leads to production and science, and production lets you do things like build wonders and units (CS quests and encampment clearing, very important parts of keeping up with Deity gold). Then the flat yields are key for passive quests. Quests are incredibly important in the higher levels when just gold isn't enough to beat the deity, and then the techs like Forbidden Palace (banking) and diplomats (globalization). In fact, an important part of diplo victory on higher levels, reaching the info era or atomic to trigger the UN before AI gets to space, is something Venice struggles with because they can't have the science from many cities and population to keep up. Overall science and culture and production are STILL more important even than gold for a diplomatic victory and so the inherent failure of Venice (lacking land and population) remains extremely detrimental.

In the other words, you are saying that Venice is worse in creating empire with high population, and thus it has cities with low production and science. I strongly disagree with that statement. I usually need just two coastal puppets to create strong, prosperous empire with one of the most populated cities in the whole world. By the end of the game, regular Civs have 7-9 trade routes. Venice has 14-18. I always use six internal (usually food) trade routes in this pattern:
Venice to A,
Venice to B,
A to Venice,
A to B,
B to Venice,
B to A,
to create high populated cities that allow me to be not so far beyond in science and production. The remaining 8-12 (but mostly 10, because I always manage to get Colossus, but I still fail to get Petra) trade routes allow me to gain hundreds of gold by sending trade ships to the most developed cities in the world, gaining me usually 20-30 GPT (actually, I'm usually gaining about 400 GPT by the end of the game = 2000 gold after five turns = 120 CS influence) to buy CS that give me the lacking cultural boost. And if I'm still not the most scientific guy - nevermind. I'll use my spies, and by the end of the game, I'll use them as diplomats.
With this tactic, I have always been able to win on the first world leader session, have the most populated cities and I am always one of the most scientific guys in the whole map. Also, I usually win the first place in the both world congress projects and manage to build few wonders, too.


But let's end this debate. I'll probably still say that Venice is above average, you will say that Venice is below average/the worst. We can throw arguments at each other and disagree with each other. After all, the thread is about Iroquois, not about Venice, or Byzantium.

 

[inthesomeday]

If the goal is gold then the most important thing is land. You can get well over 400 GPT with any Civ by replacing mines and non-essential farms with trading posts. More cities means more city connections and more trading posts for working. And again diplomatic victory is better served with more cities to develop more flat yields and achieve more quests.

In my experience the best bet with Venice is an early archer rush to your nearest neighbor, then beelining X-bows. Any other Civ also does this better. The bottom line is there is never any reason that you would trade the ability to settle new cities in exchange for trade routes, especially gold trade routes. Civ 5 is balanced so that the only yields that REALLY matter are food and science, with hammers and culture in a vague second. Food, science, hammers, and culture come from cities, usually four of them. Venice being unable to settle more than one city means they are unarguably the absolute worst Civ in the game.

 

[poxpower]

I think for Domination, Venice might be above average, but that's about it.

They are fun to play though.

 

[beetle]

But let's end this debate.

Yes but only because the thread is about why Iroquois is in the bottom third (at best). Please consider starting a new thread with a title like “Does Venice really suck?” That is sure to generate some traffic!

 

[HEF]

I am interested in convincing you that, compared to most of the other options available, the Iroquois are a relatively weak civ.

Disagree.

 

[beetle]

Disagree.

I know you want to disagree, and you can of course, but you have utterly failed to offer any sound reasons for why you disagree that the Iroquois are a relatively weak civ.

Moderator Action: Please do not berate other posters for refusing to debate with you on your preferred terms. -- Browd

 

[beetle]

I think for Domination, Venice might be above average, but that's about it.

OT, but I would love to see a Venice domination guide. I am poor at DOM generally, but I cannot make Venice work at all for DOM. The early rush strategies I am familiar with use two expos cranking out early units. That obviously does not work for Venice! Presumably Venice gets the best starting location, so one would assume that puts them in an above average position to take out an early neighbor? @adwcta has Venice as above average, but that does not make any sense to me. I think Venice is above average for DiploVC, but it is not like DiploVC is challenging, so what fun is that?

 

[Kimiimaro]

OT, but I would love to see a Venice domination guide. I am poor at DOM generally, but I cannot make Venice work at all for DOM. The early rush strategies I am familiar with use two expos cranking out early units. That obviously does not work for Venice! Presumably Venice gets the best starting location, so one would assume that puts them in an above average position to take out an early neighbor? @adwcta has Venice as above average, but that does not make any sense to me. I think Venice is above average for DiploVC, but it is not like DiploVC is challenging, so what fun is that?

With Venice being the best money making Civ, you can do it like this:
Send double trade routes to all possible city-states/cities from Civs you're not at war with to generate huge money gain.
Build/buy units.
Easiliy befriend all militaristic CS (really works. I remember having tons of units just from militaristic CS in my Venice games. Sometimes I had to cancel CS unit gifts, because I didn't have almost any space).
Get bunch of free units from CS.
Wreck your enemies' capitals.
Win.

Also, with Venice starting on coast, you can use the naval expansion. The Great Galleass is quite strong unit.

 

[inthesomeday]

The best thing with Venice is to rush optics and then GMOV a CS with a bunch of units because you then get all of those units, regardless of tech or anything like that.

 

[pietro1990]

Free swordsman( they don't requir iron)
so you c an conquer early neighbour and then start conquering more cities with longswordsman and then get fully upgraded musketman who kill the whole map not bad at all.

Olso their unique building can give you MASSIVE amount of production

downside there unique ability is kind of weak

 

[poxpower]

The weakness of domination is lack of gold.
It really requires honor to maintain the large army you need for a fast win. The AI will not trade with you once you start your rampage so you will be gold starved and you rely on kills to not go bankrupt.
With Venice, you get way more gold generation potential which can be turned into anything you need. One key unit for fast domination in most maps is trebuchets. They are very garbage and expensive but are quite strong in rushing cities if you can afford to lose some of them. Which venice, you can. A trebuchet deals more damage to a city than crossbows. Way more, and the base game seems to generate TONS of extremely hard terrain maps. The AI also never chops jungles or forests which makes it impossible to shoot most of their cities with enough crossbows to take over them in a reasonable time.
But if you can afford to replace units you can just rush it with trebuchets, take it in 2 turns and then peace out or keep going.

After you get some critical mass of units, it's not beneficial to have more so if you can just kamikaze units like trebuchets all game long, then you really don't lose anything because you wouldn't need 20 of them in the late game anyway, but they allow you to take each city you attack 5+ turns faster.

You can also use the great merchants to take over enemy CS. Instead of spending 1000+ gold to buy it, you can just steal it and then you can have them as your ally in war against the nearest guy, with their entire army. This is pretty crazy. Worth going liberty for and saving those merchants all game long so you can use them tactically like this.

Imagine the difference it makes. Instead of spending 1000 gold to ally a CS, you spend 0 and you gain their army of 6-7 medieval era units to reinforce your own how you see fit, instead of having them be "your ally" but loafing around as they usually do. You also now have 1000 gold extra to spend on anything else you want. That's a couple units or almost 2 courthouses.