Merchant Tier List

[Tyrvos]

So I made a tier (vos) list of all the "Trade" teams comparing economy (day off, so why not?). If this is reliable, I'll probably make different ones (too much effort to make an overall tier list though, at the moment). If you like this format, feel free to use it.

I took a more mathematical approach to try to avoid bias as much as I could.
I'll attach the excel file I used in .rar format.
Let me know if you do not agree with any of the scoring in that excel file, and most importantly, your reason why.

I defined a trade team by any team that had a unique that specifically dealt with trade routes or trading resources (Diplomatic trade).

This overall consisted of:

Arabia
Carthage
Germany
Indonesia
Morocco
The Netherlands
Portugal
Russia
Venice

Please let me know if there are any I missed.

A. Criteria

The criteria I used consisted of "core" components and "supplementary" components

Core criteria are simply the most important aspects, and are counted twice in the score calculation:

Overall Trade Routes
Overall Diplomatic Trade (luxury and strategic resource trade)
Internal Economy (City Connection, buildings that contribute to gold/production, and tile working)
Ability to convert money to a non-diplomatic victory (Such as if they have a potential for a strong military)

Supplementary criteria needed to be included, in my opinion, but aren't as important is deciding tier placement:

Individual land trade routes (essentially trade route efficiency)
Individual sea trade routes
Early-game Trade (both trade route and diplomatic trade)
Mid-game Trade
Late-game Trade

B. Score Calculation

Each of these criteria had a possible score of 0-4. Lower scores are better. Most were 1-4, 1 meaning they are the best and 4 meaning average compared to all Civs.

To calculate each civilizations score, I used the following formula:
Raw_Score + Core_Score = Final_Score
Raw_Score = Core_Score + Supplementary_Score
Core_Score = Total Core points
Supplementary_Score = Total Supplementary points

The scores ended up as (Remember, lower is better):
Arabia: 26
Carthage: 36
Germany: 40
Indonesia: 39
Morocco: 38
The Netherlands: 35
Portugal: 33
Russia: 43
Venice:32


C. Tier List
To define tiers, I took the mean then made Tier 1 any score below one standard deviation from the mean rounded up (36 in the original) and Tier 3 any score one standard deviation above the mean.
In the first version, the standard deviation was 4 (was rounded down).

This means the tiers ended up, as an example:
Tier 1: 32 and lower (36 - 4)
Tier 2: 33-39
Tier 3: 40 and higher (36 + 4)

Therefore the tier list ended up as (in order in their tiers):
Tier 1: Arabia (26), Venice (32)
Tier 2: Portugal (33), The Netherlands (35), Carthage (36), Morocco (38), Indonesia (39)
Tier 3: Germany (40), Russia (43)

This is just focusing on trade aspects, therefore just because a team is a lower tier, does not mean they are overall a worse team. Two Civs affected by this bias are Germany and Russia.

Also, I do not like Indonesia. One Civ affected by this bias is Indonesia. In all honesty, I tried being fair to them though. (Screw you Indonesia).

 

[Sorinth]

I have a hard time seeing how Venice is not undisputed #1 Merchant Civ. It barely even made it out of the second tier. So that should tell you something about the methodology.

From your rankings you gave Portugal has a combined score of 6 for all trade route abilities, and an 8 for Venice. Yet anyone whose ever played both knows that Venice gets way more money from trade routes then Portugal does.

Your ranking system also treats land and sea routes the same which is simply not true. The same goes for Diplo trade, it's not on the same level as trade routes. I'm not sure what the point of Convert Trade to non-Diplo Victory is. This gives Arabia a much better score than it should.

My rankings would be:
Venice
Portugal
Arabia
Morocco
Carthage
The Netherlands
Indonesia
Germany
Russia

 

[Tyrvos]

I have a hard time seeing how Venice is not undisputed #1 Merchant Civ. It barely even made it out of the second tier. So that should tell you something about the methodology.

From your rankings you gave Portugal has a combined score of 6 for all trade route abilities, and an 8 for Venice. Yet anyone whose ever played both knows that Venice gets way more money from trade routes then Portugal does.

Your ranking system also treats land and sea routes the same which is simply not true. The same goes for Diplo trade, it's not on the same level as trade routes. I'm not sure what the point of Convert Trade to non-Diplo Victory is. This gives Arabia a much better score than it should.

My rankings would be:
Venice
Portugal
Arabia
Morocco
Carthage
The Netherlands
Indonesia
Germany
Russia

What hurts Venice (one of my favorite teams) is they rely completely on trade routes. Also, a standard deviation above the mean is nothing to scoff at, that means they are really good. They make insane money from them, but it provides a huge weakness. Arabia, on the other hand, has solid trade routes, double luxury and oil to trade, and a solid internal economy from the Bazaar. They don't put all their eggs in one basket, essentially.

Venice got a 4 in each individual trade route category (which aren't counted twice) because they don't have trade routes more efficient than normal. Portugal gets more PER trade route (thus is why the category is called individual land/sea route). Venice relies on more trade routes, which needs to be recognized because this is more production devoted to trade routes and military devoted to defending the routes. But I also gave Venice a 0 in overall trade routes (the only one who got that) because of their dominance in trade routes overall.

Sea trade routes make more, but they are riskier and land trade routes typically have more influence in the early game (also the impact those two categories have is minimal). Each has 1/13 influence.

Diplomatic trade might not provide the same money, but it provides money, better relations, strategic resources, and happiness. It's rather important.

The Convert Trade to non-Diplo Victory is, in my opinion, one of the most important. If you can't convert the wealth into something meaningful other than diplomacy, you have no flexibility (i.e can't carry out a war when need be or win by another means). What if victory by diplomacy is just not possible? Such as if Greece, Siam, and/or Austria are on the map? Or if it's a multiplayer game?


Also, your tier list is very similar, if you split both lists into 3rds (1-3, 4-6, 7-9) they contain the same teams.

 

[Vitruvius]

If Carthage is included then you should also include Iroquois which has instant free roads with forests.

 

[Sorinth]

What hurts Venice (one of my favorite teams) is they rely completely on trade routes. Also, a standard deviation above the mean is nothing to scoff at, that means they are really good. They make insane money from them, but it provides a huge weakness. Arabia, on the other hand, has solid trade routes, double luxury and oil to trade, and a solid internal economy from the Bazaar. They don't put all their eggs in one basket, essentially.

Venice got a 4 in each individual trade route category (which aren't counted twice) because they don't have trade routes more efficient than normal. Portugal gets more PER trade route (thus is why the category is called individual land/sea route). Venice relies on more trade routes, which needs to be recognized because this is more production devoted to trade routes and military devoted to defending the routes. But I also gave Venice a 0 in overall trade routes (the only one who got that) because of their dominance in trade routes overall.

Sea trade routes make more, but they are riskier and land trade routes typically have more influence in the early game (also the impact those two categories have is minimal). Each has 1/13 influence.

Diplomatic trade might not provide the same money, but it provides money, better relations, strategic resources, and happiness. It's rather important.

I usually play Continents and never have a problem defending sea trade routes. It's only somewhat hard on Archipelago. The bottom line is Venice makes more money from trade then any other Civ so it's the best Merchant Civ.

Your rankings have Portugal as better than Venice when only looking at trade routes. There's clearly something wrong there. Either it's the rankings or the methodology.

The Convert Trade to non-Diplo Victory is, in my opinion, one of the most important. If you can't convert the wealth into something meaningful other than diplomacy, you have no flexibility (i.e can't carry out a war when need be or win by another means). What if victory by diplomacy is just not possible? Such as if Greece, Siam, and/or Austria are on the map? Or if it's a multiplayer game?

What does any of that have to do with who the best Merchant Civ is? Arabia is without question more powerful than Venice, but it's not a better Merchant Civ.

Also, your tier list is very similar, if you split both lists into 3rds (1-3, 4-6, 7-9) they contain the same teams.

Well I never said your list was terrible, just flawed

 

[Tyrvos]

Sorry for the late responses, been roofing the last two days and haven't had the brainpower to provide responses (even though I probably never have the brainpower to).

If Carthage is included then you should also include Iroquois which has instant free roads with forests.

I was thinking about adding them and the Inca, but honestly their UA isn't really directly geared towards trade routes, rather city connections and free roads. Since they are roads, they can extend land trade routes, but it completely depends on the placement of the forests. Meanwhile, Carthage's harbors directly increase trade route distance of sea trade routes by 50% and increase the money the city gets from sea trade routes. I'll add them if there is a good argument for it, but it just doesn't seem like a trade oriented UA.

I usually play Continents and never have a problem defending sea trade routes. It's only somewhat hard on Archipelago. The bottom line is Venice makes more money from trade then any other Civ so it's the best Merchant Civ.

Your rankings have Portugal as better than Venice when only looking at trade routes. There's clearly something wrong there. Either it's the rankings or the methodology.

What does any of that have to do with who the best Merchant Civ is? Arabia is without question more powerful than Venice, but it's not a better Merchant Civ.

Yes, in single player, you almost always never have to worry anything about sea trade (or anything in the sea really). However, in mulitplayer, relying solely on sea trade routes, and being the small civ Venice is, can be a huge weakness.

Portugal only beats Venice in trade routes when looking at an INDIVIDUAL trade route, thus is why the two categories are listed as INDIVIDUAL land/sea trade routes (each only have 1/13 influence on the score). Portugal's UA gives them the best individual trade routes, especially in the mid to late game. On the other hand, Venice has the best OVERALL trade route score (which is 2/13 of the score), since that just can not be a debate.

I'm not defining a merchant civ by pure POTENTIAL gold per turn, as you can see in my formula. Looking at all the types of trading/economy in this game and looking who is the best all-around and who can best exploit it for a victory gives you the best merchant civ. The best is the one who can use the advantage to win the easiest, since winning should have a factor in who is the best.4

Venice has no benefits in diplomatic trade, in fact technically a disadvantage because they have less cities, and no benefit to internal economy, once again a disadvantage since they can only have puppets. In single-player, AI are too dumb to exploit these weaknesses. In a multiplayer game, players aren't. Therefore, Venice is not the cash cow that hey are in single player when you face an opponent that actually has a brain, while Arabia has more financial security.

 

[zukenft]

so is this rating for singleplayer or multiplayer? if singleplayer, is it for deity or beginner difficulty?
those three have a different tier list, you know. lumping all of them into one is not useful.

 

[Tyrvos]

so is this rating for singleplayer or multiplayer? if singleplayer, is it for deity or beginner difficulty?
those three have a different tier list, you know. lumping all of them into one is not useful.

Mainly used experience from deity/immortal and multiplayer.

 

[shaglio]

Sorry for the late responses, been roofing the last two days and haven't had the brainpower to provide responses (even though I probably never have the brainpower to).

I hope you're done with the roofing - It's been pouring out all day.

 

[Tyrvos]

I hope you're done with the roofing - It's been pouring out all day.

Lol ya, luckily I finished it yesterday. I'm out in Ware though so the rain hasn't hit us here yet today.