A tiered ranking of leader novelty

[crdvis16]

My main criteria when deciding which civ to play as next is "does their kit encourage an interesting or novel way to play?". Civ already has a lot of replayability built in but furthering that with interesting civ UA/UU/UBs really makes for novel experiences. With that in mind I wanted to rank all of the civs in the game into different tiers in terms of how novel/interesting/unique their kit is.

Of course, this ranking is my opinion only but seeing where others agree or disagree might encourage me to give a new civ a try. I don't expect any changes to leaders at this point- this is primarily a fun exercise to see what others might think about each leader's kit.

Without further ado, my tiered ranking:


--------------------TIER 1: Most unique/novel--------------------

Japan – their whole kit is just a bundle of interesting synergy that makes generating great generals/admirals and getting promotions for your units a satisfying mini game

Polynesia – Maori are a cool UI and making super Maori in weird peninsulas is really unique. Most of all, their UA allows super early exploration of the seas and expansion to remote areas of the map

Venice – Every aspect is unique. Their settling restrictions and dependence on trade/money, their UU might be the most unique in the game, and their UBs are interesting


--------------------TIER 2: Very unique/novel--------------------

Arabia – Makes historic events the absolute focus of your game whereas other civs mostly just see them as happy bonuses to what they were doing anyway

Assyria – Interesting synergy with science and conquering and a cool UU as well as mini game with great works of writing and unit experience

Brazil – Golden ages are never more important than with Brazil as well as a unique UU and a UI that really promotes jungle/forest settling

Byzantium – So many fun synergies to explore with super religions

Carthage – Can rapidly expand like no other civ can with a UU that loves to explore.

Denmark – Pillaging is never as important as with Denmark with a UA/UU/UB that are all tailored to make it the focus of your game.

Egypt – The best civ for wonder chasing with an interesting production on kill UU and interesting unique artifacts for free from the UB.

England – A spy right off the bat can make for some very interesting strategies, like crippling a neighbor with spying alone.

France – Great synergy between war and great artists/writers/musicians with a fun to use UI.

Greece – Interesting synergy between war, CS alliances, and culture

India – Capable of the tallest of tall cities with an interesting twist on the religion game

Morocco – Trade war mini games

Portugal – Interesting interaction between a satisfying UU and the UI

Spain – Promotes rapid early expansion for a powerful religion along with a UU that doubles as a pioneer and a UB with a fun population growth mechanic

The Celts – Their own set of pantheons, a twist with how to spread religion, and a super early UU that is critical for its religious game

The Dutch – Creates a mini game with collecting luxury monopolies all over the place and a UU that can recruit the enemy


--------------------TIER 3: Somewhat unique/novel--------------------

America – The relatively simple tile purchase = production mechanic can make the early game feel very unique as cities can blow through their early buildings and become productive very fast or speed build early wonders if you have the cash

China – A mini game of trying to maximize the passive city bonuses from settling/conquering for as long as possible before entering a new era

Russia – Lends itself to the “border blobs” strategy which is a fun set of synergies

Songhai – Promotes a mini game of settling along interconnected rivers

The Aztec – A fun mini game of farming your neighbors for culture

The Inca – Songhai but mountains/hills

The Iroquois – Songhai/Inca but forests/jungle

The Maya – An interesting UA whereby you can get very early, critical great people, maybe for a guaranteed early wonder of religion


--------------------TIER 4: Marginally unique/novel--------------------

Austria – Mostly benefits from going for a normal diplomatic victory, though the marriage mechanic at least puts in an interesting twist to get there

Indonesia – A somewhat generic UA/UB that gives some unique luxuries, though the UU does get its own set of interesting promotions

Korea – Play tall and benefit hugely from doing so, but not much in the way of interesting mechanics to encourage anything beyond that

Mongolia – Can gobble up some CSs just by moving a big army nearby (though if you went through that trouble you could just take the CS by force…), but the UU is fairly interesting especially with the healing mechanic

Persia – A fairly typical warmonger with a mini game of using golden ages to make it easier

Siam – Mostly just benefits from playing a normal diplomatic game, however, very much rewarded for exploring and finding every CS ASAP for those automatic friend bonuses so is pushed to explore like no other civ

The Huns – Another fairly typical warmonger but at least has a mini game of capturing enemy barbarians/units which is cool

The Ottomans – Heavily rewarded for trading so a mini game of having as many trade routes as possible but not much in the way of interesting mechanics beyond that

The Zulu – A typical warmonger but with an added wrinkle of being encourages to demand tribute which is an often overlooked part of the game. Some powerful promotions for its melee units as well but they don’t necessarily encourage very unique tactics


--------------------TIER 5: Barely unique/novel--------------------

Babylon – Basically gets rewarded for working scientist slots and playing defensively. Not much there beyond just making tall/defensive/science play easier to pull off

Ethiopia – Gets free tech for doing things you would do anyway

Germany – Rewarded for allying CSs and trading with them, both of which are normal parts of diplomatic victory games

Poland – Gets free policies for doing things you would do anyway, so Ethiopia but policies

Sweden – Benefit from warmongering about sums them up. Though I could see strategic generation of great generals as a fun mini game as well as the Carolean’s aggressive area of effect damage when killing enemies

Rome – Just benefits from conquering cities more than others by having them come online and be productive sooner than anyone else but not much in the way of unique mechanics to go about conquering

The Shoshone – I like the synergy between the extra land, defensive UU that withdraws, and the UI that damages enemies in your lands, but there’s nothing in the way of interesting mechanics or focus on a novel part of the game

 

[Moi Magnus]

I think I would have put China in rank 2.
The way you need to synchronize your expansion with eras to optimize your UA is quite unique on its own.

 

[ElliotS]

1- I think it's pretty neat that the changes to morroco took it from a tier 3 to a tier 1 on this. (I assume you would rank it as a tier 3 before the changes.)

2- The way you fight wars between Zulu, Persia, Rome, and Mongolia is hugely different. I don't know how to rank them in that sense, but putting them all in tier 3 seems wrong.

I mean if you're using the same tactics as Rome as you do as Mongolia you're just doing it wrong.

3- Assyria should be tier 1. They're super unique with their "Tradition -> Imperialism" strategy. Being able to pump out units with level 4 promotions late game is so strong!

Can tier 4 just be Ethiopia? They're so generic it hurts. Not bad, just generic. The only interesting thing they've got going on is mistaking their units for barbarians and accidentally a war.

 

[Gothic_Empire]

1- I think it's pretty neat that the changes to morroco took it from a tier 3 to a tier 1 on this. (I assume you would rank it as a tier 3 before the changes.)

2- The way you fight wars between Zulu, Persia, Rome, and Mongolia is hugely different. I don't know how to rank them in that sense, but putting them all in tier 3 seems wrong.

I mean if you're using the same tactics as Rome as you do as Mongolia you're just doing it wrong.

3- Assyria should be tier 1. They're super unique with their "Tradition -> Imperialism" strategy. Being able to pump out units with level 4 promotions late game is so strong!

Can tier 4 just be Ethiopia? They're so generic it hurts. Not bad, just generic. The only interesting thing they've got going on is mistaking their units for barbarians and accidentally a war.

I'm in a multiplayer game as Poland and feel like I've been forced into Tradition => Fealty => Imperialism. It's so goddamn weird. I get why Assyria goes Tradition, of course, but I just wanted to point out that this DEFINITELY feels wrong as a non-Assyria civ.

 

[Stalker0]

I'm in a multiplayer game as Poland and feel like I've been forced into Tradition => Fealty => Imperialism.

I use this combo when its a continents style map and the big AI is on the other continent. At this point you know your going to have to throw down a navy battle with this AI at some point, and imperalism gives you some huge sea combat bonuses.

 

[tu_79]

I disagree on Austria. It's the only civ that can play tall diplomacy confidently, and have the world congress under control without expending a single hammer on diplo units.
China also makes a different playstyle with expansion/building phases.
Rome could feel generic, but in fact it changes how you should play your capital.
Sweden is a lot of fun if you want to fight. In fact, it's the perfect civ for learning how to focus on military and pretty much ignore the rest.

 

[Gazebo]

I love all my children equally.

G

 

[crdvis16]

I think I would have put China in rank 2.
The way you need to synchronize your expansion with eras to optimize your UA is quite unique on its own.

I think I must be missing a nuance with China (or the VP wiki is outdated?). From the wiki:

"Creating Great Works or gaining Cities grants "We love the Empress" and +1 Food and Culture in all Cities. These bonuses decline with every new era due to dynastic transition. "WLTED" grants +10% Food."

To me that just reads that you'll probably have non-stop WLTED in all of your cities just by doing what you would normally do, with encouragement to rapidly expand early on in order to avoid the dynastic transition reductions. Is there more to it than that?

 

[crdvis16]

1- I think it's pretty neat that the changes to morroco took it from a tier 3 to a tier 1 on this. (I assume you would rank it as a tier 3 before the changes.)

2- The way you fight wars between Zulu, Persia, Rome, and Mongolia is hugely different. I don't know how to rank them in that sense, but putting them all in tier 3 seems wrong.

I mean if you're using the same tactics as Rome as you do as Mongolia you're just doing it wrong.

3- Assyria should be tier 1. They're super unique with their "Tradition -> Imperialism" strategy. Being able to pump out units with level 4 promotions late game is so strong!

Can tier 4 just be Ethiopia? They're so generic it hurts. Not bad, just generic. The only interesting thing they've got going on is mistaking their units for barbarians and accidentally a war.

1) Yep, I would have had Morocco as a tier3 previously. I haven't actually gotten a chance to play them since their update but it does seem like using their pirate-esque strategy would be quite unique.

2) For Zulu, Persia, Rome, and Mongolia I could see different policy choices (maybe progress for Rome, maybe Tradition for Persia, maybe Authority for Mongolia/Zulu) and having to focus on different things to make them effective warmongers, but in the end I would still just play them as warmongers. Mongolia has the little mini-game of snatching up CSs for practically free but other warmongers could just take the time to take those CSs the old fashioned way and the result isn't hugely different. Rome turns their conquests into productive members of the empire quicker but that essentially just means that they benefit more from doing what any other warmonger would do anyway. Persia has the mini-game of coordinating golden ages with wars but that's just a small timing thing and didn't feel hugely different when I played them. Zulu's kit basically just says "go authority and conquer everyone" but there isn't much of a mini-game or focus on a normally underused aspect of the game, at least to me. I would love to hear why you think these civs would feel different than the typical game, though- I wouldn't doubt that I am short changing some of the tier3 civs.

3) I actually had a hard time with where to place Assyria. Part of me thinks that their whole kit has so much synergy with each part complementing their strategy (kind of like Japan) that they deserve high marks, and part of me thinks they could just be played sort of mindlessly as a warmonger and do pretty well too. Perhaps the fact that I'm conflicted means they deserve high marks haha.

4) I would put Poland pretty close to Ethiopia in terms of generic-ness. Their bonuses are both so very passive and automatic, though I imagine with Poland getting access to ideologies so much earlier than anyone else could make them feel unique and lead to interesting strategies (like having access to 6 foreign legion super early in the game or something). I also find the diplomatic civs I listed in tier3 to be very "automatic" (Austria, Germany, Siam). You get rewarded for just allying CSs like you were going to do anyway but there isn't some interesting quirk or trick you have to accomplish to get those bonuses.

 

[Mad Madigan]

Yes, with China you don't just want to expand as fast as possible, but in even waves with each of the first 3 eras. Since each era transition cuts your food/culture bonus in half, you want to try for an even number of "procs" per era. Once you get through to Medieval and headed for Renaissance you should be getting all of your guilds up and start churning out Great Works. Or, if you're planning for a domination victory, just planning your wars and expansions so that you don't over or under expand within each era. The near-constant WLTED in all of your cities can also be synergized with religious beliefs that further boost the benefits of this buff. This all combines to make the Civ at least a "Tier 2" rank for novelty IMO.

 

[crdvis16]

I disagree on Austria. It's the only civ that can play tall diplomacy confidently, and have the world congress under control without expending a single hammer on diplo units.
China also makes a different playstyle with expansion/building phases.
Rome could feel generic, but in fact it changes how you should play your capital.
Sweden is a lot of fun if you want to fight. In fact, it's the perfect civ for learning how to focus on military and pretty much ignore the rest.

1) Going tall is a fairly normal part of the game, going diplomacy is a fairly normal part of the game. Doing both at the same time is maybe marginally unique, but in the end it's still two aspects of the game that are done regularly. There's no mini-game or focus on an underused aspect of civ to Austria. You go Tradition and Statecraft, ally everyone, and dominate that WC. If Austria had to jump through some weird hoops in order to get their marriages going then I could see them feeling unique (no idea what that would be) but as it stands their kit just lends to doing things in a very normal way, imo.

2) I seem to be way off with China as pretty much everyone disagrees with me. I need to re-evaluate them I think. It's been a little while since I've played them.

3) I could see the mini game with Rome where you constantly try to stay up to date with infrastructure in your capital to give your other cities the production bonus. However- that's pretty much how I play already. I almost always invest in capital production because I want to get all necessary infrastructure AND any national/world wonders in the capital. So at least for me, playing Rome would feel like I am being rewarded for doing what I already do. I could see this being different for others, though.

4) I could see Sweden being fun (every civ is fun, really) but compared to others I just don't see their play style as terribly unique. There's some cool tactics you could use with the Carolean or the "oh nice!" moments when a GG spawns just in time to rejuvenate your whole army, but I just don't feel like there's much of a mini-game going on or that their kit lends itself to terribly interesting strategies other than warmonger.

 

[crdvis16]

I love all my children equally.

G

I think there's plenty of people whose favorite civs are all on my tier3 list. They just value different things when they play a game of civ. So don't interpret this post as "I think these leaders need kit changes". It's more just an entertaining exercise I felt like doing

 

[Y.O.]

2) For Zulu, Persia, Rome, and Mongolia I could see different policy choices (maybe progress for Rome, maybe Tradition for Persia, maybe Authority for Mongolia/Zulu) and having to focus on different things to make them effective warmongers, but in the end I would still just play them as warmongers. Mongolia has the little mini-game of snatching up CSs for practically free but other warmongers could just take the time to take those CSs the old fashioned way and the result isn't hugely different. Rome turns their conquests into productive members of the empire quicker but that essentially just means that they benefit more from doing what any other warmonger would do anyway. Persia has the mini-game of coordinating golden ages with wars but that's just a small timing thing and didn't feel hugely different when I played them. Zulu's kit basically just says "go authority and conquer everyone" but there isn't much of a mini-game or focus on a normally underused aspect of the game, at least to me. I would love to hear why you think these civs would feel different than the typical game, though- I wouldn't doubt that I am short changing some of the tier3 civs.

If we want to focus on the Zulu, they're really one of the few warmonger civs you can achieve diplomacy through warmongering. The Ikanda gives you a ton of supply cap, and you're likely not going to need as many units as your cap. With the Zulu's ability of easier tributes (plus more yields), alongside the exploitation policy, and the tyranny tenat, you're now bullying CS with a much easier time, and getting influence out of it. Now you combine that with your absurd unit cap and United Front to build a ton of units to gift to CSs. Units becomes your diplomats, and with your influence not decaying when you're at war (why aren't you warring as Shaka), and you affecting other Civs influence, you have the ability to be a factor in the World Congress. I've won a few diplomatic victories as the Zulu this way, but not sure how this would fare on different difficulties since I play on Emperor\Epic.

Also I think unique buildings are retained when conquered by Rome, but the biggest draw to me (other than unique buildings) is the fact that your cities will be able to contribute a lot quicker than other civs, both conquered cities and ones created by you (especially if you go progress).

 

[crdvis16]

Yes, with China you don't just want to expand as fast as possible, but in even waves with each of the first 3 eras. Since each era transition cuts your food/culture bonus in half, you want to try for an even number of "procs" per era. Once you get through to Medieval and headed for Renaissance you should be getting all of your guilds up and start churning out Great Works. Or, if you're planning for a domination victory, just planning your wars and expansions so that you don't over or under expand within each era. The near-constant WLTED in all of your cities can also be synergized with religious beliefs that further boost the benefits of this buff. This all combines to make the Civ at least a "Tier 2" rank for novelty IMO.

I think the description on the VP wiki must be outdated, or I just don't understand it.

 

[Mad Madigan]

The Golden Age timing for Persia is interesting enough to move them up to Tier 2 in my book, but I agree that Zulu, Rome, and Mongolia (while all very powerful in their own ways) are all just regular vanilla warmongers in my book. Zulu is probably the most pigeon-holed warmonger in the game, as their unique abilities give them no other advantage other than in utterly crushing their opponents. That's great, and they are very scary as a neighbor, but I agree that there is nothing about their kit that would encourage me to play them any differently than I would if I were trying to win through Domination with any other warmonger Civ.

Ethiopia and Poland are Civs I would encourage any new player to the game to try first, as their unique abilities are very passive but still very good. You can go for just about any kind of victory with them, so they're great if you want to try the "Random VC" advanced setup option, but they're definitely Tier 3 for novelty.

 

[crdvis16]

If we want to focus on the Zulu, they're really one of the few warmonger civs you can achieve diplomacy through warmongering. The Ikanda gives you a ton of supply cap, and you're likely not going to need as many units as your cap. With the Zulu's ability of easier tributes (plus more yields), alongside the exploitation policy, and the tyranny tenat, you're now bullying CS with a much easier time, and getting influence out of it. Now you combine that with your absurd unit cap and United Front to build a ton of units to gift to CSs. Units becomes your diplomats, and with your influence not decaying when you're at war (why aren't you warring as Shaka), and you affecting other Civs influence, you have the ability to be a factor in the World Congress. I've won a few diplomatic victories as the Zulu this way, but not sure how this would fare on different difficulties since I play on Emperor\Epic.

That actually does sound really interesting. Demanding tribute from CSs is often an under-used aspect of civ (at least for me, others maybe focus it a lot) so being able to leverage it for tons of influence with those policy choices is pretty cool and feeds right into their UA. Even if you don't win a diplo victory, being able to defend yourself in the WC when everyone hates you would be a fun aspect of war mongering as the Zulu. I think you've convinced me to push them to tier 2.

 

[crdvis16]

The Golden Age timing for Persia is interesting enough to move them up to Tier 2 in my book, but I agree that Zulu, Rome, and Mongolia (while all very powerful in their own ways) are all just regular vanilla warmongers in my book. Zulu is probably the most pigeon-holed warmonger in the game, as their unique abilities give them no other advantage other than in utterly crushing their opponents. That's great, and they are very scary as a neighbor, but I agree that there is nothing about their kit that would encourage me to play them any differently than I would if I were trying to win through Domination with any other warmonger Civ.

Ethiopia and Poland are Civs I would encourage any new player to the game to try first, as their unique abilities are very passive but still very good. You can go for just about any kind of victory with them, so they're great if you want to try the "Random VC" advanced setup option, but they're definitely Tier 3 for novelty.

For Persia, I just feel like golden ages are so easy to come by (just work some great artists and bulb them whenever you want to go to war) that it hardly feels like I'm doing something out of the ordinary. I mean, normally I choose great works of art early in the game and that might change with Persia if I need a golden age right this instant, but generating golden ages is a pretty normal aspect of the game to me.

For Zulu, Y.O. totally convinced me that they are actually tier 2 haha.

 

[Mad Madigan]

@Y.O. Don't forget that in the latest patches you can no longer gift units to CSs if they are at or beyond their individual unit cap. This cuts down on using unit gifts as a spammable method for influence, but otherwise you are correct that Zulu can shoot for a diplomatic victory if total world domination isn't an option.

 

[crdvis16]

I've also moved China up to tier 2. I still don't think I understand how they work but pretty much everyone agreed that they shouldn't be tier 3.

 

[tu_79]

1) Going tall is a fairly normal part of the game, going diplomacy is a fairly normal part of the game. Doing both at the same time is maybe marginally unique, but in the end it's still two aspects of the game that are done regularly. There's no mini-game or focus on an underused aspect of civ to Austria. You go Tradition and Statecraft, ally everyone, and dominate that WC. If Austria had to jump through some weird hoops in order to get their marriages going then I could see them feeling unique (no idea what that would be) but as it stands their kit just lends to doing things in a very normal way, imo.

2) I seem to be way off with China as pretty much everyone disagrees with me. I need to re-evaluate them I think. It's been a little while since I've played them.

3) I could see the mini game with Rome where you constantly try to stay up to date with infrastructure in your capital to give your other cities the production bonus. However- that's pretty much how I play already. I almost always invest in capital production because I want to get all necessary infrastructure AND any national/world wonders in the capital. So at least for me, playing Rome would feel like I am being rewarded for doing what I already do. I could see this being different for others, though.

4) I could see Sweden being fun (every civ is fun, really) but compared to others I just don't see their play style as terribly unique. There's some cool tactics you could use with the Carolean or the "oh nice!" moments when a GG spawns just in time to rejuvenate your whole army, but I just don't feel like there's much of a mini-game going on or that their kit lends itself to terribly interesting strategies other than warmonger.

You haven't toyed too much with them, ain't you?

Playing tall and diplomacy at the same time is by no means easy. Know what happens when you ally too many city states? Your neighbours get angry. And you have way too little an army. Usually a diplomatic civ goes thick (because it needs to, otherwise it cannot produce enough diplomatic units and get near those city states), so it has a decent army; this is not the case for Austria.
Also, I don't see that going Statecraft is the best option for Austria. Letting your alliances fall after you've marriaged, and going Artistry, boosts GP generation while holding a strong grab in the world congress. Even Fealty is not that good, for the bonus is in the capital alone, and you don't really need too much food outside of Wien. If you go StateCraft, then you may have absolute diplomatic control, but it leads to wars with your very small army, but hey, you're the hummy, so maybe you can beat it.

Rome's minigame is different enough. You don't want to build wonders in Rome. You build infrastructure and units. So wonders are in secondary/captured cities. It's one of the civs that can make a puppet empire work. Also, the excess of great generals let you abuse citadels. Normally you place citadels in very well selected places. Here you spam them. Is it novel? Not too much, but enough.

China... yes you are missing something. You get +1 culture +1 food in ALL cities, when getting new cities (or create great works, I haven't played with that added). I'll put you this way: Settle 6 cities in Ancient Era and your capital will have +6f+6c, your second city will have +5f+5c, your third one +4f+4c, sfsf. So with 6 cities you have like +21f+21c in your empire in Ancient!. This will go down when you pass to next era, but while you get there, it's massive. Does this change the way you play it? Definitely. Because if you prefer to expand in Classical, then you rush to Iron Working, build a massive army and expand. It also changes the way you rush/delay next eras.

Sweden, it may not change your play style if you are a warmonger yourself, but for me it was like "fight always or lose". His uniques are nothing without a fight.


Some civs are unique in the way they play, like China or Venice. Some civs are unique because they can do things that others can't, like the damn fast early expansion of Carthage. Some civs are good for learning a mechanic/ play style, so you play as always, but with a focus on that specific mechanic. With India you learn a lot about religious pressure. With Netherlands you learn about deals. Austria makes you pay attention to CS quests. Sweden is so war focused that you need to master warmongering if you want to play with it. Some civs are just generically strong and can be played the way you like (Poland, Ethiopia).