1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

An alternative Deity Tier List (a.k.a. 'Don't Forget About Conquest')

Discussion in 'Civ5 - Strategy & Tips' started by consentient, Mar 13, 2015.

  1. Mrdarklight

    Mrdarklight Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    Messages:
    255
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA
    Regarding Polynesia... I've always liked this civ, its just fun to play. But I never did that well with them. I always felt like I was losing badly, so I would quit early. Finally I decided to stick it out. I still didn't think I was doing well, but at some point after airports I looked at my tourism, and for a second I honestly thought something was wrong. I was making something like 900 tourism a turn. Usually at the end game there is some pressure, some competition, but I won that game before anyone had even built the Apollo program.
     
  2. Liegence

    Liegence Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    153
    This is an awesome listing and I'm glad it was developed. I think your opening thesis that conquest advantages are the most important advantages in "serious" games is very sound.

    Double points for saying Sweden is your fav - it's definitely my fav as well. They're UA is very cool. I'm surprised Carolean is only rated 1/5 - is March really not that good? I admit they're not Impi's but I've always had great success with them. Tundra bias is unfortunate... but does Sweden have a salt bias? I feel like I get salt more often with Sweden than any other civ, and salt is amazing.

    I also like Poland but who doesn't they're so broken.
     
  3. cazaderonus

    cazaderonus Actual Dad.

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    Messages:
    640
    well, surprised to see the Aztecs so low. Chinampas are beasts to get massive early growth. Also honor opener combined with the UA allows for nice exploits hunting barbs prior to maintaining a never ending war with one neighboor civ for culture and XP farming (using the free honor GG for a well placed citadel to ease the crushing of enemy units and lux\strat Resource stealing at the same time).
     
  4. beetle

    beetle Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    5,920
    Location:
    Frederick, MD
    Aztec are one of the “Good civilizations with advantages that can make the game easier to win.”

    There is only a single point difference between third tier Aztec and civs in the second tier. There is only another single point difference between the second tier civs and the first tier with Poland et al.

    The numerical ratings are applied very consistently. Some of the results are surprising. But rather than argue why a relatively-low-rank is strong (which they are, because all the civs are strong), the more constructive thing to do is look at the methodology, see if there are points where you disagree, and then argue what and why the numerical ratings for Aztec are off.
     
  5. LordBalkoth

    LordBalkoth Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2014
    Messages:
    525
    I have an issue with Mongolia here. Point wise, I'm not saying it should be #1 (since this isn't just about domination) but the fact it's a full 5 points below Arabia and below *America* is just wrong.

    So, objectively speaking, what's the issue?

    Well, you only rated Keshiks a 5/5. If you're thinking "Well, it's only OUT of 5..." then I'll point out that you clearly rated several other things as >5. In this kind of list, given the points you're giving for other stuff, Keshiks should be like a 7 or something. They're significantly better than Camel Archers -- yeah, they lack some raw strength but the XP bonus, Great General bonus, and extra movement make a massive massive difference. Doubly so in less than ideal terrain, which is where you're the most concerned about getting advantages.

    I'd also rather start as Mongolia than Arabia -- desert bias often backfires. Yeah, Desert Folklore is great...if you can even get it on Deity. Petra is great (maybe, in the right spot)...if you can even get it on Deity. I'd rather have a plains start with better likelihood of horses and salt. Plus you get more 3 yield tiles on plains than desert which means a faster start in general.

    So I'm having trouble seeing how Arabia gets +2 points for Desert and Mongolia gets 0 -- I realize you don't want to give every Civ points for start bias but Mongolia's bias is just as suited to it (or more suited to it) than Arabia's is. I rolled 15 starts yesterday for a Mongolia game TRYING to get a bad start -- and only 2 out of those 13 were anything less than amazing. And one of those was some jungle with El Dorado half a dozen tiles north. Meanwhile I've often had really bad Arabia starts.

    In the game I'm having right now, I'm also finding the CS bonus semi useful because the people I've gone to war with often have had CS allies in really annoying places...and that 30% bonus means I need less units to defend against them (as I was trying to avoid conquering the CSes). I'm not saying it's very good overall or a reason to pick Mongolia, but worst case you could always give it a point or two if you feel guilty about other stuff.

    I think you're also underrating the Khan potentially -- it's not even about keeping up with Keshiks, it's also about having any unit (including pre-Keshik AND post-Keshik if you don't try to conquer the entire world at that point (or can't)) heal 25 HP per turn in enemy territory and getting them to the front lines quickly when spawned...or getting across the map to help defend on a new front.

    So even if you just gave the Keshik a 6/5, a Khan 5/5, and the CS bonus a 1/5, that'd give it 13 points which seems to be a more reasonable place on the list...even if I still think it should be slightly higher.
     
  6. Bei1052

    Bei1052 Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,458
    Why is Austria so low? I just started deity, but wouldn't being able to instantly annex a well developed CS and gain its units be, in essence, free production + a boost to your science output?
     
  7. robaker

    robaker Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    26
    I agree with everything you said. I used to think that Mongolia only shines for a brief but brilliant moment when you get keshiks, but Mongolia actually has a strong and synergistic military bonus throughout the entire game. Many people dismiss khans' healing bonus because keshiks tend to not get hit, but khans' 'Enhanced Medic' promotion can make a big difference when used on units not named keshiks. It's very useful during the ancient and classical eras, and it shines once you upgrade keshiks into melee units. Furthermore, when comparing camel archers and keshiks, one important thing to keep in mind is that when you upgrade the two units camel archers become no different from any other cavalry or landship, but keshiks retain 'Quick Study' (allowing them to gain promotions quicker, which is important if you want to get 3 attacks per turn) and is backed up by khans' 'Enhanced Medic' promotion (which now can be game-changing) and therefore becomes awesome melee units to use alongside artilleries. The only problem is that most of the time you'll never get to use landships as Mongolia because you can take care of most of your enemies with keshiks then mop up the rest with upgraded cavalries and artilleries, which is a shame because 'Lightning Warfare' is fun.
     
  8. consentient

    consentient Domination!

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Messages:
    3,330
    Balkoth, if this were purely a Domination thread, then Mongolia would be higher. But, as I've said several times, it's about recognising that conquest is very strong, but still considering other factors. Mongolia have no bonuses that help them win non-Domination victories, though they are clearly top tier for Domination.

    On the issue of keeping to a maximum of 5 points for UUs, I'd ask you to remember that the UUs are being compared to the Neutrals' equivalent. I don't want to see people comparing CAs and Keshiks directly here. You can do that on another thread. This thread is all about scoring civs according to their advantages over the Neutrals. Both CAs and Keshiks are considerably better than Knights. It's enough to recognise this and then move onto the next advantage.

    America's T0 improvement for scouting helps so much with ruins, barb quests, worker steals and many other things, even if you want to play peaceful later on. Their tile bonus is immense when you need to get tiles online to snowball into a strong mid game. These advantages are scored accordingly in comparison with a Neutral start, and it just so happens that I think these scores give them greater advantages to make the game easier to win a variety of VCs, without forgetting about conquest, than Mongolia.

    If you disagree with a particular score I've given, I'm happy to discuss it, but no unit can have more than 5/5 because 5 already means that it makes the game much easier to win. Imagine a Warrior with double the normal combat strength and Shock 1. Makes the game much easier to win by giving a really strong start. If it had 3x the combat strength it wouldn't make much difference. Diminishing returns, and all that.

    I've already addressed this, I think. Essentially, my argument boils down to:

    - You can't choose the location of the CS, so well-placed, self-founded is nearly always gonna be better.
    - You can't choose what they have built up to that point, so you could annex and find some junk in there
    - The advantages of alliance (especially late-game cultural CS) vastly outweigh the advantages of marriage, and if you're gonna get to alliance anyway, you've put quite a lot of work in. Throwing that away for a city that you didn't choose the location of seems foolish to me
    - The CS units are free, but not free to maintain, nor can you choose what they are, nor are they likely to be well-promoted
     
  9. robaker

    robaker Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    26
    If you would give immortals a rating of 5/5 (if they upgraded to riflemen) then don't you think khans deserve a 5/5 as well considering that they can give +15 healing to every single unit in the game including spearmen and riflemen?
     
  10. consentient

    consentient Domination!

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Messages:
    3,330
    I see where you're coming from, and I thank you for comparing functions, but I have to say that I think these are not directly comparable. The reason is that you can make Immortals at will, but Khans have to be earned through points. So although these units have a similar function, the units themselves are quite different. Immortals built T30-40 that kept their healing and upgraded to Riflemen would be completely broken. The developers know, I think that Lancers are a bit weak for their position in the game.

    Khans are very strong and make it significantly easier to win the game, but a) you can only get them by earning them and b) you only need 1 or 2. More becomes excessive. The real strength of Mongolia is the Keshik, which is among the best UUs. Khans without Keshiks are less good than Keshiks without Khans.

    I hope this makes sense? :)
     
  11. robaker

    robaker Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    26
    I use the honor/commerce strategy when playing Mongolia so I get a free khan around the time I'm ready to go attack a neighbor. Furthermore, it's not uncommon to get 8+ khans in a game. So even if a khan were to somehow get killed you would have plenty more to replace him. I don't see how needing only 1 or 2 of them is a downside when to me that seems efficient, please explain to me.

    How are immortals-turned-riflemen with March more effective than Mongolian spearmen-turned-riflemen with March supported by a khan?

    I think you're underestimating the khan's usefulness when it comes to supporting units that are not named keshiks. Finally, shouldn't you be judging the khan based on its individual merits and not in comparison to the keshik? It sounds to me like you're giving khans a 4/5 because keshiks are obviously a 5/5, and you're saying that khans are not as good as keshiks, therefore they should be rated lower than a keshik. Am I right?
     
  12. consentient

    consentient Domination!

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Messages:
    3,330
    What I'm getting at is that the availability of Khans is different from the availability of a unit. Remember that I haven't rated Immortals 5/5, I've said that I would rate them as 5 if they retained their healing promotion and upgraded to Riflemen. They don't.

    I didn't say this, so I'm not going to defend it.

    No, I'm not. It's substantially better than a GG. The 4/5 rating is based on how it compares with a GG that the Neutrals have. It's much better. Just not 5/5 better in my view.

    The comparison I made was between the ratings of the Khan and the Keshik. The Keshik, compared with the knight, is more game-changing than the Khan compared with the GG. Understand now?
     
  13. robaker

    robaker Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    26
    Let's just agree to disagree. Of course I understand you (or do I?:mischief:). My only disagreement and my only "misunderstanding" is that I believe khans should be rated 5/5.
     
  14. consentient

    consentient Domination!

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Messages:
    3,330
    OK, let's isolate the Khan vs. GG issue.

    +2 for increased movement
    +2 for healing

    Fair?
     
  15. beetle

    beetle Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    5,920
    Location:
    Frederick, MD
    Seems fair. But this is related to why I argued that Hakkapelitta deserves 1/5 not 0/5. That extra movement to a GG is really quite useful. The Khan, but not the Hakkapelitta, gets +2 for this because movement on its own is so much easier than the way Sweden has to manage. Plus the Khan is available from T0, whereas the Hakkapelitta does not unlock until Renaissance.
     
  16. consentient

    consentient Domination!

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Messages:
    3,330
    I don't want to have to build a Lancer in order to make a GG go faster. Either it moves faster, and gets +2 points, or it's normal, and I'll live with it as it is. I mostly use GG for bombing luxes anyway. 1 or 2 go with the troops, and can usually keep up quite well. The extra movement gives a lot of mobility, but building a lancer to do that is way too complex.
     
  17. Shark Diver

    Shark Diver King

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2013
    Messages:
    705
    Location:
    Grand Cayman/San Diego
    I'm late to this thread, so I apologize for a catch-up comment. When it comes to the extra movement for a Khan, I'm just reminded of all of the times I click "do nothing" with regular GG's. If you position them right, they really don't need to move that often during a siege, where the majority of combat takes place. I'd actually downgrade the Khan's movement bonus and upgrade its' early availability.

    The Hakka can be a kick-a$$ unit if used well.
     
  18. robaker

    robaker Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    26
    I don't think you should be judging khans based on your experiences with regular great generals. You're clicking 'do nothing' with regular great generals because (a) you don't use them to heal other units, and (b) you're most likely not using them alongside 5 movement units. But when it comes to khans the extra movement is very useful to get into position to heal in certain situations - otherwise you would have to waste a turn or two to get into position. Furthermore khans are very synergistic with keeping up with keshiks, and later supporting and healing upgraded cavalries that also have 5 movement (and march). Khans allow you to get to the battlefield sooner by many turns (without the need for roads). Considering that you can take down a city in 2-4 turns most of the time, when using regular great generals without roads connecting to the battlefield you'll almost be done with the battle by the time a great general arrives, but khans will be relevant starting from the very beginning of the battle and will be able to heal starting from turn 1 of the battle as well. Even if khans get 2-3 more turns of being in a battle than a regular great general, keep in mind that the rest of the battle may only last 1-3 more turns. All of the above are possible only because khans have increased mobility. The movement is crucial.

    Lastly, khans have excellent synergy with late-game units as well. Immediately after keshiks, Mongolia will continue with uber-cavalries (which have 5 movement and retain the 50% experience bonus) and uber-landships that synergize perfectly with khans' 5 movement and healing bonus even moreso than khans' synergy with keshiks because (a) melee units take damage when attacking and therefore will benefit immensely more from khans' healing bonus, and (b) cavalries use hit-and-run type tactics and landships/tanks use rushing tactics which benefit immensely from being supported by 5 movement khans (rather than a stationary 2 movement great general).

    In my opinion:
    +2 points for mobility
    +2 points for healing
    +1 point for availability (can get one immediately with honor) and relevancy throughout the entire game, rather than being limited to a specific era as with most other unique units, while providing synergistic benefits to many units
     
  19. consentient

    consentient Domination!

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Messages:
    3,330
    Since all of the above is also true of GG, this cannot be a plus when compared with the Neutrals. I have to say, I don't think you've understood my system of comparison. We are not comparing Mongolia with anyone except the Neutrals, and therefore Khans vs GG, Knights vs. Keshiks, crappy CS US vs. nothing, etc.
     
  20. Shark Diver

    Shark Diver King

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2013
    Messages:
    705
    Location:
    Grand Cayman/San Diego
    Thanks for the nice response. My reply, in random order, and trying to stick to Consentient's thread theme:

    +1 for mobility for my previous reasons. The mobility is great, but at some point I have to downgrade them for the fact that every warmonger game I play I end up with so many GG's hanging around I'm tempted to delete some to save on the GPT. If you have that many, mobility is an afterthought.

    +1 for Healing. Maybe +1.5. My starting Warrior, almost every game, takes the healing promotion. From t20 onwards, that's worth a @$%^load of healing during the game. Is the Khan's healing THAT much more powerful? Sometimes, yes, but not always.

    +1 for Availability. Maybe +1.5 so I can go down the right side of the Honor tree first. But that means we miss out on doubling up on the extra XP UA, yes? Perhaps I'm wrong in going down the right side of the tree, and I do love that 2nd level +1 happiness/culture. It's useful, and I find the 3rd level cheaper upgrade to be worth a fair sum as well, so i can see both sides of this argument.

    As far as "Uber Cavalries" go, it is entirely possible that I misuse horse units, so I underrate them in post-industrial warfare (which is what we are discussing). They are also terrain dependent, to some degree. That said, I usually upgrade my Keshiks to get range and logistics ASAP and that means they don't always get Shield or March. At this point, upgrades, even with the double bonuses take awhile, so the "non-Uber Cavalries" do take awhile to become Uber again.

    If we've done a great job with Keshiks, and there isn't much left to conquer, great. But if there is any real resistance and you don't have Arties/Bombers ready, you are kinda stuck in the mud at this point, no?

    And since we've already focused our tech on certain military beelines, well.....we are now waiting around until we have a military advantage sometimes. Since our tech likely is slow right now, and the point of the thread is how each civ's military advantages contribute to ANY VC, I'd say that this is a weakness.

    Since none of the above is remotely original, let me close by saying that I agree with those who have pointed out this weakness previously. I think Consentient has them ranked pretty accurately, but with the caveat that they are more terrain dependent than some other civs.
     

Share This Page