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

[claudiupb]

They also have a good synergy with the UA. Because you can't really expand earlier, taking cities with already improved luxuries is pretty good. So instead of building settlers, build an army of elephants to capture some cities (preferably capitals). After that you can settle your own cities if you have space since you can go wide AND tall. In this strategy it doesn't really matter that they can't upgrade to keep their promotions as the idea is not to go early domination, just expand by conquest.

Temple of Artemis also works well because it buffs production on the UU, and you can may want the growth as you can afford the high pop even on wide empires. But it is a big risk as it goes out pretty early most games.

 

[Tyrannus29]

The problem with egypt is that there is little synergy between the UA and the UU + UB. Both the UB and UU favor a wide empire with 1-2 conquered capitals and maybe getting a religion that further buffs the temples (DF is definitely a strong pantheon with the start bias and if you can get culture from temples and a religious building it can be a very strong religion). But the UA doesn't work quite well with this startegy because there is little time for wonders. And playing wide you won't build many national wonders either.

On the other hand the UA works well with a tradition tall empire: you stack the bonus with aristocracy and get a science lead faster, letting you build more wonders. But the UB is not that great if you only get 4-5 of them. In this case you want to avoid early wars in order to focus on science and growth so the UU is useless. But going tradition let's you get ahead in science faster for any civ so really what the UA gives is just a reduction in hammers.

Egypt can be quite strong with the right combination of terrain and religion, but all this is situational so they can't be put in the first two tiers on any list.

Where you don't see synergy, I see adaptability and flexibility, based on the land you have and the neighbours you get, you are free to choose liberty or tradition as Egypt. Considering that timing for Hanging Gardens is critical on deity, that 20% make the difference between getting it or not getting it, and with HG the game is almost won. Same for Porcelain tower, where timing is critical. I remember that once i focused on science and expansion and i got attacked by Assyria so I used the chariots to defend. +2 happinnes and +2 gold per city is a great bonus. Gold and happiness are a huge problem in case you go wide, as you have probably noticed already. To put this into perspective, you get Temple Happiness belief and Church Property for free in your cities.

 

[fyar]

India gets a bit of a raw deal too IMO, their UA turns out to be pretty good for happiness (even more so if lifting higher pop cities off the AI to shorten the growing time curve/cost), but that was touched on. The elephant archers getting a 0/5 I can't agree with though. You are scratching a resource-based unit (which you can now sell) for 3 move composite bows that are a bit less expensive and buildable earlier than composite bows.

My thoughts on their UA are that it's definitely a very powerful ability in the late game, but the early game is always more crucial to me. Having to delay your first couple expansions, even just a little bit, can mean the difference between a powerhouse second city and having that perfect spot taken right from under your nose. Early game bonuses are generally more powerful than late game bonuses. India has arguably one of the best late game bonuses out there, but even a minor nerf to your early game can outstrip its usefulness.

 

[beetle]

The elephant archers getting a 0/5 I can't agree with though. You are scratching a resource-based unit (which you can now sell) for 3 move composite bows that are a bit less expensive and buildable earlier than composite bows.

I stand corrected. I have been looking a the UU ratings on and off the last couple days, and there are a few, this one included, that are just as egregious as the scoring for Dromons.

That said, I think the problem stems from UU and UB having mostly the same value range as UA -- when UA has a much bigger impact on the game. Consentient partially compensates (some UA go over 5 points, but none of the UU do), but I don't think his ratings are as systematic as they could be. And then you have the Huns and Mongolia getting 9 points in total from their UU. I don't have a concrete idea as to how to do things better.[/QUOTE]

Early game bonuses are generally more powerful than late game bonuses. India has arguably one of the best late game bonuses out there, but even a minor nerf to your early game can outstrip its usefulness.

Are you arguing that the 2/5 rating is too generous?

 

[fyar]

Are you arguing that the 2/5 rating is too generous?

I think so. I'd probably give it a 1/5, but I am probably coloring it with my own prejudices since I had a bad game with India (which I eventually won late via diplomatic victory anyway but most of the game was a slog). If somebody else gave it a 2/5 I wouldn't necessarily argue with them. If someone gave a 3/5 I'd be surprised and assume they had a very different experience from mine, maybe a really dominant late game military campaign unimpeded by happiness constraints. Any higher than 3 and I would probably argue with them.

 

[Mrdarklight]

This has probably been said, but I'd put Inca in the top tier. It's not just that the Terrace Farms give you more food, it's that they all produce 2 sheilds as well, so you can be both big and have huge production. The only reason I wouldn't give it a 5/5 is that you may start with no hills next to mountains around to take advantage of them.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I think so. I'd probably give it a 1/5, but I am probably coloring it with my own prejudices since I had a bad game with India (which I eventually won late via diplomatic victory anyway but most of the game was a slog). If somebody else gave it a 2/5 I wouldn't necessarily argue with them. If someone gave a 3/5 I'd be surprised and assume they had a very different experience from mine, maybe a really dominant late game military campaign unimpeded by happiness constraints. Any higher than 3 and I would probably argue with them.

It's stronger for conquering cities than self-founding. India really does seem like a solid warmonger civ, which fits its history well enough but not necessarily its leader choice .

 

[ShakaKhan]

I'm honestly baffled by how poorly rated is Assyria's UA, especially by the OP, given the premise of the list that emphasizes warmongering on Deity. I'm not even an expert Deity player (I probably lose more often than I win), but I found their UA strong enough to put them into Tier 2, close to Tier 1 for Deity warmongering.

1. UA: Obviously at Deity you're going to be behind in science. Even still, if you're warmongering (successfully) you'll be able to catch up with hardly any science infrastructure. You can beeline military techs instead of the standard (boring) Philosophy -> Education -> Scientific Theory -> Plastics.

I'm also a big Assyria fan and, like England, they shine at deity level much brighter than at lower difficulty levels. There is one big catch with their UA, and I think some people were so disappointed when they discovered it that they became disenfranchised with the civ - you can't pick the technology that you get upon capture. Standard tech stealing (spies) incorporates a strategy of closely observing your opponent to see which high level technology they possess (is there a frigate around their capital or a seaport in it? - must have navigation. Are their mines producing 3 or 4 hammers? - must have chemistry. CivX was the first to Industrial age and Fertilizer is cheaper than the other techs at the level, so they must have that.) With Assyria, the tech you get upon capture is supposedly random, although I've found that I ALWAYS get whatever the cheapest tech is that they have and I don't. Consequently, when playing Assyria, you have to either re-path your tech order before going to war or at least several turns prior to conquering a city, or have your tech order be more vertical and less horizontal. They're both inferior methods of researching which is quite a gamble, although I agree with what you said, having a UA that gives you 10, 12 or 20 free techs over the course of the game is certainly advantageous at an upper-tier level!

 

[ShakaKhan]

I'm new to this thread and note that it's 20 pages in, however there doesn't appear to be an updated list. The only list appears on the first page. It's noted that it's been updated a few times, but there appears to be some GLARING mistakes. I am accounting for the fact that the list was intended to include domination along with other victory conditions, and with that stipulation expect domination-favored civs to be overcompensated for a bit. I also note that civs that do well on archipelago maps are disregarded for their advantages in this context (apparently we don't want to overlook the conquerors, but who cares about the naval specialists.) I have lots of respect for the input of the OP, but some of these rankings, although it is all subjective to a degree, are hard to argue as just plain wrong.

Tier 1 agree with for the most part. Persia could really move down - the golden age bonus, and particularly the combat element, is something that shines more at lower difficulty levels where hardbuilding things like Chicken Pizza, Notre Dame, and Taj are reasonable. When you're doing well (frequent at lower levels) they're much, much better. When you're struggling (frequent at Deity), advantages aren't that great. Minor disagreement - should be Tier 2.

Tier 2 Lots of disagreement here, mostly minor
-Zulu. think they're over-evaluated because of the context of the thread (don't forget warmongerers!) Aside from that, which they excel at for a moderate window and are practically vanilla for the rest of the game, none of their advantages are helpful for anything else. Minor disagreement - should be Tier 3.
-Huns. For me, they straddle the line between tier2 and tier1. Difficult to put them in the same category as Poland, but they belong there more than Persia does. If you play without huts, you really appreciate free techs, Huns start 10 tech turns ahead of everyone else. Plus, one of the top three warmongerers, but unlike the other two, who are vanilla aside from combat bonuses, Attila also has one of the best production bonuses in the game. Very minor disagreement - don't belong with Poland, but ahead of the rest of this pack, and more rightfully a tier 1 than Persia
-Greece. I just don't get why everyone goes crazy for them. Both UU are too early for forward progress against a civ on Deity, they're both just fending off barbarians or hyper-aggro neighbors. Free movement in CS territory is a nice Easter Egg. Reduced or situationally eliminated influence decay is quite nice, but since all other Greek bonuses are meh at best, not good enough to make them Tier 2 by itself. Moderately disagree - should definitely be tier 3 at best.
-America - I just don't get why... see above. One unique unit with no combat bonus except a free promo, and better movement, and in a less effective base unit. Another UU that's pretty good, but after the fact. Cheaper tiles is underwhelming, and one extra sight is pretty good, but way way way overestimated here. Moderately disagree - should be at or barely above Japan, who's two tiers down.

 

[ShakaKhan]

Tier 3 - some big disagreements here. Middle tier that lumps some of the best in the game (Aztecs, Shoshone) with some of the worst (Denmark)
-Spain - huge, huge, huge bonus if you get to find one first and settle it. Otherwise, completely lackluster civ. Tercios are nothing special, Conquistadors underrated here but still not that good. 1 in 10 games they're tier1, the other 9 in 10 their the bottom-ranked civ in tier 4.Moderately disagree - should be tier 4.
-Aztecs - WHAT!?!?!?!?! +15% GLOBAL growth from early classical until the end of the game!!! Admittedly only in riverside -OR- lakeside city, but such a MASSIVE bonus that you make sure it applies to your cities. I would take just that, floating gardens, without jaguars or sac' cap's, over ALL the advantages of any civ on tier 2! EXTREMELY STRONGLY DISAGREE - should be tier 1, or if tier 2, the one that blows all the others away.
-Brazil - EVERYTHING points to culture, leading you to dangerous, vulnerable strategy, on a jungle start bias. One of the few non-science civs that can pull off a peaceful CV on deity, but such a big gamble to do so, and no bonuses to anything else. Moderately disagree - should be tier 4.
-Russia - I don't like them and think they're fine here. However, I must acknowledge the collective wisdom of the forums ranks them higher, and with some decent reasoning. disagree only to concede to collective wisdom - should probably be tier 2.
-The Shoshone- - here's the thing, I play without huts, which means the Shoshone shouldn't be for me. However, the extra tiles, and the compatibility with the combat bonus in the enhanced territory is incredible. Playing without huts, they're tier 2, which means for the rest of you who go hut-hunting, I can only imagine how brokenly strong this is. (Strongly disagree - should be tier 1.)
-Denmark. earlier Longswords with extra moves is pretty decent, still a melee unit, but pretty decent... except for when you lack iron. And it re-paths optimal teching... and all other bonuses are situational or meh. Strongly disagree - CLASSIC example of a Tier 4 civ.
-Siam. Elephants are early tanks. A UB that gives +3 culture is a rather good bonus, but the fact that it's in the absolute top priority building in the game makes it much better (for example, more useful than +3 culture in barracks, even though they're earlier.) And while the UA requires a little luck (1.)having 6 mercs and 6 militaristics = no bonus... 2.) need some quests for it to matter early.), the advantages have great potential in the average CS spread. Moderately disagree - should be tier 2.

Tier 4. just one disagreement here, but a considerable one.
-Austria. - the rational behind why they are lackluster is just... wrong. I'll agree that Hussars aren't super, in fact I think they're overrated in the assessment. But coffee houses are a decent perk. (oops, pun) +25% to ALL great people and it's not too late in the game is pretty massive, changing +10% towards buildings for +5% towards everything is a trade-off I'll take every single day and most importantly, Austria doesn't have a unique building, they have an extra building since players prioritize hilltop cities. And the biggest disagreement.. Diplo marriage is awesome. I can see where the original evaluation comes from - usually you conquer a city and find that it actually makes researching harder, because you now have cities that are size 30, 20, 18, and 2. Yes taking cities from conquest often hurts infrastructure but the primary penalty here is that you capture a city that lost half its population. Married cities don't lose population. Usually, my married cities are smaller than my capital but bigger than the rest of my cities. Didn't have a good build-order? while it's true that they often have pointless caravansary and questionable walls, and maybe they're missing the watermill, but they usually have the pertinent buildings that I'd want, usually have more of the essentials than my last settled city has. And the question of why pay 500g, when you can just buy a settler for the same amount is almost humerous. Because 1.) 500 gp for a city AND 4000gp worth of units. That's more than enough of a reason on it's own, but also 2.) start at size 20 instead of size 1. 3.)tiles already improved 4.) buildings already made (ok, "select" buildings already made."Strongly disagree - should be tier 2.

Tier 5 some minor disagreements here
-India - don't disagree, but there's been a few posts above. The thing is that India, along with Venice, are the strongest examples of "trade-off" civs, civs that get a bonus at an expense that a vanilla civ doesn't incur. As such, players are going to be very reluctant to move them out of the bottom tier. I agree that after size 6, the city is "Indian positive" and gets ever-additive bonuses as the game goes on, but it's an argument that's never going to reach consensus.
-Byzantium - Everyone hates Byzantium because you realistically can be locked out of a religion on Deity. Byzantium missing a religion is like Spain missing a Natural Wonder; They'd both lose their UA. Yes with Spain, you do still get +1 happiness when you found the NW later, but do you really want to settle a city when you're coming up on Ideologies? For that matter, does +1 happiness per NW that you found weigh in that much? Because if not, Byzantium without a religion is essentially Spain without NW's, except Byzantium has better and earlier UUs. So why are they two tiers below a civ that they're better than? Moderately disagree - should be tier 4.
-Indonesia - Yeah, their UU is a gamble, sometimes you have to chuck it to a CS for influence, but when it hits, you get a unit that keeps completely disproportionate bonuses when upgrading. But even if that's a wash, and I'll throw out their UA, since despite being strong enough to make them an absolute Tier 1 on archipelago, we're dismissing that. But even after throwing out two incredibly potent abilities because their context is somewhat selective, you still have the Candi, which is awesome. "Look, this city has great growth potential, it'll be an awesome GP farm... Oh wait, not riverside so no garden." Not a problem for Indonesia, plus an extra two faith per city guaranteed and, while it's rare, the potential for...
+
12
faith
per
city... Strongly disagree. Even though the context ignores the majority of their bonuses, being able to incorporate ANY of them makes this Tier 4. If you don't have absurdly bad luck, they're minimally tier 3. And if you consider them in the context their best in (which is presumably how Polynesia made it all the way to tier 3?!?!) they're at least Tier 2.

 

[beetle]

Arguing tiers is unproductive. Make a case instead for how you would change point assignments. But OP has left the building, so don't expect any resolution.

 

[Chum]

Honestly, it's really hard to take anything you say seriously when you repeatedly refer to wonders as "chicken pizza."

You could have some good arguments, but I'm really not going to get invested in a conversation when that's in the opener.

 

[ShakaKhan]

Arguing tiers is unproductive. Make a case instead for how you would change point assignments. But OP has left the building, so don't expect any resolution.

Then the whole thread is unproductive, unless we're just accepting what's in the OP as Word of God. And I don't understand the request to make a case; each example did exactly that. I didn't say, "Austria should be tier 2" and leave it at that; they're all backed with information to support the claim. I'm not seeking resolution, rather weary that newer members trying to learn about the game are picking up questionable information.

 

[ShakaKhan]

Honestly, it's really hard to take anything you say seriously when you repeatedly refer to wonders as "chicken pizza."

You could have some good arguments, but I'm really not going to get invested in a conversation when that's in the opener.

Alright, maybe the joke's getting a little stale, but that's a little presumptuously dismissive and judgemental, which can lead to missing out.

 

[Wild_Woojsha]

Then the whole thread is unproductive, unless we're just accepting what's in the OP as Word of God. And I don't understand the request to make a case; each example did exactly that. I didn't say, "Austria should be tier 2" and leave it at that; they're all backed with information to support the claim. I'm not seeking resolution, rather weary that newer members trying to learn about the game are picking up questionable information.

New players SHOULD be trying every Civ for themselves to see which one is their favorite. I personally prefer the Huns over every other Civ, and think they should be in the Scourge of God tier where they belong. I never understood the point of ranking Civ's in single player though as we are not going to pick Civ's based on that. In multi-player, its only good for banning civs if the players are competent, but most are in groups with their own strict set of rules anyways so its not as relevant. In SP though, the CIV you choose is chosen for other reasons than its the best and the choices you make are dependent on the map and the AI's shenanigans instead of which tier the Civ you chose is in.

 

[Mrdarklight]

As far as your argument about Spain vs. Byzantium, the chance that you will get no benefit at all with Spain is less than it is with Byzantium. Unless you happen to start near a faith wonder, or on good faith dirt AND get the pantheon, Byzantium's UA is going to be useless, and the chance that you will happen to get a religion is very low on Diety. Add to that, even if you get the religion, the UA is underwhelming.

 

[vadalaz]

[deleted]

 

[fyar]

As far as your argument about Spain vs. Byzantium, the chance that you will get no benefit at all with Spain is less than it is with Byzantium. Unless you happen to start near a faith wonder, or on good faith dirt AND get the pantheon, Byzantium's UA is going to be useless, and the chance that you will happen to get a religion is very low on Diety. Add to that, even if you get the religion, the UA is underwhelming.

Simply not true at all. I have been able to found a religion probably 80% of the time that I try on Deity. That said, I also do not always try, usually because I have poor faith dirt. So had I tried in all situations, it would certainly be lower than 80%. But "very low" is not an accurate statement at all about your chances of getting a religion.

I definitely believe that the chances that Spain = no UA are higher than Byzantium = no UA. Nevertheless, I do believe that Spain is definitely a tier or two higher than Byzantium, simply because Spain, when they do have a UA, can often be overpowering, whereas Byzantium, even when they found a religion, their UA is as you said underwhelming.

 

[Mrdarklight]

Simply not true at all. I have been able to found a religion probably 80% of the time that I try on Deity.

Unless I have an obvious faith-friendly Civ like the Maya or the Celts, I probably get a religion about 15% of the time. If you don't land a good faith pantheon like Desert Folklore or Stone Circles, or have a faith NW really close, you're not going to get a religion on Diety. I've missed out on religions even WITH some of those advantages.

 

[beetle]

Unless I have an obvious faith-friendly Civ like the Maya or the Celts, I probably get a religion about 15% of the time.

That is not a typical success rate. You must be doing something wrong, since the majority of Deity players assert 50% or better success.

If you don't land a good faith pantheon like Desert Folklore or Stone Circles, or have a faith NW really close, you're not going to get a religion on Diety.

That is not correct. There are several good faith yielding pantheons.

I've missed out on religions even WITH some of those advantages.

Me too! But that does not mean you should not be able to found more than half the time.