Best Civ for Consistent Wins on Diety Pangea/Continents?

Best Civ for Consistent Wins on Diety Pangea/Continents

  • Rome

    Votes: 5 11.1%
  • Nubia

    Votes: 8 17.8%
  • Macedon

    Votes: 3 6.7%
  • America

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Cree

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Sumeria

    Votes: 4 8.9%
  • Scythia

    Votes: 3 6.7%
  • Aztecs

    Votes: 16 35.6%
  • Persia

    Votes: 3 6.7%
  • Germany

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Some Other Civ I Missed

    Votes: 3 6.7%

  • Total voters


Mar 12, 2011
I voted for Nubia for their early game archers and +50% ranged unit production, meaning that you can sling out slingers faster than anyone else, even before Agoge. In Diety you're probably going to be beelining archery anyways.

Consistency means staying alive in the early game. Obviously Macedon has a better steamroll than Nubia, but as Macedon you're more likely to get killed BEFORE you can get your steamroll up.
I'll go with Aztecs. They have such an advantage because of all the extra builders and are basically rush proof in the early game since Eagles have +8 strength which easily ramps up with a luxuries and later with oligarchy. With battecry and commando they are super strong. They might struggle a little if you don't have any immediate neighbors but you certainly won't lose and there are usually city states nearby in those cases. In the mid/late game - the combat and district advantage is overwhelming
Last edited:
I'd go with Rome. These maps are great for the early army movement along auto-built roads, land-based trade route bonuses, and free monuments boosting loyalty that are Rome's main advantages. Whether going for Domination or leveraging an an early expansion into a Science or Cultural victory, I think Rome is as solid and "consistent" as anyone on most continent and Pangaea maps. Some of the others are too singular in their focus, whether it's horse archers, carts, or archers -- all early military forces that tend to come up flat too easily against the wrong early opponents and/or terrain. Several of the other proposals here emphasize staying alive in the early game as the key to consistency. That's not wrong. But I think Rome is more consistent in maintaining an edge into the middle and late game if played correctly.
Nubia is quite vulnerable building slingers early while Monty builds tanks at the sound of the starting pistol.
I played a Macedon game last night with the giants causeway next to my cap but it still did not feel as easy as an Aztec game for some reason. Builders perhaps.
To me if you win fairly consistently on deity then maintaining an edge is not really an issue, it’s all about the start.
Mongols have a dodgy start but otherwise are nasty, I have no idea how they have been missed from the vote list.
How is America there? Because of +5?
Last edited:
Yeah, but Nubia can get 3 slingers for every jaguar warrior.

Each slinger costs half a jaguar warrior AND Nubia has the 50% production bonus and extra experience from combat. Once you add in agoge and Magnus and use chops and, well.... yeah.

3 slingers beat a jaguar warrior. And you can upgrade them faster to archers than Jaguar warriors will get Oligarchy.

Mongolia's not in because Scythia gets better early game bonuses than Mongolia.
I’m sorry but every free builder is a free district, that’s better than a sandy pyramid next to my city.
I agree Nubia is good and to me it’s the 3 move that does it, but now monty’s boys can move 3 all edge is lost.
I’m harder to convince than that.
I have lost early games as Nubia, never as Monty
First you have to get them upgraded to 3 moves.

And archers with an extra move have an edge over a melee unit with an extra move. The ability to move into a forest or a hill and shoot afterwards makes them terrific on offense, too. And archers were pretty OP even before.

I understand the extra builders are nice, but you have to win battles to get it. Jaguar warriors get damaged, and you have to heal them, unlike Ptati Archers, which... don't. Nubia is perfectly designed to counter and exploit the AI warrior rush.

I understand Aztec's econ bonuses are stronger. But those don't matter in the first 50 turns when the game's going to be decided, anyways.
Last edited:
Once you get up to 8-12 Ptati archers (and you can upgrade 4-6 of them from slingers, which you're going to build anyways) the game's over because even walled cities can't stop them.
Yeah but you start with one Eagle so that in itself is a huge advantage on Deity because that warrior alone can probably fend off an early rush if you have defensive territory and that's really the main danger. You definitely can if you immediately build a 2nd eagle warrior. You won't get 8 to 12 pitati archers out if you get rushed with 5 warriors right off the bat. Once you get a few cities down and build some units then it's just a matter of time and planning. I don't have Nubia DLC so I don't have any direct experience with them but I think they are more vulnerable early. In human vs human Nubia is probably better if they have a little bit of a buffer. If Nubia gets to archery in single player then yes - they probably have a short term edge but the Aztecs will eventually even that out with all the builders and fast districts so it swings back to them in late classical and beyond. The game is basically over from the get go with Aztecs - they are easy mode.
Last edited:
Dunno. 3 Slingers and a warrior can outperform 2 eagles. And 6 slingers and a warrior definitely outperforms 3 eagles. More micro potential, too.

8 Pitati archers is REALLY easy to get even if you're rushed cuz if you're getting rushed you're spamming out slingers anyways, all of which can then be upgraded as long as you save your money.

Get the DLC and you can see how OP they are. Also, I'd like to point out that even after the Magnus nerf, a Magnus chop = 2-3 Pitati archers with Agoge.

In most situations you can easily have 8 pitati archers by turn 30 or 40. Upgrade the first 4-5 slingers and add in 2 Magnus chops with agoge = Win. You don't even need to build a settler.

Nubia's primary advantage is that they effectively start the game with Agoge. And once they actually get Agoge it becomes even more OP.
Last edited:
First you have to get them upgraded to 3 moves.
There is no firstly, you either win or loose in the first 30 moves.
Winrate Aztec 100%, win rate Nubia 90%
Nubia gets way more war weariness and Aztecs are no maintenance... no gold to maintain... that makes a big diff early.
But finally we get to double shot 2 movement crossbow vs +12-20 knights with barding. That’s 52 vs 70 odd....and on defence...because you only move 2 you do not get double shot or rangedso in reality the knight is70vs30, guaranteed one shot in the open.... oh my
The speed Aztec knights can take cities and their stamina due to not taking so much damage is just beyond a joke.
Nubia has maybe 50 turns of usefulness
Need a spaceport, less than one builder worth of charges gets you one, crickey, build 5
Nubia is really good at what victory condition... only domination zzzzzz
That pyramid makes me giggle... nice desert start, you can get excited and build Petra... and get +1 era for settling in rubbish land, nice.
Aztecs are just start to end awesome, and just to clarify, I am not an Aztec fan, they are an OP civ I have to play every now and then due to GOTM or random everything deity, too strong to be challenging, I will play Nubia every now and then because I know I have to start well, save cash, and make he most of early aggression which can be hard sometimes.

... perhaps you do not appreciate how much I play.
Last edited:
How do you lose as Nubia? They're literally unloseable. 6 slingers and a warrior can hold off an AI rush better than 3 Jaguar warriors.

Sure, Aztecs win earlier. But Nubia literally CAN'T lose to the AI.

After you wipe a civ or two off the map with the Pitati archers, which is pretty much guaranteed once you've got 8 of them, all you have to do next is spam chariots and Commercial Sites. Once Stirrups kicks in, and you're swimming in 2000 gold, then upgrade them to knights. It doesn't matter if your knights aren't as good as the Aztec ones if you've got that many.

Pitati archers are better at wiping civs than Jaguar Warriors since you can swarm the enemy with them and they don't have to spend much time healing (since they almost never get damaged). They have the same base attack, except they're ranged, and have more upgrades. And maintenance cost is nothing thanks to the -1 unit maintenance cost civic.
Last edited:
If you scout an AI nearby, or they scout you early, the initial build order should just be slinger, builder, slinger, slinger, slinger, slinger, slinger, slinger. Don't even bother with a settler. Not necessary.

If you feel stressed, you can always get mining first, and chop a forest or two with your initial worker and get even more slingers. This build order is literally un-loseable on Continents or Pangea with close neighbors.

Don't send any delegations to anyone. Let the AI send delegations to you and save gold to upgrade 5-6 pitati by turn 30 or something. Any early AI attack is just free experience.
Last edited:
I don't disagree with anything that has been said about the Aztecs, but I have tremendous confidence with Rome. The free monument give you a lot of freedom in the opening turns. An early builder is still a good idea but if you're in a high-traffic area and have to defend yourself instead you'll still get to Craftsmanship in good time. If you don't meet a cultural CS or have a culture-yielding tile you can still slot the +5 vs. Barbs and +1 hammer card on turn 7. That's huge if the barbs are in your face early on. Once you unlock IW you can really flex your muscles. On the other hand, if you don't immediately have AIs to beat up those monuments make expanding rapidly a breeze, even if you're contending with a Dark Classical age. I think the general consensus is that the Aztecs are the heavy-weight champs of Civ VI but imho Rome has the best tools to overcome a bad situation. For me that might be a self-fulfilling prophecy though... SPQR :p
Last edited:
I think there is a difference between pangea and continent. On pangea you can sometimes just rush hard but if it is continent you have to pay attention to getting to ocean crossing sciences and loyalty may slow you down there.
My fastest deity win was with the Aztecs. Deity is very tough in the very beginning and having that early unit can make the difference so I am thorn between Aztecs and Summaria. Anything else is second tier and down
Aztecs also gain from luxuries which make the eagle warriors even harder to beat and the first city always has at least one nearby, if not two. Additional cities just add to them. Aztecs are fierce.
I think there is a difference between pangea and continent. On pangea you can sometimes just rush hard but if it is continent you have to pay attention to getting to ocean crossing sciences and loyalty may slow you down there.
Absolutely right. It's a little misleading to put those together in one poll. I don't play much Pangaea in VI, but did in IV and V. Once in a while you would role a "Pangaea" map in which you or some AI was on a mini-continent away from the main landmass. It could completely throw off a normal strategy for these maps. But on a continents map, there are so many more variables about who is placed where. I have argued for Rome's advantages because I think they are flexible enough to take care of most Continent and Pangaea maps. (I think Rome is less good on a small continents or archipelago map). I readily agree that on many types of maps, the Nubians or Aztecs or Mongols or Scythians will be more dominant. And yet there are certain layouts that are serious disadvantages for those. If you get Barb rushed before you are ready, slingers are vulnerable. If the terrain is wrong, the Eagles are less effective. If the enemies are harder to get to and get their walls up early, you run into issues. I think Rome is better at overcoming these types of obstacles and thriving economically and scientifically as the game goes on.

I will admit there's one thing about playing one of these aggressive early UU Civs, especially the Scythians and Sumerians, who often seem to give me problems -- it means there's one less dangerous early opponent you'll have to face.
My fastest deity win was with the Aztecs. Deity is very tough in the very beginning and having that early unit can make the difference so I am thorn between Aztecs and Summaria. Anything else is second tier and down

Yeah I agree - Sumeria would be the other ironclad pick where you are basically safe from an early warrior rush. Nubia is probably 3rd but you don't start with Pitati archers so that leaves an opening albeit a brief one. I also think Aztecs and Sumeria are both better at capturing cities early which can make a big difference on Deity - Sumeria gets the edge there because of extra movement. Archers have a -17 combat strength against cities and they will make up the bulk of your army so while you can easily wipe out AI troops it may take you a little longer to capture those early cities.
... pick where you are basically safe from an early warrior rush.

Is that the main threat? I've seen Shaka and a few other AI do this, usually after they get some archers to help with the early rush. But that's mostly when I've played badly and left my capital too poorly defended. On the other hand, the Barb horse rush has been devastating many times. To me, that's the severe early game threat that you will most likely have to withstand, even with best play.
Top Bottom