Discussion in 'Civ5 - Strategy & Tips' started by adwcta, Aug 2, 2013.
can anyone explain why Sweden is bottom tier? they seem to be great at gp generation and cs controll
For many, tundra bias and hard gameplay.
For others, GP generation and Caroleans make them top tier.
Rome is not a military civ. Stop treating it as one. It has no bonuses to military after classical era, and neither of their UU upgrades well. You at most take out one civ, early, if you're cornered.
Also, of course you gold buy the important buildings late game in Rome.... Why would you hard build and purposely lose the UA? That's like complaining that the Korea UA is bad because you don't use specialists.
Germany's UA is awful for hammers without raging barbs, which is not a standard setting. It's UB doesn't exist in early game, costs serious gold and science in mid game, and only works well late game.
Rome is by Siam and Egypt, the two other resource bonus civs in that tier, and Rome gains more aggregate resources, earlier, than either of them. No civ on a lower tier gains more resources than Rome. It's fine where it is.
Raging barbs only increases the spawn rate of units from Barb camps, not the number of camps themselves. So turning it on helps civs like Aztec, but does nothing for Songhai and Germany.
I'll give you that the German UA doesn't always work very well on every map, but worst case it is worth 2-3 Brute units and 150 or so Gold. Best case though, and it's better than any Ancient Era production bonus in the game. Seeing as how you've got other contingent Civs like Spain in the middle tier, I thought maybe you were giving the UA short shrift.
The Hanse is also quite good. I usually unlock them shortly after Education at around Turn 130'ish, so I don't really think that's too late in the game. They also help to build spaceship parts and Archaeologists, unlike Rome's UA, which are two items that directly relate to two VC's.
For buying buildings in cap to use Rome's UA properly, I was agreeing that this is the way to use it, but my point was that it is not unrelated or incomparable to Gold bonuses. I see you already have the best Gold civ, Venice, in the upper tier, but others are middle. I mean, I think Rome was one of the better Civ's in Vanilla, but the UA has been outdone, I think. Other than Germany, I think Persia and Portugal are comparable to Rome in raw Gold/Hammer production boosts.
Otherwise also, my opinion of Austria and Arabia would have them changing places on this list. Austria is just a brute powerhouse with empire size. The amount of Gold available in BNW really gave this Civ a shot in the arm. In practice also, being a Civ that wants Gold, has a bit of extra GP from Coffee Houses, but does not want the Commerce policy track, makes them very well suited to the Culture VC. It's also just hard to lose on any VC once you've bought 5 or so coastal CS's. In my experience, Austria is just unparalleled with its ability to invade a distant land mass through buying a foothold City State, and is one of the few Civ's that can keep expanding through the whole game while pursuing a Science VC. Just a very solid civ, however it's played.
Arabia, on the other hand, has lost ground in a relative sense, and has always had the problem of turning its bonuses into a VC. Arabia has always had a bit of extra Gold from Bazaars, but that amount has gone down relative to the amount of total gold available in BNW, and it's easy to lose that bonus when at war with even 1 or 2 civs. Bonuses related to Trade Routes are easy to keep while maintaining as few as a couple of friends on the map. Desert Folklore is great, but it's more hit and miss now, and Faith alone doesn't do as much as it once did. The real strength is Camel Archers on top of these marginal bonuses elsewhere, but I don't think having one of the two best UA's is enough to claim that it can "win almost any victory condition with almost any start". I mean, just how the UU movement after attack works makes Arabia a high pick in multiplayer, but SP Deity is another story. I think the contingent quality of Desert Folklore and Religion, along with sometimes not being able to use the UU very well, have just left too much ground for other civs to surpass Arabia.
Why? Some of us have better computers and would like to utilize the horsepower on Marathon/Huge games. I never play a game that's not Marathon/Huge. I feel invested in the longer games.
Then create your own Deity Tier Listing for Marathon style games, I'd take a look at it. Most players play on standard settings, a tier listing for standard style games is appropriate.
I think you are overvaluing gold. At their best, trade routes generate 2x their ev in gold compared to itr. That still means gold is 2x+ less efficient than hammers, in the absolute best way to earn it. Overall, your total gold will be 3x less efficient than hammers without commerce and big Ben, which come late. Also, who has trouble hard building the 1-2 spaceship parts you need in BNW? It's a non consideration.
Germany. Turn 130 is at best tech parity, more likely you are still behind, you have 5 trade routes, for +30%production (your cities produce... 13 base hammers at best? For 4 hammers) , at the loss of 30gpt and 15bpt. Worth it? Maybe. Depends. Probably not. In any case, it's hardly a "bonus" at that point. The Germany UB gets exponentially better as the game goes on (with more base hammers from factory, pop, rivers, specialists, etc), but it's very bad when you first get it. It also requires trade routes you can protect. It does not give bonus resources anywhere near the scale of Rome. I can show you the math at breakpoints if you'd like... But it won't be a close analysis. For good reason too... Germany has a gold savings UA and a very good UU too. The Hanse will save Germany less than half of the total hammers Rome saves on 4 cities pre-information, and more cities tilts more to Rome, due to compensation for capital.
Persia and Portugal. Persia's resource bonus is very nice, and depending on your conquest state and trade posts, the gold can be more than Rome's EV, and that's without considering the military bonus. But, GAs don't start until mid-game, so again, you're missing Rome's much better start. Starts are less important in BNW than before, but they still carry weight. Portugal doesn't generate enough extra gold to buy even half of Rome's bonus before the information age, even WITH commerce and big Ben. And again, bonuses and savings are bad early game, okay mid game, and good end game. You also lose the flexibility of ITR, and your bonus won't scale to more cities. But, to be fair to these civs unlike Greece and Rome, the benefit is actual gold, which is flexible, and just savings. Still, Portugal is certainly not comparable, and Persia's bonus is very hard to quantify (but yes, in the right circumstances, can be much better than Rome). Have not played in BNW with the new artist mechanic and freedom Tennant.
Austria. I agree with you about Austria, that's always been IMO, the best civ in that tier. I asked around last year. I'm happy to move them up, but I know it'd cause an uproar. Anyone else support this?
I have yet to play BNW Arabia, so can't speak from experience. Will move down if people who tried them agree, but I've been hearing the opposite, that Arabia got better. The faith through trade route bonus looks very powerful for peacefully spreading your religion, while you use your faith for better things.
But why even exclude other size maps and speeds? Playing conditions do not differ that radically. The only benefit to setting a universal speed is players can compare achievements (GL at turn 30, etc).
Playing speed is very important. E.g. a Persia on Marathon getting a 45 turn golden age can pretty much wipe out the whole map however large it is. Game speed doesn't change combat therefore lower speed means it takes shorter relative time chewing through AI units (who won't also be replenishing them faster). Or, Spain's gold bonus doesnt scale so she can't even buy a settler from first discovering a wonder. Game speed also doesnt affect trade route duration. It takes 30 turns on all game speeds, so you can change trade routes more times in longer games.
Yes, Rome might not be needing its UA in the late game. Rush buy all the buildings you want. But in the early game it helps you set up your infrastructurely seemlessly when gold is scarce. You can use the gold for CSs, buying tiles etc. As for Germany, the early game free units are still very situational. 1. You actually need to build a couple of units to claim the barb camps in the first place. 2. Barb camps will be cleared very fast by AIs on high levels. 3. The units you get from barb camps are not always good. For Rome, the extra hammers you saved from buildings generally mean that you can pop a couple of extra units from each city in each era. Germany's hammer bonus comes very late and doesnt have superior UUs in early game for conquest.
I think it is extremely important for Rome to go liberty, for both the early expansion and republic hammer bonus. Its fine to just build 3 or 4 cities early. The goal is to grab as much lux as possible. You can sometimes steal a lux from a city state with a timely city placement and buying a couple of tiles. I can consitently grab 5 unique luxes in the first ~ 60 turns with just 3 cities, which is when you stop and build your NC. In the next 50 turns or so, use your legions to smash a neighbour and claim a few more cities, sometimes even his capital which hopefully has some wonders. Legions outclass pikes and dont underestimate the extra 2 strength from ballistas as they can even make taking castled cities easy. Don't worry about warmongering penalty. It is overated and it will go away. From then on go pax romana, use legions to fort your territory, develop your economy and infrastructure and go any VC you want.
Well, it is possible that I've just had one or two good games with Germany since the Fall patch. In those games I had great early tech and a few coastal cities. So, it is possible in other conditions that the Beaker value of TR's to Major Civ's or the value of ITR's make the Hanse bonus less used more often. It just seemed to me in those games that my Production reached a break-neck pace pretty quickly.
On Arabia, I've had a few games with them. Yeah, it just seems like they got objectively better off from pre-BNW, but somehow worse relative to the game as it's played now. The Ships of the Desert UA is definitely better than Trade Caravans, that's the thing. But first, fighting the AI's Prophet spam on Deity with passive spread never was reliable, no matter how strong the spread was. Religion strategies other than Founder Belief max'ing seem the way to go now. Second, Caravans get deleted for Cargo Ships quite often. And last most of all, they were one of the few Civ's in Vanilla with raw Gold bonuses, while in BNW, Gold availability is off the hook. A Gold bonus that kicks in after Currency, can't be traded for lump sum anymore, and usually requires most of the world to be at peace to fully use, is just a drop in the bucket relative to Trade Routes now. I'd probably rate the Dutch UA as better, currently. What's left is Desert Folklore, and if you ask me, Morocco's extra stuff out-competes Arabia's.
now that i can understand.
rome for me has always been the yard stick i use to judge other civs against. in a realy good place gameplay wise
Could not agree more. Guilds especially throw the capital's building-order into a completely different rhythm than other cities.
Further, praising Rome's UA based on how useful it is when you rush-buy buildings in capital contradicts the "can salvage bad situations" description of the tier they are currently sitting in. Unless you are rich, rush-buying of buildings can carry huge opportunity costs in lots of bad situations.
Rome's UA is especially vulnerable for wide play. Already raised: going wide nets you enemies and decreases gold from deals and increases military expense needs. It vastly decreases the likelihood that you can sail through and rush-buy buildings in your capital all game. It was countered that you can always guarantee tension-free wide play by fencing off an area first. No you can't. You can't. The AI will often forward-settle you by turn 30. This can be prevented by focusing earlier on settlers and units to take up space before building a library etc in capital, but that only hurts Rome's UA.
Also relevant: truly wide empires are constantly broke in BNW. Income does not scale with empire size the same way costs do. Wider is always broker. Having buildings come online faster only makes the wide empire more broker. A wide empire values markets and banks more than a tall empire. It needs them in its satellite cities before it can afford to let them build other stuff. But that doesn't mean it wants them in the capital, where there are huge opportunity costs (the capital needs to build guilds and NWs etc). I mean obviously. Who cares about a bank in the capital. Should a wide empire go on a trade-screen-abuse binge just to rush-buy a primarily useless bank in the capital to get a much-needed production boost in the other cities? That's obviously crazy. No. A wide empire needs a production bonus that does not depend on liberal gold expenditures.
Yes, the Rome UA can be easily leveraged near-100% when going tall. But why does that even count as a positive trait for Rome over every other civ? Any civ is going to have strong production in all cities going tall, as well as better cash-flow for elective building purchases. The descriptions here of playing Rome and seeing everything go smoothly in every city are merely describing the standard experience of tall play. Tall empires are very good at building buildings already.
Wide empires need production bonuses the most and, over multiple play-throughs with Rome, will get them the least.
Rome sucks in BNW Playing them is like playing a civ with almost no bonuses (the 20% increase hardly compares to Huns or Russia's UA early game, and that's when the extra hammers are most important)
Sure upgrading your starting warrior to a legion to help build roads is nice but that's about it.
Generally, playing on Marathon will be like playing two difficulty levels lower; in other words, deity plays like emperor. Such a list would be useful for some but it cannot be compared at all to this deity list.
All of your problems can be solved by 3 things:
1) Don't build all the guilds, if any in the capital. This is hardly a requirement, especially if you go liberty, and even not. Guilds take away from food, which takes away from science. If your capital has NC, it's often better to not have guilds.
2) Learn to play wide on Deity. It's not broken in BNW. The AI aggression makes it much much easier to play wide in BNW than G&K without making everyone mad. If your map is not conducive to fencing off an area (which, about 50% of maps are: remember, deserts and jungles and mountains and city states all count as physical barriers the AI will not settle across for a long time). You have two early UUs for a reason. There's no need to kill your neighbor's capital, but you can conquer-raze his cities that encroach into your space. Ballistas aren't that bad if you're not concerned with upgrade or using them for a long time, using a mixed army. Remember, your capital will stop pumping out troops and start re-building infrastructure before you expand into those areas anyway.
3) I'm not sure how much you usually gold buy... but most people gold guy at least a couple of buildings in each city. You do much less of it in Rome for the capital, that's the point. Difference in play style? You can do 4-city tradition in BNW without gold buying? =/ You don't NEED a bank asap. Is waiting 8 turns for your capital to build it really going to kill your economy? I think you're setting arbitrary standards that are not conducive to Rome's play-style. Wide-Tall empires (like Rome; note: not just wide, but wide-tall, this is key) consistently generate more gold due to city connections.... without a desperate need for banks like you suggest... the only thing Rome is short on is happiness, which is mostly solved by 1k-2k to two mercantile CSs.
adwcta, thumbs up for spending the time and energy you do defending and explaining why the civ's are at their current tiers. Many others would go slighty nuts sitting in your shoes having to explain why rome is better than Germany, etc.
I agree. Just reading this guide made me want to go nuts wide with Rome.
Although I support Rome as a top civ but I don't support the fact that you have to nuts wide with it. The UA benefit is there no matter how many cities you build.
tundra starts are best for opening Honor (for all that's worth)
Separate names with a comma.