Civ Discussion - Antiquity Age Summary/Tier Lists

bengalryan9

Emperor
Joined
Nov 13, 2018
Messages
1,083
Hey all, I thought before we move on to discussing civs from the exploration age we should put a bow on our conversations by giving a general overview of how we view the antiquity age civs as a whole.

First, here are links to every thread we've had so far:
Aksum
Carthage
Egypt
Greece
Han
Khmer
Maurya
Maya
Mississippian
Persia
Rome
***I will try to go back and add links here as new civs are released and we discuss them as well.***

To close out our discussions, how would you rank the civs of the antiquity age? Share your own personal tier list and let us know your thoughts on the matter. Keep in mind, this only has to be your opinion... you don't need to try to come up with what you think community consensus is. Feel free to rank them by effectiveness, personal preference, how much you actually want to play them, or whatever criteria you feel like.

For those unfamiliar with tier lists, they usually go something like this:
S tier - the best of the best... some times people view S tier as broken/in need of a nerf, but that tends to vary
A tier - very good, strong choice
B tier - above average, but probably have some weaknesses as well
C tier - average, can compete but can also struggle from game to game
D tier - below average, struggle to compete
F tier - the opposite of S tier, typically broken in the opposite direction and they probably are in need of buffs
***Not every tier needs to have civs in it... you may only use 3-4 tiers depending on how you look at things.***

I have to run for now but I'll come back and post my list later today.
 
S Tier
Maya
- Don't think this one needs much explanation. Best unique building, best UQ, (arguably) best civilian unit, super strong civics tree and traditions. Very strong civ all round

A Tier
Mississippi
- Loads of gold, loads of food, and one of the best UUs. What's not to like?
Carthage - Really solid UQ and huge capacity for town spam, which is a very versatile start in terms of the options it gives you upon hitting explo. Great UU as well.
Greece - Generate a ton of influence and use it however you'd like. With a war-focused playstyle, influence is something I never seem to have enough of, so Greece's capacity for it is fantastic. Solid culture generation to boot.

B Tier
Maurya
- A little bit more niche than the higher-ranking civs just because the default cap on happiness's effectiveness means you need to have a plan for how else you're going to channel it. If you do have a plan, though, they're very strong indeed.
Persia - Good at conquering. Not much else to say.
Aksum - Good at making money and probably the best UI in the age. Nothing earth-shattering, but can be reliably paired with most leaders for solid results.

C Tier
Rome
- Objectively, they're probably about on par with Aksum, but I'm bumping them down on the basis of fun, or lack thereof; I don't find their kit to be very interesting.
Khmer - Possibly controversial to not have them at the bottom but I have a soft spot for the one-city playstyle and that's the one thing they're really good at. Plus the Yuthahathi is the best UU in the age.
Han - A fine tall option; they just don't excite me very much as there are more fun options to me in the niches they occupy

D Tier
Egypt
- I'm a little surprised they ended up here but thinking about it, I stand by it. Their kit just feels a little muddled and lacks definition for what they want to do. All the wonder stuff suffers from competing priorities (eg. having to build Necropolises rather than just cracking on with wonders), or, in the case of the Tjatys, too RNG. Medjays are probably the strongest part of their kit objectively, but I favour an aggressive playstyle, so they don't do much for me.

F Tier
I don't think anyone's currently F-tier

Rankings are ordered within the tiers (ie. I think Carthage is better than Greece) and are based on my perception of the civs rather than purely their objective strength, so their relevance to my playstyle and how fun I find them are factored in, as well as how generally reliable a civ is (ie. Maurya with specifically Ashoka is argubly better than Mississippi, but Mississippi works pretty well with more or less anyone).

A and B are a little packed, just because imo Maya kind of need to be in a tier of their own. If there were no Maya, I'd probably have Mississippi/Carthage as the upper bound, Greece/Maurya in A, and Persia/Aksum in B, which feels like a better distribution, but I just can't justify putting anyone else on par with Maya.

Thanks for doing these threads!
 
It's funny that to me Egypt is A-tier and Medjays are the least interesting to me (I'm more a builder player). First, I'm often really successful in building wonders, second Egypt gets a lot from those navigable rivers, third - exploiting those navigable rivers pays off at exploration if you go Songhai.
 
It's funny that to me Egypt is A-tier and Medjays are the least interesting to me (I'm more a builder player). First, I'm often really successful in building wonders, second Egypt gets a lot from those navigable rivers, third - exploiting those navigable rivers pays off at exploration if you go Songhai.
I was maybe a little harsh on them. I don't think they're worse than Han by a substantial margin or anything; they're just the antiquity civ I like least. The nav river stuff is probably the best part of their kit and I agree the setup for Songhai is excellent.
 
S-Tier:
Maya - Just ludicrously good all around.
Mississippian - I might be stretching a bit to put them up here, but I don't think so. They're just always a strong game.

A-Tier:
Egypt - Seven Wonders is the hardest Antiquity Legacy Path, and Egypt can get you there. Rivers set you up for Songhai, one of the best Exploration Age civs, and I've just generally had very good experiences with Egypt overall (Though I understand this may be a controversial placement.)
Greece - Best traditions going forward, in a solid package on its own. Probably B-Tier in Antiquity IMO, but A-Tier for how they set you up for the rest of the game.
Aksum - The most reliable Antiquity civ, with the Hawilt pushing it from B-Tier to A for me.

B-Tier:
Maurya - Very solid, but they kind of want a leader to push them over the top (Generally either Ashoka persona or else Charlemagne).
Persia - They do one thing very well, but that also makes them pretty inflexible.
Han - Potentially A-Tier, but the great wall is too much of a pain for it to be useful to me. Otherwise great civ.
Carthage - They have a lot of potential and I've had some fun games with them, but the way I play, Aksum just does everything Carthage does but more reliably. Except for Expansion. Carthage is fantastic for expansion.

C-Tier:
Rome - Good design for an entry-level Civ, but hard to get excited about (so, basically, they're Rome.)

D-Tier:
Khmer - They just feel like they were all-around nerfed before release, and I wish I could understand why. Still fun to play as them into Majapahit, though.
 
For me :
S: Maya
A: Greece
B: Aksum, Carthage, Maurya, Persia, Rome, Mississippisns
C: Egypt, Han
D: Khmer
F: Nobody

With civs that have broader designs I'm inclined to put most of the civs in the same bracket as they all have something to hang a game around which is fun and solid.

That said, in terms of power, Maya hit the S tier alone and uncontested.

Greece get a bump for being the best at the current meta play of going for all tbe city states. But that'll probably be a temporary thing. And I was tempted to leave A empty... This is the one I'm least confident in bumping. They're a one-trick pony but the trick is currently really good.

I'm also not sure about Carthage, I do value their tempo play and I haven't played them since the last patch. Better town options might push them into A tier... But I haven't played them yet to see.

Egypt and Han feel slightly weaker but not by much.

Khmer are the weakest civ but they still have elephants so I don't think they are F tier.
 
S:
Maya (obviously, Ada + Maya are arguably the best combo in the entire game)

A:
Greece - they have just about everything, flexible kit, good culture, decent science, and their ability to control city-states goes uncontested in Antiquity. Pairing them with Tecumseh makes them a military power too. What keeps them out of S is how RNG dependent the Logoi are, especially since they’re your main science bonus.

Mississippians - Amazing Food, Gold, and imo the best military unit in Antiquity. Not much else to say. I recommend pairing them with Confucius for easy science

B:
Persia - I don’t play them much so maybe I’m off. A bit of a one trick pony, but is really good at what it does. Unfortunately, every higher tiered Civ is also good at military with the right leaders, and with better bonuses as well.

Rome - Really great culture, strong military, and a flexible kit. Their bonuses just don’t hit the same as civs in S and A.

Carthage - I really want to put them higher, but they are very leader dependent. Arguably the best expansionist civ in antiquity, but they really struggle with science and to some extent culture as well. You sorta have to pair them with either Augustus or some science leader to really make use of them.

Maurya - Having Happiness as a disposable resource is really good. Pairing them with Charlemagne makes them a crazy good military civ. It’s not enough to top the A and S tier civs tho

C:
Aksum - Maybe I’m just not using them right, but I don’t feel like I get much use with them in comparison to the other Economic civs. Their still decent at what they do.

Egypt - A really fun kit, especially as someone who likes building up my civs rather than warmongering. Mississippians just do what they do but better imo.

Han - I‘ve never played them so not much to say. Ben Franklin is almost always paired with them in my games and gets great science, so I assume they have to at least be decent.

Khmer - Maybe Im a bit biased because I really like their kit, but they are underrated imo. Confucius makes mad science with them. I can acknowledge that their another case of simply being outclassed by the other civs in their niche.

I woudnt put any Antiquity civs in D or F, all of them have a good niche
 
My list. All civs within a tier are just in alphabetical order.

Overpowered: Maya
Strong Side of Average: Aksum, Greece, Han, Mississippi
The Average-est Civ: Maurya
Weak Side of Average: Egypt, Carthage, Khmer, Rome
Underpowered: Persia
 
S tier:
Empty
A tier:
Maya - I think they're probably the best antiquity age civ currently in the game, and they were 100% S-tier on release, but I don't think I'd put them there anymore. They have some weaknesses in their kit - primarily gold production - and I think they're at a reasonable power level these days. Unpopular opinion?
Mississippian - May be some recency bias here as I just finished a game with them but I had the strongest economy I've ever had in that game and I don't think that's a coincidence.
Carthage - double settlers are just that strong IMO. I would've put them this high before the changes to Urban Centers, so even though I haven't played them since that patch that's where they fall for me.
B tier:
Aksum - I almost put them in A tier because I think their UI is just that good, but the rest of their kit probably is more B-tier level. Still one of my favorites to play, though.
Han - I think they've got a pretty good kit too, though it can be a little difficult to get going and I always seem to get off to a slow start with them. Once I get rolling, though, I'm always impressed with them.
Persia - they do one thing and they do it well, even if it's not my favorite thing to do. Can't hate on that!
C tier:
Greece - my other unpopular opinion has been that Greece aren't quite as good as they look on paper and that a lot of their extra influence is just overkill (especially as the game currently stands, where the AI doesn't really prioritize city state interactions). They're not bad and as the game evolves with patches I could easily see them moving up, but I just don't feel like they change my games all that much compared to when I play any other civ.
Khmer - I'm in the "Khmer may not be great but they're not bad either" group. Like Persia they're built for one thing and they do it well. They also probably have the best Wonder unlock in the entire age, and apparently their elephants are no joke either. I could probably talk myself into putting them higher but need more games with them first.
Maurya - I think their kit is pretty interesting and if you play aggressively you could do well, but man... I just finished a game recently with them (where I play peacefully) and man, it was a struggle to get going. More recency bias at work here but I just can't overlook that right now.
Rome - Just an average civ all around IMO. Nothing game changing but nothing crippling either. You can easily do well with them but it might not be the most exciting game you've ever played.
Incomplete:
Egypt - honestly I don't have much of an opinion on Egypt at all... I need to play another game as them. I don't think they're super strong, but I'm not sure where I'd put them between B and D.
 
This is my tier list. I have a hard time making a clear ranking because in my experience (close to 500 hours), there are many factors that influence a good or bad game. I like to alternate between all types of victories and, so far, I've never restarted games, I'm not saying it's bad; in fact, I did it a lot in Civ VI), it's just that this way of playing affects the ranking because I value having solid starts. For example, with Egypt, I don't always start in a river, and I prefer to continue the game. Also, I prefer to play with four or five cities (hence I leave Carthage a bit behind). I also don't favor Wonders (except the Gate of All Nations), which explains Egypt's ranking. The later games certainly affect the ranking more than the earlier ones, which explains why I don't see the Mayans standing out as much. In fact, my last game with the Mayans was really bad (two villages lost to IP), and I had to recover in the Age of Exploration, while my last game with the Persians was a walk in the park almost from the start. Of course, in other cases, if you don't find opponents nearby, it's not the best of the civilizations. In short, I don't see any decisive advantages or disadvantages, and I prefer not to put any civilization in S or F.

S Tier --

A Tier: Maya, Greece, Aksum

B Tier: Carthage, Mississippi, Persia, Han

C Tier: Rome, Maurya

D Tier: Khmer, Egypt
 
I would probably rate them like this? More or less?

1752603012241.png



I may be overrating Han but I really, really think Han is great. Culture from walls, influence from buildings, good science, bonus pop. Deserves to be amongst the best Civs!

There's no true reason to ever be Khmer and Egypt outside of niche circumstances (such as specific leader combos - Pachacuti for Khmer and Baroque Freddy for Egypt for ex), whereas there's not a single leader in the game that doesn't directly benefit from being Maya.
 
The majority seem to agree that Maya is at the top, and Egypt and possibly Khmer at the bottom.

Next step: What can be done to balance these Civs and make them more equitable?
OR Do we want them to be exactly equitable?

Given that my experience has been that some of them have very distinct and over-riding starting terrain bonuses which have a marked effect on their early progress, do we want all of them to be 'equal' or to each have distinctly different ways to play based on their starting terrain and other built-in inequities?
 
Extend Egypt's ability to all rivers. The Traditions can stay at Navigable Rivers. Also, TELL THE PLAYER which Tjaty you're getting before recruiting them.

Khmer will probably need a production bonus tied into the Food, which fixed them in Civ 6 (and buffed Pachacuti in a previous patch, who is incidentally also the best leader for Khmer). The elephants are nice but you have to procure them first. Is there an easy way of doing that outside of Charlemagne (the second best leader for Khmer)?

The Mayans can stay where they are. They are the strongest Antiquity Civ, and there is a noticeable gap, but the imbalance doesn't break the game. The Mayans are top tier because their Modern Era is incredibly fast (Pyramids = expensive techs => Avalanche of production). Their power level before that is comparable to A and B tier Civs. Cripple or eliminate the Maya player in the Exploration age, and you'll be fine.
 
Last edited:
The majority seem to agree that Maya is at the top, and Egypt and possibly Khmer at the bottom.

Next step: What can be done to balance these Civs and make them more equitable?
OR Do we want them to be exactly equitable?

Given that my experience has been that some of them have very distinct and over-riding starting terrain bonuses which have a marked effect on their early progress, do we want all of them to be 'equal' or to each have distinctly different ways to play based on their starting terrain and other built-in inequities?
I am not a fan of having overly balanced civs. Each civ should play differently with specializations in different aspects of the game. I mostly play Antiquity because the civs in the other two ages lack identity. If we are going to buff civs, I want the changes to be interesting and redefining. Pachacuti's buff (while admittedly not being that wild) makes him wayyy more fun to play. Is he now on par with Tubman and Isabella? No, but he's more interesting, that should be the goal.

That being said, the random UUs Greece and Egypt have need to be changed. I'm often not even training them because of how inconsistent they are. They should be set to a specific order and/or give you the ability to pass one for later.
 
I am not a fan of having overly balanced civs. Each civ should play differently with specializations in different aspects of the game. I mostly play Antiquity because the civs in the other two ages lack identity. If we are going to buff civs, I want the changes to be interesting and redefining. Pachacuti's buff (while admittedly not being that wild) makes him wayyy more fun to play. Is he now on par with Tubman and Isabella? No, but he's more interesting, that should be the goal.

That being said, the random UUs Greece and Egypt have need to be changed. I'm often not even training them because of how inconsistent they are. They should be set to a specific order and/or give you the ability to pass one for later.
Quite agree on the Civ variations, but Civ VII (and, to be honest, all previous Civs) starting sequence messes with that severely. The most blatant example is the connection, or lack of it, between starting position and UUs or other Civ Uniques/Bonuses. If your Civ has bonuses for staring in vegetated terrain or has an Infantry UU, then starting in a desert makes no sense at all. Since Civ has utterly failed to provide consistent connections between Uniques and starting positions since at least Civ IV (which I know since I have been kvetching about it since Civ V launched) I propose we stop relying on something they obviously cannot or will not fix, and change the starting sequence.

Start by selecting your map type and number of opponents. Then you see your starting position. Then the game gives you a list of potentially-appropriate Civs/Leaders for that position. Then the game generates the opposing AI Civ/Leader combinations, which may of course be somewhat strained at the moment due to lack of choices available and appropriate for the terrain generated.

That should at least be one possible starting sequence, for those of us who would like to have some coherence between Civ/Leader capabilities and terrain.

And UUs really require their own thread - maybe several. They have been a monstrous grab bag of miscellaneous units - again since at least Civ V - that include very rare special units replacing the entire army of a period, or units available only due to special circumstances of the culture, terrain, politics and situation which the game does not model, or units of dubious historical existence to make up for lack of knowledge of some Civ's actual forces.

Civ VII's collection is particularly bad because both unique and regular units include types that were already called out as dubious in Civ VI but returned like a persistent rash to bedevil Civ VII. Specifically, the French Modern Age Garde Imperiale (representing 2 regiments out of an army with over 100 infantry regiments), the Quadrireme Antiquity warship (which has the graphics and factors of a Quinquereme), and the Chinese (Antiquity Han) "Chu-Ko-Nu", which was NEVER used by any known regular Chinese military unit.

Aside from balancing the unit factors to reflect actual differences between infantry, ranged and cavalry units (which is probably much more important for actual game play), retiring some of the tired old Civ mistakes among the uniques and regular military units is long, long overdue.
 
Back
Top Bottom