The Dutch are without the commercial trait, a very powerful one. I am playing a game as the Dutch and not being commercial hurts a lot. I'm used to playing commercial civs and I notice a huge difference in corruption after playing a non-com civ. I'd take France, England and Iro in most any situation but archi (except England)
Civ Tiers
- Thread starter Invisible Rhino
- Start date
Zardnaar
Deity
I can't ansewer for Ision since he has gone but the tier system is only a guideline. My civ rankings differ from Ision based on personal playstyle. In general there are 5 ways to win the game (ie the most commen victories).
1. Conquest
2. Domination
3. Diplomacy
4. Space race
5. Culture
. The civs are ranked on a monarch/emperor level of difficulty. Also several civs are in the 1st tier as they excel at 1 aspect of the game and are well balanced in others.The Babylonians for example are excellent at one of those ways, excellent/good at 2 more, and ok at 2 of them. I don't rate a cultural victory any less than conquest victory or diplomatic victory. Warmongering or builder or balance of power are all legitimate playstyles to me. On a small/standard map a rapid conquest victory is easy to do but on the larger non pangea maps a builder can sit there and avoid war and build his way to victory. At least 3 civs are in the top tier just because of the amount of synergy between the traits.
1. Babylon (culture)
2. Greece (science)
3. Maya (expansion/growth)
All 3 are also decent enough civs. I've had some very easy games with all 3 compared to some of the 2nd tier civs (if you play to the civs strengths).
1. Conquest
2. Domination
3. Diplomacy
4. Space race
5. Culture
. The civs are ranked on a monarch/emperor level of difficulty. Also several civs are in the 1st tier as they excel at 1 aspect of the game and are well balanced in others.The Babylonians for example are excellent at one of those ways, excellent/good at 2 more, and ok at 2 of them. I don't rate a cultural victory any less than conquest victory or diplomatic victory. Warmongering or builder or balance of power are all legitimate playstyles to me. On a small/standard map a rapid conquest victory is easy to do but on the larger non pangea maps a builder can sit there and avoid war and build his way to victory. At least 3 civs are in the top tier just because of the amount of synergy between the traits.
1. Babylon (culture)
2. Greece (science)
3. Maya (expansion/growth)
All 3 are also decent enough civs. I've had some very easy games with all 3 compared to some of the 2nd tier civs (if you play to the civs strengths).
Doc Tsiolkovski
Deity
Zardnaar, Greece and Maya deserve this, at least on the mid-levels.
The problem with Babylon is that in C3C , it simply is no longer the top culture civ (it undoubtly was before).
For a 20k game, you want a coastal start and an early tech lead (SGL chances). In other words, SEA or EXP.
That makes Byzantium the prime candidate; Spain, Russia and Arabs as runner-ups.
For 100k, growth is everything. And I really mean growth, not expansion (which always is important).
In C3C, you will whip (Feudalism!) all those Libraries and many Temples, and at least partially the unis and caths.
In other words, AGR (Celts and Sumeria).
Babylon deserves the 1st tier in the earlier versions for being the culture king.
But in C3C, several Civs outshine Babylon here - and what remains is a Civ with worthless starting techs and a horrible UU. And no killer trait.
The problem with Babylon is that in C3C , it simply is no longer the top culture civ (it undoubtly was before).
For a 20k game, you want a coastal start and an early tech lead (SGL chances). In other words, SEA or EXP.
That makes Byzantium the prime candidate; Spain, Russia and Arabs as runner-ups.
For 100k, growth is everything. And I really mean growth, not expansion (which always is important).
In C3C, you will whip (Feudalism!) all those Libraries and many Temples, and at least partially the unis and caths.
In other words, AGR (Celts and Sumeria).
Babylon deserves the 1st tier in the earlier versions for being the culture king.
But in C3C, several Civs outshine Babylon here - and what remains is a Civ with worthless starting techs and a horrible UU. And no killer trait.
Zardnaar
Deity
I've had some stupidly powerful games with Babylon and Alphabet/Pottery are often easy to aquire(up to emperor level). The UU is ok and great if you don't have iron. Ever seen a Babylonian empire with around 200 units (cheap UU helps), free unit support and 400gpt+ in the late middle ages? Or using culture bomb tactics where captured cities are more or less instantly pacified. An early middle ages GA triggered via the UU can give you a massive lead towards several key wonders if you want or complete a massive amount of infrastructure leading towards an aggressive expansionistic middle ages as your core only has military units to build as you've completed marketplaces, cathedrals,universities, etc. They're a slightly slow starting civ (no worse than any other non industrial/agri civ) that is often in the lead with science, has the most advanced units and the support to build them, and can aggressively switch governments at the drop of the hat.
I think they're a top tier civ though not because they're a great civ as such but better than the rest of the 2nd tier civs. At worse they're in the top half out of 31 civs. Interesting topic but should we move this to the Babylon review?
I think they're a top tier civ though not because they're a great civ as such but better than the rest of the 2nd tier civs. At worse they're in the top half out of 31 civs. Interesting topic but should we move this to the Babylon review?
Doc Tsiolkovski
Deity
Yep. Done....
Similar threads
