Civilization tier list

[Louis XXIV]

Then again, the real Iroquois practiced slash and burn agriculture, so it's kinda fitting.

 

[aatami]

I really hope Firaxis implements wood growth and planting.

 

[GenjiKhan]

Arabia should be moved to semi high tier,because their ua gives a lot of money if you can have many cities and their ub is excellent if you play peacefully w/ other civs.
the ua of India is also excellent for domination victory,in the hands of a real pro.

 

[Keejus]

Don't just argue that a civ should be higher or lower. Argue why they should be above/below the civs they're below/above. Pretty much all civs are awesome in the right hands and with the right circumstances.

For instance, I'd put Germany at least below the Aztecs and Arabia. Germany's sole strength lies in early-game rushes, which they admittedly do well, but I would not put them ahead of the two best UBs in the game. The Bazaar prints money; I think everyone knows this. The Floating Garden is a bit more situational, but +15% food in every city is huge, and it turns lakes into Civil Service flood plain farms in the ancient era, if you're lucky enough to start near one..

 

[Antarion]

i regard the landsknecht as the "best medieval unit hammer wise, doesnt need any strat resource, cost nothing and in masses beats everything. 4 landsknechts cost as much as 1 single longsword which they will eat for breakfast.

 

[aatami]

Don't just argue that a civ should be higher or lower. Argue why they should be above/below the civs they're below/above. Pretty much all civs are awesome in the right hands and with the right circumstances.

Now this is something I agree with completely.

The Aztec and Arabia will be moved to semi-high. I'm considering moving the Germans there too.

I'd really like to hear more input from pros. Where are Bibor and the other legends..?

 

[Save_Ferris]

I really hope Firaxis implements wood growth and planting.

Maybe after researching Fertilizer? Also, I'd put Japan over Greece, possibly swap them, because Bushido is one of the few directly combat-based civs that applies to all units, and Samurai are arguably one of the best UUs in the game. Greece isn't too good if you don't rush units in the classical era, which is hard to do.

 

[Babri]

i regard the landsknecht as the "best medieval unit hammer wise, doesnt need any strat resource, cost nothing and in masses beats everything. 4 landsknechts cost as much as 1 single longsword which they will eat for breakfast.

But the problem is that more landskenecht would cost more maintenance. Also the system in ciV prefers quality over quantity under most circumstances.

 

[Gallean88]

Russia definitely ought to be moved up in tier. Its UA is extremely useful; starting near only 2 iron or horses is no longer an issue, increased early production from both is always welcome as well. The extra resources can be sold for gold to further fuel your war machine, and double uranium in the modern era can get pretty ridiculous. On top of that, the krepost is an excellent UB, and because I build it pretty much everywhere, I always get the heroic epic in my games with Russia. Cossacks are pretty underrated too, and as long as they have ranged backup to deal damage before they strike, they can annihilate riflemen. I'd say the bonuses of the UA alone put them far above ridiculously overrated trite like Greece, and definitely put them in AT LEAST the second-best tier if not top tier. Their abilities are also almost NEVER situational and useful in all areas. Resource poor? Double resources. Resource rich? Sell em all for money.

 

[aatami]

I am convinced by your rationale and Russia will be moved to semi-high.

 

[KevinMiles90000]

Mongolia should be top tier.

 

[TopGearFanatic]

Why is Greece in the top tier? Their units come in the beginning and go by pretty quickly. Also, what defines a "real pro"?

 

[Babri]

Mongolia should be top tier.

Their UUs are the best in the game & their UA is quite powerful if you play using Thal Balance Combined Mod.

 

[aatami]

Just as a note, the tier list doesn't take mods into consideration.

 

[CYZ]

Will people stop bothering to make these lists?

How ''good'' a civ is is extremely relative. It depends on many factors such as game speed, map type, map size, difficulty, other settings such as barbarians and ancient ruins, playstyle, preferred victory condition and victory conditions enabled, starting area, other civs in the game, amount of citystates and probably a whole bunch of other things I forget.

Trying to rank civs in order of how good they are is a failure before you start in my opinion.

 

[aatami]

I do agree in that the tier list can't be perfect, but I do feel we need a tier list that gives a general idea of the tierings (or I, at the least, want one).

 

[CYZ]

I do agree in that the tier list can't be perfect, but I do feel we need a tier list that gives a general idea of the tierings (or I, at the least, want one).

Sure, but it will never be more than the opinion of one person. Or worse, a consensus of several people's opinions.

Just seems so futile.

 

[Germnoble]

Egypt should be higher, you cant ignore their UA like that. It can be extremely helpful if your in a culture game, and if you get the pyramids first they are nearly unstoppable in the hands of a talented player. Much of that is very situational, but in those situations there is no better choice, and if your at war with them, you know your in for a nice haul of goodies, as they usually have lots of wonders built.

 

[aatami]

Just to clarify to everyone: This tiering list is mainly based on the opinions of experienced players.
A tiering list like this can't be 100% accurate, because of the immense number of variables that affect it from game to game. This tiering list is only supposed to be for general consultation!

 

[Gallean88]

I've never understood why post-horsemen patch greece has continued to be ranked so highly. Horsemen and indeed companion cav have become such niche units that I just can't see them being anywhere near as useful as they once were. Companions are better than ordinary horsemen, but not by enough to merit top tier UU status, nor to rank them above far, FAR better UUs like Longbows, Jags, Jannisaries and Conquistadors.

Hoplites suffer from having an extremely small time window in order to be effective, and if you have iron (or your enemy does) they are rendered much less effective. Spearmen in general aren't great, since horses are pretty easy to deal with given that you can catch up to them. I've rarely had the chance to use hoplites as much more than barb police.

The UA is in another vein entirely from these mediocre UUs. Influence degrading at half rate is certainly very impressive, and an excellent ability that isn't too situational. I just don't see it as one that deserves top tier status, however; UAs like those of the Inca, UBs like the Bazaar, and even culture UAs which allow civs to grab patronage policies can all mimic and even outperform the effects of Greece's UA in terms of saving you money. Greece is at very best good tier, but I strongly consider them to be a mid tier civ; Other civs with great UUs but mediocre UAs get the same treatment, so why shouldn't greece, with their good UA and mediocre UUs?