Civilization tier list

[bryanw1995]

I would create another tier. Siam and France (and some others) deserve it as they are far and above the other rabble.


Personally I have them at the very bottom. They are very susceptible to map conditions, and are very random on top, so people who get lucky with them love them, and people who get unlucky with them hate them.

I hate volatility like that in abilities. Even if an ability is just flavour, I don't want to risk choosing a civ, then not being able to use them fully.

Germany is more like a "meh" tier for a human but a very good one for the ai, especially at higher levels. All that landsmack-spam with no unit maintenance cost is tough to mow through without a serious tech/promotion advantage.

 

[MadDjinn]

ahhh.. lists of civs... These things never end well.

There's too many factors to try to balance to get it down to one specific list.

VC type, SP vs. MP, game speed, map type -- These are the core points that the list will turn on.

Ie, in a marathon game, Rome will rank much higher on the list due to the UA and the fact that they'll get to use both UUs for a muh longer time. Trim the timer down to quick and only the UA is a real factor in the listing, but it won't be as powerful as it was in a marathon game.

SP vs. MP has to be separated. In SP games, I can work on out bidding civs for the CSs and the AIs aren't that intelligent on spending cash on the 'right' CSs. In MP, someone allies a close CS to me - I kill the CS before they can get units over to help them. MP also turns into Dom->Diplo/Science games.

map type is fairly important for some of the civs. Polynesia on a 4 corners map with mountains (not water) in between is pretty bland.

my suggestion is to start with grouping civs based on their utility in the above mentioned areas, and then after that, work towards a unified list.

 

[Lyoncet]

Most of those look pretty good to me, both in terms of my experiences and general consensus. As others have mentioned, though, Greece just ain't quite what it used to be with the horse nerf (since not only did Hetairoi get nerfed, spear units are now weaker in general because of the de-emphasis of horse units), and I'd say India deserves at least semi-high tier. It doesn't have the most stellar, leap-out-of-your-chair-wowing bonuses, but it's UA probably gives you more benefit that just about any other unique anything over the course of a game. And Gandhi's elephant rushes are sweet, too.

And I'd put Arabia a bit higher in its tier just because there's pretty much no game, no win condition, and no strategy that it doesn't excel at. Camel Archers's aren't Keshiks, but they still let you conquest with much lighter losses, meaning much lower hammer investment, and the only time that Bazaars aren't the best unique building in the game when you slaughtered everyone with your Camel Archers. (See the previous poster if you want to see what I mean.)

 

[aatami]

Just to clarify: Civs in the same tier are not in any spesific order.

True true, maybe Greece should be moved to mid (because they where nerfed), and India to semi-high (because I've seen enough rationale to back them up).

 

[Lyoncet]

Just to clarify: Civs in the same tier are not in any spesific order.

Ah. May want to edit that into the OP, since I usually see lists done with intra-tier rankings.

 

[aatami]

Ah. May want to edit that into the OP, since I usually see lists done with intra-tier rankings.

Done.

 

[chazzycat]

America is not "poor" at the level of the Ottomans. Their UA is underwhelming on paper, but turns out to be pretty useful most of the time. I would say they are on par overall with the other civs in your mid-tier. They are much more adaptable than England or Spain for example. I think the Ottomans really do deserve their own tier down at the bottom of suckiness.

That's actually the only thing I felt strongly enough about to comment. All the other civs other than Ottomans can shine given the proper circumstances. Which tier they fall in will depend entirely on the map & the player's goals. Yes, even France & Siam can be less-than-ideal choices in the proper circumstance.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think the thing to keep in mind is to count all three things. The Ottoman UA is bad, but people like Janissaries. The thing that bugs me are situational civs that are bad outside of those situations. Germans are kind of bad because there's no synergy between the three things and one of them depends on chance.

 

[Gallean88]

I agree with Louis; People focus way too much on UAs to rank the civs. The ottomans overall, thanks to janissaries being amazing and Sipahis being at least passable are as good if not better than ridiculously overrated civs like greece, and at the level of typical mid tier civs like America. Its a sign of CiV's great balance that there isnt even a "bad" tier; Just a really big Good and Mid tier and a miniscule awful tier which, honestly, shouldn't exist. The only civilization that really has near nothing going for it save for the rarest of circumstances is probably germany because it lacks any synergy as Louis pointed out, and none of its individual bonuses are decent enough outside of being extremely niche.

 

[chazzycat]

Agreed it's a sign of good balance. And janissaries do rock. For me, I think flavor is very important. With the Ottomans and their throwaway UA, I just lose the immersion. It's like I forget who I am playing as until I hit gunpowder. That just makes the game too bland & boring to keep my interest.

 

[snarzberry]

This is one area that I will give an unreserved to Civ 5. Civ flavour and uniqueness. The different play-styles and civ-specific strategies is one if its major strengths compared to Civ 4.

 

[vexing]

this is a pretty weird list, especially with the various caveats like germany being top tier in the hands of a pro... i can't think of a civ that isn't top tier in hands of a pro. ottomans are the perfect example. they rank as bottom for a lot of people because the UA is worthless, but janissary is ridiculously powerful and a pro will exploit that to its fullest: pop out 8ish, upgrade to rifles, destroy everything in path.

also there are no qualifications. is this supposed to be an all around - standard speed listing? slower speeds significantly increase the relative strength of combat focused civs. on marathon it's not hard to conquer the world with keshiks and a pikeman.

how much skill is required on the part of the player?

a few examples:
songhai is extremely powerful, but the player needs to start with the tradition -> liberty -> settler -> culture buildings -> landed elite policy path, teching to philosophy before culture buildings - they become france on steroids. in the hands of a novice they're not going to be nearly as good.

babylon requires less skill, all the player needs to do is tech directly to writing and plant the academy to have a huge edge. "advanced" play like using meritocracy for great library also increases their relative strength.

persia on the other hand requires very little skill... any novice should hit golden ages and get the bonuses. i'd definitely recommend persia or france to beginners.

 

[HumpbackJack]

ahhh.. lists of civs... These things never end well.

There's too many factors to try to balance to get it down to one specific list.

VC type, SP vs. MP, game speed, map type -- These are the core points that the list will turn on.

Ie, in a marathon game, Rome will rank much higher on the list due to the UA and the fact that they'll get to use both UUs for a muh longer time. Trim the timer down to quick and only the UA is a real factor in the listing, but it won't be as powerful as it was in a marathon game.

SP vs. MP has to be separated. In SP games, I can work on out bidding civs for the CSs and the AIs aren't that intelligent on spending cash on the 'right' CSs. In MP, someone allies a close CS to me - I kill the CS before they can get units over to help them. MP also turns into Dom->Diplo/Science games.

map type is fairly important for some of the civs. Polynesia on a 4 corners map with mountains (not water) in between is pretty bland.

my suggestion is to start with grouping civs based on their utility in the above mentioned areas, and then after that, work towards a unified list.

Have to agree with this 100%. Unless you specify those major choices, this list is pretty much useless. Now if you said it was specific to SP pangea standard and is a list of tiered AI civs, then it would be a good list, because alot of people have experience with that and you could probably reach a consensus of which civs are the most dangerous on those settings.

 

[Lyoncet]

I agree with the "too many variables" premise, but isn't it still reasonable to say "civs XYZ will generally over the course of N games do somewhat better than civs ABCD?" "Better," of course, is a very difficult term to pin down in a game as broad as Civ, but you can usually get a decent sense of which civs will tend to be easier to accomplish your end goal (winning). That's what a tier list usually does; it's not a measure of who does what best, but a representation of who tends to do excel over the course of a large number games.

The one big stinkin' qualifier, though, is MP vs. SP. Those really do need to be broken down into different lists, since strategies shift entirely between those two.

 

[MadDjinn]

Here's a very 'poor' rough draft on the civ's and their tiers. It's 'poor' as I can't take everything into the model.

I'll also give/subtract points based upon settings. That way, you can move up or down the list based upon the speed of the game.

edit: rescaling to a 1-5 scale. Only the top few UA, UU, UB, UT will get +5. the rest will be lower. Will mean that the UT's and UB's are compared against each other.
edit 2: rescaling UAs to a 1-10 scale given their power, or not, across the whole game compared to UU/UB/UGP/UT. (5 is avg, after that, it'll go up or down compared to others; not having it = 0)
E/M = Epic/Marathon; Q = Quick; S = Standard

France (+14<->+12)
UA - E/M +8 Q/S +6 (not situational, good early-mid game - drives faster deep SP grabs, but has an end point)
UU1 (Musket) - situational: E/M +3, Q/S +1 (will be outdated within 2 techs, nothing special about it upgrades)
UU2 (Foreign Legions) - +3 (not situational, late game unit; but can be built for promo then upgraded to mech)

Persia (+16<->+14)
UA - +9 (not situational, good all game, two useful bonuses in one)
UB - +4 (always built, happiness bonus = city unhappiness = more GAs; see UA)
UU - situational E/M +3, Q +1, S +2 (early game rusher, double heal = less losses, costly upgrade path)

Siam (+17<->+14)
UA - situational If CSs/used well +8, else +5 (great SP/Patronage synergy, good all game, can be useless if no CSs/few used)
UB - +5 (always built, can be Legalism gained, no libraries needed)
UU - +4 (no resources and will work until Industrial Era units, game speed doesn't matter)

Songhai (+14<->+12)
UA - +8 (two bonuses, both useful. useful all game if you're fighting all game)
UB - +3 (legalism chooses it first, no cost, culture only building)
UU - situational E/M +3, Q +1, S +2 (melee knight replacement, direct upgrade makes the unit worse than before upgrading)

Babylon (+17<->+13)
UA - +10 (useful all game, science bonus x 2)
UB - situational +4 E/M, Q = 2, S = +3 (higher defense walls with + RA, mixes with SPs if needed; on quicker speeds pace of unit power/bombardments will negate need)
UU - situational +3 E/M, Q = 1, S = +2 (can live through an attack, early unit, nothing upgrades)

China (+14<->+12)
UA - +6 (stronger GG, but very tightly focused for a UA, useful all game)
UU - situational +4 E/M, Q +2, S +3 (twin attacks = faster promotions, more dead enemies, upgrades to a non-ranged unit)
UB - +4 (always built, pays for itself and other basic buildings)

Denmark (+15<->+11)
UA - +7/+3 (with major water vs. without; mixes with UUs very well)
UU1 (Berseker) +5 (LS replacement that acts like an overpowered Knight, upgrades to UU2)
UU2 (Ski Infantry) +3 (UU1 upgrades to it, better movement on bald hills+ is good, rest is situational)

Mongolia (+13<->+10)
UA - +5 (taking out CSs usually isn't a good plan, but this helps with that)
UU - +5/+2 (RA replacement for Knight; mixes well with UGP; good until Industrial; useless on water maps)
UGP - +3 (great with the UU, keeps up with the fast army, healing)

Japan (+12)
UA - +7 (solid UA which keeps units alive longer)
UU1 (samurai) - +3 (LS replacement, generates more GGs, but requires the UA to be great)
UU2 (zero) - +2 (fighter replacement, but not very useful in most games)

Polynesia (+14<->+3)
UA - +8/+0 (water map, not water map)
UT - +3/+2/+0 (culture game+water map, water map, not water map)
UU - +3 (warrior replacement, CS reduction ability)

Arabia (+16<-> +14)
UA - +7 (double 'ok' bonuses)
UB - +5 (always built, print your own money)
UU - +4/+2 (RA Knight replacement, solid until Industrial, not good on water maps)

Aztec (+14)
UA - +7 (helps always, especially in domination games to get more SPs)
UU - +3 (warrior replacement, special promotion upgrades well)
UB - +4 (lack of lakes is annoying, but bonus growth is solid)

Russia (+12)
UA - +8 (always helps)
UU - +2 (Cavalry replacement, but still beat easily by multiple old units)
UB - +2 (better pre-patch, but can make for some massive land grabs)

India (+13<->+12)
UA - +10 (solid ICS owner)
UU - +2/+1 (better on E/M, pretty boring for Q/S given that it upgrades to a melee unit)
UB - +1 (Mughal what? who cares about castles after flight?)

Germany (+13<->+8)
UA - E/M +7 Q/S +3 (very situational, but on marathon it's got potential)
UU1 (LK) E/M +3, Q/S +2 (1/2 hammers is good, but the upgrade cost is horrible due to the 1/2 hammers)
UU2 (Panzer) +3 (solid unit, even if some people think tanks are useless)

Egypt (+9<->+5)
UA - +4/+1 (there's only so many times you build a wonder for this to be useful in a game)
UU - E/M +2, Q/S +1 (no resource, sure, but upgrades to a melee unit. useless pretty fast)
UB - +3 (happy from a temple is useful, don't lose the city though)

England (+12<->+2)
UA - +6/+0 (water map/not water map)
UU1 (LBs) E/M +3, Q/S +2 (Gets +range, but not the +sight to go with it. upgrades to a melee unit)
UU2 (SoTL) +3/+0 (better than a frigate, but naval units cost too much for upgrades; water/no water)

Rome (+15<->+9)
UA - E/M +9, Q/S +5 (the higher the costs, the better this is. minor issue - require a base of hammers first, all game)
UU1 (Legion) +3 (can make roads, ok, otherwise just another swordsman)
UU2 (Ballista) E/M +3, Q/S +1 (strong as a treb, but then upgrades to one with nothing special upgraded.)

Spain (+13<->+8)
UA - +8/+4 (more NWs on map/be first/super skilldorado/get to work them, less...)
UU1 (tercio) +2 (just upgrade a pike, it'll be better than making one of these then upgrading two turns later)
UU2 (Conq.) +3/+2 (terra/small continents map, not ... map)

Inca (+13<->+10)
UA +7 (good always)
UU +2 (great for upgrades, poor if you can't dodge)
UT +4/+1 (let's the Incans settle areas that others can't, but if no mountain ranges...)

Greece (+14 <->+6)
UA +7/+2 (useful if you go CS heavy/Patronage, not if you don't.)
UU1 (hoplite) E/M +3 Q/S +1 (temporary and doesn't have anything to upgrade)
UU2 (Companion Cav) E/M +4 Q/S +3 (after nerf, not so great, but extra GGs)

America (+12)
UA - +7 (double bonus, sight great, other side means don't need AW with base tradition)
UU1 (Minutemen) +2 (good unit, but requires new build during the renaissance. soon to be outdated unless you purposely dodge rifling)
UU2 (B17) +3 (Solid late game unit; especially now that SBs get promos. One step closer to double attack SBs)

Iroquois (+12<->+9)
UA - +6 (it's ok, but not super)
UU - +3 (solid replacement)
UB - +3/+0 (better than the workshop with lots of forests worse without)

Ottomans (+12<->+6)
UA +6/+0 (water, barbs, better than German UA; no water... naval units cost a LOT to upgrade)
UU1 (Jan) +4 (best unit in the game for upgrades, but have to make them in Renaissance)
UU2 (Siph) +2 (Lancer replacement...)

 

[TopGearFanatic]

Maybe you should include sidenotes on how some civs can vary depending on difficulty and speed (or is that just assumed by all the "pros")?

 

[MadDjinn]

So, based on the 'best case' for the civs: (the Tiers are not ordered lists. See the above numbers for relative positioning/consistency)

Top
Siam
Babylon
Persia
Arabia

Mid-High Tier
Denmark
Rome
Songhai
France
China
Aztec
Polynesia

Mid Tier
Inca
Greece
Mongolia
Spain
Germany
India

Mid-Lower Tier
America
Ottomans
Iroquois
England
Russia
Japan

Better than no bonuses
Egypt

 

[TopGearFanatic]

So, based on the 'best case' for the civs:

Top
Siam
Arabia
Babylon
Songhai
Persia

Mid Tier
France
Greece
Inca
Rome
China
Denmark
India
Aztec
England
Polynesia

Can be decent
Ottomans
Iroquois
America
Spain
Germany
Mongolia

Better than no bonuses
Egypt
Russia
Japan

Why is Russia at the bottom? Their bonus allows you to get extra production and resources, not to mention the krepost for some easy expansion.

 

[MadDjinn]

Why is Russia at the bottom? Their bonus allows you to get extra production and resources, not to mention the krepost for some easy expansion.

The UA is good, (+2) but the UU and UB aren't.

the Krepost, post-patch, isn't as great as it once was, since everyone can just get tradition for the same thing. (and AW) Sure, mix those two with a krepost and you've got better borders. But you have to pay for it. Not to mention, it's not that great of a boost and you won't have awesome tiles everywhere that you can have 20-30 pop working.

 

[TopGearFanatic]

The UA is good, (+2) but the UU and UB aren't.

the Krepost, post-patch, isn't as great as it once was, since everyone can just get tradition for the same thing. (and AW) Sure, mix those two with a krepost and you've got better borders. But you have to pay for it. Not to mention, it's not that great of a boost and you won't have awesome tiles everywhere that you can have 20-30 pop working.

I still don't see how they are worse than Germany.