Civilization tier list
- Thread starter aatami
- Start date
Inca need to be promoted to Top tier. They are incredible ingame. While their UU lacks, I have managed to get a game with them, earning 1200+ Science, 600 + Culture, 750+ Gold (Outside Golden Age) and at least 10 happiness. On Prince.
snarzberry
Emperor
I'm a recent convert to at least liking them, but they only really take off if landed in a nice hilly, mountainous area by the starting roll. If you start in the middle of a big plain with just a mountain or two here and there then they're not nearly as powerful.
Those numbers are good for economic civs but I'm betting they came late-game and on a nice map. Whereas a warmonger civ - Denmark for example - with no economic bonuses whatsoever, can have those numbers (maybe half as much culture) in the early 200's by taking over multiple civs with their war bonuses.
The game is weighted in favour of early warfare, so IMO the top civs are the ones that can dominate the early battlefield the best.
MadDjinn
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 4,554
and that's why Satrap's court is better. You still get the base building bonuses with it.
So.. -1 culture, -1 artist slot for 0 upkeep. So you lose out on cpt (slot + -1 c) and lose out on GA production. Oh, and if someone gets your city with this thing in it, they get extra cash.
vexing
knows
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2010
- Messages
- 2,668
lack of an artist slot and the gold sacking modifier are irrelevant for most games. it's a +2 happiness/+2 culture building that can be built anywhere and costs 100 hammers (20 less than temple, a lot less than bank), and you can use legalism to get 4 early.
it deserves at least an equal ranking to satrap's court.
it deserves at least an equal ranking to satrap's court.
Interesting discussion.
Seems tough to rank given "best" can change depending on the factors. A Civ that is better for early wars might be better vs a human opponent--or even an America, where an extra square of sight vs a smarter less predictable human opponent might make an enormous difference. Civs with strong early UUs might be much better on Epic/Marathon length games, where you have more time to wreak havoc with them--especially on small maps where you can combat multiple civs within their window of effectiveness.
Seems tough to rank given "best" can change depending on the factors. A Civ that is better for early wars might be better vs a human opponent--or even an America, where an extra square of sight vs a smarter less predictable human opponent might make an enormous difference. Civs with strong early UUs might be much better on Epic/Marathon length games, where you have more time to wreak havoc with them--especially on small maps where you can combat multiple civs within their window of effectiveness.
Whoa. France is considered good? I would rate them bottom tier after the .217 patch, when early culture became much easier to get.
Their UA is completely useless for half the game, their UUs are OK - musketeers stink because musketmen stink. The musketeer is barely better than longswords and the are obsoleted fast by rifles - and their bonuses really don't carry through into new classes.
I would much rather play as Egypt, with its +2 happiness, +2 gold in every city from its UB and its ultra-versatile wonder bonus. Or as Greece, which provides good UUs and a UA that provides a direct path to the easiest victory condition, with tons of bonus culture, food, and units along the way.
Their UA is completely useless for half the game, their UUs are OK - musketeers stink because musketmen stink. The musketeer is barely better than longswords and the are obsoleted fast by rifles - and their bonuses really don't carry through into new classes.
I would much rather play as Egypt, with its +2 happiness, +2 gold in every city from its UB and its ultra-versatile wonder bonus. Or as Greece, which provides good UUs and a UA that provides a direct path to the easiest victory condition, with tons of bonus culture, food, and units along the way.
Agreed, I don't understand all the love for France. Oppositely, I don't understand the lack of love for Greece.
vexing
knows
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2010
- Messages
- 2,668
simple example: say you're going for landed elite, you get unlucky and don't hit any culture ruin, you stay with one city.
you get tradition turn 25, legalism 37, landed elite 52.
france gets tradition turn 9, legalism turn 17, landed elite 28.
24 turns sooner you're getting +2/+15% food.
alternatively, if you go down liberty which is probably better, france gets a free settler on turn 20 without building a monument, and when you plant that settler your culture to policy cost ratio goes up instead of down.
Well, in all my testing, it still feels like NC combined with liberty, leading to early aggression on a neighbor is the best starting option for any victory path. Looking through that lens, the early settler is a luxury, not a necessity -- all that matters is getting to meritocracy. If you get an early hut, you can take the free settler, if you don't, you can even go barracks->NE before your second city.
Regardless, after my first 3-4 SP, I'm typically looking to start investing points in Patronage anyway. To be clear, I don't doubt the early advantage that France gives you, but it's not necessary -- we're discussing the difference of a free settler, which isn't game breaking. Oppositely, Greece gives you a lock-down on every city state for the entire game, something that feels immeasurably more valuable (I'm just using Greece as an example here).
MadDjinn
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 4,554
Well, even if it's 'even' it's not 'that' even:
Satrap's Court:
base building
+ 2 happy
net gain
Burial Tomb:
base building
-1 cpt
-1 artist slot
+2 g (so no gpt cost)
+2 happy
- don't lose the city issue
+ slightly cheaper
Not sure the -2gpt cost makes up for the loss in cpt/slot. Toss in 'cheaper' and maybe that balances out. So it'd be net +2 happiness.
ok, fine... given that there's a 0gpt cost, 'free' culture/happiness is better than the base building. Though, cultural VC wise, this is actually worse. Since this is a core building for a CVC, that's not a good thing.
Settings really do swing some civilizations widely. The relevance of ocean travel is the one most people think of first, but the Game Pace and Starting Era are huge factors. The U.S. get better in late-start games. The Greeks become much worse in late-start and quick games, but they are absolutely ridiculous in Ancient Marathon games. Heck, imagine the silly things Germany can do funny things if you start Medieval on Marathon.
Then there are more niche scenarios, stuff like Siam being useless if City States are turned off or reduced off of standard scale.
If we wanted to do "power rankings" for various civilizations each one would have to be based on the game settings. So how about a ranking for the most generic settings?
Standard Size, Standard Pace, Continents, Ancient Start
- no other modifications or options in place, default climate
"A" Rank
Siam, Persia, Babylon, Arabia
"B" Rank
Songhai, Denmark, China, France
"C" Rank
India, Japan, Russia, Rome, Mongolia
"D" Rank
Aztec, Inca, Greece, Spain, Germany
"F" Rank
Iroquois, Ottomans, Polynesia, Egypt, England
You'll notice how the Tiers break down as you play too.
Rank A civilizations all have top-notch unique abilities that help break open games through an extended period. Each one also has useful building.
Rank B civilizations have a solid Ability or Building that helps them from say, Classical era forward. They each have a unit that's exceptional for the Classical or Medieval Era.
Rank C civilizations each have a good Ability, and most are linked to the conservation or increase of hammers (some more direct than others). Several have good Classical or Medieval unique units.
Rank D civilizations range around a bit. The windows where their features really shine are all too generally narrow. They can shine brightly, but briefly.
Rank F civilizations really don't shine on the default map and pacing parameters. Their abilities are too narrow is scope, usually defeated by the terrain on a Continents map.
- Marty Lund
Then there are more niche scenarios, stuff like Siam being useless if City States are turned off or reduced off of standard scale.
If we wanted to do "power rankings" for various civilizations each one would have to be based on the game settings. So how about a ranking for the most generic settings?
Standard Size, Standard Pace, Continents, Ancient Start
- no other modifications or options in place, default climate
"A" Rank
Siam, Persia, Babylon, Arabia
"B" Rank
Songhai, Denmark, China, France
"C" Rank
India, Japan, Russia, Rome, Mongolia
"D" Rank
Aztec, Inca, Greece, Spain, Germany
"F" Rank
Iroquois, Ottomans, Polynesia, Egypt, England
You'll notice how the Tiers break down as you play too.
Rank A civilizations all have top-notch unique abilities that help break open games through an extended period. Each one also has useful building.
Rank B civilizations have a solid Ability or Building that helps them from say, Classical era forward. They each have a unit that's exceptional for the Classical or Medieval Era.
Rank C civilizations each have a good Ability, and most are linked to the conservation or increase of hammers (some more direct than others). Several have good Classical or Medieval unique units.
Rank D civilizations range around a bit. The windows where their features really shine are all too generally narrow. They can shine brightly, but briefly.
Rank F civilizations really don't shine on the default map and pacing parameters. Their abilities are too narrow is scope, usually defeated by the terrain on a Continents map.
- Marty Lund
chazzycat
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2010
- Messages
- 3,085
For me France's value is that it allows for an expansive start while keeping the policies coming in quickly. I like wide, non-puppet empires so it's perfect for my playstyle.
On the other hand, Vexing has already shown how even with 1 city the first few policies are all significantly faster as France, so I'm not sure why you equate that with just getting a free settler. There's no obligation to choose the free settler, you can just get meritocracy much faster if that's what you're going for...and get to your goal of patronage much faster as well. I dunno, France's benefit seems pretty obvious & awesome to me.
I agree Greece is undderrated, their UA is amazing in almost every game (very rarely CS are not useful due to map placement/bad luck).
skreeblios
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2009
- Messages
- 19
Arabs are definitely a powerhouse, especially with gold nerfs after last patch. They are also just fun to play (constantly selling luxuries). I wonder why they don't perform well on those polls that people always put up?
Save_Ferris
Admiring Myself
A few problems with this.
First of all, you left out America, not sure if you included all the other civs.
Secondly you overrated the general consensus of Arabia and India. You underrated Polynesia, Russia, Japan, and England.
It was a bit on the fly, but I think America sits on the D-Rank in Standard/Standard/Continents/Ancient - they die less to barbarians and random blunders in war and have two solid units that turn up very, very late in the game. Nothing stellar, but nothing that's completely negated either.
The list is my opinion about the tiers, not a consensus survey.
- Marty Lund
Here's my ranking. I use some rules for mine. I rank civs that I think have a high volatility in how they use their abilities. My reasoning is that if you only had 1 chance with no restarts in a game, would you really consider an ability that might flop entirely? Nobody takes risks like that. I also consider Pangaea, Continents, Small Continents, and other standard map types.
I thought my old lists back in 2010 had some merit, but I don't have too many games under my belt with this patch. I gave this game a loooong break. I'm also not including some of the DLC civs.
Tier 1
Siam
France
Babylon
Tier 2
Songhai
China
Arabia
India
Egypt
Tier 3
Greece
Japan
Russia
Rome
Mongolia
Persia
Aztecs
Iroquois
England
Tier 4
Spain
Germany
Ottomans
I'd rate Persia and the Aztecs higher, but they're too prone to being screwed over. Persia can easily lose out wonders on Immortal/Deity. The Aztecs can just not start out with any rivers (especially on Small Continents or smaller land masses), taking out their fantastic UB.
If anything, France became even stronger. Just compare the typical policy path in vanilla to now and see how fast they start out. It's nutty, and a lot of the game is decided before the Medieval era.
I thought my old lists back in 2010 had some merit, but I don't have too many games under my belt with this patch. I gave this game a loooong break. I'm also not including some of the DLC civs.
Tier 1
Siam
France
Babylon
Tier 2
Songhai
China
Arabia
India
Egypt
Tier 3
Greece
Japan
Russia
Rome
Mongolia
Persia
Aztecs
Iroquois
England
Tier 4
Spain
Germany
Ottomans
I'd rate Persia and the Aztecs higher, but they're too prone to being screwed over. Persia can easily lose out wonders on Immortal/Deity. The Aztecs can just not start out with any rivers (especially on Small Continents or smaller land masses), taking out their fantastic UB.
If anything, France became even stronger. Just compare the typical policy path in vanilla to now and see how fast they start out. It's nutty, and a lot of the game is decided before the Medieval era.
Russia is by far the strongest civ. Doubling all strategic resources means difference between winning and losing a game, especially when I fight with 6 civs at the same time, on different continents and trying to build nukes and planes without waiting to find another aluminium/uranium mine...
Similar threads
