Civilization tier list
- Thread starter aatami
- Start date
Agent Cooper
Lynch's Creation
For playing with that strategy sure, Russia is a great civ.
However, I play by the philosophy that the outcome of most games are already set in stone before reaching the late eras. As Sun Tzu would express it, a battle is essentially won or lost before the first shot is fired. The wise general knows this, the other guy doesn't.
Speaking of good warmonger civs, Mongolia could be in top tier segment unless they roll a start with a water based map. In my experience, Keshiks + Khan eat everything the deity AI can throw at them and they move at least twice as fast across the map as a group of longswords.
MadDjinn
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 4,554
sigh, yes... will have to rethink the tiers.
There'll be civs that can handle the patch, and those that will be a challenge. Primarily due to making some changes, but not others.
Ie, Babylon will still be 'win' since 10 cities = 20 GSs (due to no more RA pops) well before anyone else thinks of Modern Era. (especially like the 'no globalization' part
)
There'll be civs that can handle the patch, and those that will be a challenge. Primarily due to making some changes, but not others.
Ie, Babylon will still be 'win' since 10 cities = 20 GSs (due to no more RA pops) well before anyone else thinks of Modern Era. (especially like the 'no globalization' part
)apocalypse105
Deity
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,705
Just chop a few down but let a few stand....
I dont see why iroquois is low tear it can have ridicoulous production as result faster spaceship parts
Anyhow just find this list bit wierd every civ has its good points its just how you play with it...
What is so good about India in the patch? The double extra unhappiness from cities is going to hurt, I think.
Yes, but they will, in general, need to worry less about happiness than other civs.
Not sure if anyone's mentioned this (if so I apologize), but with the new patch I looked as Rome receiving an indirect buff.
1) Longswordsman have had their strength reduced. This increases the Legions staying power (or longevity of their service) without the need of upgrading. Obviously they will still lack in raw strength to compete, but since they're available much earlier combat promotions should help them fight on even grounds. Since the legions can build roads having increased service time is ideal for a roman player.
2) a 50% siege buff will allow an increase in survivability for all siege units. With 11 ranged strength converting into 5.5 strength normal catapults will be able to survive a direct hit from most melee units, but will still incur heavy damage. With a roman ballista (14 ranged strength) the strength is increased to 7, enabling it to outlast a common warrior and take significantly less damage from heavy-hitters like horseman and swordsman.
3)Because the opening 15% building production in order has been pushed to communism and has been reduced to 10%, the available building production modifiers to all civs has been lowered (thereby increasing the power of Rome's UA). This can be similarly looked at with the marble and aristocracy modifier nerfs in comparison with Egypt's UA. However there is the republic's new 5% building modifier buff.
I'm not sure if this will increase rome's tier, we will have to see how they perform with all these new changes. I don't think however there's any doubt in saying that this patch will make them slightly stronger.
1) Longswordsman have had their strength reduced. This increases the Legions staying power (or longevity of their service) without the need of upgrading. Obviously they will still lack in raw strength to compete, but since they're available much earlier combat promotions should help them fight on even grounds. Since the legions can build roads having increased service time is ideal for a roman player.
2) a 50% siege buff will allow an increase in survivability for all siege units. With 11 ranged strength converting into 5.5 strength normal catapults will be able to survive a direct hit from most melee units, but will still incur heavy damage. With a roman ballista (14 ranged strength) the strength is increased to 7, enabling it to outlast a common warrior and take significantly less damage from heavy-hitters like horseman and swordsman.
3)Because the opening 15% building production in order has been pushed to communism and has been reduced to 10%, the available building production modifiers to all civs has been lowered (thereby increasing the power of Rome's UA). This can be similarly looked at with the marble and aristocracy modifier nerfs in comparison with Egypt's UA. However there is the republic's new 5% building modifier buff.
I'm not sure if this will increase rome's tier, we will have to see how they perform with all these new changes. I don't think however there's any doubt in saying that this patch will make them slightly stronger.
Martin Alvito
Real men play SMAC
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 2,332
Korea is top tier. Right now I would additionally alter the OP's list as follows:
- Persia is second tier. I would break up the second tier to separate out the civs that are a clear cut above the others in that list. More on that in a second.
- Mongolia is top tier. Keshiks are far and away the best unit in the game.
- Iroquois does indeed move up. Not only are the Mohawks spammable, but your rush doesn't even require settling Iron. That speeds things up by several turns and also permits settling at will rather than having one in reserve.
Take your over-large second tier and divide it as follows:
- Second-tier (generally solid all-around or exceptional under certain settings):
China, Persia, Arabia (OCC), Russia (Deity strategic resale), Aztec
- Third-tier:
Denmark, Polynesia, India (the per city
increase hurts early on) Iroquois, Japan, Rome (Steel delay helps them out a lot).
Then rename the lower tiers accordingly. Egypt can also move up one if you are feeling charitable. I don't think you even need the bottom tier at this point; America and the Ottomans aren't that much worse than, say, Germany and Greece.
- Persia is second tier. I would break up the second tier to separate out the civs that are a clear cut above the others in that list. More on that in a second.
- Mongolia is top tier. Keshiks are far and away the best unit in the game.
- Iroquois does indeed move up. Not only are the Mohawks spammable, but your rush doesn't even require settling Iron. That speeds things up by several turns and also permits settling at will rather than having one in reserve.
Take your over-large second tier and divide it as follows:
- Second-tier (generally solid all-around or exceptional under certain settings):
China, Persia, Arabia (OCC), Russia (Deity strategic resale), Aztec
- Third-tier:
Denmark, Polynesia, India (the per city
increase hurts early on) Iroquois, Japan, Rome (Steel delay helps them out a lot).Then rename the lower tiers accordingly. Egypt can also move up one if you are feeling charitable. I don't think you even need the bottom tier at this point; America and the Ottomans aren't that much worse than, say, Germany and Greece.
Right now the tier list is several patches old, so it isn't near correct. The biggest problem is I haven't seen the most respected players commenting on the subject after the latest big changes, so the only way to arrange the tier list is solely on our opinions, so it might not be so accurate as it was before, but nevertheless we can try.
ShahJahanII
Homesick Alien
Korea is top tier. Right now I would additionally alter the OP's list as follows:
- Persia is second tier. I would break up the second tier to separate out the civs that are a clear cut above the others in that list. More on that in a second.
- Mongolia is top tier. Keshiks are far and away the best unit in the game.
- Iroquois does indeed move up. Not only are the Mohawks spammable, but your rush doesn't even require settling Iron. That speeds things up by several turns and also permits settling at will rather than having one in reserve.
Take your over-large second tier and divide it as follows:
- Second-tier (generally solid all-around or exceptional under certain settings):
China, Persia, Arabia (OCC), Russia (Deity strategic resale), Aztec
- Third-tier:
Denmark, Polynesia, India (the per city
Then rename the lower tiers accordingly. Egypt can also move up one if you are feeling charitable. I don't think you even need the bottom tier at this point; America and the Ottomans aren't that much worse than, say, Germany and Greece.
Way to go, whoever bumped this thread.If you think Mohawk warriors are spammable, what about Landscknecht.
PasturedCow
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2011
- Messages
- 33
Oh no! You mean we have to use our OWN opinions to THINK for ourselves?!?! What has this world come to?
Seriously though I don't mean any insult but this is silly. I'm very certain there are a lot of players here that no one respects that know just as much if not more than these respected players, whomever they may be (I have no idea personally). My opinion is certainly worth to me as much as any of theirs anyway.
If you think Mohawk warriors are spammable, what about Landscknecht.
Landscknechts can be cool too, yeah. Germany isn't that bad and can be quite good depending on how you play them. In fact a lot of civs can be decent to good if you play them to their strengths. Half the fun is finding this out for oneself.
Just re-do the OP to point to Maddjinn's blog:
post 1 (prepatch list) http://blog.maddjinn.ca/2011/06/22/junejuly-patch-civs-winning-and-losing-part-1/
post 2 http://blog.maddjinn.ca/2011/06/22/junejuly-patch-civs-winning-and-losing-part-2/
post 3 http://blog.maddjinn.ca/2011/06/23/junejuly-patch-–-civs-winning-and-losing-–-part-3/
post 4 (current list) http://blog.maddjinn.ca/2011/06/23/junejuly-patch-–-civs-winning-and-losing-–-part-4/
post 1 (prepatch list) http://blog.maddjinn.ca/2011/06/22/junejuly-patch-civs-winning-and-losing-part-1/
post 2 http://blog.maddjinn.ca/2011/06/22/junejuly-patch-civs-winning-and-losing-part-2/
post 3 http://blog.maddjinn.ca/2011/06/23/junejuly-patch-–-civs-winning-and-losing-–-part-3/
post 4 (current list) http://blog.maddjinn.ca/2011/06/23/junejuly-patch-–-civs-winning-and-losing-–-part-4/
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Anyone think Egypt is better with the new wonders? Granted, I haven't played as them and I've only seen the new wonders twice (got beaten to Zeus and Artemis in one game, was unimpressed with the Mausoleum in another). But, still, Egypt with Artemis and the Gardens could be quite impressive.
I do consider all wonder buffs to be buffs to Egypt.
The thing is, I don't completely agree with Maddjinn with some spesific details, even though I do agree with most of his general picture. I'm going to give more time and thought to this tier list (and my other ciV topic that I'm in charge of, the enviromentalism policy tree one) later, but not right now.
The thing is, I don't completely agree with Maddjinn with some spesific details, even though I do agree with most of his general picture. I'm going to give more time and thought to this tier list (and my other ciV topic that I'm in charge of, the enviromentalism policy tree one) later, but not right now.
apocalypse105
Deity
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,705
Based upon opinions of high ranking players
Yeah sorry but everyone's oppion is other
Greece low tier ?
Their unique ability is one of the best in the game Because of the importance of city state its just so usefull and its a bonus throughout the game
Yeah everyone has a different playstyle But still greece low tier no way
Yeah sorry but everyone's oppion is other
Greece low tier ?
Their unique ability is one of the best in the game Because of the importance of city state its just so usefull and its a bonus throughout the game
Yeah everyone has a different playstyle But still greece low tier no way
Similar threads
