Civilization tier list

[apocalypse105]

Iroquois need something to increase food from forests worked by that city. Everytime you turn around you need to chop another forest. Revealed a new resource? -1 forest. Want to settle a GP? -1 forest. If we got more food from forests we could at least avoid chopping for river farms.

It just take some managing to see what you want to far and what you want to keep.. They really dont need that

edit : Sorry for dubble post but couldn't edit my post

 

[MadDjinn]

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/

heh, thanks

but even that list is out of date now

I'll have to create an entirely different post and keep it as the 'tier' list. Which then gets updated each patch. (or as new fun stuff is found)

I'm not 100% convinced Korea is 'top' tier, but I need more play time with them. They aren't very far from it though, as only a few parts are lacking for them.

 

[ComradeKino]

Korea is definitely awesome, still checking out the tech boost mechanic but it is like having a bunch of invisible GSs running around.

Yeah what was I gonna say... Aren't you guys underestimating Poly? Yeah it depends on the map but they can meet CS earlier and get the gold bonus from meeting them first. Then, they can build up bank, afford building maintenance for high science, and get some early policies/tech. They can also influence city states earlier. You can run Tradition -> Piety -> Patronage and you'll have huge CS boosts, lots of culture/food/tech. If you play Poly very defensively while befriending CS early you can get a diplo or even culture victory with your jumpstarts.

 

[Randall Turner]

I suspect a lot of us just didn't buy the Polynesian DLC. Appreciating any civ's UA requires a bit of experience w/them. <shrug>

 

[Martin Alvito]

I'm not 100% convinced Korea is 'top' tier, but I need more play time with them. They aren't very far from it though, as only a few parts are lacking for them.

Mathematically, they're the best civ in the game now. That makes them the best choice for two win conditions (Science and Diplomacy), and that's a no-brainer qualification for top tier. Siam (Culture) and Mongolia (Domination) are similarly qualified. Babylon isn't far behind and is a beast of an early warmonger post-Archer buff, so that's also an easy call, and France's quick-start abilities guarantee a competitive position. China is on the fringes of that top-tier, and IMO whether they belong or not is pure personal preference.

I don't really know what MadDjinn is thinking there about Mongolia; Keshiks are the only "I win" button on the Deity level.

There's been ample discussion of why Greece has fallen all the way from the top to the bottom. Suffice it to say that their UUs are uninspiring and obsolete quickly, and their UA locks you into a city-state strategy and even then produces a lot less than the UAs of better -oriented civs while the outcome of the game is in doubt.

On the Polynesia question: Deity AIs are going to start finding those deep water city-states via Astronomy right around the time they start aggressively pursuing city-states anyway. You get a token amount of extra and the opportunity to safely settle isolated land masses early, but crawling across the ocean at pre-Astronomy speeds comes at the cost of a lot of turns of productivity. On the right map they can be a strong competitor, but there aren't a lot of those "right maps".

Way to go, whoever bumped this thread.
If you think Mohawk warriors are spammable, what about Landscknecht.

There's a real big difference between an 11 strength unit that requires a tech costing 110 and a 10 strength unit that requires a tech costing 302. Speed kills. Strength kills.

 

[Roxlimn]

Martin Alvito:

I'm not entirely sure whether or not you're endorsing the Landsknecht. I have little experience playing at the higher diff levels, but at the lower levels, it's not too far afield to snatch Civil Service with GL every game, even before you start on Bronze Working, which ironically makes Landsknecht potentially easier to get than Mohawks, since the path to CS also gives a lot of useful econ tech.

Too, Landsknecht go for the price of Spearmen, whereas Mohawks are more expensive.

 

[Martin Alvito]

It's impossible to get Civil Service via the GL reliably on higher difficulties. Even Babylon can't pull it off with an Academy on Deity; Theology with the ruins off and Babylon is about the best you can do with any degree of consistency.

Swords cost 75 production, yes, but Warriors cost 40 and it's a dirt cheap gold upgrade. Gold is plentiful at higher difficulties. More importantly, you don't have to start building your Iron horde from scratch once you unlock the tech. By the time you unlock Civil Service and churn out a creditable horde of Landsknechts, the Deity AIs will start deploying Longswords.

The important thing to realize about a rush on Deity is that it's not quite so much about massive quantities as it's about getting a large number of units deployed before the AI can produce enough units to stall the rush out. Not needing Iron helps quite a bit with that, and is vastly better than a cheap unit like the Landsknecht that arrives too late to catch AIs with weaker units.

 

[ComradeKino]

Martin Alvito:
On the Polynesia question: Deity AIs are going to start finding those deep water city-states via Astronomy right around the time they start aggressively pursuing city-states anyway. You get a token amount of extra and the opportunity to safely settle isolated land masses early, but crawling across the ocean at pre-Astronomy speeds comes at the cost of a lot of turns of productivity. On the right map they can be a strong competitor, but there aren't a lot of those "right maps".

Ah, I see that you guys are moreso single-player pros who do the mad games on Diety. Much respect.

Yeah I play lots of multiplayer and some singleplayer between Prince-Emperor. I don't like Random Personalities or Ruins off, either.

I'm in agreement about Greece. If I see Greece in a game I tried to give the CS trouble before Greece gets to Patronage.

China's advantage for me is the ability to make mobs of Cho-Ko-Nu defense to stave off any warmongerers during Med/Ren eras while maintaining a decent economy.

 

[ShahJahanII]

@Martin Alvito, even if your enemy has longswordsmen, the Landschnekt allows you to spam units at the speed you would build warriors. If your best production city is building 1 every 2 turns, another every 4-5, and another ever 7-8, you can get so many out, it won't matter how many longswordsmen your enemy has.

 

[Roxlimn]

ShahJahanII:

I'm a little inclined to agree with Alvito in that, at higher difficulty settings, the gold available for use is so plentiful that it's much less of an issue to upgrade Warriors to Swordsmen than it is at lower diffs. "Dirt cheap," is how he puts it, and broadly I'd say "Nearly negligible," to mean the same thing, since you won't need that many units to make a difference.

At the lower diff settings, there isn't as much gold, and the slingshot to CS is pretty nearly a sure thing. At those settings, I would put Landsknecht over Mohawks. At the high settings, Mohawks over Landsknecht. I would not say that being more useful at higher diff settings automatically makes Mohawks the better unit. They simply perform better under the circumstances.

We must take the judgments of Deity-only players with something of a grain of salt. Their environment of play is quite different, and the tactics are not altogether applicable at the lower settings. A Civ that's stronger with more gold and more technologically advanced AI won't necessarily be as advantageous in a different environment.

 

[PasturedCow]

I'm not sure it's all that clear cut. I've had a lot of success with Germany. They seem to be able to support wars on multiple fronts due to their rapid production of Landsknecht and they can afford it more easily due to their UA.

It's going to take about 40 turns to get mohawks out there if you just basically go direct to it. Mohawks are matched as soon as the AIs get iron. Which, if they actually have a source of iron, is very shortly after. Also walls slow the rush. You need to really really rush with about 5 or 6 mohawks and be prepared to back off if your AI target has too much.

Going for landsknechts means you have time to get a second city, without liberty or a third city with liberty, get some decent tech along the way for your workers to actually do something, and get a library in the capital. You are also on your way to education which is a key tech in deity. If you managed to get the GL for philo, you can get landsknechts around turn 60 or so. Without it probably 75. With 2 cities you can churn them out pretty darn quick and get 12 or so pretty quick to do some serious damage. You also will be able to augment your force with barbarians. 12 landsknechts >> 6 mohawks. The attack will come later and will cost you more in terms of production but your empire is in a better shape and you can overwhelm with sheer numbers. It would take 2 mohawks to take down a longsword. It would take 2 landsknechts to take down a longsword. However 2 mohawks are harder to come by.

 

[Martin Alvito]

6 Mohawks isn't enough. You should be bringing double digits to the party if you want to conquer anything reliably. Since you can start on that project from the beginning of the game by spamming Warriors, it's not hard to have double digit Mohawks around the time that a German player with the GL is hitting Civil Service and producing the first Landsknecht. Big advantage there.

It's also important to note that those Warriors will have promotions from barb hunting and such.

Assuming that you hit Civil Service on turn 75 and produce Landsknechts at the rate of one every three turns in each of two cities, you will have ten Landsknechts on turn 90. Deity AIs will start deploying Longswords around then and should have them in quantity by turn 100. Longswords will grind your Landsknechts into hamburger.

The big problem with Pike units is the terrible upgrade path. There is a very long period of time until Rifling arrives, and until that happens they are always dominated on the battlefield by melee.

Your third city argument is facetious. DaveMcW always runs a three-city start on Deity, even with an Iron rush. It seems to work out fine for him.

 

[PasturedCow]

6 Mohawks isn't enough. You should be bringing double digits to the party if you want to conquer anything reliably. Since you can start on that project from the beginning of the game by spamming Warriors, it's not hard to have double digit Mohawks around the time that a German player with the GL is hitting Civil Service and producing the first Landsknecht. Big advantage there.

Assuming that you hit Civil Service on turn 75 and produce Landsknechts at the rate of one every three turns in each of two cities, you will have ten Landsknechts on turn 90. Deity AIs will start deploying Longswords around then and should have them in quantity by turn 100. Longswords will grind your Landsknechts into hamburger.

The big problem with Pike units is the terrible upgrade path. There is a very long period of time until Rifling arrives, and until that happens they are always dominated on the battlefield by melee.

Your third city argument is facetious. DaveMcW always runs a three-city start on Deity, even with an Iron rush. It seems to work out fine for him.

I was just discussing what works for me. The fact that other things work for other people is natural. It's all in how you play the game isn't it? Somehow because DaveMcW has a different way of playing doesn't make my experiences any less valid. How can you say that my experiences are somehow laughable / facetious / that I'm treating a serious argument with inappropriate humor?

There are many examples out there beyond mine of not needing a dozen units to do any damage. If you needed a dozen swords type units, then roman legions would be completely usless as when are you ever going to get 12 iron and actually be able to deploy them before longswords come out? Also if you take honor, as you should, your swords / pike units can stand up just fine to longswords. Discipline + flanking + GG makes you pretty much equal. Superior intelligence makes you better.

 

[Martin Alvito]

The point I'm making is that you aren't drawing a fair comparison. You out and out claim that an Iron rush player can't get a third city but a player going up to Civil Service can, which is laughably untrue. That doesn't make your experiences invalid, but it does make that portion of your argument invalid by standard rules of logic. Similarly, a Mohawk rush doesn't have to be six Mohawks, and it doesn't have to be executed on turn 40. You can wait for additional units (or IW if need be), and either way you're executing it well before the player that waits for Civil Service to build Landsknechts. I think that we can agree that you're universally better off in your rush if the same amount of force can be brought to bear a number of turns sooner.

If you're on an equal tech footing with the AI, ten to twelve units is a good guideline on Deity early on. Bringing less risks running into an AI that was planning to rush you and stalling out in their territory. You may successfully conquer with less, but don't expect to be 100% successful with less if it's, say, Iron vs. Iron. If you have a tech advantage (and Legions can be considered such), you can get away with less; getting the March/Medic promotions is also quite the force multiplier.

More importantly, just because it works for you doesn't mean it's efficient or optimal, and that's the decisive criterion for the tier ratings. If it works for you, that's great, but it doesn't follow that if you took the Iroquois, the appropriate build tactics, and the same generalship you should expect to get identical rush results as you are currently getting with the Germans. There are significant reasons to expect that the results would be reliably superior. Higher unit strength + faster rush -> better expected results, since no other conditions are varying here.

The Iroquois also have one of the stronger UBs in the game on default settings (with start bias on). By contrast, Germany's second UU frequently arrives after the game has been decided. Neither UA is particularly inspiring; I'd argue that with average luck Bismarck's is probably superior (given that the effective bonuses from each are pretty much a wash), but it isn't at all reliable.

To me, that seems like a very strong case that the Iroquois are objectively better than the Germans. Therefore, they get placed in a higher tier.

 

[Roxlimn]

Martin Alvito:

I'll disagree with you there, sir. The Iroquois UB is undoubtedly strong, but Germany's UU could be used aggressively in a tech-parity situation at the later stages of the game, sealing an uncertain but probable win, or switching out plans to domination should the opportunity present itself. This is not as situational as it sounds, any more than a proclamation from a position that presumes that everyone plays on Pangaea maps exclusively.

I would also say that Bismarck's 25% discount on unit maintenance is a solid assurance of GPT given that you will need to maintain some kind of army at some point, and possibly a large one, if 10-12 units is any indication, whereas the Iroquois UA benefit is sketchy at best.

Warriors to Mohawks is strong in an environment where gold is plentiful and CS is uncertain, but in a reverse environment, the reverse is true.

 

[Martin Alvito]

The Iroquois get a significant pass on road maintenance, and it scales over empire size, which tends to increase with time. You will have Forests in your empire if starting bias is on, and AIs seem to like to put Lumber Mills on them rather than chop them.

The German UA also scales over time as you increase in eras and army size. I'd hesitate before claiming that 25% maintenance savings from the UA are that much better.

I'd argue that if you're in a position to convert a Domination victory with Panzers but not without, you could also very likely play a holding game and bulb out a Diplomatic or Space win in the near future. The maximum number of techs you can possibly have remaining on a Science or Diplomatic victory if you have Combustion is thirteen. With all of the overpowered ways to rip through those techs, you shouldn't be forced to win by Domination if you're competitive at that point.

As a result, we can reasonably conclude that if you survived to Combustion, the game is probably decided. It cases out like this: you've gotten there but are doomed, have gotten there and it's just mopping up from here, or have gotten there and need to generate a win condition. If Domination is viable, one of Science or Diplomatic probably is as well...which in reality means that the game is already over except for the tedious mopping up.

If there weren't so many ways to end run the back-loaded nature of the tech tree, and if the AIs weren't so awful at achieving peaceful win conditions and denying them to you, I would be much more inclined to agree with you about Panzers.

 

[Louis XXIV]

When I played as the Iroquois, I think I had a grand total of 10 forest tiles. Yes, it was the closest to a contiguous forest chain as there was on the map, so star biased worked, but it certainly didn't save my a lot on maintenance.

 

[PasturedCow]

The point I'm making is that you aren't drawing a fair comparison. You out and out claim that an Iron rush player can't get a third city but a player going up to Civil Service can, which is laughably untrue.

Where? Did anywhere in my post say that an iron rush player can't expand? The german attack will take more time and therefore can setup additional cities is all I said. I never said anything at all about the expansion of the iroquois.

More importantly, just because it works for you doesn't mean it's efficient or optimal, and that's the decisive criterion for the tier ratings. If it works for you, that's great, but it doesn't follow that if you took the Iroquois, the appropriate build tactics, and the same generalship you should expect to get identical rush results as you are currently getting with the Germans.

Did I say that? Did I say the germans are better? Again no. I just tried to post something I thought might add to the discussion as I just said before.

So instead of asking questions politely about posts that you didn't understand fully, you choose to insult the poster. You choose to attack rather than just saying I don't agree politely. Maybe you should try to practice what you preach.

Either way, I'm not longer interested in dealing with this so I will no longer respond.

 

[Roxlimn]

Martin Alvito:

The Iroquois get a significant pass on road maintenance, and it scales over empire size, which tends to increase with time. You will have Forests in your empire if starting bias is on, and AIs seem to like to put Lumber Mills on them rather than chop them.

The German UA also scales over time as you increase in eras and army size. I'd hesitate before claiming that 25% maintenance savings from the UA are that much better.

I would not. I've played a bunch of Iroquois games already and due to the way the mechanic works, you have to have both contiguous Forest tiles for a significant length (you have to build at least one road into the Forest chain to make it truly functionally equivalent) and you need to cover it with your cultural influence as well.

On the whole, I'd say it'd save you 4 or 5 GPT at the largest, if you have a 5+ city empire - that's mid game. In the early goings, with 3 or 4, it'll be less than that, usually. It'd be a master stroke of luck to have 5 contiguous Forest tiles connecting two fantastic resource clumps.

The German UA saves you maybe 10 GPT when you have 10 Swordsmen straight off, and it just gets better from there. Of course, it encourages a large standing army, or a large operating one, but the savings are substantial if you have such an army for conquest, as the UA and the Landsknecht encourage you to do.

I'd argue that if you're in a position to convert a Domination victory with Panzers but not without, you could also very likely play a holding game and bulb out a Diplomatic or Space win in the near future. The maximum number of techs you can possibly have remaining on a Science or Diplomatic victory if you have Combustion is thirteen. With all of the overpowered ways to rip through those techs, you shouldn't be forced to win by Domination if you're competitive at that point.

The Panzer is sufficiently powerful and speedy to allow you to snatch a runaway Civ's capital when it's on the verge of winning by Diplomacy, even when you are behind in tech. If it's the only Civ with a capital left, that's a Dom win snatched from defeat.

It's not terribly common for this to happen, but it is possible.

Moreover, if you're not on Pangaea, it's often not feasible to land on an enemy continent with a large, powerful Civ and take over before Industrial and the Panzer makes a fantastic showing in Industrial Era battles, even under the shadow of Artillery.

This is plausible at high diff levels, but would be even more significant at lower levels of play where the complexities of an intercontinental invasion before Steam Power makes it that much more difficult for the novice players.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Where? Did anywhere in my post say that an iron rush player can't expand? The german attack will take more time and therefore can setup additional cities is all I said. I never said anything at all about the expansion of the iroquois.

*sigh*

By stating that the German player can set up additional cities (with the implied object being that the Iroquois cannot), you implicitly stated something about the expansion of the Iroquois. Let G be Germany and I be the Iroquois. Then in mathematical form, you stated that G > I along the dimension of expansion. To be precise, you stated in the first post that Germany can get to a second city (or a third with Liberty) by going for Civil Service, with the apparent implication being that the Iroquois can't. Your clarification confirms that you meant to state that G > I along the dimension of expansion. Therefore you logically claimed that the Iroquois can't settle more than one city, or two with Liberty, and still Iron rush.

If you didn't mean to state that, it's fine. Mistakes happen. But please don't get ticked off at me when you make a mistake and I tell you that your claim is silly. I can't know that you made a mistake until you inform me of such.

Did I say that? Did I say the germans are better?

No, your claim was that the Germans were roughly equivalent. Your very first sentence advanced your thesis. "I'm not sure that it's so clear cut" is a logical statement claiming that G ~= I in opposition to my claim that I > G. Your post then goes on to make statements to support the claim that G ~= I.

So instead of asking questions politely about posts that you didn't understand fully, you choose to insult the poster.

First of all, I understand the logic of your post perfectly, as evidenced above. There is no need for questions because the logic of your post is crystal clear. You may not have intended to initiate an argument on the subject. I can understand that. But if I advance the thesis A, and you advance the opposing thesis ~A, you shouldn't expect me (or anyone else) to accept your position that ~A is correct without further debate.

You should recognize that there's a clear difference between attacking the poster and attacking the argument. The issue in the other thread you reference was that the precise phrasing selected by another poster indicated a challenge to my personal integrity, not a challenge to my arguments. It was entirely possible to construct that challenge as a challenge to my arguments - which you did quite nicely in that thread, I might add - but the poster in question chose not to do so. Moreover, it wasn't the first time that had happened with me, and I'm not the only person the poster has pulled that stunt with.

Don't be so quick to judge when you don't have all the evidence.

The German UA saves you maybe 10 GPT when you have 10 Swordsmen straight off, and it just gets better from there.

I don't think that those units cost 4 each to maintain during Classical/Medieval. If I recall correctly, they cost no more than 2 on average at that point in the game, and I want to say it's more like 1-1.5. It isn't until Industrial and Modern that I start noticing deleted units saving me 4 in maintenance per turn and up. Am I missing something here?

If not, a 25% discount on maintenance yields 0.25 X 10 X 1.5 = 3.75 per turn, which isn't any better than what you've posited for the Iroquois ability at that point. Further, I don't think it's totally unreasonable to suppose that they scale roughly equivalently until Industrial or so, with the balance perhaps breaking mildly in favor of the Germans.

Now, if this is another example here of fail documentation by the devs and the Germans actually pay 25% total unit maintenance cost rather than 75%, that would be something indeed.

The Panzer is sufficiently powerful and speedy to allow you to snatch a runaway Civ's capital when it's on the verge of winning by Diplomacy, even when you are behind in tech. If it's the only Civ with a capital left, that's a Dom win snatched from defeat.

It's not terribly common for this to happen, but it is possible.

I absolutely agree (hence the hedge "very likely" in what you quoted), but I look at this much like Germany's UA itself. One might argue that the UA is awesome because you'll get seven Warriors from the first seven barb camps you fight once in every 128 times. In this case, the attractiveness of Panzers is more limited because they generate a win once in a blue moon and have a value of zero towards generating a win condition otherwise.

That's what's classically meant by the shorthand "arrives too late to matter" when describing a late UU. By virtue of arriving on the scene so late, the late UU has to immediately generate a winning position where one would not otherwise exist in order to matter. By contrast, if an early UU helps you, say, capture a single city that you otherwise would not have, the large number of remaining turns in which to earn those benefits can have a very significant effect on your ability to set up a win condition later.

Moreover, if you're not on Pangaea, it's often not feasible to land on an enemy continent with a large, powerful Civ and take over before Industrial and the Panzer makes a fantastic showing in Industrial Era battles, even under the shadow of Artillery.

Here I'd argue that in a game with multiple major landmasses you never need to play for a Domination win. On lower difficulties you can ignore the AIs; on higher difficulties you're good once your continent is pacified. That means that you can optimize for very early on and achieve a peaceful win condition fast enough with certainty.

The games that are tricky are the ones where you're surrounded by hostiles out for your blood, because you are forced to make so many early sacrifices simply in order to weather the initial storm.