Civilization Tiers for Fall From Heaven 2

[Lemminkäinen]

Yeah, on a duel map Illians with their Stasis are basically invincible, for example.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I always play Doviello on Noble on a two-tile map, with my opponent on the other tile. I notice that Lucian nearly always kills the defending warrior of my opponents' settler, therefore

DOVIELLO - WIN

 

[Senethro]

A player that is able to quickly and skilfully use the interface should always be able to win with the Elohim on a 2 tile map. They build a city and use their World Spell and watch as their enemy falls into the black.

 

[mansamusa166]

Here's mine.

Tier 1 : Hippus, Kuriorates, Clan of Embers
(Tier 1.5(???) : Lanun, Khazad)
Tier 2 : Lanun, Khazad, Amurites, Calabim, Ljosalfar
Tier 3 : Infernal , Mercurian, Bannor, Svartalfar, Luchiurp, Illians, Malakim
Tier 4 : Balseraphs, Shieam
Tier 5 : Grigori, Sidar, Elohim
Tier 6 : Doviello

Standard or Large / Normal speed / Pangaea, Terra, Erebus, Tectonics

 

[Tlalynet]

Svartalfar excel with priest\command+illusionist armies. FoL doesn't do them any favors in shoring up their weaknesses and I think the Elves\FOL tie is more psychological than practical. I like to Golden Age into it until I get ancient forests in my core cities than Golden Age out of it to something more practical like OO or Order.

Sorcery and Priesthood are not terribly expensive and once you get to the endgame its easy to get Command 4 priors. The baron excels too, I've never seen so many top grade werewolves as in my last Svart game. I had an army of firebows, mages, wizards, dragonslayers, boarding parties, and tonnes of longbows. To me that is a better way to use the Arcane\Raiders trait than sticking with +1 recon units.

 

[aimlessgun]

Grigori are pretty ridiculous on marathon. I'm finishing up a domination victory on a Huge map right now where I built less than 50 military units the whole game. I think I've lost about 10 units, and killed over a thousand AI units. This is because you can easily make your adventurers invincible to anything the AI throws at them with the exception of Pyre Zombies. Sending 3 adventurers rambo into an enemy civ and them alone forcing a capitulate is fantastic. You can concentrate all your hammers on economy, and never worry about war weariness because you don't lose any units.

 

[Randolph]

Having read this thread the argument seems to be:

1. Early rush is a dominate MP strategy
2. Mounted units dominate early rush strategy
3. Therefore, civs with strong early/mid mounted units are the strongest

I don't know to what extent that's true, but if it is true it's a great example of why I don't have much interest in competitive multilayer CIV/FFH. I just don't find it very fun or interesting to treat strategy games as a puzzle where the goal is to find and exploit a dominate strategy. When I find a highly effective strategy my tendency is to play around with it a bit then mentally check it off and move on to other strategies. Trying to perfect it so I can thump people in multilayer just sounds like a big time hole with few intellectual rewards.

There's a big difference between the civ that is best at exploiting the current cheesy dominate MP strategy vs. a civ that's strong and interesting outside of such specialized conditions.

 

[JonathanStrange]

But it is fun to "prove" a perfect plan wrong (if any strategy in FFH2 can be proven wrong and not simply be the victim of a mediocre map start or bad luck or inferior play) in MP. MP games are time-consuming though but that's another story.

Are there really any perfect plans though? This thread couldn't even agree on ranking the civilizations. I know I disagree with the rankings of many civs here; I've rarely seen the Kuriotates, for example, achieve anything but a mid-sized nation at best. But some are ranking it as a top tier civ. So be it, but if we can't agree on general rankings what reason is there to believe that an "Early Rush" strategy is the most effective strategy in FFH2.

There are too many qualifications and exceptions to FFH2 to accept the idea that - at least as far as MP play goes - the dominant strategy is a Rush Strategy using mounted units and that therefore the stongest civ are those with great early mounted units. That strategy depends alot on map type and start, nearby civs and terrain - and balancing growth with the ability to maintain conquered territories. On MP and SP, I've found too early success in conquest can be crippling. The mounted Rush Strategy is a powerful one but not invincible and not without pitfalls.

Too bad MP is so time-consuming that I no longer play FFH2 online anymore. That doesn't mean I think the challenge of proving or being disproved to have not been fun - it did have its intellectual rewards.

 

[Tlalynet]

Because if you boom too fast in MP you will have 1000 enemies, correct Mr.Strange?

 

[JonathanStrange]

Only if they're paying attention!