1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Photobucket has changed its policy concerning hotlinking images and now requires an account with a $399.00 annual fee to allow hotlink. More information is available at: this link.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  6. Dismiss Notice
  7. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Do The Iroquois really suck?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Aries8, Aug 5, 2017.

  1. Aries8

    Aries8 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2016
    Messages:
    10
    Maybe I'm not doing my math right, or maybe I'm overlooking something but... Iroquois is consistently rated the worst on a nearly everyone's list. Including here:



    and various other Tier lists. Now granted I agree their passive isn't that great, but the longhouse can lead to some pretty spectacular results. Taking into account the Trading post. Doesn't that count as a "worked" Tile? It's not hard to find a grouping of 8-10 forest tiles, the longhouse still seems viable.
     
  2. beetle

    beetle Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    5,268
    Location:
    Frederick, MD
    The very worst aspect of the UB is not being able to chop. Early chops are quite OP. So you skip the chops hoping to max out the UB (and I agree, TP beats lumbermill), and still is barely better than a workshop.
     
  3. BigChiefLizzy

    BigChiefLizzy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2007
    Messages:
    292
    Location:
    UK
    I don't think they are the worst, I'd place them more at a low-mid level. Interestingly enough I've seen the AI do well with them at higher levels of difficulty. Early resource-less UU which the AI can spam sometimes results in weaker nearby neighbor AI civs getting crushed, and the fact the Iroquois also seem to love spamming cities everywhere and don't suffer the happiness penalties the human player would can enable them to do well.
     
  4. beetle

    beetle Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    5,268
    Location:
    Frederick, MD
  5. HEF

    HEF Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 31, 2016
    Messages:
    68
    re: Do The Iroquois really suck?

    No.
    Not at all.

    3 reasons why I choose to play Iroquois:

    1. In the early game, depending on the map, The Iroquois can created segmented roads by means of utilizing the forest as if they were actual roads to connect cities as well as travel through it with one of the formidable 1st tier melee unit.

    2. I select The Americans as an opponent in a single player game because nothing gives me more pleasure than the look and appearance of George Washington admitting to defeat, utterly deflated,

    "Congratulations on your victory."

    Knowing he's about to be hanged.:lol:

    3. They're indigenous native Americans exacting retribution! :goodjob:
     
  6. beetle

    beetle Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    5,268
    Location:
    Frederick, MD
    @HEF, Nothing wrong with roleplaying and enjoying the Iroquois. None of that changes the fact that, quite rightfully, the Iroquois are consistently in the bottom tier in any list that I have seen. Please feel free to prove me wrong on that point!

    Even when the forest roads work, that is a weak UA. If you have four cities with four tiles between each, that works out to 12 gpt for what, about 150 turns? Chump change.
     
  7. HEF

    HEF Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 31, 2016
    Messages:
    68

    I don't know what you mean by 'role-playing'.

    I have no idea what list you've seen.

    What matters is my enjoyment of the game, which is interesting considering that it wasn't until recently that just started playing Brave New World to discover that there are many more indigenous native American tribes added to the roster that I hadn't even tried yet.

    I love this game! :)
     
  8. Kimiimaro

    Kimiimaro Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,884
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Paskov
    The worst Civ is Byzantium, hands down. Venice is above average to me.

    However, Iroquois, while not the worst Civ, are under average. Mohawk warrior is good, but The Great Warpath is among the weakest Civ abilities in game. Longhouse is actually decent.
     
  9. beetle

    beetle Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    5,268
    Location:
    Frederick, MD
    Absolutely. It is a great game!
    It is when your are enjoying the game for elements that have nothing to do with strategy and tactics. Your (2) and (3) are examples. The Wikipedia article gives some background.
    The list OP mentions and the list I cited are a start. Here is another well regarded BWN Deity Tier List. But really, any well thought out tier list will have Iroquois in the bottom grouping.

    I challenge you to back that up with some objective evidence. Venice may be more interesting, but it clearly weaker.
    This is a correct statement only because (1) there is at least one worst civ (i.e., Venice) and (2) bottom tier is under average.
    Mohawk Warrior is okay (since one has it at the start) but really it is nothing special. @consentient ranks the UU from -1 to 5 and gives it 1. I think that is about right.
    We agree that Great Warpath is a weak UA.
    Longhouse is not as good as a workshop, so no, it actually not decent at all. If it had the forest buff on top of the usual production buff, the Longhouse would 1/5. As is, @consentient’s ranking of -1 is fair. It is the only UB that is worse than than the building it replaces! The AI does okay with Iroquois because it is too stupid to chop early.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 12, 2017
    aafritz17 likes this.
  10. Kimiimaro

    Kimiimaro Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,884
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Paskov
    @beetle, Byzantium offers bonus belief for a religion, right? But where is a guarantee you'll get a religion? Nowhere, and especially on higher levels, it's hard to get it. Also, if there is no religious victory, I see no reason to get religion at all. I never headed towards getting religion, and I never will.

    Also, Spain can be the weakest Civ if they don't stumble on any natural wonder.

    I have to say, Venice may be the worst Civ. On multiplayer. But I'm playing mostly on the singleplayer, and you can't deny that double trade routes are just OP. They just make Venice the best money making Civ in game, and also allow you to have high population/production from puppeted city-states (two are usually enough for me). And what to do with so much money? Buy buildings, few units to protect yourself and City-States and get enormous bonuses from them (like hordes of free units from militaristic CS). And if someone attacks you, you just bribe other nations to declare war on the attacker. At the end of the game, noone can compare to you in money gain and thus you easily win the diplomatic victory. Being a best civ in some victory isn't the worst Civ to me. But it's just a view of a player who plays mostly peaceful games, focuses less on army and more on buildings and development and likes having tall empires.
     
  11. HEF

    HEF Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 31, 2016
    Messages:
    68
    >>>beetle

    I didn't read your list or Wikipedia link regarding XYZ having no interest in pointless comparisons.
    The Iroquois is for advanced players not for players trying to be so-called 'pro-gamers' wanting to earn money in tournaments or players who try to 'speed-run' the game for Guinness World Records or something.

    Civilization V: Brave New World was intended for gamers who are fascinated as well as passionate about world history.
    When the original post asked:

    Do The Iroquois really suck?

    Already knowing the history of the Indigenous Native Americans and having enjoyed playing The Iroquois for years, the answer is:

    No.
    Not at all.
     
  12. beetle

    beetle Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    5,268
    Location:
    Frederick, MD
    @Kimiimaro, I should not have brought Venice into a thread about how weak are the Iroquois UA/UU/UB. I am happy to explain why Byzantium is better than Venice, and how it is relatively easy to catch a religion on Deity, and fun too, but maybe in different thread?

    They are only pointless if one does not care about facts!
    OP was asking in game terms, not real life. There is nothing wrong enjoying to play bottom tier civs. I am quite partial to Byzantium myself. There is a good argument to be made that the top tier civs are kind of boring actually.
     
  13. inthesomeday

    inthesomeday Immortan

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,793
    The Iroquois are the worst because the longhouse loses out on the production percentage bonus of the workshop, while supposedly replacing it with the production from forests. The problem here is that throughout your empire, in a normal game, you would rarely work more than something like 3-5 forests in any one city, and that's generously assuming cities will have lots of deer or non-fresh water forest tiles. However by the time the workshop rolls around (usually after universities) most cities would be taking in somewhere from 20-30 production (more in the capital) meaning the longhouse would usually only be slightly better at best than a workshop right when they are available. Then when you factor in the long-term implications, such as late game cities often pulling in more than 50-60 production with the capital at least around 80-100+, it usually becomes the case that a longhouse is actually much worse than a workshop. Now that's how a normal game would go. The idea then is that the Iroquois would leave forests untouched through the empire, something the UA is meant to encourage as well, but this means sacrificing growth from farms and rush production from early chops, two crippling requirements to make the Iroquois "bonuses" work.

    This means the longhouse is WORSE than a workshop, while the UA (which, as Filthy mentions, is basically broken in vanilla) also requires reliance on allowing terrible forest yields to exist through the whole game instead of replacing them with farms or other improvements. That leaves the UU, which, like all swordsman replacements, is just about useless as the swordsman rarely sees play (during this time of the game the pikeman is on a more convenient tech path).
     
  14. HEF

    HEF Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 31, 2016
    Messages:
    68
    >>>beetle

    I was referring to both gameplay and real-life. To clarify:

    The Iroquois was the first civ I played on the original Civilization V and haven't tried any of the others yet. Beating The Americans with them was extremely gratifying. Now that I have Brave New World installed, all of the improvements in the gameplay really stand out.






    >>>inthesomeday


    Uummmm-m-m-m-m...


    No.

    If you are depending on the Longhouse, yeah you're gonna run into problems. I have never beaten a civ using the Longhouse exclusively so I don't rely on it. I'm still trying to figure out the best usage of the Longhouse but because of its cost to Production ratio, the structure appears more circumstantial (location on the map, size of the map, etc) than anything.


    Forests & Jungles...? in the early game...? That worked out for me plenty of times.
    The Mohawk...? In the early game...? Worked out for me plenty of times.

    That's why playing The Iroquois is for advanced players 'cause you're limited in your options. It's a challenge to work around the bonuses & penalties.
     
  15. inthesomeday

    inthesomeday Immortan

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,793
    Yes.

    What exactly does this mean? "Depending on the longhouse"? The longhouse is one of the Iroquois uniques. It makes up 1/3 of the Iroquois. It is therefore one of the only things about them that one would take into account when evaluating them. So to decide how good of a Civ they are we have to take it heavily into consideration. I'm not sure what you mean by "beating a Civ" with it.

    I also don't really understand what this means. The reason the Longhouse is a drawback of playing as the Iroquois is because the workshop is usually a very key and important building and its timing and effects matter heavily. The Longhouse being worse than an average workshop means the Iroquois suffer by lacking the important, well-times bonus of the workshop, a very detrimental aspect of their gameplay.

    I also don't understand what you mean by this. What I'm saying is that the Iroquois are worse than a civilization with absolutely no changes from the basic set of mechanics in the game because two of their bonuses-- the UA and the UB-- require subpar development of land to make use of, because forests are usually worse than farms on flatland and often times prevent the development of resources or things like that. The third bonus-- the UU-- is ultimately useless because you'd have to go out of your way to make any use of it.

    That's exactly why they're bad. No other Civ requires you to work around penalties other than Venice. Sure they can be a fun challenge or whatever but that's not what OP is asking-- the question here is whether or not the unique bonuses provided to the Iroquois civilization are bad, and the answer is yes, they are.
     
  16. HEF

    HEF Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 31, 2016
    Messages:
    68
    >>>inthesomeday

    The topic the original post asked is:

    Do The Iroquois really suck?


    The answer is still...

    No.
    Not at all.
     
  17. beetle

    beetle Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2004
    Messages:
    5,268
    Location:
    Frederick, MD
    @HEF, strictly speaking in game terms, do you agree that the Iroquois bonuses are weaker than the vast majority of civs?
    If not, please explain how the Iroquois UA/UB/UU are better than those of a mediocre civ.
    (By mediocre civ, I mean any other civ that is not universally regarded as being bottom-teir. Just because one can reasonably argue that Iroquois is better than Venice and Byzantium does not change the fact that Iroquois is very much below average.)
     
  18. inthesomeday

    inthesomeday Immortan

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,793
    @HEF
    You need to elaborate your points. The Iroquois suck because they are specifically worse than a hypothetical "generic" civilization with no bonuses, due to the fact that they lose the 10% production bonus of a workshop. They are better, objectively, than Venice, but Byzantium is leagues better than either because Byzantium's bonuses are all actual improvements on the base generic gameplay, however marginal.
     
  19. HEF

    HEF Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 31, 2016
    Messages:
    68




    No.




    I don't agree with your first question which is why I can't answer this part of your reply.
     
  20. Kimiimaro

    Kimiimaro Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,884
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Paskov
    Subjectively better. Venice is still the best Civ when you go for diplomacy, and being a best Civ for something really doesn't scream "the worst Civ" to me.
    And about Byzantium, they are one of the worst Civs to me, simply because religion is a minor and unimportant factor to me, and there is no religious victory. Also, you have no guarantee that you get a religion when you play as Byzantium.

    Except for Byzantium, there are some worse Civs than Iroquois, like Spain (without natural wonder, of course), India or Denmark.

    But that's just a subjective opinion, like any other here...
     

Share This Page