General Leader Discussion

I wouldn't. I tried Ethiopia only now because of the recent conversation about them. I was curious as to whether their religious edge would register much in my SV efforts (you're right, it hasn't seemed to). Likewise, I tried India because of 8bitbob's strategy guide. I occasionally play with Korea and Babylon -- they're all I used in vanilla -- but now prefer to try for SV's with my favorite "average" civs. My goal is to win often enough, using any of the 3 policy branches, that I move up a level.
Didn't you refer to them as a consistent powerhouse? They are consistent but they really aren't that powerful.

The only belief that I think would really move up a science win by that much would be Synagogues and possibly Mastery. I think Korea or Babylon's UAs might outweigh religious beliefs though, unless you get Synagogues, Mastery, and theocratic rule or something like that. What religion is more valuable for is getting you to the late game, I've been picking stuff like Diligence or Mosques for this reason.

BTW I would only under rare circumstances, like a one city challenge, intentionally not try for religion.
 
I have to ask if you are consistently getting religion anyways, why would you choose Ethiopia? It seems like it doesn't fit your playstyle at all, if you always get a decent religion pick Korea and enjoy having a UA that is much stronger and a very powerful mid-late game UB (I also much prefer Hwacha to Sefari).

If you found every game it seems to me that you don't know what its like to not have a religion. You don't get none of the benefits if you don't found, you still get a pantheon, and someone's follower beliefs will spread to you. There are several civs who's UA are strong enough that having just the UA + 2 random follower beliefs is competitive with founding a religion, and they can potentially have both!

Founding isn't terribly hard usually, the biggest benefit of the Stele is that all the early extra Faith lets you get found/enhance quickly and then spread your religion faster than anyone else is going to be able to. With passive religious pressure, spreading early has a snowballing effect and then then you reap the benefits of having a dominant religion (WC votes, diplo modifiers, slower influence decay, additional bonuses from stuff like Sainthood/Tithes), and in some cases you can wipe out existing religions, denying the Enhancer/Founder beliefs and reducing competition further.
 
I downgraded Morocco even more. I was under impression that sending multiple TR to same foreign neighbor gives additional benefits from UA. But no, you have to send them to multiple civs (which is somehow explained in UA text, but since English is not my native language, I misunderstood that).
So either you hope for foreign caravans to go to your cities (and in that case I would seriously raise bonuses for other civs sending caravans to our cities, +2g is peanuts, make it +3g, +1s scaling so Ai would actually want to do it) or you lose your internal routes to get benefit from UA. And this +4 sci, +4 GAP and +4 gold... Let's face it - by late medieval gold is rarely any issue and you can't actually use Morocco's UA until late classical. GAP are nice bonus, but they are least wanted of yields, so there is only +4 culture left. At the cost of precious food or hammers per turn (internal route) you're getting culture (at least its scaling). Totally not worth it and I doubt even +5 yields would put Morocco among 'average' civs.
 
I downgraded Morocco even more. I was under impression that sending multiple TR to same foreign neighbor gives additional benefits from UA. But no, you have to send them to multiple civs (which is somehow explained in UA text, but since English is not my native language, I misunderstood that).
So either you hope for foreign caravans to go to your cities (and in that case I would seriously raise bonuses for other civs sending caravans to our cities, +2g is peanuts, make it +3g, +1s scaling so Ai would actually want to do it) or you lose your internal routes to get benefit from UA. And this +4 sci, +4 GAP and +4 gold... Let's face it - by late medieval gold is rarely any issue and you can't actually use Morocco's UA until late classical. GAP are nice bonus, but they are least wanted of yields, so there is only +4 culture left. At the cost of precious food or hammers per turn (internal route) you're getting culture (at least its scaling). Totally not worth it and I doubt even +5 yields would put Morocco among 'average' civs.
The trick is sending your own trade-routes to (different) city-states (which also raises the value of Statecraft), that guarantees you get your full value UA every time. Any traderoutes, that your neighbors send to you after that is just gravy.

In general the AI seems to love spreading their trade-routes out, so you usually get 1 TR from most nearby AI, which is exactly what you want.
 
Morrocco gets 4 culture, GAP, and gold per trade route with an different civ/city state, scaling with era. You can use the UA on your first caravan, getting at least friendly relations with a city state will grant at minimum 5 gold and 1 science for the route, then your UA grants 4 gold and 4 culture. I've really come to like civs with ancient era culture sources

A thought on Golden Age points, they would be much better if the interface showed how many points were accumulated and needed for the next age during golden ages.
 
Morrocco gets 4 culture, GAP, and gold per trade route with an different civ/city state, scaling with era. You can use the UA on your first caravan, getting at least friendly relations with a city state will grant at minimum 5 gold and 1 science for the route, then your UA grants 4 gold and 4 culture. I've really come to like civs with ancient era culture sources

A thought on Golden Age points, they would be much better if the interface showed how many points were accumulated and needed for the next age during golden ages.
Do golden ages accumulate points during golden ages? I thought it was paused. Is it only paused during normal golden ages?

I'm also not sure of the mechanics behind how many points you need to start and how much it increases, and I can't really find any.
 
Do golden ages accumulate points during golden ages? I thought it was paused. Is it only paused during normal golden ages?

I'm also not sure of the mechanics behind how many points you need to start and how much it increases, and I can't really find any.


It is certainly paused in vanilla, but in VP, i think it is still counted somehow, and getting permanent GA is very easy in VP while it is almost impossible in vanilla.

I wonder if GA should be toned down a bit in VP, since by turn 120++, usually it is almost permanent GA for me until the rest of the game.
 
Do golden ages accumulate points during golden ages? I thought it was paused. Is it only paused during normal golden ages?

I'm also not sure of the mechanics behind how many points you need to start and how much it increases, and I can't really find any.

I'm sure they are accumulated, several time i had situation when my GA ends and starts again immediately
 
Putting some very slight changes in the list made earlier. It's not like I've replayed every civ but I would like to make some updates regardless. Newly changed civs are being marked with this color. I've also added a new dual scoring for certain civs on a good day, and on a bad day, BUT for the sake of concrete rankings, I'm keeping them exactly where they they would be on average. New text is also marked with this color. Certain numbers are subject to change.

Just like before, every civ below A rank gets my two cents on how they might be a better civ.

"Perfect Civ" Metric: UA/UB/UU = 15/10/5 based on relevance throughout the game.
S Rank 26-30:

Egypt
(13+10+3) = 26/30 – Blah blah blah super great UB. UA’s also a very strong for production.

A Rank 21-25:
Aztecs (12+9+4) = 26/30 - A gold and faith making machine! What even is a shrine!?
Poland (15+6+3) +1 from UA = 25/30 – They still have the best UA in the game, but with the slight nerf, I'm bumping them down a point.
Carthage (14+8+3) = 25/30 – SO MUCH MAHNY;
Inca (12+7+5) +2 slinger = 24/30 – Super mobile, with my favorite UU in the game.
Mongolia (9+10+4) = 23/30 – There UA’s great…but I’m not the type for excessive City-State grabbing.
Huns (14+6+3) = 23/30 Their UA is easily one of the best in the game. Conscription is amazing, and if Horse Archers could do it, they’d be an easy S rank.
Denmark (8+10+4) + 1 jelly = 23/30 - Jelly stones provides food, gold, culture, increased GP rates, AND city connections. It’s a beast of a UB.
Indonesia (11+10+3) = 23/30 – Heard Denmark talking about their UB like they’re hot s**t. Also, SOOO MUUUCH SPIIICE.
Babylon (12+8+3) = 23/30 – A tech heavy turtle and Korea’s rival for best science civ.
Korea (13+7+3) = 23/30 – Heard Babylon talking s**t about science like it wouldn’t hear. Big fan of the UU exclusively because of Logistics.
Shoshone (12+7+4) = 23/30 – F**K THE SHOSHONE GET OFFA MY CONTINENT.
Germany (9+11+3) = 23/30 – I like late bloomer civs due to their rarity, and I believe late game, Germany’s the strongest…if you can get there of course. Their Panzer would be a 5+2 if it actually came in to play more often.
Celts (13+5+4) = 22/30 – I don’t like that part of their UB bonus requires such a specific resource as Ivory and only Ivory, but I’m not asking for buffs when it comes to A rankers.
Polynesia (10+10+2) +1 for UB = 23/30 – I still think the moai needs to be retooled with an adjacency cap, but whatevs. It gets the job done.
Netherlands (11+8+3) = 22/30 – The best trade based civ in the game.
Greece (11+8+3) = 22/30 – The best, and beefiest diplomacy civ.
Maya (12+8+2) = 22/30 – Oh hey, the Kuna issue WAS fixed. Neat.
Songhai (10+8+4) = 22/30 – A great warmongering civ, and amazing with a river heavy map like the real world maps. Situational however.
America (10+8+4) = 22/30 – I'm a little surprise to say this, but America's actually really good right now. The change in their UA is GREAT for upstarting new cities and buying enemy tiles at a cheaper cost doesn't hurt either. Did they need the nerf from 25 to 20...maybe not in my eyes, but regardless, I can finally say they don't need any changes.
Ottomans (9+8+4) = 21/30 – Very good, but not very standoutish.
England (10+7+4) = 21/30 – Their UA is more annoying than it is potent, but spying is spying, and I loves me some spying. That said ENGLAND GET OFF OF MY CONTINENT.
Zulu (9+9+3) = 21/30 – I wish they weren’t so 1 dimensional. I said I’d give suggestions for civs that were B and below, but I will say Shaka could use a little color in this options. With Shaka being a man that united the Nguni tribes via being a big tough guy and Chading it up, I think it’d be neat if he gained (or even stole) City-State influence from the friends and allies of enemy civs he gets a successful peace treaty off of. Alternatively, he could get fat yields every first time he makes an ally.
China (10+7+4) = 21/30 – (One of) The best growth based civ in the game.
Spain (9+8+4) = 21/30 – In light of the fact that their UA's benefits kick in with religious conquest, I'm bumping them up a point. Congratulations, you have escaped B rank purgatory.
Japan (11+7+3) = 21/30 – In light of their recent tourism blocking buffs and that fact that tourism is less plentiful than it was in the past, I'm moving them up by 3 points in their UA.
Byzantium (12+6+3) = 21/30 – I hadn't realized that even if they lose their religion, they can still force a new, identical religion to happen. That in itself is a fantastic trait to have for a religious civ, so I'm pushing them into the As.
Ethiopia (8+10+2) +1 stele = 21/30 – I think I underestimated the science bonuses of Ethiopia, so I'm bumping them up a point.
India (12+8+3) = 23/30, (8+8+3) = 19/30, AVG (10+8+3) = 21/30 – Due to the constant insisting that India's UA is better than I typically put it (happened last time too), I've decided to bump their UA quality by a couple of points, and move them out of the Bs into the As. I'm not taking back what I said about inquisitors, mostly because it's for the sake of the AI more than anything, but I doubt India's going to get changed any time soon.
Portugal (8+8+5) = 21/30 – Nice to see that Portugal got that "oomph" it was looking for!
Iroquois (12+9+3) = 23/30, (7+7+3) = 17/30, AVG (9.5+8+3) = 20.5/30 – You only get two kinds of games with Iroquois, games where you're spawned smack dab in the middle of a massive array of forest/jungle where you're a happy little civ, or games where you spawn next to a few tiles and you're a not so happy civ. At least you get an okayish bonus from natural wonders.
B Rank 16-20:

Austria
(11+7+2) = 20/30 – Austria is a civ that takes out a LOT of gold to attempt to ensure a victory that’s not too hard to achieve in the first place. I believe increasing the gold from the luxury aspect of the UB would help with the gold you’re investing while also making Austria more interesting to play as, due to a higher luxury dependence.
Rome (8+8+4) = 20/30 – Early war feels a bit discouraged considering their UA wants you to wait things out until your enemies get nice and building-y. That said...actually, there's not much that can be done about that, is there? :undecide: Maybe a buff in city production for puppets and annexed cities? 20% instead of 15%.
Venice (11+7+4) = 22/30, (7+7+4) = 18/30, AVG: (10+7+4) = 20/30 Their 1 city handicap is the only thing that keeps them from being a solid A rank. Can’t think of many things I’d change about them currently, but I will say a small buff to the base yields of the Piazza San Marco would be nice, and something to beef up city states would be good. That said, they still snowball harder than most civs in the game, so I’d put buffing them low on the list of things that should happen, if at all.
Russia (11+5+3) = 19/30 – Ostrog is “good” but very late and not worth the wait. It’d be a much better building without the castle requirement as the reduced tile purchasing cost, and movement penalties are great on later, less developed cities.
France (7+9+3) = 19/30 – A little hard to pin any 1 thing that holds France back, but if I had to make a request, maybe gain golden age points when conquering enemy cities as to tie in with the first part of their UA.
Persia (8+7+4) = 19/30 – Considering how crazy golden ages get in the late game, an additional bonus to the “during golden ages” part of their UA would be great. What should it be? I dunno, maybe a flat bonus like +5 production or something, that way they shine brighter in the early game, when they historically should.
Siam (10+6+3) = 19/30, (7+6+3) = 16/30, AVG (8.5+6+3) = 17.5/30 – Kinda hard requesting improvements for a civ with a purely city-state based UA. I guess something independent of City-States for a starter. Also, bumping the Wat’s faith from +1 to +2 wouldn’t hurt no one
Brazil (8+8+2) = 18/30 – I bumped the Brazilwood camp by a point, because dspite my bias towards Brazil, I still think it's worth an 8. Seeing as the Bandeirantes’ original missions often involved slave trades and attacking native villages (which is nodded to somewhat by their brute force promotion) what if they gave production and culture when defeating bards/clearing encampments? Just a thought?
Arabia (8+7+3) = 18/30 – Make Camel Archers great again! Give them some form of mobility bonus and I’d easily bump Arabia to a 21.
Morocco (12+7+2) = 21/30, (6+7+2) = 15/30, AVG (9+7+2) = 18/30 – Being isolated can RUIN this civ, but that is a very rare scenario. Having only a few neighbors however is not, so how about the UA’s reworked a little: The current UA's bonuses are split. Receives +2 Gold, Golden Age Points and Culture for each active Trade Route, and an additional +2 Gold, Golden Age Points and Culture for each Trade Route to or from a different Civ or City-State. That way you're bonus is at it's finest when you have diverse trade partners, but in case you're limited with neighbors, you still have an okay UA. The second part of the UA remains the same.
Sweden (10+5+2) = 17/30 – I gave my criticisms earlier in this exact same thread. The Carolean should have the Great General promotion and the Skola could use a little love.
Assyria (8+6+3) = 17/30 – I’ll admit, I don’t have much to say about Assyria, because they’re one of my least played civs, so the criticisms and gripes I have are not the most valid. Anyways, the Royal Library starting with The Epic of Gilgamesh for free would help set things in motion a lot faster for the civ, and just seems super appropriate, did I steal this idea from supracseduch…maaaybe.
 
Last edited:
The above post isn't taking into account more recent changes. For example, I believe Portugal is 4 now, the comment about puppeted cities for Rome has changed, and the Kuna for the Maya has been changed twice from being available at the start of the game.

I'd also like to respond to a few of the points. First, Arabia. Possibly a top tier civ, I don't know why you have them so low. They easily produce the most great people in the game and can get a ridiculous amount of tourism from HE. They can also have a huge science and culture boost early game from HE, and this should not be underestimated. Any civ with strong early game bonuses should be high on the list, as they are more capable of snowballing to victory. They also avoid early gold problems. They are probably the civ most capable of getting the earliest victory. Also, I believe their UU can move after attacking. They are possibly S tier, maybe A with recent nerfs. I think they are a candidate for best civ in the game.

Second, India. They get a crazy amount of growth. You take Piety (which you should) and people are going to be hard pressed to convert you. Only civ I've hit 80 pop in a city with too. Should definitely be higher, they don't need any buffs.

Third, I don't see how Aztecs are S. They're bonuses are pretty good early game, but taper off quite a bit. Late game faith is insignificant, gold is still good but not too powerful a resource and gets quite abundant already, and your UU is long gone. They're definitely good, not needing buffs or nerfs, but they're not that much better than anyone else.

Fourth, I think you underestimate the power of early culture in Morocco's UA. They're not the best civ, but I'm not sure they need any adjustment.
 
Last edited:
The above post isn't taking into account more recent changes. For example, I believe Portugal is 4 now, the comment about puppeted cities for Rome has changed, and the Kuna for the Maya has been changed twice from being available at the start of the game.

Well, I mentioned I haven't had a chance to go through every civ and certain numbers are subject to change. That's why only the new stuff is marked with magenta text. I'm going to do more updates when I get the chance. TBH, I forgot to redact the complaint about the Kuna, because I never really address anything that's put inside of the A ranks. I sort of forgot about that.

For example, I believe Portugal is 4 now.

I...want to say that's true, but I don't know if that's true yet. It's not in the wiki, and I don't recall seeing it mentioned in the New Versions. That's why I was asking about it in the parenthesis. I'll check later by starting up a new game, but I'm going to be busy for the day, so that's not happening anytime soon.

Second, India. They get a crazy amount of growth. You take Piety (which you should) and people are going to be hard pressed to convert you. Only civ I've hit 80 pop in a city with too. Should definitely be higher, they don't need any buffs.

---

Fourth, I think you underestimate the power of early culture in Morocco's UA. They're not the best civ, but I'm not sure they need any adjustment.

Those civs are great in certain regards, but there are scenarios where they can just be thoroughly hustled before they can even shine (much less apparent for actual players as opposed to the AI). That's the reason why I mad a good day/bad day metric. On a good day, Morocco's contesting the A ranks in my eyes, and on a good day, India's literally A rank material, but taking into account their "you just played yourself" factor, I just base them off their averages. I'm not even saying their "bad" but more generality in their UA's may help for consistent performance.

the comment about puppeted cities for Rome has changed

Wait, what happened to Rome? Did I miss something?
 
Last edited:
Wait, what happened to Rome? Did I miss something?

The latest patch hotfix also removed the science cost increase from having puppet cities (all civs), making them more attractive. This isn't good just to Rome, which has better production rates on its puppet, but also to Brazil, whose puppets can have normal culture output and a total of -75% city needs during WLTKD.
 
Portugal is 4, I've played them. Check the in game civipedia, the wiki has a lot of outdated things on it.

Arabia is really strong, it's UA will match Korea in science or a big chunk of the game and you get culture too. You might have the most great people of anyone (I think eventually Korea or Austria might pass you but not until really late game). You get ridiculous amounts of tourism, Camel Archers are great I don't know what you want changed. Late game Korea might be better but I can't test because Arabia wins tourism before turn 200 most games.

I don't see how India gets "hustled before it can shine", you get a pantheon turn 01 (that is as fast as a benefit can come into play) and the UB is an aqueduct replacement. China in particular has probably the absolute worst early game and you have them higher. I don't actually think China can catch India in growth until about Modern Era, India gets that religious advantage that is so key and a major problem for China (you really need a religion to take advantage of absurd growth). On a good day India is possibly the best civ (floodplain farms can hit 10 yields in Classical Era without adjacency bonuses). I find China really struggles to do anything even on excellent starts. I've played China a lot and the only thing about them I would call above average is the ChuKoNu, but I've lost games before I got to build them.
 
Wait, what happened to Rome? Did I miss something?

I pointed out that puppets were near-useless in a post in general discussions and G added it in a hotfix. Puppets no longer increase science. Please discuss this point in the general balance thread if you have thoughts on it. I'd rather not get side-tracked.

As for civs:
Aztecs aren't an S. I'd say high-A.the UA is a lot less useful late, but their snowball potential is very high.

Denmark is possibly the best civ in the game imo. I have no clue how they're not S. No other civ is a more dominant snow-balling warmonger on Immortal and Deity.

I consistently have 4 policy trees filled out by the time I hit industrial with them. The production bonuses are also going to be worth 2-10 times that of the hanging gardens. I've never not built everything in a city with them.

Their UU seems unimpressive at first, but it's actually insane. It comes out super early and is the strongest unit until knights. They're about as mobile as horsemen, get promoted like crazy and just chew through cities and units alike.

Their UA is the weakest part, but it offers unprecsidented mobility and a solution to warmongering gold problems.

If I'm going to be honest I'd rate Denmark as (9+10+5) +5 Jelling Stones =29.

I don't really want to see them nerfed (especially as they do so bad as AIs.) but they're honestly the best warmongers for a player on high difficulties.

For similar policy reasons Greece's UB should be +10 or +11. It's an insane amount of culture that turns even stalemate wars into whole policies.

I'm out of time, Super Bowl party. Peace.
 
Slight changes and edits made above due to opinions and new information.

If I'm going to be honest I'd rate Denmark as (9+10+5) +5 Jelling Stones =29.

That's a bold statement. I'll admit, Jelling Stones are really good. but a 15/10 good? That seems like a bit much. I also like their UU, but I believe UUs like the Slinger and Nau are better, so I'd be hard pressed to give it a 5. This is all a matter of opinions of course.
 
Slight changes and edits made above due to opinions and new information.
I'm pretty sure that camel archers can move after attacking, and the withdraw promotion is valuable against knights. Giving Arabia 8 points for its UA but Korea 13 is absurd, Arabia's is worth about as much science for most of the game (Arabia can potentially even lead until Atomic), it also provides culture, and you get extra tourism. Korea just got its great person rate nerfed, so Arabia gets far more great people than Sejong (maybe Korea can catch him in the late game with permanent Golden Age, by Modern Era the number of historical events really slows down)

I really agree Sweden is underwhelming, doesn't Persia with good timing on its golden ages directly outclass him? +1 movement on everything, not just siege, and +15% strength on all units, defending or attacking. Early on when golden ages are minimal you have immortals; I'd rather have immortals than a hard to use combat boost and fast catapults. Zulu does too, unless you really value Sweden's healing on general births. Fast spearmen are much better than fast catapults, you get extra experience to nullify Sweden's extra experience from great general births (this feature I actually quite like, but alone its not enough). Sweden gets zero economic benefits before the Skola

I'm looking at the scores for UUs in general and I'm seeing many odd choices. Are slingers really worth 3 more points than Pictish warriors? Impi only getting a 3?
 
Top Bottom