[GS] How balanced are the civs?

[ShimmerGloom]

I've recently moved over from civ V to VI, after my friends got it on epic games.
I've tried playing all of the different civilization the game has to offer, and it seems to me that they are far more balanced than the civ V civs.
(Note that I don't have the NFP, so no OP Gran Colombia).
Even civs that seem really strong, like Greece, don't seem as OP as Poland or Babylon were in civ V, and even bad civs like France or Egypt don't seem as bad as the worthless Iroquois or Carthage.

What do you think? Am I missing something about some of the very strong civs?

 

[Zaarin]

Well, I play single-player only, so balance isn't something I think about much or particularly care about, but some civs are definitely considerably more powerful than others. However, with the exception of Korea, I think you'll find a lot of Civ6 civs to be more situationally powerful rather than universally powerful.

 

[Sostratus]

You can look up rankings of the Civ’s.
The top ranked ones generally all have a strong economic component, and often combined with a military benefit to help defend yourself. Obviously those are the most generally useful abilities you can have.

Excepting a Civ like Korea or Australia and assuming we rule out very early game rushes, for the most part the majority of civs have enough variance that they are all near each other’s level. Securing good terrain, making good calls on districts and units, etc, tends to drown out Civ abilities in most cases.

 

[Hokie Fan]

Compared to V, I believe the civs are both more diverse and more balanced.

In V, while some civs are obviously better than others, for the most part your game strategy doesn’t change that significantly based on who you were playing (notable exceptions being Venice and Spain). In general, no matter the civ, the optimal strategy was early national college, early education and then time renaissance so that you immediately go into rationalism. This seemed largely to be the best strategy no matter what leader you were playing with slight diversions if you have a very good UU, such as the camel archer or longbow. Science was so critical that diverting from that path was usually suboptimal.

In VI, the leaders feel very different and are much more diverse. There’s no set strategy like there was in V and there are a lot of different ways to set up your victory condition. For example, Korea can do a very easy standard science victory just by plopping down their unique campus. Another civ like Sumeria might wreck their neighbor, spam Ziggarauts and then focus on campuses later for a SV. Norway, on the other hand, can easily win a fast SV on the right map by relying on coastal pillages. Is one of these strategies objectively better? Possibly, but for me, even after play 1000+ hours, I can’t discern the one that is definitely the best and like to try many strategies out.

In short, I agree with you that the leaders are better balanced.

 

[Onii-chan]

I think Civ VI in general has more niche designs for its civs and leaders. There are not as many general bonuses but a lot more situational and specific ones, which is a good thing because it helps diversify them and give them better flavour. But it also means that a civ's power is more dependent on the map and game settings

That is not to say that there aren't some civs which are blatantly stronger than others, but the biggest criminals of that have gotten nerfed and some of the weaker ones have gotten buffed instead, so the devs have been a bit more on point with keeping balance updated as the game has continued its lifespan. In the current state of the game there certainly isn't anyone in Civ VI which is as blatantly broken as Poland or Babylon was in Civ V at least

 

[kb27787]

I've recently moved over from civ V to VI, after my friends got it on epic games.
I've tried playing all of the different civilization the game has to offer, and it seems to me that they are far more balanced than the civ V civs.
(Note that I don't have the NFP, so no OP Gran Colombia).
Even civs that seem really strong, like Greece, don't seem as OP as Poland or Babylon were in civ V, and even bad civs like France or Egypt don't seem as bad as the worthless Iroquois or Carthage.

What do you think? Am I missing something about some of the very strong civs?

France and Egypt are not what I would call bad civs... their UIs are OK.

Try Maya, Georgia and Khmer... and yes, Georgia and Khmer are in the "almost useless" tier and Maya is in a tier all by itself, i.e. the "worse than a completely blank civ with no abilities" tier.

 

[iammaxhailme]

France and Egypt are not what I would call bad civs... their UIs are OK.

Try Maya, Georgia and Khmer... and yes, Georgia and Khmer are in the "almost useless" tier and Maya is in a tier all by itself, i.e. the "worse than a completely blank civ with no abilities" tier.

...Maya? They're very good. Half priced campuses with easy adjacency (not as easy as Korea though) and blanket +10% yields in a lot of your big early cities is fantastic. The housing issue is pretty minor as it only takes a few farms to come out even, plus you can use an aqueduct.

Back on topic, I agree with @hokiefan in that which civ you play makes a bigger difference on overall playstyle than it did in civ vi, but I think that's more due to having dual tech trees + production being more of a bottleneck than science. I think the civs are not that balanced. Which some like the maya are clearly arugable, I think pretty much everyone can agree some civs are way too strong (Korea, Gran Colombia) and some are the opposite.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

It seems to me that VI has a lot of situational civs that are really strong on the right map but quite weak on the wrong map, which can lead to quite unbalanced games.