Iaro's Civ Rankings

[Calis]

@ Zardnaar - although you claim this is not your intention, your post is offensive. Whomever you addressed (not only if it is you, Calis), nothing is won by letting anyone know that you believe he "sucks".

Not even in Kiwi-English, where many words are used (and pronounced!) differently.

By the way, I have lived/studied/worked in Otago-Dunedin about twelve years ago. That was a great time, and I am still in contact with some of the guys there.
So from Europe to the other end of the world. Sweet as!

templar_x

You are perfectly right, templar_x.

 

[templar_x]

Dunedin is a Major university (Kiwis May say: varsity) town in the very SE of the s. Island of New Zealand.
Otago is the Name of the rather Large province. It is famous for the Place of Invention of modern bungee Jumping and some Great shiraz wines. They Even had a Gold Rush there some time in the past.

Templar_x

 

[Daeron]

Timing of Golden ages is an important thing but even late ancient “despotic” GA is useful as it can enable me to finish off an AI and acquire needed room and quicken the republic transition. Early ancient GA is much less useful as food is the most important resource then, not gold and not shields. Late industrial German GA is also problematic but by then Germans can get medieval wonder driven GA. I usually consider the GA timing as not the first consideration in unit ranking.

Although not the first, I do think it's an important consideration, especially for the Numidian, the Pygmee and the Babylonian archer. They tend to end up on top of any stack, so as soon as an AI attacks, you have almost no control over the timing of your GA. It is also why I like the Swiss Mercs, riders, elephants etc., because they appear not long after moving out of despotism and researching towards universities and such at a critical time.

 

[Stratagist IV]

I think that, for the most part, these rankings only really apply to the typical pangea, domination/conquest games I tend to see on CFC. I know that the IaRo said these rankings weren't fact or final so I figured I'd interject my own thoughts and opinions. Obviously everyone has different strategies, and some people find a certain niche with specific civilizations that a given strategy works for. My opinion when people say that certain civs are "better" than others is that said niche is more easily found than others.

My critiques are as follows (my average difficulty level is Regent)
-Seafaring: Is not the worst trait... first, it starts with alphabet which isn't half bad and second those extra moves can help you grab islands and contacts early.

-Expansionist: Mediocre? maybe on Emperor. Huts are awesome for trading and getting an early tech lead. Even on higher difficulties early contacts and maps are valuable (especially thanks to contact & map trading being pushed back)

My rankings go as follows:

Civs with versatile strategies/civs that I know how to use well (Tier 1): Russia, Germans, Celts, Greeks, Babylon, Persia, France, China

Civs that I have found strats that work well but have some drawbacks/civs that I'm growing accustomed to but not really familiar with (Tier 2): Sumeria, Japan, Vikings, America, Greece, Korea.

-Then come the proles -

 

[Zardnaar]

When we done our reviews once upon a time we did mention if a civ was particuly good at a niche or situation (seafaring island maps, expansionism continents etc). I think we made 2 basic assumptions.

1. Civs were rated at Emperor difficulty or around the middle of the road.
2. You were starting a game where the land mass type was random.

Some of the traits at higher levels of play are better while others are useless at higher difficulties and marginal even on the lower ones. Generally the agricultural, commercial and industrial traits are regarded highly, expansionist and miltaristic not so much. And then you have to consider the UU. Essentially any civ with 2/3 of those traits and a good UU is an excellent civ, 2/3 a good civ and 1/3 a weak civ as a general guideline. A particuly good UU can also drag up a "weak" civ. Trait synergy however is also important along with starting techs as Seafaring and Commercial both have alphabet IIRC.

Iroqous. 2 great trait s and one of the best UU in the game= tier one.
Celts. 1 great trait and one of the best U in game= tier one.

Maya 2 great traits, fast expanding civ but awkward starting techs and weak UU= good civ.

Zulu weak traits, below average UU= weak civ.

Very few civs are completely useless (being defined as outclassed in every way by other civs). Mongols, Hittites and Zulu are probably the closest thing to it while the Germans have kinda weak traits and a very late and marginal UU with the Americans in a similar boat but their UU is even weaker. Some civs are particuly good in their niche such as Babylon with culture, Greece with Science, and England with money. The tiers we came up with were guidelines only. I quite like the English for example even though they were rated as a tier 3 civ. There was even a bit of disagreement among the authors of the civ reviews from long ago over some of the placing the civs were rated at. From memory (I haven't played Civ III for a long time) I would rate the civs as such.

Tier One
Iroquois (Agricultural, Commercial) (Alphabet, Pottery)
-good 2nd trait
-best starting tech
-great UU

Sumeria (Agricultural, Scientific) (Bronze Working, Pottery)
-great traits
-UU average

Netherlands (Agricultural, Seafaring) (Alphabet, Pottery)
-worst 2nd trait
-good UU
-best starting tech

Celts (Agricultural, Religious) (Ceremonial Burial, Pottery)
-high priced solid UU
-CB weak starting tech

Greece (Scientific, Commercial) (Bronze Working, Alphabet)
-good 2nd trait
-good UU
-best starting tech

Persia (Industrious, Scientific) (Bronze Working, Masonry)
-great traits
-best UU

Arabia (Expansionist, Religious) (Ceremonial Burial, Pottery)
-pottery 2nd best starting tech, CB is worst
-expansionist is crap shoot (can be great or non-factor depending on luck)
-good UU but would rather pay 10 more shields for extra hit point knight

Ottoman (Industrious, Scientific) (Masonry, Bronze Working)
-great traits
-good but late high priced UU

China (Industrious, Militaristic) (Warrior Code, Masonry)
-average 2nd trait
-no horizontal research
-good fast UU


Tier Two
Egypt (Industrious, Religious) (Ceremonial Burial, Masonry)
-CB is weakest starting tech
-weak UU with limitations (can’t go thru swamp, wetlands or mountains)
-Religious can be useful tech if used properly.

Aztecs (Agricultural, Militaristic) (Pottery, Warrior Code)
-average 2nd trait
-weak UU
-no horizontal research

France (Industrious, Commercial) (Alphabet, Masonry)
-good 2nd trait
-good UU
-best starting tech

Byzantium (Scientific, Seafaring) (Bronze Working, Alphabet)
-great UU
-best starting tech
-weakest 2nd trait

Babylon (Scientific, Religious) (Bronze Working, Ceremonial Burial)
-great for culture
-average 2nd trait
-average UU

Maya (Agricultural, Industrious) (Masonry, Pottery)
-great traits
-UU average
-no horizontal research

Japan (Militaristic, Religious) (Wheel, Ceremonial Burial)
-only civ to start with Wheel which give benefit for early tech trades
-CB is weakest starting tech
-good fast UU that doesn’t require horses can defend and attack
-average traits, militaristic is other crap shoot tech

Rome (Commercial, Militaristic) (Alphabet, Warrior Code)
-best starting tech
-good UU
-traits are slightly above average together

Korea (Scientific, Commercial) (Alphabet, Bronze Working)
-good 2nd trait
-good UU
-best starting tech

Russia (Scientific, Expansionist) (Bronze Working, Pottery)
-good starting techs
-Expansionist is crap shoot that is only good for about the first half of Ancient Age
-average late UU whose special ability needs to be accompanied with artillery units

India (Commercial, Religious) (Ceremonial Burial, Alphabet)
-good extra, hit point, no iron UU
-have best and worst starting techs
-religious trait is good if used correctly


Tier Three.
Inca (Agricultural, Expansionist) (Masonry, Pottery)
-UU below average
-no horizontal research

Zululand (Expansionist, Militaristic) (Pottery, Warrior Code)
-Pottery 2nd best starting tech
-both traits are crap shoots that can be great or can be worthless
-worthless 2 move defensive UU. Only possible value to escort horseman rush?

Portugal (Expansionist, Seafaring) (Alphabet, Pottery)
-2 best starting techs
-worst trait synergy in game. Seafaring worst trait overall
-worthless UU whose special ability only lasts for about one tech (crossing oceans)

Spain (Religious, Seafaring) (Alphabet, Ceremonial Burial)
Alphabet best starting trait, CB is worst
expensive low value UU
Seafaring is worst trait

Mongolia (Expansionist, Militaristic) (Warrior Code, Pottery)
-Pottery 2nd best starting tech
-both traits are crapshoots that can be great or useless
-UU doesn’t require iron, movement over hills and mountains but would rather have one more defense point for 10 more shields

England (Commercial, Seafaring) (Alphabet, Pottery)
-2 best starting techs
-nearly worthless UU, usually build these only to set off Golden age
-Seafaring is worst trait

Americans (Industrious, Expansionist) (Masonry, Pottery)
-Pottery is 2nd best starting trait
-Expansionist is crap shoot that is only good for first half of ancient age
-worst UU in game

Vikings (Militaristic, Seafaring) (Alphabet, Warrior Code)
-Alphabet is best starting tech
-Seafaring is worst trait and Militaristic is crap shoot trait
-expensive UU, needs protected, amphibious assaults, best attack for middle age, doesn’t upgrade

Hittites (Commercial, Expansionist) (Pottery, Alphabet)
-crap shoot 2nd trait
-best 2 techs to start with
-good value UU

Carthage (Industrious, Seafaring) (Alphabet, Masonry)
-good high priced UU
-best starting tech
-worst 2nd trait

Germany (Scientific, Militaristic) (Warrior Code, Bronze Working)
-late average UU
-average 2nd tech

And this is only a guideline. Germany and England could be tier 2 just because I can find 10 civs that are argueable worse, and I'm short of a civ for tier one so Babylon Egypt or Maya could be bumped into tier one (at the bottom of the tier but tier 1 is the best 10 maybe 11 civs).

 

[Spoonwood]

Seafaring, I simply disagree, does not end up as the worst trait. I think I've said as much in this thread actually. It doesn't have all too much value everywhere, but in *some of* its niches, it basically exceeds all other traits, or comes in a very close second.

 

[Zardnaar]

Seafaring is a good trait and its better on an expansionistic map than expansionism on an Island map. I rate ir at 2-3 best trait 4th at worst.

 

[del62]

I think seafaring and expansionist are map and level dependent traits.

On lower level pangea expansionist can be one of if not the best trait, kicking through the ancient age, on higher level archipeligo seafaring can give you a tech broker position, or with the byzantines a UU that can dominate.

Obviously random maps can work against these traits.

 

[Zardnaar]

Large pangea maps can still have alot of coastline though so you can still get some benefit from seafaring trait. Expansionism on a small island is all but useless.

 

[Spoonwood]

Large pangea maps can still have alot of coastline though so you can still get some benefit from seafaring trait. Expansionism on a small island is all but useless.

If you have the minimum number of AIs (according to the HoF rulebook), and you can get ships out in time, you can often pop huts not on your home island.

 

[Richie0]

i don't think there is a best civ, exactly.

however, here is my (short) list of the top 8 in the game, in no order:

celts
sumeria
greece
persia
iroquois
ottomans
france
russians

you'll notice a common theme: agricultural, scientific, commerical, industrious, and (mostly) powerful UUs. why? because these 4 traits are simply better than the other 4. they are consistently good and consistently reliable.

if i had to pick a worst civ: portugal.

it has the 2 traits which are the most hit and miss in the entire game, its UU doesn't even quality as a UU, it's that crap, and with the exception of early trading/tech lead and beeline to philosophy, it has nothing going for it.

every single other civ with either seafaring or expansionist as a trait can do what portugal does, and do it better.

 

[CKS]

It is interesting that Greece makes your list but Korea does not. They have the same traits, but Greece has the defensive hoplite UU, while Korea has the lethally bombarding H'wacha.

I play a peaceful builder style, and rarely remember to build H'wachas until it is too late, so you'd think that Greece would be the way to go for me, but I don't like Greece and I really like Korea. Civ preferences are really incredibly subjective. I find that my preferences vary significantly with time, too, even for the same victory condition.

 

[vmxa]

I have not used either that often, but a couple of things could be the reason for Greeks over Korea.

The Hoplite means you can hold your newly gotten towns in the early game, with little to fear.

It also means you can trigger an early GA, if you need to do that. Korea cannot do either of those things, better than Alex.

Should you get to the H'wacha in the same position as the Greeks, then Korea is better with its UU at that stage of the game.

 

[CKS]

For a game with a lot of early warring, sure, having hoplites is very nice.

If you aren't playing a military game and hoplites get you an early golden age, though, you are not having fun. Colossus + Mausoleum gets either Greece or Korea a golden age just after leaving despotism, should you want an early golden age as a builder, but I'd rather have one later.

 

[Spoonwood]

i don't think there is a best civ, exactly.

however, here is my (short) list of the top 8 in the game, in no order:

celts
sumeria
greece
persia
iroquois
ottomans
france
russians

you'll notice a common theme: agricultural, scientific, commerical, industrious, and (mostly) powerful UUs. why? because these 4 traits are simply better than the other 4. they are consistently good and consistently reliable.

if i had to pick a worst civ: portugal.

it has the 2 traits which are the most hit and miss in the entire game, its UU doesn't even quality as a UU, it's that crap, and with the exception of early trading/tech lead and beeline to philosophy, it has nothing going for it.

every single other civ with either seafaring or expansionist as a trait can do what portugal does, and do it better.

In terms of Firaxis score, there exists little question that in the hands of a fully capable player, the Maya can basically outdo anyone (given the same start, of course). I simply fail to see how you left them out.

 

[Calis]

In terms of Firaxis score, there exists little question that in the hands of a fully capable player, the Maya can basically outdo anyone (given the same start, of course). I simply fail to see how you left them out.

And who could that player be?

 

[Spoonwood]

And who could that player be?

Moonsinger. Actually, maybe EMan instead. It's a toss up.

 

[Richie0]

completely forgot about the maya

now that i think about them, they honestly make the game too easy. if i get a good start with the maya i don't even bother playing it; their early expansion makes it predictable.

 

[Spoonwood]

completely forgot about the maya

now that i think about them, they honestly make the game too easy. if i get a good start with the maya i don't even bother playing it; their early expansion makes it predictable.

There's definitely something to that! But, do they make the game too easy for you on higher levels?

 

[Richie0]

i play on regent. which isn't easy or hard, as far as i'm aware? neutral basically.

chieftan/warlord is just finger exercise. i've tried other levels, like demi-god and deity, but the bonuses put me off them. its not the fact that AI is more challenging, because it clearly isn't.

it's that they're 'stronger' and 'more difficult' because they've got free units, research/production advantages etc. that's not challenging, that's giving one side an advantage.

it'd be nice if harder difficulties meant more effective use of units, even just using all the units for variety and unpredictability.