[GS] June Update Tier List

[_hero_]

put simply, people do not levy.

I have found that players refusing to exploit the civ bonuses fully is the main reason most low ranking leaders rank so low. Civs that don't excel at the standard playstyle are assumed bad, when often they can be overpowered if players would just adjust their play.

 

[Troy Bruckner]

+1 from mines... and since seowons aren't next to any other districts, that's an extra 0-6 just for improving the land around it.
Put another way, since the seowon comes so early and 1 is worth more than 1, Three Kingdoms more than doubles the value of a mine improvement early game. IE, improving the land around a seowon is worth 6 or more free builder charges early. Talk about an economic boon!

I don't think you can really out research your production capacity- production unlocks are all in the tech tree, and unit upgrades are universally production efficient. As in, you get a unit that is in most cases +10, so you get something that deals 1.5x more damage and takes 1.5x less damage (~2.25x combat effective) but afaik there is no one-era-gap unit upgrade that's 2x the cost of the old unit, except warrior->sword but that's a 16 str difference. You're always coming out ahead. For the argument to be true there would have to be a point in the game where you would turn down being granted free techs by the magical Civ fairy.

Yes each individual Korean city does great, but you will have half or less the number of cities as the real top tier Civs and the raw production is low. The German capital will have more production in the year 1000BC than Korea will in 500 AD. Russia will have 4 times or more cities by that stage ( I have won a science victory with Russia in the year 600AD peacefully). Greece will have 800 culture a turn by 500 AD and will be working on democracy if he doesn't have it already. Australia will laugh at Korea's measly +3/4 Seowon bonus. Mansa Musa will have three times as many cities and will be working on purchasing whatever districts and buildings he wants with the 2,000+ gpt he is making. Korea is just not even close.

 

[Ziad]

I have found that players refusing to exploit the civ bonuses fully is the main reason most low ranking leaders rank so low. Civs that dom't excel at the standard playstyle are assumed bad, when often they can be overpowered if players would just adjust their play.

This is why I joked about how useless tier lists are earlier in the thread.

A civilization's performance has wild variance when one accounts for a massive set of different map settings, players, and strategies... yet people still insist on standardizing them frivolously.

Of course, that variance is reduced the more simple a civilization's kit is. For that reason, it's sensible that people gravitate towards very straightforward ones like Greece and Korea. An extra wild card and raw culture is consistently good, and people here love 100 turn victories with science runs via Korea.

That doesn't necessarily make them explicitly better than civilizations that require more setup. It just means that it's easier to play.

This sort of thinking isn't unique to civ. Metas exist in any video game. However, irrespective of the game, in general the actual effective performance difference is actually negligible when one accounts for experience and strategies.. until you get to a super competitive level... but that's not even applicable until you enter multiplayer.

 

[pkaem]

Well all this is personal taste but there are some problems. Either you want early wonders and tourism, war and alot of campuses later, just war. For culture games china and greece are super super s tier. Don't neglect starting biases imo. Greece is even good at science. If your path is killing early and resesrch later there is trajan everywhere. If you just kill ghengis or alex. Don't know how persia is so well liked, I find their bonuses not synergizing well. Can't see germany anywhere up there no win requires an iz. Korea deserves it's spot, I always bang my head agains the wall greeting them as direct neighbour.

I think you need to try Ghengis in a game. He is a killing machine, no way Shaka is ranked before him.

Do ranks from left to right matter, so that nubia is best and georgia worst?

 

[lotrmith]

Yes each individual Korean city does great, but you will have half or less the number of cities as the real top tier Civs and the raw production is low. The German capital will have more production in the year 1000BC than Korea will in 500 AD. Russia will have 4 times or more cities by that stage ( I have won a science victory with Russia in the year 600AD peacefully). Greece will have 800 culture a turn by 500 AD and will be working on democracy if he doesn't have it already. Australia will laugh at Korea's measly +3/4 Seowon bonus. Mansa Musa will have three times as many cities and will be working on purchasing whatever districts and buildings he wants with the 2,000+ gpt he is making. Korea is just not even close.

If you have half or less the number of cities you're doing it wrong.

 

[kb27787]

Yes each individual Korean city does great, but you will have half or less the number of cities as the real top tier Civs and the raw production is low. The German capital will have more production in the year 1000BC than Korea will in 500 AD. Russia will have 4 times or more cities by that stage ( I have won a science victory with Russia in the year 600AD peacefully). Greece will have 800 culture a turn by 500 AD and will be working on democracy if he doesn't have it already. Australia will laugh at Korea's measly +3/4 Seowon bonus. Mansa Musa will have three times as many cities and will be working on purchasing whatever districts and buildings he wants with the 2,000+ gpt he is making. Korea is just not even close.

Why would Korea have less cities? Am I missing something here? And Mali having more cities is extremely unlikely due to the unit production malus which also applies to settlers. Are we even playing the same game here?...

Germany's hansa will by no means outweigh Korea's faster apprenticeship and industrialization timings... Actually, Germany belongs in C tier IMO...

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Yes each individual Korean city does great, but you will have half or less the number of cities as the real top tier Civs and the raw production is low. The German capital will have more production in the year 1000BC than Korea will in 500 AD. Russia will have 4 times or more cities by that stage ( I have won a science victory with Russia in the year 600AD peacefully). Greece will have 800 culture a turn by 500 AD and will be working on democracy if he doesn't have it already. Australia will laugh at Korea's measly +3/4 Seowon bonus. Mansa Musa will have three times as many cities and will be working on purchasing whatever districts and buildings he wants with the 2,000+ gpt he is making. Korea is just not even close.

I don't know which game speed are you refer to. If you play marathon it is shameful for a Korean player not to get peaceful SV before 1AD I guess.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Why would Korea have less cities? Am I missing something here? And Mali having more cities is extremely unlikely due to the unit production malus which also applies to settlers. Are we even playing the same game here?...

Germany's hansa will by no means outweigh Korea's faster apprenticeship and industrialization timings... Actually, Germany belongs in C tier IMO...

Exactly. Germany's main strength come from +7 VS city states, so it can take down nearby city states very early in versions which CS do not begin with walls. When CS start begin with walls, Germany becomes somehow useless.

 

[Sostratus]

Yes each individual Korean city does great, but you will have half or less the number of cities as the real top tier Civs and the raw production is low. The German capital will have more production in the year 1000BC than Korea will in 500 AD. Russia will have 4 times or more cities by that stage ( I have won a science victory with Russia in the year 600AD peacefully). Greece will have 800 culture a turn by 500 AD and will be working on democracy if he doesn't have it already. Australia will laugh at Korea's measly +3/4 Seowon bonus. Mansa Musa will have three times as many cities and will be working on purchasing whatever districts and buildings he wants with the 2,000+ gpt he is making. Korea is just not even close.

Almost no civ is actually handicapped at anything (except like, Mali) so most of them can literally play the exact same build order if they want to. Korea is extremely strong for the same reason AI Seondok is strong; they get bonuses that are not only very potent in the meta, but that arise from doing things you were going to do anyways. You were always going to build early campuses, and you were always going to improve some tiles in your cities, and you were always going to possess governors - and korea has huge bonuses (cheap and power campus, three kingdoms boost to mines/farms, hwarang) on those things. It's the same reason many UUs that don't replace anything are godlike on paper but in practice fizzle - you have to go out of your way to make them. But a sword UU shines because you were going to make them anyways. Etc.

Japan V Germany is another example. Japan has a very high level of potential for its districts overall - perhaps better than anyone in aggregate - but they have to build a lot of districts to get there, and it takes time. Germany is obviously an extremely fast setup as soon as they tech to apprenticeship. Korea has great science and sets up extremely fast.

Why would Korea have less cities? Am I missing something here? And Mali having more cities is extremely unlikely due to the unit production malus which also applies to settlers. Are we even playing the same game here?...

Germany's hansa will by no means outweigh Korea's faster apprenticeship and industrialization timings... Actually, Germany belongs in C tier IMO...

I don't see why Korea would have less cities. You can program an identical build order into half the civs on the same start/seed and have the same empire, and ceteris paribus Korea's will just be way ahead on research.
I generally agree with you although I don't think consigning every civ that isn't an ancient era beast to the trash heap is fair - after all, to win, you usually have to go through the other eras...
Germany's primary power surge is "mid game." Several civs are extremely strong when they get their mid game power surges - zulu and ottomans, for example. The tradeoff made between these civs and the early game economic civs like korea and greece is getting to the mid game bonuses faster (korea, greece) vs having a qualitatively superior mid game economy (Germany.) Even in a competitive sense, some civs are truly only effectively countered by an early rush because if they get going they are going to be a real pain to stop. People like Germany so much because once you're in the mid game you are such a production monster that you effectively have a bonus in everything for the rest of the game. But as I said, the very best civs shine because they can play very flexible and still win because their bonuses are attached to crap you were going to do anyways. You can prepare to defend a rush and still improve a couple tiles around your half price seowon.

Also, a general aside: I think tier lists are fun because people have different views about how the game is played. If you see civ as a competition between the player and the turn timer to win as fast as you can, some civs will shine. If you see civ as a competition between the player and other civs, others rise to the top. Choosing Civ X to face off against a nubia that conquered a neighbor and has the luxes of two continents is a completely different proposition than an Aztec that has done the same.

 

[PhilBowles]

Regarding your D tier:

Everytime I play as Lautaro, I go for the Crusader belief and attack during golden ages. +20 combat strength is one of the most hilarious things in the game. He also has a nice UI which boosts early culture.
The Khmer are also a hidden gem for culture victory and a very strong medieval war if you know how to play them.
I also really like India (both leaders). Stepwell is amazing for early growth and a lot of the times, their temples become absolutely insane with all the combined follower beliefs.

Haven't played the others in a while so can't really comment on them.

I'm playing a Khmer session. I rerolled a few times because of too-close aggressive neighbours or simply bad starts (not sure if the Khmer have a start bias, but rivers surrounded by flat land would make sense if so and is what I mostly see), but once I got a reasonable start I became the leader or at least mid-tier in every category except Domination soon after turn 100, far sooner than I usually do on Deity. The growth buff is significant, I got an early golden age and the faith to use Monumentality in the Classical era, and have far higher culture and tourism than any of my competitors despite a continents map in which the only active religious AIs are on the other continent (and so I've had few opportunities for theological combat to obtain my Prasat relics - I have three or four at this point).

3 years after release, 2 years after Rise and Fall with numerous changes to pillaging and walls/defense efficiency and there are still people who think Georgia and Norway are bottom tiers. In all honesty, what is the point of this kind of list anyway?

Surely this is still true of Georgia at least. It doesn't matter how efficient walls are - firstly you need to play a strategy that revolves around getting attacked for that to even matter; secondly only one of Georgia's bonuses has anything to do with walls (and becomes obsolete eventually); and thirdly the civ design as a whole is just incoherent ("my strategy is to build defensive structures and attack people") with bonuses that are either time-limited or reliant on specific AI behaviour.

If anything AIs attack city states far less frequently than they used to, which is a bigger drawback for Georgia than cheaper walls are an advantage (especially as the AI is much better at capturing walled cities than it used to be), and even in a perfect situation Georgia is putting a lot more effort into a suite of abilities that together amount to a minor faith and housing buff than, say, the Khmer do with their Grand Barays ability alone - and Khmer aren't seen as a powerhouse.

 

[Ziad]

On the other hand, a much stronger early game faith economy makes suzerainty easier for Georgia at a time when envoys are scarce. Protectorate wars come naturally.

 

[PhilBowles]

On the other hand, a much stronger early game faith economy makes suzerainty easier for Georgia at a time when envoys are scarce. Protectorate wars come naturally.

I'm apparently not familiar with standard faith strategies, as I don't see the connection. Early quests are usually centred around easily-obtainable eurekas, not great people which are the only link I can see between faith and envoys. Unless you're referring to the double envoy ability with Georgia's religion, but by the time you have a religion and are able to spread you'll usually have the envoys you need to get early suzerainty. You're better off with an early scout to make sure you get your free envoys from first contact. Georgia doesn't in any case get any bonus faith early - its faith-producing walls replace Renaissance Walls, and Protectorate Wars unlock with Diplomatic Service.

Again, the AI is much less willing to attack city-states, and even less so early now they come with walls from the start. Even when they do, the simple fact that the civ ability relies on an AI to trigger it is a weakness.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

I guess it depends on what you mean by "top tier". I've just been playing Sumeria and as I think about it the civ is clearly designed for a novice to learn on. The war-cart hands you a huge offensive advantage in the Ancient Era and clearing barb camps gets you happy-hut bonuses. On Settler (think novice) those give you bigger rewards more often including settlers. As soon as you understand the basic game mechanics you can use war-carts to knock over barbs, happy huts and nearby cities. The civ is designed to give you a stress-free introduction to the game. At the Deity level this translates to a very strong DV or SV, but probably not the fastest civ in skilled hands. They're the easiest to use but not necessarily the most capable. By comparison Japan's adjacency and Peri's CS bonuses can be incredibly strong but it takes finesse to leverage them. Which civs are the most powerful changes not just according to games settings and desired VC but the skill of the player. The only way a "tier" system works is if you have active competition, at which point it becomes clear that certain bonuses have an unfair advantage over others. A tier system (hopefully) gives multiple players a way to compete on an equal footing. It's impossible to pin down in a single player game because it's entirely dependent on what kind of game the player wants to have.

 

[lotrmith]

I'm apparently not familiar with standard faith strategies, as I don't see the connection. Early quests are usually centred around easily-obtainable eurekas, not great people which are the only link I can see between faith and envoys. Unless you're referring to the double envoy ability with Georgia's religion, but by the time you have a religion and are able to spread you'll usually have the envoys you need to get early suzerainty. You're better off with an early scout to make sure you get your free envoys from first contact. Georgia doesn't in any case get any bonus faith early - its faith-producing walls replace Renaissance Walls, and Protectorate Wars unlock with Diplomatic Service.

Again, the AI is much less willing to attack city-states, and even less so early now they come with walls from the start. Even when they do, the simple fact that the civ ability relies on an AI to trigger it is a weakness.

So there's two different things at play with Georgia. The first is the double envoy bonus for sending envoys to city states that follow Georgia's major religion. ((You don't even need to have founded that religion btw)). You don't need to be in a Protectorate War to activate this bonus. For the low cost of one or two missionaries, you can convert a CS and get 2for1 envoys. That's a great bonus and it offers double envoys particularly at a time when envoys are scarce (medieval, renaissance... compared to classical). That's worth more than an extra scout and a small chance at a single-envoy 1st discovery bonus.

The other bonus is the Protectorate faith bonus, which is less impactful but still helps you continue the envoy bonus (and the AI does war on city states often).

 

[PhilBowles]

So there's two different things at play with Georgia. The first is the double envoy bonus for sending envoys to city states that follow Georgia's major religion. ((You don't even need to have founded that religion btw)). You don't need to be in a Protectorate War to activate this bonus. For the low cost of one or two missionaries, you can convert a CS and get 2for1 envoys. That's a great bonus and it offers double envoys particularly at a time when envoys are scarce (medieval, renaissance... compared to classical). That's worth more than an extra scout and a small chance at a single-envoy 1st discovery bonus.

The other bonus is the Protectorate faith bonus, which is less impactful but still helps you continue the envoy bonus (and the AI does war on city states often).

When you said 'early' I assumed the meaning was 'prior to medieval government', since I wouldn't regard envoys as being in short supply otherwise and quests frequently give free envoys. I at least typically have suzerainty over multiple CSes - frequently with the era score bonus for first suzerain - by that time.

I'm not suggesting Georgia's bonuses don't do anything at all, but this is a tier list and you're talking about a substantial investment in religion (and if you haven't founded one, an investment in missionaries and apostles that aren't otherwise of much benefit to a civ that hasn't founded a religion) to get a more minor bonus than pretty much any other civ can obtain far more easily. What's more this isn't a civ that does anything to help you get an early religion or benefits much from any particular religious beliefs, unlike most faith civs (back to the Khmer as I'm presently playing them, they have strong synergies with multiple pantheon and follower beliefs, such as Reliquaries and River Goddess, and their holy sites provide an early growth bonus that makes them more attractive early than other civs', which may have to disrupt their preferred early build orders to rush holy sites).

 

[lotrmith]

When you said 'early' I assumed the meaning was 'prior to medieval government', since I wouldn't regard envoys as being in short supply otherwise and quests frequently give free envoys. I at least typically have suzerainty over multiple CSes - frequently with the era score bonus for first suzerain - by that time.

I'm not suggesting Georgia's bonuses don't do anything at all, but this is a tier list and you're talking about a substantial investment in religion (and if you haven't founded one, an investment in missionaries and apostles that aren't otherwise of much benefit to a civ that hasn't founded a religion) to get a more minor bonus than pretty much any other civ can obtain far more easily. What's more this isn't a civ that does anything to help you get an early religion or benefits much from any particular religious beliefs, unlike most faith civs (back to the Khmer as I'm presently playing them, they have strong synergies with multiple pantheon and follower beliefs, such as Reliquaries and River Goddess, and their holy sites provide an early growth bonus that makes them more attractive early than other civs', which may have to disrupt their preferred early build orders to rush holy sites).

I think you overestimate the degree to which getting envoys in certain eras is 'easy'. Firstly I contest your 'easy' first-contact envoys. They're simply a matter of luck and nothing more. Then, the 'easy' early quests... ancient or even classical era trade routes are not easy to send particularly over distance or in quantity. Some eurekas/inspirations are practically impossible or just plain not worth the investment (shipbuilding, defensive tactics, naval tradition....). Certain great people quests are just infeasible.

Then you're talking about either religion or the double envoys as a minor bonus that other civs can get "far more easily"... to which I disagree on both counts. I don't think faith/religion, or envoys/suzerainty, are minor bonuses. And sure, some other civs are geared better towards founding and spreading religion and gathering faith, but some civs aren't geared towards faith/religion at all. Georgia has benefits for spreading religion to city states where many civs have no religious benefits at all. Then, there are extremely few civs that have any kind of benefit for gaining or sending envoys. Georgia is almost alone in this bonus, and double envoys for the entire game is *huge*.

 

[PhilBowles]

I think you overestimate the degree to which getting envoys in certain eras is 'easy'. Firstly I contest your 'easy' first-contact envoys. They're simply a matter of luck and nothing more. Then, the 'easy' early quests... ancient or even classical era trade routes are not easy to send particularly over distance or in quantity. Some eurekas/inspirations are practically impossible or just plain not worth the investment (shipbuilding, defensive tactics, naval tradition....). Certain great people quests are just infeasible.

Defensive Tactics takes no effort - you either get attacked or you don't. But focusing on the specific eurekas misses the broader point - which is that early suzerainty is pretty easy to accomplish, and once you have that you're getting limited value from your excess envoys.

Then you're talking about either religion or the double envoys as a minor bonus that other civs can get "far more easily"... to which I disagree on both counts. I don't think faith/religion, or envoys/suzerainty, are minor bonuses.

Unless you make it your focus religion is a minor bonus - but that has nothing to do with Georgia. Georgia has nothing that can help it get religion early, unlike most faith-focused civs, and no incentive other than trying to get one to go for Holy Sites ASAP. The Russians, Khmer or Norwegians all have bonuses for their holy sites, for instance, so you don't suffer as much for going for holy sites as your first district when they would otherwise be suboptimal.

Suzerainty isn't a minor bonus, but you can get it far more easily than picking up and spreading a religion. Actual numbers of envoys only matter in a few cases - when you have fewer than 6, when you have the policy that gives you gold per envoy, and for the one or two specific city states that the AI may fight over in any given game.

 

[lotrmith]

Defensive Tactics takes no effort - you either get attacked or you don't. But focusing on the specific eurekas misses the broader point - which is that early suzerainty is pretty easy to accomplish, and once you have that you're getting limited value from your excess envoys.



Unless you make it your focus religion is a minor bonus - but that has nothing to do with Georgia. Georgia has nothing that can help it get religion early, unlike most faith-focused civs, and no incentive other than trying to get one to go for Holy Sites ASAP. The Russians, Khmer or Norwegians all have bonuses for their holy sites, for instance, so you don't suffer as much for going for holy sites as your first district when they would otherwise be suboptimal.

Suzerainty isn't a minor bonus, but you can get it far more easily than picking up and spreading a religion. Actual numbers of envoys only matter in a few cases - when you have fewer than 6, when you have the policy that gives you gold per envoy, and for the one or two specific city states that the AI may fight over in any given game.

I guess we fundamentally disagree on the availability, ease of acquisition, and importance of envoys.

In almost every game I will beeline for inspirations and civics to appoint Magnus in my capital and get to political philosophy so I can try to chop an Apandana, then proceed to try to chop out any remaining available wonders. I'm never lacking in need or desire for envoys until late in the game. If I am, it's because I either haven't explored enough to find all the city states, or the map size and city state count is too small, or the AI has been taking them out (Georgia gets a bonus for trying to protect them).

Even on a small map with standard 9 city states and supposing you only need or want 3 for suzerain and the t1 building bonuses early since you're not likely to have the tech for t2 buildings for a while, that's still 27 envoys to earn in whatever way you can. I don't know what difficulty you play on but that's not 'easy' by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[PhilBowles]

I guess we fundamentally disagree on the availability, ease of acquisition, and importance of envoys.

Or you're discussing Georgia outside the context of the thread. If Georgia isn't bottom of the tier list, which civs would you put below it?

In almost every game I will beeline for inspirations and civics to appoint Magnus in my capital and get to political philosophy so I can try to chop an Apandana, then proceed to try to chop out any remaining available wonders. I'm never lacking in need or desire for envoys until late in the game. If I am, it's because I either haven't explored enough to find all the city states, or the map size and city state count is too small, or the AI has been taking them out (Georgia gets a bonus for trying to protect them).

This approach makes it even less clear why you want Georgia's benefits, since you'll have envoys in abundance - and are unlikely to get a religion that way as holy sites won't be a priority. Bear in mind that some number of those city states will be militaristic, which in most cases are all but worthless for anything other than diplomatic favour for being suzerain, so you can usually ignore those. Others may not have especially useful suzerainty bonuses.

Added to that, you won't need industrial CS envoys 2+ for some time since workshops come later than other T1 buildings. And, while AIs don't attack CSes as much as they used to, they still do attack them and some will be lost; others will be overseas on most maps so you'll usually meet them late.

Even on a small map with standard 9 city states and supposing you only need or want 3 for suzerain and the t1 building bonuses early since you're not likely to have the tech for t2 buildings for a while, that's still 27 envoys to earn in whatever way you can. I don't know what difficulty you play on but that's not 'easy' by any stretch of the imagination.

Going for 27 envoys isn't a strategy I've focused on - and Wonder-spamming isn't reliable enough on Deity (and if it were, why am I playing Georgia rather than Egypt or China?)

 

[lotrmith]

Or you're discussing Georgia outside the context of the thread.

You were the first to bring up that you don't understand faith strategies and proceeded to, in my opinion, significantly underestimate and misrepresent the city state game (which you continue to do... suddenly when presented with even a basic target envoy number you shift the goalpost and change your argument... AIs don't attack city states, except when they do).

I think we're done.