[GS] June Update Tier List

[Lord Lakely]

I actually think Georgia is lowkey good now. They suck at Science and Cultural victory but I have found them surprisingly competent when going for Dip. Dplomatic victory is excellent for defensive civs because grievances reduce your favour per turn, while defending increases your relationships, making it easier to ally with everyone or join emergencies. As for Georgia's special bonuses, I don't even bother with campuses anymore, REX'ing everywhere + Eureka micro makes me not fall behind anyway I just build Holy Sites and use the religious units from the Holy Sites to convert City states for easy suzerainity. I build Com Hubs and accumulate gold so I can give disaster aid or levy troops if needed. I build walls everwhere to defend myself against trigger happy AIs. In a pinch, I use my gold or faith to buy the units I need.

Georgia's religious game isn't too bad either since you need Holy sites anyway to take advantage of Tamar's envoy bonus. It's an easy transition should you get voteblocked in the congress. A late domination victory is also plausible if you're swimming in faith/turn because of the Grandmaster's Chapel.

Obviously this isn't viable on the highest difficulties, but it's perfectly feasable on King or even Emperor, which I think are the difficulties Civ6 should be played at tbh.

 

[Ziad]

I do find Campuses in general lowkey overrated here if you arent playing tall. It usually ends up being a win more kind of thing.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

I don't know about your thoughts on Germany... in addition to the pretty strong Hansa district, they get an extra district per city outside of the normal district/population limits, and an extra military card. Those are enormous bonuses that last the entire game and enhance playstyles and strategies that every civ would employ on every play through.

I just finished my first Deity game post-GS with Germany a few days ago. They have strong bonuses and are a lot of fun to play. Their extra military slot is a much bigger advantage now because of the strategic resources. The reason I don't think Germany is top-tier is that none of their bonuses are relevant in the early game. You don't have any military slots until you get to CoL and even then it just means double xp for recon because you have two slots and two policies. The extra district doesn't come into play until you've built at least one district. You aren't actually benefiting from this bonus until one of your cities has built its maximum number of districts. To me "top-tier" means the civs that have strong bonuses from the very beginning. The Aztecs start with the Eagle Warrior which can conquer your neighbors giving you both cities and room to expand while generating free builders. Then those builders can quickly put down districts even in low-production cities because they can use builder charges. Their ability to build districts this way makes them one the strongest civs for any VC even if there aren't any neighbors to subjugate. Similarly, War Carts will immediately win big prizes for Sumeria. While that's happening they can manufacture as much Science per turn as they want with Ziggurats. These are civs that can be air-borne while Germany is still building their extra districts. Part of that is because Sumeria is meant for noobs to learn on. It's powerful in a way that makes the early game simpler so new players can have fun with it. That's why I'd rather play Germany than Sumeria. Make no mistake though, a good player can build a much stronger empire in the first 100 turns with Monte, Gilga or Amanitore than they can with Fred.

 

[Troy Bruckner]

The reason I don't think Germany is top-tier is that none of their bonuses are relevant in the early game.

Only Monte and Gil should be S tier IMHO.

Fred's bonus policy slot allows him to still build units faster while in a classic republic which to me is the early game. The ability to build a government center after you built an early holy site is huge. With this said they are on the same level as Monte and Gil.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

Only Monte and Gil should be S tier IMHO.

I'd add Amanitore to that but imho this is the proper approach to S tier. Only two or three are strong enough to truly qualify. They make the game so much easier that playing them feels like a lower difficulty level.

 

[lotrmith]

Only Monte and Gil should be S tier IMHO.

Fred's bonus policy slot allows him to still build units faster while in a classic republic which to me is the early game. The ability to build a government center after you built an early holy site is huge. With this said they are on the same level as Monte and Gil.

Let's you build units faster while still having +5 against barbs. Let's you pump out fast but still maintenance free archers. While still in Chiefdom / Ancient Era.

 

[Furycrab]

Only Monte and Gil should be S tier IMHO.

I don't think either are S anymore. At least not if you are implying that they are a step above everyone else. For Singleplayer, Immortal/Deity play and most standard settings.

Monty on Immortal or Deity, it's not that likely you can get a really good Aztec Warrior rush anymore. CSs just aren't that easy to take thanks to last patch. , and the AI isn't as bad against Warrior or Archer rushes. You still can obviously, but the opportunity cost is going to be significantly higher. Also the combat bonus isn't quite all that good either, at least not when compared to some of the other options you might consider. Definitely still good, but I have a few favorites over Monty for more aggressive strategies.

Gil... Slightly different reasons. The big one is that Knights come a little later, and again, it's harder to take 1-2 free CS with just the UU. Again. Still really strong, but I'd put them in more of a pool of top tier Civs of somewhat equivalent power.

 

[Troy Bruckner]

I don't think either are S anymore. At least not if you are implying that they are a step above everyone else. For Singleplayer, Immortal/Deity play and most standard settings.

Monty on Immortal or Deity, it's not that likely you can get a really good Aztec Warrior rush anymore. CSs just aren't that easy to take thanks to last patch. , and the AI isn't as bad against Warrior or Archer rushes. You still can obviously, but the opportunity cost is going to be significantly higher. Also the combat bonus isn't quite all that good either, at least not when compared to some of the other options you might consider. Definitely still good, but I have a few favorites over Monty for more aggressive strategies.

Gil... Slightly different reasons. The big one is that Knights come a little later, and again, it's harder to take 1-2 free CS with just the UU. Again. Still really strong, but I'd put them in more of a pool of top tier Civs of somewhat equivalent power.

I rarely take CSs because they are so valuable later in the game. Sometimes one will be on a wonder I must have though. I played a test game with Gil earlier yesterday and I am even stronger of the opinion that war carts are over-rated. Only 2 more attack than EWs and they are cavalry. Even if an attack stalls out EWs should harvest several workers while a failed attack with war carts gets you nothing. So to revise this I would say that only Monte and Norway are S tier all things considered if pillaging is allowed.

 

[Furycrab]

I rarely take CSs because they are so valuable later in the game. Sometimes one will be on a wonder I must have though. I played a test game with Gil earlier yesterday and I am even stronger of the opinion that war carts are over-rated. Only 2 more attack than EWs and they are cavalry. Even if an attack stalls out EWs should harvest several workers while a failed attack with war carts gets you nothing. So to revise this I would say that only Monte and Norway are S tier all things considered if pillaging is allowed.

It's not that taking CS is that important, part of what put the Monty on top of most players tier lists was you just made a few warriors, smashed into the closest thing, got a bunch of free builders and cities, which you could snowball into a win. It just doesn't work that well on current patch anymore. As for the other bonuses... Well you can get better combat bonuses with a few other Civs.

Rather play someone like Genghis where you have a better unique unit timing where you can attack with a +12 or sometimes even +18 combat bonus on both offense and defense and just destroy everything.

Again though. Not talking Multiplayer, or Lower difficulties though.

 

[Troy Bruckner]

It's not that taking CS is that important, part of what put the Monty on top of most players tier lists was you just made a few warriors, smashed into the closest thing, got a bunch of free builders and cities, which you could snowball into a win. It just doesn't work that well on current patch anymore. As for the other bonuses... Well you can get better combat bonuses with a few other Civs.

Rather play someone like Genghis where you have a better unique unit timing where you can attack with a +12 or sometimes even +18 combat bonus on both offense and defense and just destroy everything.

Again though. Not talking Multiplayer, or Lower difficulties though.

The Eagle Warrior is not what puts Monte over the top. It's the building of districts. Districts scale up in cost, but an Aztec worker will still complete it 5 turns. Captured workers get 4 charges if you have the pyramids as well. People have Australia in the top tier I suspect because of using the liberation flip flop, but the Aztecs can abuse the pillage flip flop better than any other Civ by far except maybe Norway. Aztecs do not need to abuse pillaging to be top tier for the record.

After all this I forgot to say I forgot about Russia. At least for me they are top tier by far if they have ample tundra which they should since the Ai usually avoids it.

 

[Victoria]

It is hard enough playing nigh on 50 civs let alone playing each of them for different victories on different difficulties.
Then we have a very astute point someone bought up about Gilga (Always S tier to me even if they did not have donkey carts ... because they have Ziggurats, goody hut finds and half price levy which I am still dumfounded about how little people use it). Gilga is great for the starter player, fairly simple to play with.... as opposed to Monty who is quite subtle and requires more skill, it is not just about bashing into your neighbours as @Troy Bruckner rightly states.

Kongo... OMG... they rock at GWAM... and mostly around the A. Great artists is an area that is a little misunderstood. (Here if interested)

What this thread shows if nothing else is that people rate civs quite differently and no tier list is right. Even if we banded it to 3 tiers. Good/average/poor would still cause disagreement.

However people still like tier lists and to be honest they are great threads to read and always provide +2 amenities for me.

 

[kb27787]

Only Monte and Gil should be S tier IMHO.

Fred's bonus policy slot allows him to still build units faster while in a classic republic which to me is the early game. The ability to build a government center after you built an early holy site is huge. With this said they are on the same level as Monte and Gil.

Even so, yet the civ with an extra WILD CARD slot is rated lower than Germany? Give me a break....
And by the way, by the time you reach astronomy and state workforce, don't tell me your cap is not pop 4 even if you would build sucky vanilla holy sites as Germany (as opposed to lavras, or +3 campi with those mountains you use for the holy site instead)

Monty is clearly above Gil--zigs and carts are nice but they soon lose their power on deity. Still, if Gil gets lucky he can get very early relics--reliquaries, Apadana and some lucky barb camps + reliquaries is probably a quick win (though China does the wonder building better, but Gil is more likely to get the relics).

 

[kb27787]

It is hard enough playing nigh on 50 civs let alone playing each of them for different victories on different difficulties.
Then we have a very astute point someone bought up about Gilga (Always S tier to me even if they did not have donkey carts ... because they have Ziggurats, goody hut finds and half price levy which I am still dumfounded about how little people use it). Gilga is great for the starter player, fairly simple to play with.... as opposed to Monty who is quite subtle and requires more skill, it is not just about bashing into your neighbours as @Troy Bruckner rightly states.

Kongo... OMG... they rock at GWAM... and mostly around the A. Great artists is an area that is a little misunderstood. (Here if interested)

What this thread shows if nothing else is that people rate civs quite differently and no tier list is right. Even if we banded it to 3 tiers. Good/average/poor would still cause disagreement.

However people still like tier lists and to be honest they are great threads to read and always provide +2 amenities for me.

Nah... artifacts are better then art (12 food and 12 production with 24 gold once themed? ouch!) But really, it's the relics if you can get that nice little marsh wonder since all your apostles are "free".

I do think that to some extent tier lists are subjective, but for example no one's going to argue that Aztec isn't good tier. Another problem is that there are just civs who get an "I win" button based purely on luck in the early game (Kongo meeting Kandy first, or Kupe landing quickly with an amazing NW start etc.) and then there are civs who can be very good when you're doing well and just useless when you do badly (Sweden, Eleanor)... these are hard to put into a single tier since they can vary based on circumstances. Mali is in good/average tier when isolated, but if you spawn right next to Chandragupta he is beyond trash tier.

And then there's the one-trick pony warmongers who, while effective, are simply downright boring to play over and over (Macedon, Scythia)... since killing people seems to solve every problem in civ VI (as opposed to BNW) these are often put in the strongest tiers... but no one ever mentions the starts where the only path into your neighbor's lands is through rough rainforest hills in a narrow mountain pass... or the starts where you spawn in the middle of nowhere with no one in sight but barbs.

 

[kryat]

Someone should make an elimination thread (later) based on victory type. That would get around these useless discussions about who is better than who with no criteria for what is “better”.

 

[Victoria]

12 food and 12 production with 24 gold once themed

and what are they to do with a CV? They are pretty shiny pebbles to lead you astray. When you can get 3-4 themed art museums before you have to pay 1600 for a single archaeologist.
Its a question of style I guess.

 

[Troy Bruckner]

Someone should make an elimination thread (later) based on victory type. That would get around these useless discussions about who is better than who with no criteria for what is “better”.

Canada might get it's day for cultural victory

 

[kryat]

Canada might get it's day for cultural victory

Agreed. Especially if there was a caveat that people must vote based on the assumption of no warmongering, though that might make some like Alexander hard to evaluate.

 

[Ziad]

Also specify what map type.

 

[Troy Bruckner]

Also specify what map type.

I work under the assumption that tundra based civs get to start in or next to tundra, that Inca gets to start near mountains, Korea has ample hills, Brazil has jungle etc....

 

[kryat]

I work under the assumption that tundra based civs get to start in or next to tundra, that Inca gets to start near mountains, Korea has ample hills, Brazil has jungle etc....

I think @Ziad was referring to configuration of continents. If I were running it, I would say standard sized map, continents, 8 players, default number of CSs, barbarians, and no modification to world age, sea level, or resources. It’s surprising how changing even one these parameters can really bias the game.

Edit: also, standard speed