Discussion in 'Civ3 - Strategy & Tips' started by Ision, May 2, 2004.
Haven't reviewed the Vikings or Russia yet. Don't play civ alot anymore.
I'm sure you've heard this enough, but this is a great thread. Good job there, Ision.
I look forward to any more reviews you plan on doing.
Will you review the Zulu they're my favourtie.
I was waiting for a review of Russia.
Someone please find it in their hearts to finish... I've heard so many great things about vikings, they have two good traits, a powerful UU, and alphabet, why are they third tier?
Edit: realized something to this effect has been said by at least three other people, but theres no delete post button...
A few writers have almost finished these civ reviews yet they havn't been added to the sticky which is a shame.
Zardnaar reviewed England and the Zulus:
bg2soatob reviewed the zulus and vikings:
and aelf reviewed the Russians (though this is by no means as good as Zardnaar's or Ision's work). Hopefully someone can write a better Russian review but for now that's all we've got.
I've also attached a word document for people to download. It contains all of the Civ reviews and the tier lists by Ision and Zardnaar complete with easy navigation via the document map.
Now if only someone could create charts quantifying the civs on many factors such as starting techs, synergy between traits, usefulness on pangea, usefulness on archipelago, value of UU etc. That would be a great way to determine which civilizations are the best.
Really thanks for the effort of writing all of these, it helped me decide what civ i want to play next, and the winner is Netherlands.
What is meant by the tiers?
Tier 1=best, tier 3 weak. Its very difficult for example to claim 1 tier 1 civ is better than another and its also variable depending on the difficulty level, map, play style and preferences.
It also varies depending on desired victory condition.
yeah that 2 although the tier one civs are usually good regardless of map, victory condition and other factors although they may be outclassed by a weaker civ in some regard. The way I think of it if you played a random map type with a random civ what ones would you be happy to play all the time regardless of starting map or position? You wil never have a bad game all other things being equal with the Iroqous for example (unless you get a bad start or whatever thats kinda bad for any civ). I never quite finished the Civ review guide and I've lost the conquests disk and Civ Gold doesn't want to install on my newish computer.
Thanks for the challenge... or shall I say I flat out disagree. Imagine playing an 80% water map with min tribes on Sid or possibly even Deity where you have your island to yourself, a coastal start, and the nearest island lays at least 6 squares away. You want to play for the 20k. Each Seafaring tribe outclasses the Iroquois due to lowered probability of a curragh sinking. The French outclass the Iroquois also since they can pre-build the Great Library and have a shot at the Pyramids. Probably each scientific tribe outclasses the Iroquois for cheaper librarie, the free tech, and a shot at the Colossus. Perhaps industrious tribes also outclass the Iroquois, since they have a shot at the Pyramids. Religious tribes also, since they can build an early temple. And if suicide curraghs fail a lot, even if the Iroquois manage the Great Library, they could miss basically all the other ancient and middle age wonders, where a Seafaring tribe might have snaged a few, and other tribes with early buildings might have also.
A non-whip, no ToA 100k game with the Iroquois also sounds ugly, though much more managable with a scientific or religious tribe.
As I said you could contrive situations where every civ would suck, but in general the Iroqous are a tier 1 civ and the seafaring re great on island type maps and on higher difficulty levels. A few of the 3rd tier civs are very good in their niche and oly a few civs "suck" as such. Portugak and the Mongols and Zulu for example can be good but are outclassed at whatever they do by other tribes. Portugal for example has contradictory traits and a weak UU. Generally a great civ has 2 good traits and a good or great UU, the 3rd tier civs normally only have 1/3 or are good in certain niches.
Portugal's traits can actually complement each other rather well and their UU can have a strong effect. See 1 2 and especially 3.
The Mongols and the Zulu both probably outclass most to all other tribes in a one city built conquest or domination game with sedentary barbies. So, I don't see any of those tribes as necessarily outclassed by everyone else.
Duplicate post deleted.
A long time ago Ision explaied the tier system used as its very hard to make a call. Alot of the 3rd tier civs for example are power in a certain niche, like an island start or whatever. The tier system is only a general guideline and is the opinion of 2-3 people who wrote some articles a long time ago 4- 5 years?
Even then Ision stressed that certain "weak" civs can be good in certain niches and the guidlines were up to about emperor levelor so. On deity an early great UU becomes much more valuable and on Sid alot of the games I read about involved seafaring civs as I personally only beat the game up to deity difficulty. I figured out how to abuse England to a large extent for example and in the right situation of gameplay mode that 3rd tier civ is very powerful, but the best pones tend to be the opnes that can expand the fastest or what civs you would play on a random map with a random civ. Any Civ is good if played to its strengths, but Portugal is probably the weakest civ in the game, YMMV of course.
Just checked and the thread is at least 5 and a half years old.
Ymmv = Your Mileage May Vary.
I would almost have a 4th tier but Portugal would be the only Civ in it.
Separate names with a comma.