New Tiers

[Sam Kwon]

With the imminent release of BNW, what is your opinion on the new tiers? I know BNW isn't out yet, but since we know all their UA, UU, UB it would still be fairly accurate....unless you're the celts *cough.

BTW this is including all civs, so vanilla, dlc's, G&K, BNW.
Preferably if you're going to comment please try to include as many civ's as you can. Justifications are also welcome .

Also, only confirmed changes like France should be used. I know India and Arabia will change slightly but go off their current forms please.

 

[stealth_nsk]

We don't know details of new mechanics, which are used by most of new civs.
We don't know changes for the current civs. Even for France we don't know the Chateu details yet.
We don't know effects of many social policies.
We don't know changes in beliefs.

I doubt this discussion makes sense at this moment.

 

[livsbrand]

I believe it will stay basically the same; the Polynesian six scout approach will still conquer all, except now it's been buffed by the WC.

 

[Sam Kwon]

We don't know details of new mechanics, which are used by most of new civs.
We don't know changes for the current civs. Even for France we don't know the Chateu details yet.
We don't know effects of many social policies.
We don't know changes in beliefs.

I doubt this discussion makes sense at this moment.

Yes but we know all the UA,UU,UB. We certainly know a lot about the new mechanics such as archaeology and trading. Also I believe we know all or most of the new social policies and the reformation beliefs. I know we don't know everything, but I think we know enough to at least take a stab. Also at the end of the day it's for fun so what if we're a bit off.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Yes but we know all the UA,UU,UB. We certainly know a lot about the new mechanics such as archaeology and trading. Also I believe we know all or most of the new social policies and the reformation beliefs. I know we don't know everything, but I think we know enough to at least take a stab. Also at the end of the day it's for fun so what if we're a bit off.

Details are everything. Depending on Chateu effect, new France could be weak, average or excellent civ. Depending on whether Shoshones start with Warrior or Pathfinder, they could be average or strong, etc.

 

[Veneke]

Details are everything. ... Depending on whether Shoshones start with Warrior or Pathfinder, they could be average or strong, etc.

I very much doubt whether Shoshones start with a warrior or pathfinder will impact terribly much on how strong a Civ they are; although the Pathfinder would be weaker on Epic and Marathon than on Standard if they don't start with it they still look like they're shaping up to be an impressive Civ.


Hasn't a topic like this been done before, I thought I saw one like it but maybe it was only done for the BNW Civs? I dunno. There are some obvious changes though that I think will affect how well a Civ plays.

- Byzantium, for instance, is definitely going to benefit from earlier access to Piety. Before it was hit and miss whether they'd get a religion at all, with Piety the odds have significantly increased.
- I'm not convinced about the WC buffing Polynesia by all that much but they are certainly improved. Hardly enough for the AI to make any better use of them but still.
- Greece looks like it'll get a slight buff and having a bunch of city-states hanging around you for the WC could be very useful.
- England a slight buff as well when you consider that you have an extra spy which, presumably, can also be a diplomat. In the Renaissance you can have your cake an eat it, having both a diplomat and a spy - everybody else has to choose.

Almost certainly a bunch of other Civs will be affected and how all of this plays out in terms of adjusting the strength of the different Civs relative to each other is more guesswork (and actual work) than I care to do, frankly.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I very much doubt whether Shoshones start with a warrior or pathfinder will impact terribly much on how strong a Civ they are; although the Pathfinder would be weaker on Epic and Marathon than on Standard if they don't start with it they still look like they're shaping up to be an impressive Civ.

Starting with Pathfinder even on Standard means they have 1-2 more ancient ruins and they could choose a benefit much earlier. This means they could beat others in many things like religion (faith+culture for Piety) or just overall development (a couple of +pop ruins). Very powerful if used properly.

- Byzantium, for instance, is definitely going to benefit from earlier access to Piety. Before it was hit and miss whether they'd get a religion at all, with Piety the odds have significantly increased.

Sure, plus they probably will be able to choose reformation belief as bonus, allowing more flexibility. But again, that's a thing we don't know yet.

- I'm not convinced about the WC buffing Polynesia by all that much but they are certainly improved. Hardly enough for the AI to make any better use of them but still.

Maoi are much better, since Culture is more valuable, plus with hotel they produce tourism in addition to culture. Plus sea is going to be overall more important.

- Greece looks like it'll get a slight buff and having a bunch of city-states hanging around you for the WC could be very useful.

If Austria remain the same, Greece will have a problem of higher chances to meet CS-consumer with Venice in game.

- England a slight buff as well when you consider that you have an extra spy which, presumably, can also be a diplomat. In the Renaissance you can have your cake an eat it, having both a diplomat and a spy - everybody else has to choose.

Plus, again, their sea bonus and UU will have greater value considering international trade routes.

Almost certainly a bunch of other Civs will be affected and how all of this plays out in terms of adjusting the strength of the different Civs relative to each other is more guesswork (and actual work) than I care to do, frankly.

Yes, exactly

 

[Veneke]

Starting with Pathfinder even on Standard means they have 1-2 more ancient ruins and they could choose a benefit much earlier. This means they could beat others in many things like religion (faith+culture for Piety) or just overall development (a couple of +pop ruins). Very powerful if used properly.

Oh, certainly, but the longer build times on Epic and Marathon will make starting with a Pathfinder much stronger than starting with a Pathfinder on Standard.

Maoi are much better, since Culture is more valuable, plus with hotel they produce tourism in addition to culture. Plus sea is going to be overall more important.

You're quite right, I keep forgetting about the Maoi.

If Austria remain the same, Greece will have a problem of higher chances to meet CS-consumer with Venice in game.

True, but a greater risk involved doesn't erase the potential indirect buff to Greece's UA with the advent of city-states as diplomatic tools.

Then again, far as I'm concerned Austria's been broken since it's inception and Venice, in the hands of the AI, is potentially in the same league. Hopefully they'll fix this so you can liberate CSs, which would mitigate the possibility of the Austrians and Venetians removing Greece's UA from play.

 

[bevelnator]

I don't even think better Moai are the best part of Polynesia, they can also have trade routes across oceans before astronomy, opening up more trading opportunities from the beginning of the game.

 

[seasnake]

I think several civs in BNW have the potential to be top tier. The only real loser I know of in the whole game, today, is Germany with India, Celts, the Dutch and America being a bit meh. I intend to make a minimalist mod after it comes out that improves these civs and increase the number of city states and natural wonders available on huge maps (the only mod I play with now is the Krakatoa mod that puts it within a few tiles of land instead of a one-tile useless wonder in the middle of the ocean).

Every other civ other than those is top-tier when used correctly. India might be Top-Tier if unhappiness has been strengthened to be a real penalty and internal food shipments to make a mega-city happen.

 

[ferretbacon]

I think several civs in BNW have the potential to be top tier. The only real loser I know of in the whole game, today, is Germany with India, Celts, the Dutch and America being a bit meh. I intend to make a minimalist mod after it comes out that improves these civs and increase the number of city states and natural wonders available on huge maps (the only mod I play with now is the Krakatoa mod that puts it within a few tiles of land instead of a one-tile useless wonder in the middle of the ocean).

Every other civ other than those is top-tier when used correctly. India might be Top-Tier if unhappiness has been strengthened to be a real penalty and internal food shipments to make a mega-city happen.

I think the Byzantines warrant being on the 'meh' list; their uniques are scattered about on the tech tree and their UA is potentially worthless if you can't manage to found a religion.

 

[simonthesinner]

Rome could use national trade routes to build the capital version of an improvement faster, and they wern't too shabby Before.

 

[Veneke]

I think several civs in BNW have the potential to be top tier. ...

Aye, pretty much all of them are top-tier potential, the only exception I can see is Indonesia; which I very much doubt will be anything above mediocre.

I don't even think better Moai are the best part of Polynesia, they can also have trade routes across oceans before astronomy, opening up more trading opportunities from the beginning of the game.

The bigger limitation in the pre-Astronomy era is going to be range, not ocean-crossing. It's a minor buff (and actually the one I had in mind when commenting on them above) but nothing more than that.

 

[Captain Fargle]

I think several civs in BNW have the potential to be top tier. The only real loser I know of in the whole game, today, is Germany with India, Celts, the Dutch and America being a bit meh. I intend to make a minimalist mod after it comes out that improves these civs and increase the number of city states and natural wonders available on huge maps (the only mod I play with now is the Krakatoa mod that puts it within a few tiles of land instead of a one-tile useless wonder in the middle of the ocean).

Every other civ other than those is top-tier when used correctly. India might be Top-Tier if unhappiness has been strengthened to be a real penalty and internal food shipments to make a mega-city happen.

The happiness changes mean the Dutch UA just got a hell of a lot more powerful. Being able to get an extra 2 Happy out of a Lux-for-Lux trade means a hell of a lot more when you start getting combat penalties at 0 instead of -10.

 

[BluegrassGeek]

Random thought: I wonder how much the Aztec UA will affect them. Stay at war, gain culture per kill, which increases... tourism? Slightly odd concept, but could be interesting.

 

[LostKnight]

Random thought: I wonder how much the Aztec UA will affect them. Stay at war, gain culture per kill, which increases... tourism? Slightly odd concept, but could be interesting.

Come visit our piles of skulls!

We also have a river of blood and a lake of tibias, but those are under renovations.

 

[Matthew.]

Assyria seems like it has potential to be stupidly powerful at higher levels of play with careful calculation. Maybe not powerful in the sense of record finish times (need to be missing the tech to be able to steal it--in other words, be behind) but it seems like they could be strong in the sense that they may have an easier time keeping pace with Deity AI than most other Civs.

 

[seasnake]

I think the Byzantines warrant being on the 'meh' list; their uniques are scattered about on the tech tree and their UA is potentially worthless if you can't manage to found a religion.

true but i think with piety available right away they'll be better and that extra belief is pretty awesome.

 

[Bakspatel]

The happiness changes mean the Dutch UA just got a hell of a lot more powerful. Being able to get an extra 2 Happy out of a Lux-for-Lux trade means a hell of a lot more when you start getting combat penalties at 0 instead of -10.

That depends on how the new trading works. From my understanding, you can't just trade for pure cash anymore. That means you'll have to trade for stuff that wouldn't help your strategy and affects the amount of money you could make.
Also, tiles around rivers have been updated to no longer provide coins. And let that just be the tiles where you find flooded plains or usually find marshes.

I'm getting worried that, without a small update on their UA, the Dutch would become far less powerful as they are now.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Random thought: I wonder how much the Aztec UA will affect them. Stay at war, gain culture per kill, which increases... tourism? Slightly odd concept, but could be interesting.

Sure, interesting, but it does not work like that

Culture is your defensive culture, so Montezuma would be in theory harder to conquer via Culture, however, their culture kills do not directly increase Tourism at all (I actually don't think their UA actually raises Tourism in anyway, unless they tweaked their UA).