Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Jim Bro, May 1, 2011.
Thank you for the laughs of the month! xD
well after amory anyone can get the sentry bonus on units.
just pick shock or drill then sentry.
america ua is -25% cost to buy tiles and a free sentry promotion.
it is not that great of a bonus.
other civs will just get a sentry useing cavalry unit to scout ahead.
usa still sees a tile further than any other civ and with enemy roads thats helpful.
upgraded UU can walk through any terrain no problem and mobility is a big thing for tactics in this game moving over mountains at 1 move and attacking is like having 3 moves and that's common
I think its great that people are using the civs strengths as they currently are instead of looking for buffs everywhere like one of my friends is
I voted for Siam because i believe it currently is the one of the most UNDERSTOOD civs. I think others will gain power as more people analyze them. I dont believe "all civs are created equal", but i do believe that some havent yet reached their peak.
Germany and the Ottomans have "ticky tacky" UA's because they're completely unreliable for many reasons. Playing Pangea? Ottoman UA is useless. Playing archipelago? German UA is very likely to be useless. You have to play with Barbs to get any use of it, just as well. But wait, there's more: it's only a 50% chance. That means in theory you could kill plenty of Barbarians and not assimilate a single one. It's entirely possible and I have had games where that has occurred as Germany and then another game where I must have taken every Barbarian available. This roll of the dice style of gameplay, completely predicated on what kind of map and settings you got going in the first place, is really, really bad game design particularly when you compare it to essentially all other UA's which have some built-in consistency.
Looks like France, China, and Siam are the top three. Quite a large disparity between top and bottom too.
I voted for France because you can build upon it's strengths to acquire more strengths. Plus I do like musket men units.
if we divide it into 4 (unequal) tiers regarding their score:
Tiers 1: France, Siam, china
Tiers 2: Babylone, Japan, Persia, Greece, Rome
Tiers 3: Mongolia, Songhai, Russia, India, Arabia
Tiers 4: Polynesia, Iroquois, Inca, Aztec, america, Ottomans, england, Egypt, Spain, Germany
Honestly, i would retire polynesia, Inca and Spain from the list, because they are DLC civ that relatively few people bought and i imagine only people who bought them will vote for them...(how many people are waiting for an expansion that will include the DLC civ?)
Even if babylone is a more common DLC, the score it does show that it's a strong civ (maybe a top tiers one if a non-dlc civ)
The common point of top tiers civ is that they have a very strong UA and/or great UB. Their UU are generally pretty decent too.
Tiers 2 civ generally have strong UA too (i suppose people who voted for Greece were also attracts by their UUs), but there’s something that can’t please everyone (japan is for warmongering, babylone is DLC, Persia needs high happiness value to trigger golden age,…
In Tiers 3, I notice that their quite specialised (Mongolia for warmongering, India for low number of city games… or unbalanced (arabs have a relatively poor UA but good UB, songhai have a good UA as long as there is still barbarians and their UB is free culture, but that may not be needed…
Tiers 4 is DLC civs, unit based UA (England, America, Aztec… or map/barbarian dependant (ottomans, germany, Iroquois) with egypt, a not that good builder trait, a poor UU and a poor UB. In general, the UU/UB are not that impressive.
In general, the strength of a civ comes from it’s UA because
-UUs are either early one with a short lifespan (Egypt, Rome, Greece) or late one that may never come (germany, America…. Most usefull are one that span in the middle of the game: Musketeer, Janissary, cho-ko-nu, mankedalu cavalry, berserker, samurai…
-UBs quality really depends on the availability (tech) of it and the usefullness of it’s original counterpart (Russia’s Krepost, India’s mughal fort, Iroquois’s longhouse, Egypt burial tomb…
I’m quite surprised by the few number of vote for songhai and the great number of vote for Rome…
I suspect that the vote for germany comes from someone who just didn’t want germany without any vote…
Iroquois = Unassailable. Egypt = Garbage. America = WORLD SUPERPOWER BIATCH! Songhai = Rich. Spain = Remember that one African civilization we added that was good? Well there's no reason to play them anymore!(richer, better knights. This civ pretty much obsoleted Songhai) Denmark + Mongolia = WTF were they thinking when they gave those units those bonuses. Bismark = Grey and Black for 300 turns...
my worst civ i have played with are the iroquois: worst unique ability, bad unique building and mediocre unique unit.
Longhouse is pretty incredible, especially with start bias. And I've found that their start bias gives them a better start more consistently that just about any other civ (at least for how I play - a few cities, high hammers, lots of lumber mills, high vertical growth). Maybe I've just gotten lucky though. I do agree that in general Iroquois are not that great.
I know you said you put some of them down a tier or two if they really only work well for one strategy, but Mongolia is probably the strongest civ out there between Khans and Kehiks (yes, even post-horse-nerf). They really deserve tier 1, in my opinion. I'd also put Arabia in at least high tier two if not tier one; even though Keshiks (despite their lower ranged attack) are pretty superior to Camel Archers, CAs are still a monstrous UU - especially after the horse nerf reduced the usefulness of Knight-heavy or -only armies and almost necessitated Iron for siege and LS - and the Bazaar is in my opinion the best UB in the game. Once you start thinking of it as a market that also gives you +10 GPT per improved resource (frontloaded at 300 every 30 turns, or just +5 happy per if that's what you need), its strength is pretty much undeniable. Yeah, Trade Caravans isn't very good, but Arabia would be very, very competitive even with no UA. And the couple thousand extra late-game gold it can give you is great for any win condition - buy RAs for science, buy CSes for diplo/culture, rushbuy whatever you need for domination (but you probably should have just about won anyways at that point if you're going dom).
Also, I disagree that India's too narrow of a focus. As soon as a city hits size 4, Population Growth's bonus and penalty even out. Any larger and you're gaining happiness. Theocracy may screw with the equation, but the fact remains that you can get just as much use from that UA for a wide empire as a tall one, especially now that happiness produced by most buildings is capped at city population, meaning "happiness farms" are mostly a thing of the past.
Oh, and Spain's not bad. Certainly not bottom-tier, I'd say. Far too luck dependent (in my opinion they should start with a warrior and a scout), but those UUs are terrifying. Anyone who remembers the horse-heavy medieval armies of yore can attest to the strength of the Conquistador, and the Tercio is no slouch either.
I believe the tiers were based on the voting -- he then added in his projected reasoning.
Oh, he said "if we." Not "if I." My bad.
as it was said, i based the tiers on the voting.
About mongolia, it's a warmongering civ only: imagine the strengh of mongolia on an isolated start or with limited neighbours...and bonus to mounted unit? mounted unit don't win cities for you...you'll still need some slow infantry and siege units to conquer cities. Huge win for the mobility for mongolia. I really understand why mongolia is so low rated.
About arabia, imagine if on your continent there is only one or two different luxury ressources but in multiple locations? if you have few neighbours to trade with?
India? imagine India UA on a huge map...i need to math the numbers but i think it's better to have the "normal way" of calculating unhappiness. not that suited for domination
When you think of it, you may have the answer of the vote quite easily:
I can't see a way for France UA to be ineffective or severely lowered...
Siam is dependant on CS but it's quite rare to never met a CS before astronomy. And even with that, you WILL met CS. Plus the wat is a very good UB
China has a cool warmonger trait, but the paper maker is a fantastic UB
Babylone, Persia, Greece and Rome all have UA that last all game and that are not "building/warmongering" dependant even if they are not as powerfull as France one. UU and UB are generally above average.
Japan is the best warmongering civ from far away.
As i explained, tiers 3 are around average and their bonus can easily denied by game and spain is in tiers 4 because a lot of people didn't download it.
Granted, I've never done this, but I understand that Keshiks are viable units up through modern era with 1 minimum damage and the proper upgrades. And Khans are always excellent. So an isolated start doesn't really hamper their efforts any more than any other war-oriented civ (of which there are plenty). Also, I could just be lucky, but I've never seen a game in which I couldn't spam out an easy 3-5 cities with at least one luxury per, often 2-3 luxuries in some, so the scenario you describe seems unlikely. Of course if you're planning on just founding one city and not conquering at all, yeah the Bazaar could end up weak (but in that case you're almost certainly playing sub-optimally anyways). Isolation would hamper them more than most though. Although this is a curious thing, since I play fractal almost exclusively, and I have yet to play a game where I had an isolated start. In fact, almost every fractal I've played has ended up a Pangaea.
I know you're talking about why people vote the way they do and not giving your own opinions. You're correct in that the highest tier are generally civs that work well regardless of strategy and start, but I still think your scenarios are a little off-base all the same.
Keshiks. More keshiks. A single horseman. A Khan. All you need to take any city well into the reneissance, and all riding horses and with 5 move points.
No, it's pretty straightforward. Anything with more than 4 population = better.
So I was peeking at the Steam statistics, and thought this was an interesting complementary metric - Leaders sorted by how many people have won the game with them (in descending order, * for DLC civs):
Harald Bluetooth *
Of course this is in no way an accurate measure of civ strength (especially since the most-won difficulty level is Chieftain), but it's interesting to see the similarities and differences to the poll results here. I guess it's kind of obvious that America is at the top there, even though they're not really considered a top tier civ. Poor old Suleiman has the singular honour of being the only original leader who has won less than a DLC civ. And Siam and Persia are right near the bottom and China is in the bottom half, despite being generally considered the strongest civs.
I'm surprised Siam isn't running away with this. Their UA is absurdly overpowered; I was both obscenely rich and very advanced in technology the entire game I played as them, as well as the most cultured and the civ fielding the largest army. There was just no competition.
Voted for Russia, because their UA is helpful for when you lack strategic resources or you can always sell the extra. Then they also have an awsome UB and an alright UU.
Honestly America's actually quite strong late game; +1 sight with land (especially with quick-moving mechanized infantry) gives great intelligence on enemy positions/formations. Also the B-17 bonuses are carried over to Stealth Bombers, effectively giving the US unique Stealth Bombers indirectly from B-17 promotions. Even though there are uses for minutemen, I do think they should be replaced with a unique production building.
I voted France. After the nerfs to China I don't see many competitors minus a few civs like Persia. I always seem to play Rome though; their UA is pretty balanced and can become incredibly powerful based on the more cities you subjugate/found, and their UU's are the most superior early-game (though they're so dependent on iron ).
Separate names with a comma.