Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by The googles do nothing, Feb 20, 2019.
I think you might be misquoting me here, I haven’t said a word about the Maori in that post ^^;
I was mostly making fun of Vizurok's post, where he gave Inca a "B" because, according to his logic, "I played one religious game with the Inca and tried to win a peaceful religious victory with them and the Incans are not that great at it and so they deserve a B."
I read the post and I'm thinking: FACEPALM.
I mean: the Maori aren't great at religious victories either, and yet somehow the Maori got a S in his rating.
It is tough though because assigning the Civs letters is such a subjective business.
I think it’s important to be quite clear on the metrics you are basing your ratings on. For example, my experience of the Civs is in a multiplayer environment with 7 other people, and so the Civs abilities (and the environment in which they can utilise them) are markedly different than the AI (which itself is markedly different depending on the level you are playing). So, while my experiences may differ, I still want to share with everyone so I caveate it.
I think Vizurok’s rankings were perhaps more “these are my initial impressions based on my first game”, rather than a definite ranking of the Civs power. And it’s a good opportunity for us to share some tips and tricks with Civs we are familiar with to make the next experience with that Civ a positive one!
TLDR: Rankings are based on the context of how you play the game, and generally how well a Civ fits into the paradigm of how an individual likes to play the game
To be fair, we often evaluate civs by their performance in either domination or science victory. One might argue that this is justified to an extent because conquering cities is basically speeding up everything else.
To *really* evaluate how good a civ is, you would probably have to run 10000+ multiplayer civ games with experienced players & statistically evaluate who won.
Haha I often evaluate a Civ by their music and colour scheme too, since I’m spending hours and hours listening to them.
Ultimately they can all win, and the stakes in a Civ game are so low generally.
And I’ve had my butt kicked by a good R&F Tamar/Georgia. I never underestimate how much someone’s passion for a Civ can really elevate the Civ
AI Tamar does fairly well in my games. I'm not sure why since they build so many holy sites.
I sometimes give different scores for different victory types. I would give an F for Kongo for religious victory. . I'll cover some thoughts on the new civs.
Hungary: I still give them an A for Domination. I just haven't had great luck with city states in my Hungary games. Sometimes the city states you are good with are so far from the front like my last Hungary game, which also had mazes of mountains and heavy terrain. I played a relatively peaceful Hungary game that time. I give them an B for both Science and cultural victory. They can get districts up fast which helps. Religious victory I'll give them a B as well since they can get holy sites up fast if they so choose. And DV I give a B as well only for their ability to maintain city states, but it's still a tough slog no matter what.
Maori I give an S on cultural victory. Ridiculous really. Probably a C on science victory, B on domination victory. B on religious victory and C on DV.
Ottomans I give an S on domination. If you use them correctly you shouldn't be stopped. I give them a C on everything else, almost a blank vanilla civ.
Sweden I give an S on cultural victory. A on diplomatic victory, I don't think I'll give anyone an S on DV, it's so hard to get. B on science victory only because she can often get more great scientists. C on religious victory.
Mali I give an A on cultural victory. Yes I have discovered you can essentially buy a cultural victory. I give only a B on science victory since it's often hard to get campus districts out early. I rely on free inquiry for my science early on until I have enough district limit to build campus districts. religious victory is a S I suppose, though I haven't actually tried it with them, so I'm not sure, and it depends on if you have enough desert. DV is C, you can only buy so much favor.
Eleanor is almost a vanilla civ in my opinion, but she does get an A in cultural only because you are going to be accumulating so many great works. I almost win a cultural victory before I can flip my first city. It's so hard to flip cities.
Canada is an A in cultural victory. Everyone bad mouthing Canada does need to learn to use national parks. Getting 10 national parks up easy is awesome. Plan ahead. Teddy may get more out of them, but Wilfred can get more of them up, then save faith for rock bands and conquer the world with awesome Rush songs. They are a C in everything else, a blank vanilla civ really. Except DV I'll give them a B, not as high as Kristina because I think Kristina can get more favor.
Incas are a strange civ in that they are good at food and production, but not much else. I found myself struggling for money in my Inca game, and couldn't build many of their unique units due to lack of money. Not to mention getting pounded and one shotted by knights and crossbowman. I needed knights of my own, but just wasn't possible with my money and tech situation. They have limitations, and I don't feel are as overpowered as everyone is saying they are. B on domination mainly because they can get powerful and large cities. C on diplo victory and religious victory and cultural victory. I just struggle to get a lot out of this civ, but I do love the big and productive cities.
Dido. I really want to play a 2nd game with her. But she's pretty much average on all accounts. I'll give her a C on everything. Though on a water map she can be a B on domination. I won't give her higher than that, because anyone can dominate on a water map. My fastest domination victory is Japan on a water map.
I’d give Dido a B+ on Science, possibly an A.
Her first golden age is guaranteed, and Free Inquiry is insanely strong with her.
Granted other coastal Civs can do it but not as well as Phonecia. I’ve never had 110 science on turn 60 with any other Civ.
Granted it’s temporary but Civ is about momentum, and then massive massive science boost allows her to spend her production on her Cothons and settlers and military, for more cities and more science.
And once your second Free Inquiry ends, you have the gold just straight out buy the campus buildings in each city.
Phonecias bonuses are generic but her science game is strong.
Also curious to Eleanor being an A in culture when she herself gets no specific bonuses to accumulating great works. And if Mali is an A in culture because you can buy the culture win, then you could argue Phonecia will also be an A. (Assuming we are talking gold, because she generally makes more gold pound for pound in my experience.) (Though if we are talking faith, and rock bands, then not at all lol)
True, I do still want to play another game with her. I was on a water map, so yes my gold generation was insane with her. I think it was actually better gold generation than my Mali game. Sea trade routes might actually be too lucrative right now. Certainly on a water map, or a lot of coastal cities she could just build the museums and buy the great works to fill them up.
Eleanor doesnt have culture bonuses but to make use of Court of Love you have to invest in culture so she becomes strong culture wise. Personally I like it
Eleanor is not to be trifled with, that’s for sure. I hate seeing her in MP because she is a pain in the butt no matter what haha. But I think court of love is quite a strong LA.
So I finally got GS. Hadn't read a thing about what any of the new Civs do, except for Kupe. Figured I'd be Canada, eh, and build some Hockey Rinks while winning that fancy new diplomatic victory.
Wow. What a mistake.
It took me 4 games before I even got a spawn with tundra inside my visible radius. Luckily I also had Mt. Kilamanjaro nearby for my second city, because that's the only thing that made tundra bearable. Certainly not the ability to build farms. And even after all that restarting to finally get tundra near my start, there was only enough tundra on my continent in a large continents game for me to build 3 hockey rinks. Not that they really did anything anyway. The only resource on it was a single Horse, but my neighbors were replete with them so they didn't gain me much.
I ended up on a continent with only 3 city states and non-aggressive neighbors. There wasn't a single emergency or scored competition I was allowed to participate in until the industrial era. Very useful leader ability.
Then the Tourism one. It obviously takes a little while for it to come online, and when it does... the bonus is negligible unless you have enough Tourism to win a CV already, and if you do why bother waiting 120 turns or whatever for the world congress to finally vote enough times for you to win? It's possible I don't fully understand the mechanics of the congress, but as far as I can tell it votes on a set clock, so there's no way to speed up winning a diplomatic victory unless you get lucky with emergencies/scored competitions that award diplomatic victory points? That's silly since in my game I've had a commanding lead in favor the whole game but there isn't a way to leverage it into an actual diplomatic victory.
Anyway yeah. Canada is absolute garbage and might be the worst civilization I've ever played in any incarnation of civilization.
Oh, I did build a National Park for the first time ever. Yeah. Mounties are sweet.... ..... .....
The Incas dominate science due to their strong agency points due to mountains, which is extremely important for getting to the mid game early, ROFLstomping anyone who has a strong renaissance, or above, taking all their hard earned districts, and going harder and harder. They are also strong at faith but I tend to not see much benefit in wasting the hammers. I want my hammers for culture and science.
Incan cities can easily have four specialty districts by mid game.Pushing 15 pops in your capital before you even get sewage is ridiculous. I was getting a new military unit every other turn in my capital alone.
Inca is about sniping.You find targets that fill your need and you snipe their behinds. You can move siege units directly into enemy cities from 10 spaces away if you have a mountain path. Simply send your builders out into the wilderness to connect your paths of war. This civ is the ultimate warmonger mid game.
This is why I like this thread so much!
Ultimately I think there is little value in ranking the Civs, because there are too many variables in the game.
But I do love hearing people’s tactics and strategy with a particular Civ. And similarly giving my own out as well based on my own experiences with the Civ.
I’m just waiting for someone who has spent a lot of time with Canada to tease out some of the great strats and tips and tricks that make them better than they initially seem...
I put down a lot of my thoughts on Canada and their nuanced abilities in the Canada discussion thread.
Oooh I’ll go have a mosey over!
(In hindsight, I probably should have went there first haha)
I really would like to see hockey rinks buildable in more terrain types say when electricity tech comes on line. We do have a hockey team you know...
Liking the Ottomans in my current game. Yes, they rely on Renaissance. But in a situation where you manage to find only one patch of Iron and Niter in your fifth city or later (and, as it turned out later, only one patch of Oil on the entire continent) - God bless the Janissaries. Ibrahim is a siege monster.
To weigh in how on the Civs are ranked, and the discussion on how the game “should be played”:
There’s certainly an abundance of variables in a game of Civ, and no two games are exactly the same; however it’s a bit disingenuous to suggest that there isn’t a “metagame” in Civ VI. Some Civs simply play better with the systems in place. You want to get a core of 5 or so cities with 10 pop with their three districts, prioritize resources in the order of production > science > gold > culture > food (except that food is really important in the first ~75 turns of the game. Other Civs can make alternate play styles work, and certainly I think every Civ is viable (yes, even Canada—heck, my favorite Civ in the game is Norway, and I think we all agree they’re on the lower end of the Civ spectrum). Some work in spite of the meta, however, and some work with the meta, and the latter approach is generally the better way to go.
I still think Hungary is probably the best Civ from GS. Everyone is focused on the city-state levying, and while yes, that ability is really powerful, I think the real star of the show is Pearl of the Danube. This UA is probably one of the single best in the game, up there with the Aztecs’. That production bonus is just so powerful and impactful, and it’s still great from just two districts, in the worst case scenario. If you get the best case scenario and get four, now you’re cooking with gas, and we’re entering power levels previously thought unthinkable. I know that some people have gotten screwed by the map generation, but personally I haven’t been in a situation where I didn’t get at least one city-state to play around with, and that’s really all you need thanks to the Black Army. I’ll concede that if you get absolutely no city-states, Hungary is worse than the Inca, and therefore the Inca are more consistent. But I’ve found Hungary to consistently be really powerful throughout the few games I’ve played/watched. The Thermal Bath is also a pretty nice building, and the fact that the Black Army upgrades right into Hussars is really good as well.
And after finishing my latest game, I think the Cree have possibly gone from Good to Great. Even though the meta is still production over growth, getting taller cities is much more meaningful than it was in previous expansions. The Cree are possibly the only Civ in the game that can facilitate that kind of growth without sacrificing production thanks to the Mekewap (best unique improvement in the game, don’t @ me) and the food from Favorable Terms. Additionally, thanks to the addition of the Skirmisher, the Recon class is now much better than before, provided you can unlock Ambush. For most Civs in the game, that’s sort of a pipe dream—unless you’re Poundmaker, and have a free promotion from your unique scout. I don’t think they’re the best generalist Civ in the game (the Inca, Australia, and Germany, if you consider Germany generalist, have them beat) but they’re up there. Basically, the Cree get to reap all of the buffs to tall cities without having to play outside the meta. Plus the preexisting easy-bake borders are still just as powerful as before.
The meta game becomes more pronounced in multiplayer as well, where certain bonuses feel way more impactful, and there is no “start shopping” which means the Civs are more at the mercy of their start (particularly Hungary, Mali and the Inca to an extent)
My go to example for this is Phonecia, where the settler bonus might feel a little eh when the AI has 80 settlers, but against humans who have the same limitations as you, pumping those settlers out feels much much stronger.
Definitely agree there is an AI meta, and it’s largely determined by the AI level (domination Civs tend to get better the higher the AI) but I do rather enjoy the Civs that do well by breaking that meta (and 5 cities does feel like a really low number... I think the game seems to favour slightly wide over tall, I’d say between 8-10. And I always shoot for 15 haha because I loooove wide, expansive empires)
It's interesting that the Cree where one of the better economic civs before, because of trade routes/mekewap, and then they make the Inca, who also have a recon UU, a UI that also allows food/production tiles (though mekewap is more consistent) and a food from trade routes ability. Maybe they just like that setup over at FXS.
+50% on something like commercial hubs alone is a great ability, but it applies to the buildings too, which are more expensive than districts normally. Thermal baths are very good with their extra amenity and +2 production aura. They really are not a pure warmonger civ.
I strongly agree. People often get in the mindset that Civ is the Beat Up Deity AI Simulator, and discount that in MP, the power level questions really get exposed. What better way to test balance than give comparable players equal gameplay bonuses and let them choose civs? I also think the devs need to organize more "dev clashes" or whatever Ed and Carl did, but with more people involved. I think Stellaris does this and it does lead to rapid turnaround on "overpowered" stuff since, no one likes losing to their coworker when he keeps pitati rushing you every week. The water cooler trash talk is a powerful motivator.
If you really balanced the civs, units, buildings, etc, I think it would make the game better overall, and it would let issues around the fundamental game design and AI be separately handled. (Not that I advocated perfect starcraft level balance. Just bring some of the big outliers a little more towards the middle.)
Separate names with a comma.