[R&F] Power Ranking the Civs (Rise and Fall)

Cultural victory? My Pericles game is still my fastest cultural victory to date.

Sure, you can use Greece this way, and the game seems to encourage you to do so, but IMO what you're really getting from them is a lot of versatility. The culture points aren't towards Culture Victory, after all, but towards civic policies. The envoys aren't necessarily towards cultural civs, but towards whatever kind. The wildcard slot can get you GWAMs, but also can get you anything else. The Acropolis can bring in tourists, sure, and that's a nudge in that direction, but I place them very solidly as a versatile civ that requires an early choice as far as which direction you take them in.

And I mean, I basically Main Gorgo. I love them. But I don't think they're at all OP.I think they're a mix of good bonuses and blah bonuses that can give you a lot of options.
 
I definitely agree that they have a lot of options. Especially given the wildcard slot can be used to slot something war orientated if you really want to be aggressive.
 
I mean, the acropolis is basically a purple Seowon.
 
Maybe I've just always been lucky with the maps or something but I've done really well with the Mapuche in the few games I've taken them.
 
Well, well, well: I was planning on starting one of these threads soon anyways, because I've been writing a final R&F tier list for a little bit as a bit of fun. You beat me to the punch though, so I don't look as narcissistic when posting my opinions! :king:

As a precursor to this, note that I'm evaluating the Civs on two criteria: how strong is the actual bonus, and how consistently impactful will it be in a practical game. I'm not necessarily taking difficulty into account, as I'd like for this to be as objective for all players as possible; however, discussing difficulties might be unavoidable, as playing higher difficulty levels tends to force one to play as optimally for the meta as possible. Also assume that I'm discussing these Civs in reference to a Continents map (as I believe this map to be the "real" Civ single-player experience), but I'll make note if a Civ is particularly strong on a naval or continents map. Also will not be discussing multiplayer particularly, but I wager the higher-tiers will be more functional in a competitive context than the lower tiers.

Oh, and for the Civs that haven't changed too much (or the vanilla Civs in general), I'm not going to spend too long talking about them, as my opinions/their abilities haven't changed too much. More time will be spent on the new guys.

Also I'll be updating these posts semi-daily in chunks, as they're fairly lengthy readings, and don't just wanna overload a single post. With that pretense out of the way, let's start with:


The Bottom Tiers


36. England

Starting out our list at the bottom of the barrel, we find England led by Victoria. England’s placement on this list saddens me, because once upon a time, England was a mid-to-good member of the roster. I’ve already gone into a major rant about how both the changes made to England in Rise & Fall and the subsequent nerfs have crippled the civilization, so I don’t want to saturate you guys with the same exact diatribe, so I’ll link to that comment here. But suffice to say, the changes & nerfs essentially removed all of England’s compelling niches, save British Museum, and left them with only the distinct playstyle of being a colonial force. Unfortunately, the colonialist playstyle isn’t a terribly successful one in the game of Civ VI, where other continents will be populated with other Civs that are about as technologically advanced as you. Unfortunately, England has had its actually good traits removed, and Firaxis has doubled down on the mediocre ones.

But hey, England had a buff in the most recent patch!.. Well, not really. Getting an extra melee unit from building a Royal Navy Dockyard is pretty inconsequential, considering that in a real game of Civ, you’re likely not going to be settling other continents all that often. It’s a decent buff when you actually get to settle another continent, but not all that helpful in practicality. So all England really has going for it is a pretty good cultural UA, a strong unique unit that unfortunately is hampered by a high production cost, and a half-cost harbor. Oh yeah, and for a Civ that supposedly a dominant force at sea, their naval unique unit is extremely underwhelming. Yeah, England’s about as close to a blank Civ as can be found in this game, which is quite disappointing.


35. Georgia

Next rung on the tier ladder up, we have Georgia, and I’ll be honest, it was difficult to select the bottom placing between this Civ and England. However, while England really has no useful niche until the Industrial Era culture game, Georgia at least offers something. So Tamar edges Vicky out, but just barely.

So why is Georgia so painfully weak? Well, to start, two of their uniques are near useless. The Tsikhe is such an underwhelming UI that it’s almost not worth mentioning, and the Khevsur, while significantly better than it was pre-Spring patch, it still requires a pointless tech in order to be built, and is still more often than not outclassed by Knights. So, the burden falls on the LA & UA to redeem Georgia, and they do… sort of. The part of the LA in which Georgia gets a faith bonus for a Protectorate War declaration is pretty irrelevant, but the bit in which Georgia gets double envoys for sending them to city-states that have Georgia’s religion is quite handy. Additionally, UA is pretty strong too – while it’s not the super-powered Golden Ages that we thought Georgia would have access to based on the reveal trailer, the UA does allow Georgia to accrue Golden Ages one after another, which can lead to a really strong snowball lead.

Unfortunately, Georgia faces a handful of problems, and they're quite crippling on top of their already sub-par bonuses. One, their ability requires you to get a Golden Age in the first place; once you’ve got one, it becomes pretty easy to get another, but you have to receive that first Golden Age initially, which hampers its usefulness. If Georgia has a bad start, it can be difficult to get back into the game – the UA is sort of a “win harder” type of bonus. Second, their LA is pretty contingent on Georgia founding a religion. If Georgia does not found a religion, their ability becomes kind of detrimental because you have to spread around another player’s religion, or in other terms, winning the game for them. The problem here is that Georgia has no tools that helps them found a religion, and can be liable to getting beaten to the punch on higher difficulties, which renders the ability kind of moot. So in short, Georgia has two pretty irrelevant uniques, and two pretty situational ones. In my book, that makes for a pretty weak Civ relative to the rest of the cast.


34. Spain

What’s this? Spain isn’t the worst Civ in the game?! Yes, I recognize that within the community, there seems to be a consensus that Spain is among the weakest Civs in Civ VI, and I agree: Spain is a relatively weak Civ. But that being said, Spain is far from absolute trash. In fact, they have quite a few strong tools at their disposal.

Let’s go over the admittedly weak aspects of Spain first. Yes, the UA is pretty bad, and doesn’t offer you nearly enough rewards for going out of your way to play a colonial game, much like England; however, the +6 gold from international trade routes is a solid boon. And sure, the Mission can be similarly weak if they aren’t placed on another continent, but the recent buffs to give it +2 science if placed next to a campus make it surprisingly decent.

Spain’s real claim to fame, however, are El Escorial and the Conquistador. For being such a low-tier Civ, the Conquistador is a ruthlessly strong unique unit. It’s surprisingly easy to garner that +10 damage from a missionary, and spreading Spain’s religion when capturing a city was an already strong bonus that just got stronger thanks to the recent changes to the loyalty mechanics. Combined with the El Escorial damage, Spain can go for an incredibly strong militaristic push once they unlock Gunpowder, and their neighbors should not take this for granted.

Spain, however, has one glaring weakness, and if you recall Tamar’s issues, you can probably guess what that weakness is. Spain is incredibly dependent on founding a religion – even more so than Georgia – and lacks a bonus to help them get that religion. So when playing as Spain, you have to go all-in on founding a religion, which can really set back your progression in science, culture, and unit building. If you don’t found a religion, you’re left with a pretty mediocre Civ. Additionally, none of these bonus arrive until about the mid-game (unless you get really lucky and spawn on the borders of continents, and even then, the internal trade route bonuses are pretty underwhelming). Sorry Phillip, I love your flamboyant antics, but your bonuses leave a bit to be desired. But hey! You’re not at the bottom!
 
Last edited:
If it were me:

The base case is a civ like georgia that doesn't really do anything, or a religionless spain. Basically vanilla template.

Holy of Holies:
Aztec
Sumeria

Exalted:
Korea
Nubia
Australia
Macedon
Scythia
Zulu

Heroic:
Cree
Rome
Dutch
Germany

Working up. The Heroic civs all have a very powerful economic advantage over the base case. The cree top this group because they just get everything you could want: the mekewap and the trade route boost. The mekewap is one of the best UIs out there; it gives flatland production and food/gold and housing and is pretty spammable. It also comes at pottery. The trade route boost in absurdly strong and starts at animal husbandry. It just makes that internal trade route economy which is already amazing, that much better.
Rome has great infrastructure abilities instead of yield abilities, but it also has Legions. It's an all around heavy hitter.
Netherlands and germany both have great economic potential, but the dutch polder is lackluster in placement options; the river ability is great, but not at the same level as the people higher up on the list. Germany has extreme potential but has to wait until Apprenticeship, leaving you with small early bonuses to get by with until then.

The Exalted civs generally have strong bonuses that start early and last a long time, and they can fight too.
Korea is ditto for stupid science and growth from seowons+3 kingdoms. If campuses weren't literally on the second tech you research, it might be different. The hwacha is the only mediocre part, but only because you can't use them to conquer.
Nubia has a solid building ability, but the ranged unit bonus is why they are so good. Pitati also rock, enabling an early steamroll. Fast super archers? When would anyone ever need those...
Australia I place very highly because They have an ability trifecta: early boosts on appeal tiles to power you to the mid game, outback stations (the most OP UI imo) to cement any advantage or power past all rivals; and that insane DoW bonus that you can exploit to just have double production most of the game, especially with how must the AI likes to cap CSs. They are the only ones without a strong military bonus to make it this high IMO.
Macedon-Zulu-Scythia are premier warmongers with extremely strong abilities.
Macedon and scythia for obvious reasons; macedon needs a GG but it has a great unit to upgrade into knights, and hellenistic fusion is absurd. Global healing for world wonders? Literally all the eurekas? Okay.
Scythia mostly for light cav spam and heal on kill. That healing on the go, like macedon, is clutch in taking the world. Scythia's only downside is the need for horses and the lack of midgame light cav, which GS will fix with the courser.
Zulu stands out because they don't really have an early game bonus. But once they get corps, they become unbeatable. The loyalty and ikanda are just extras. Corps and armies are already more efficient than single units, and zulu just takes that up to 11. None of the other civs previously mentioned can overcome Zulu early corps except maybe Australia for the first 10 turns of the war. Valiant Horsies won't last against impi corps. If you ever had to fight a runaway zulu in the mid game or later, it is just a terrifying slog.

The ultimate civs I agree with the OP, Aztecs and Sumer.
First off, Gilgamesh is terrifyingly beautiful, like the wild bull. He has the strength of Anu's meteor. He built the walls of Uruk. Who can make war against him?
Not many people- warcarts are pure cheddar cheese. The donkey tank spank is virtually unstoppable because they aren't vulnerable to spears. Ziggurats, especially on rivers, are insane improvements. And you can spam them everywhere. If he wasn't programmed to auto accept friendship the turn you meet him, Ai gilga would be even more hated than now.

The Aztecs, are a better version of gilgamesh. Montezuma, son of Sid Meier himself, has the triple play of: godlike economic ability, godlike UU, godlike military ability. District rushing is insane, and probably leads to more free production than even the best australian game. Eagles are amazing. The luxes become combat strength power is the golden bull of heaven, folks. Pick up irrigation, get 2-3 extra CS forever. Take over another civ, get a few more. How are you supposed to stop him once he has +5? or +8? It's the only counter to zulu corps/armies. And of course it works on religious units. The civ can do everything and make no sacrifices. You chose to have much that he does not. Why did you want your people taken as slaves? You did it to yourself. Who are we to stop the will of the tlatoani?
 
I dont know how many deity surrounded by 3 situations you guys had, but I can tell you there's times when aztec and sumeria won't make it, cuz they don't scale well enough and the attrition is slowly killing you.

That's why a civ like rome is stronger in my opinion. Fastest oligarchy in game and no iron swordsmen means you'll just steamroll games that aztec warriors cant.

Pitati are also better than carts/eagles in really hard situations.

Then there are the snowball civs like mongolia, scythia and zulu, that can steamroll a game way harder than gilgabro and monti.

Also, you should consider the god tier civs, good in actually any situation, and for any type of victory: (that chinese guy boyar was a big fan of japan)
RUSSIA and JAPAN.

Got my big map deity win with the russians in around 170 turns.
(x2 times more stuff to chop for any city and so much adjacency/good resources potential)

Wonder if anyone here shares these rather unpopular opinions tho.

PS: england and norway are fun you guys :P



 
Why are the Zulu in the OK tier? Getting corps at Mercenaries (and free corps with every conquered city) trivializes warfare once Knights are unleashed. Who cares if the opposition has Stirrups, Machinery, and/or Military Tactics. The Zulu basically have Cavalry in the Medieval era. Stop me if you've heard this before, but conquer everything and snowball to your desired victory condition.

If playing a pure peaceful victory, then okay, the Zulu aren't special. But you can put arbitrary restrictions on any civ and upset the balance. That shouldn't determine power level.
 
I don't think there's a "God Tier". It's a tier with civs that have bonus that take no skill to use to give yourself a big advantage.. I would put Russia in with Sumeria and Aztec.

There's then a tier of civs who you have to learn how to use to give yourself a big advantage.

Then there's the rest.
 
Why are the Zulu in the OK tier? Getting corps at Mercenaries (and free corps with every conquered city) trivializes warfare once Knights are unleashed. Who cares if the opposition has Stirrups, Machinery, and/or Military Tactics. The Zulu basically have Cavalry in the Medieval era. Stop me if you've heard this before, but conquer everything and snowball to your desired victory condition.

If playing a pure peaceful victory, then okay, the Zulu aren't special. But you can put arbitrary restrictions on any civ and upset the balance. That shouldn't determine power level.

Up until mercenaries, they're a 95% generic civ, with only a slightly better encampment and an okay UU. Sure, they may be strongest at stirrups and mercenaries, but they'll also be slower to get those things. I mean nothing beats properly buffed Conquistadors either, but that doesn't mean Spain is top tier.

A lot of the above civ can conquer a lot of stuff long before that.
 
Last edited:
For Domination Zulu's should probably be higher, those armies really steamroll everything.
And with enough rivers around the Dutch can get some decent adjecencies on their campusses as well.

The Dutch ability doesn’t stack which makes river forks no better than a single river.
 
Since Jewelrunna started from the bottom, I guess I'll start from the top.

Top/God tier

In reality, the game is broken by like 15 or so civs. I'm not really sure if you can appreciate this sort of balance, but I think there's something to respect when the grand majority of civs have strategies that are very potent abilities that can make for a great game. Honestly, no civ is really THAT bad. Even civs considered trash tier still have small windows here and there.

These civs though are rather overtuned, and honestly think need multiple degree of nerfs to bring them back in line.

1. Sumeria

Carting into space

As I've said many times, i have no idea why anyone thought it was a good idea to have no tech requirement for these things, since they're just plain stronger than the regular chariot and have zero counterplay. Did they just fall in love with his beard? Well, who knows? By turn 20, you'll have trampled something whether it be barbarians or your neighbor's poor builders. Yea, it's strong and can run away. And upgrades to knights. Meanwhile, Cleoptara cries.

But the thing here is not just the war cart. That's the thing about overpowered civs in this game. It's not just the warmongering. If it were just that, you could leave Gilgamesh in a deserted corner and he'd be sad. That's just far from the truth. The ziggurat is an excellent improvement and can be spammed, giving a whopping 2 science early game. Now you know why AI Phillip seems to refuse to play the game.

But hey, it also gives 1 culture on a river, and a little more @ Cultural Heritage, so Sumeria can go for the flight culture victory. Who cares about your 5 adjacency campus when Sumeria just spits these things out everywhere?

Oh, and Sumeria can treat barb camps like huts. So even with nobody around, there's still that and it's not like killing barbs is hard with war carts. Feel free to farm them for boosts.

I also heard they can levy CS's for cheap, but not that you'd have a use for their weak units.

Simply put, it's pretty much cheating. Yes, other civs can do better than Sumeria on occasion. But when it turns a beginner into a Deity smashing superstar, Gilgamesh truly is the first civ, and probably the last.

2. Aztec

Want to be anything you want to be? Be Aztec first.


If we wanted to see bias in a game, it's pretty evident as Aztec, since you always get era score on t1 for the eagle warrior. Basically, the game saw that you were smart for picking Aztec.

While Montezuma has always been top tier in being politically incorrect, fact is everyone around him is potentially a unwitting source for his great projects. Eagle Warriors already have incredible strength (2 of them can down an early city) but even if you should fail to take anything, you can always kidnap builders and farm city states for them. Basically, you can win even when you lose, and that just summarizes the Aztecs. You don't beat them. You just survive.

And of course the builder ability allows the Aztecs to bypass scaling district costs, which is yet another example of the civ being able to blatantly ignore the game rules. If you hate district scaling, just play them. Now that you can buy spaceports, this ability is not as overbearing, but it's still effective.

This allows the Aztecs to pursue literally any strategy. You want an encanmpment for defense? Sure there you are. Holy Sites? Whatever. Campus? You're boring, but that's fine too.

The combat bonus per luxury is also pretty ridiculous and just scales more over time. Endgame, nothing can beat Aztec troops on the field, though Mongolian and Zulu troops can give them a run for their money. But in terms of versatility, nothing, not even Sumeria, can beat them at that.

3. Greece

The strong only get stronger

Greece has always been a solid choice, but once upon a time, the Acropolis was crap, and Firaxis gave it their blessing (or took it away from the Royal Navy Dockyard, depends on who's telling the story). As much as people comment on how broken the Seowon is, the Acropolis does definitely come close. Yes, science > culture, but early game in Rise and Fall, the bottleneck is culture (especially for Feudalism/Rec History). The thing about it is just the crazy envoy spam that you can save up and simply steal all the CS's... now that liberating CS's has also been buffed in RnF, this just means Greece just takes it all the way to the bank. Build Kilwa Kisiwani and enjoy a potential 15% bonus to a yield if you match 2 of the same color.

But Rise and Fall served additional blessings to the Greeks with the introduction of Dark Ages. Normally, a classical Dark Age kinda sucks, but Greece's extra wild card lets them take advantage of those policies easily. Or they can do what they've always been doing and try to go for Great Generals. The extra Wildcard also allows them much freedom in choosing governments. They can choose Classical Republic without having to hurt for a lack of a military card, and they can have Oligarchy without having a terrible economy. And they'll probably reach Oligarchy sooner anyways. Want Twilight Valor AND Oligarchic Legacy? Why not?

The Phalanx is not that great but when paired properly still provides for adequate defenses-- very nice when dealing with the other sharks in the ocean for sure.

In the past I would have told you Gorgo and Pericles should be counted separately, with Gorgo having the edge, but now it's pretty much like insignificant. Gorgo is better early game, and Pericles is better later on.Still slightly on Gorgo though.

4. Australia

Wanna fight? Cool.

Without a doubt, the Civ 6 meta favors the aggressive military civs because of the small penalties (if any) on military action. So a builder civ really needs to protect themselves; otherwise even if they keep their cities, pillaging will hurt a lot. Of course, that's probably the deadliest part about Australia-- attempting to stop their snowball may in fact hasten it. Australia wants to be attacked, because doing so gives double production. Unlike other situational bonuses, this is very easy to trigger. But even if you don't want to go this route, liberating a city does just as well, and given how CS's drop like flies in Rise and Fall, it's just been an Australian Paradise.

If double production were their only trick, they'd be plenty strong, but we've just got started. Their districts are better if you put them in appealing places. But what improves appeal in Civ? Mountains? What improves campuses in civ? Mountains. Holy crap. I also think they give some adjancency to another crappy district, but nobody builds those. While Australia won't do well with those IZs, it probably doesn't matter.

Australia also will make always make great use of land, because of the coastal housing bonus. No rivers? No problem. How many other civs can say that? (Well, Germany, but Germany doesn't need much of anything). As a result if you seek the coast, you'll be fine. Coastal river sites are even better as housing will not be an issue for you at all.

The outback station is still a decent improvement, even if it takes a while. It can be good to fill up poor land.

Oh, and they culture bomb on friggen pastures. Given how tile purchasing costs so much over time, and you getting extra tiles earlier in the game, this alone is potent, even if it isn't as good as Russia's land grab ability.

Their UU is probably the weakest thing as it comes so late, but considering it's still a better infantry, it may still see some use.

Overall, Australia is very well designed, because their mechanics flow together nicely. They're basically OP in the right way if you ask me.


5. Rome

Sorry, I'll have to come down there to talk to you.


Rise and Fall was also very kind to Rome. Rome was always sorta good, but Rise and Fall made them even sorta gooder. The main culprit here is Magnus and the fact Legions can chop. The idea that Legions can chop legions that can chop other legions is ridiculous, and suddenly you have a bunch of Roman Nanobots consuming the world. Which really isn't that different from a game of Rome anyways.

Rome as always is an all rounder civ, with the early monuments providing a degree of consistency, though it is slightly exaggerated since the monuments only come with peaceful settlement (guess it'd be broken if you could get them on capture but that's never stopped Firaxis before). The legion is indeed over the top and the fact Rome's government will always be somewhat sooner means they'll be in force. Of course, the Romans need to build an empire too and have many tools for that including the amazing bath, and the faster roads. And some gold or something.

Simple, straightforward, and strong. That's basically what you need to know.

I'll be covering the 2nd half of the t1 civs next, because we haven't found enough ways to break the game yet.
 
Last edited:
This is the thing I always love about Civ tier lists; though I think we all have a common understanding of how the meta works, we each have differing opinions on how different Civs better capitalize on that framework. We generally agree on the the heavy hitters, but I always see a slightly different order or some Civs placed differently, and I think that's cool! Anyways, enough prattling; let's continue:

The Bottom Tiers (Cont.)


33. Khmer


The Khmer are almost good; they get off to a really strong start in terms of design with their UA and unique unit. Grand Barays is a really strong ability: the bonus faith is whatever, but a free amenity and bonus food for adjacent farms is quite helpful, and allows the Khmer to potentially experience megacity levels of growth. Not quite as much as a certain African Civ we’ll get to later, but it’s a strong start. Similarly, the Domrey can be devastating if deployed correctly. They’re terribly expensive, but you really only need one or two, and they can deal incredible damage to a city where there’s not much counter play in the Medieval Era, and Medieval Walls aren’t equipped to deal with this kind of damage.. However, the Domrey cannot be upgraded into a Bombard, and this is where things begin to get dicey for the Khmer.

The LA, in my opinion, is not good. Out of all the Culture Bomb-type unique abilities in the game, this one has to be the weakest. And while you might be tempted to look at the food and housing from Holy Sites here and think, “Wow, this will really let me grow my cities to a large size,” that’s unfortunately not the case. One single unit of housing a megacity does not make, and the fact that these bonuses are locked behind Holy Sites—the weakest districts in the game—makes trying to utilize these bonuses lead to restricting your cities from using other, more useful districts. Furthermore, all these bonuses can only be accessed by building your Holy Sites on rivers, which is not always a guarantee. And the Prasat is just… painfully lackluster. One extra relic slot, and the Martyr promotion for Missionaries is really underwhelming. Yes, there are some cute relic strategies you could employ for a religious or cultural victory, but these strategies can also be played by simply building Mont St. Michel, and aren’t strong enough to warrant this Civ having a Temple UI that doesn’t offer any other bonuses.

To summarize, the Khmer have a really nice design philosophy and potentially really good unique unit, but all their other bonuses just fall flat on their face, and leave us with a grossly disappointing Civ.


32. France

Discussing France in Rise & Fall is an interesting topic, because technically speaking, France received no direct buffs in the expansion. What did happen, however, is that game mechanics upon which the design of France is predicated were buffed, which in turn, makes France a bit stronger.

First, now having a level of diplomatic visibility over your opponent gives you an additional 3 combat strength for each level over them you have. For France, this is a big deal, as France gets a free level of diplomatic visibility with every other Civ in the game, meaning that if you play your cards right, France has a + 3 combat bonus against opposing Civs at all times. Additionally, once you unlock spies, constructing a listening post gives you an additional level of visibility, which would boost this bonus up to + 6. France unlocks spies an era early than every other Civ in the game, which means that in the Medieval Era, you’re pretty much guaranteed to have two levels of visibility over an opponent with no checks or counters. This can give France a strong militaristic push in the Ancient/Classical Era, and an even stronger one in the Medieval Era, which is fairly substantial.

Secondly, spies now have a few more tools to play with. The removal of a governor is a cheeky bonus, but not a particularly strong one considering how long that bonus will be in play. Potentially uprooting City-State suzerainty, though, is a much stronger one. Even stronger is the potential to flip an opposing Civ’s city through the newly added loyalty mechanics. Both of these are available to France earlier in the game than any other Civ, which is incidentally, at a point in the game where opponents are more vulnerable to these tools. France is also more effective at these underhanded techniques for the entire game, given that each spy earns a free promotion. Any buff to spies is a buff to Catherine de Medici’s France, and spies are significantly better than they were in vanilla.

But again, the buffs to France aren’t technically French buffs; consequently, other aspects of the Civ that were underwhelming are still just as underwhelming. The unique unit is still quite lackluster, and the Château is still the worst unique improvement in the game. Grand Tour is still pretty good, and there are a few new wonders that France might be interested in building which the ability capitalizes on, but that—along the indirect buffs the Civ received—isn’t enough to save France from the bottom tier. It’s just enough to save them from being bottom three.


31. Norway

And now, at the top of the bottom of the barrel, we have Norway. “Wait, what?! Norway’s not bottom three?!” is what you might be thinking right now. “You must be crazy!” That might be true, but with taking into consideration buffs made to the Civ along with a reevaluation of some of Norway’s assets that I honestly think have been slept on, a strong case can be made to place Norway at this spot.

First, let’s address the buffs that Norway’s received over the past few patches. First up is that + 1 production bonus for every sea resource worked by a city. Now, I realize that the bonus is locked behind a holy site building, which is fairly limiting—like the Khmer, Norway has to build a weak district to access it. But production is arguably the most coveted yield in the current Civ VI meta, and coastal cities are particularly starved for it. Giving Norway an ability to garner production in situations where other Civs otherwise cannot makes them able to potentially out-produce their neighbors, especially if they found a city that has a high number of sea resources. On top of that, they get a 50% production bonus towards building naval units, getting extra mileage out of that extra production; factoring in the Viking Longship to the equation, and no Civ can even hope to compete with Norway in terms of early-game naval dominance. This means less than that wording would lead you to believe, since naval units are much less useful in Civ VI than they were in Civ V—especially since we’re making the assumption that an enemy Civ settles a lot of coastal cities early on—but it’s still a facet of the game that no Civ can hope to compete with Norway in that particular time frame.

Now, let’s talk about the Berserker: plain and simple, I think this was already one of the most underrated units in Civ VI. I don’t mean to imply that this unit was great by any stretch of the imagination, but they were far from useless. They essentially managed to function as cavalry with the added bonus of having access to the melee unit promotion tree. Yeah, they were liabilities on defense, but if you used them like cavalry (i.e. not frontliners) they could function as devastating hit & run units. And now they got buffed, making them even stronger on offense and less of a liability on defense; in other words, buffing their strengths while mitigating their weaknesses. With a noteworthy production cost decrease on top of that, these units can now be actually quite good. The only caveat is that you have to go through the useless Military Tactics tech to be unlocked, which is a major limiting factor on the unit. This makes them much less practical than on paper, but it’s still worth taking them at face value.

Beyond this, Norway is still Norway; they’re for the most part a one-trick-pony who’s single trick isn’t one that’s very impactful in the Civ VI metagame. However, they’re much better at their one trick than they used to be, and they have a little bit more utility than they used to, which I think warrants them a decent move up the tier list; just not enough to escape the bottom tiers.
 
Up until mercenaries, they're a 95% generic civ, with only a slightly better encampment and an okay UU. Sure, they may be strongest at stirrups and mercenaries, but they'll also be slower to get those things. I mean nothing beats properly buffed Conquistadors either, but that doesn't mean Spain is top tier.

A lot of the above civ can conquer a lot of stuff long before that.


Yeah but whether it's turn 80 or 85 or 90, they hit like trucks. I don't play on duel maps or pangaea, so my games may take a little longer, but I'll take a strong sure fire Knight rush over anything. They last into the Industrial Era. If I have room I can expand and survive; If I'm surrounded on deity I'm either dead or barely surviving with stronger units anyways. I'm not doubting the strength of Sumeria or the Aztecs, but a lot can go wrong with the Zulu and the Knight rush negates all of it. I wouldn't compare them to Spain, as Knights are the go to regardless of civ. If you don't have iron you can rush with Impi corps using roads and the inevitable GG the half cost encampments will net you. It's not ideal, but maybe you can take a neighbor with iron and then it's game on. They're not flawless, but much better than OK.
 
They're not flawless, but much better than OK
It's hard because the single player perspective is much different from the multiplayer perspective. One thing I really really like about impi is that impi corps actually counter knights well, usually the last obstacle in most games.

On a holistic game view, suffering a little longer for an easier time mopping up vs being stronger all the time is a hard trade off to judge. I'm not sure what the snell's law / isochronal map of civ looks like though!
 
Yeah but whether it's turn 80 or 85 or 90, they hit like trucks. I don't play on duel maps or pangaea, so my games may take a little longer, but I'll take a strong sure fire Knight rush over anything. They last into the Industrial Era. If I have room I can expand and survive; If I'm surrounded on deity I'm either dead or barely surviving with stronger units anyways. I'm not doubting the strength of Sumeria or the Aztecs, but a lot can go wrong with the Zulu and the Knight rush negates all of it. I wouldn't compare them to Spain, as Knights are the go to regardless of civ. If you don't have iron you can rush with Impi corps using roads and the inevitable GG the half cost encampments will net you. It's not ideal, but maybe you can take a neighbor with iron and then it's game on. They're not flawless, but much better than OK.

I don't play on duel maps/Pangaea either., Fractal is my choice, so I value civs that excel in all aspects. And yes, semi-isolated/isolated starts do happen and it certainly is a disadvantage for mostly military civs. There's also the possibility of no iron, and knight rush is not universial.... is why Egypt isn't the worst civ.

I never said Zulu was bad either. It's simply relative, and there are just a number of civs I think do it better. And there are simply a lot of military bonuses. Not even considering things like say Sumeria/Aztec/Rome/Nubia which are way out of line, you still have contenders like Macedon, Persia and Mongolia, and Scythia that simply don't have to deal with breaking out with knights, because they've already broken out. Though of course if you think it is better than the other civs above it, that would be fair. But I think a lot of these civs not only have strong military bonuses, but they also have other areas that are strong too. Mongolia is very close to a pure military civ, but they still have trading posts doing for them.
 
I think a more extreme example is Brazil: the Minas Geraes is probably the most devastatingly powerful-for-its-time unit in the game right now. But even putting aside that it's a naval unit, you need to be able to get to it. Now, Zulu generally won't have as bad a start as Brazil will, but it's also ranked higher than Brazil in probably everybody's list. Too many civs simply have Turn-1 bonuses that unlock the world for them and too many don't have that and that's kind of the state of R&F, in my opinion.

(To be clear, I don't want to put words into Archon Wing's mouth here, and Brazil to Zulu isn't a very clean analogy, but a lot of civs have great military power that comes a little later than might be ideal for "God Tier." Zulu (and Mongolia) come pretty close to that timing, but still.)
 
I hear what you guys are saying. The civs mentioned by Archon are all very powerful in their own right, and to be fair, there are a lot of really good abilities in this game. I just think the Zulu's leader & civ abilities are are powerful and brain dead as it gets. The medieval era would be as late as it gets for something to be considered super powered in my opinion, as that is when the game either flips in your favor or the deal is sealed.
 
Yea for the most part medival is the cutoff; past that stuff has to be really strong. Zulu armies, Minas Geraes (3 range so even inland cities can be shot at), Alex boosting lasers by capturing random cities. That kind of crap. A lot of these tend to fall under "win harder" I guess, but they will meaningfully improve your victory in a lot of games, so I'm also against ignoring them as well.

In fact I think very highly of British Musuem, and honestly that's the only thing that really keeps England away from the trash can in my view.

If you ask me, anything I labeled t0/t1 are acutally civs I targeted for nerfs hopefully. (Sadly, they just nerf England.) T2 are civs I consider in the sweet spot and the "ok" civs I think could be spiced up a bit but are probably still good as is. There's maybe 5-6 or so civs that I really consider that need serious buffs.
 
Back
Top Bottom