Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Archon_Wing, Nov 26, 2018.
And for posterity, here's a macro image of the whole tier list, for your viewing pleasure.
Except for putting Victoria and Chandragupta in C I agree. Looking forward to the GS rankings!
Alright @Archon_Wing and @Jewelrunna, I'm ready for your updated rankings! ;P
Thank you @Archon_Wing and @Jewelrunna and everyone else who posted their tier lists! This has been a very interesting topic to read and I created an account here just to say this.
I look forward to seeing the tier rankings for GS to see where the new civs end up plus if anything changes with the old ones but please... There's no rush. Take your time and enjoy the game!
We will wait.
Thank you everyone!
@AsparustheSaiyan & @DWilson; all in due time! Gotta figure out the new meta and get my hands on some of the new Civs. For instance, I can't tell if Mali are absolutely broken or terrible. We'll have to see...
Inca deserves its own tier at the top. I call it "Waka Raka tier."
Inca vs Maori ... U die
I'm getting one shot combats against Macedon on deity, its like playing prince.
That Waka Raka is something, ain't it?
Mali seems good. Maori and Inca are going to be top tier. Canada will probably suck because Diplomatic Victory is so weak.
I also think England is even worse now, and probably the worst civ in the game. Workshop of the World doesn't mean anything, as it comes too late and now England has a bad start and not even much to look forward to. Also any coastal civ that isn't immune to disaster is even worse now. Victoria will still fare better than Eleanor who should probably stick with being French.
Ouch. England has really fallen from grace.
Inca and Maori will more than likely be tier 1 civs. Especially Inca. I've seen some crazy yields out of them.
Canada... I gave them a try since I like playing Russia so much and I was sadly not that impressed... Most my empire got annihilated in a blizzard so... Yeah... Wish I was playing Russia in THAT moment.
Speaking of which. I think some of the older civs have improved if only slightly due to immunities to certain natural disasters.
Japan immunity to hurricanes.
Egypt I beleive are immune to floods?
Russia and blizzards.
Those are the ones I know at the top of my head.
Oh special mention to China too for more early wonders to grab.
Early impressions are that Mali are not bottom tier like I feared, which is good; that gold generation comes online earlier than I expected. I've only played against them, however, so I'll actually have to get my hands on them before I judge them fairly, but they seem at least good.
Canada seems like an early contender for the new worst Civ in the game. Their bonuses are not only extremely niche, but worse versions of other Civs' niche (Russia's tundra, America's late-game culture & diplomacy, Sweden's culture & diplomacy, etc.). Not only that, but I've seen four Canada starts now (from both my experiences against & as them, and online gameplay), and none of them started anywhere near tundra. This is bad, because half of their bonuses rely on tundra, so if you don't start near them, that's real bad.
I played against the Maori, and I while I think they're good, I think they're going to be more unreliable because of their starts. While you do get to pick and choose more easily, which is great, the fact that the map generation doesn't account for space for Maori might be real problematic. They ended up settling right in between me (China) and Persia, and we ended up just sandwiching them until all they had was their capital. If you just look at their bonuses, they might be God-tier, but we shouldn't discount their starting context either.
Hungary are disgustingly good. Like, really disgusting. They could easily be near the top for me.
Mali is start dependent. If they don't get lots of desert early then they become mediocre, but if they have enough desert for 6 or more cities then they should dominate. They should almost always be the first to get a pantheon. The bonus from flat desert tiles on their trade routes get them making a lot more gold than normal and late game it's possible to have a zero cost on all military units. Giant Death Bots included.
Agreed on Hungary being disgusting. Really nice production bonus (if you get the start for it, I suppose) and then extra powerful, extra fast levies that give you free envoys AND you can upgrade for free... let's just say I'm normally a peaceful player and I have spent most of this game killing everything while cackling maniacally.
Right now I've got 7 Phoenician cities (out of 16) receiving +15% production, +15% faith, and gold; and 15 of 16 recieveing+15% faster growth, 3 Loyalty per turn, +25% gold, and +10% production.
It's pretty potent, especially considering these are mostly my core cities (my new capital has grown to be one of my better cities, but it still doesn't outdo at least three of the old settlements).
I got Canada for my first GS game (via random leaders), and while I can certainly see them being the weakest of the new civs I'm not sure they're the weakest overall. Now granted, I'm nowhere near as good at the game as many of the people on this forum are but I still see some things to like here:
1) No surprise wars against them - I'm sure to a lot of players this is worth next to nothing, but for a certain type of player this does provide a safety blanket against unwanted aggression. I don't think it should be discounted solely because some players could care less about it, because it does have value to those who'd prefer to avoid war altogether.
2) Hockey rinks seem pretty good to me. I got to Colonialism pretty quickly, and I think they'll come faster than America's film studios do. +6 culture is pretty nice, and once you get to Professional Sports (admittedly later) the yields become even better - if you plan ahead you can probably group 3-4 around one stadium to get 2f, 2p, and up to 10 culture. They also increase appeal in surrounding tiles and with some planning that can help you set up more national parks using...
3) Mounties! If I'm not going for a religion I generally avoid building Holy Sites altogether, and naturalists are expensive at 1600 faith. Having a buildable unit that you can buy with cash is for still being able to put down national parks. As someone who rarely goes to war anyways I could argue that this makes them one of the few units I can actually get some use out of.
4) If you get lucky with the map generator the +100% resource removal from tundra and snow is very nice.
5) I admittedly didn't get a ton of use out of the diplomatic favor stuff... I think I've had one emergency declared in the game so far. 1 diplomatic favor per 100 tourism doesn't seem like all that much, either. If they are supposed to be geared towards a diplomatic win they could maybe use a little something else here... maybe a unique path towards claiming diplomatic victory points?
Granted, I'm probably just high on them because it's my first GS game and I'm having a lot of fun with them, but I think there are worse civs to play. I like planning the building side of things when playing Civ more than anything, and planning how to setup my stadiums, rinks, and parks has been pretty enjoyable.
I like their music, too.
Only four bad starts? Sir, when you've hit 15 starts without tundra (and more desert than Mali ever pulls), come talk to me!
In all seriousness, I find Canada extremely underwhelming. Its start bias HAS to be bugged. And if you don't start anywhere near tundra, what's the point? You won't have access to your UA, your UI, and you'll be stuck with a UU that apparently cannot even be upgraded. EDIT: I forgot the no surprise wars thing. That is certainly a useful defensive trick.
Of the rest I have played, briefly:
-Frelanor: I'm not sure if she really improves upon France a whole lot. Her leader power is amazing but I don't think there is a ton of synergy with the UA, UU, or UI.
-Inca. Bananas. The UIs are incredibly powerful and the UUs are silly good. The ability to basically teleport to and fro mountain titles is absolute gold.
-Mali. Speaking of gold. The hardest part about the civ to me is actually starting on desert. If you can survive enough to get your engine running, it's clear sailing. There's very little in Civ you cannot solve with money and faith and Mali is king of both. The production malus is a pain but I think the pros far outweigh the cons.
-Hungary. Completely dependent on finding city states, so scouting is imperative. The Raven King power is absolutely wonderful and I have been rampaging around my current play-through with levied units. Coupled with the... uh, Government building none of us ever used to take, gets you dirt-cheap, jacked-up, free-to-upgrade units AND 2 envoys. It's absolutely nuts. As to the rest, I haven't actually been able to build a bath yet but whatever. The UUs are merely OK.
1. No surprise wars against them is actually amazing since you can get a fair warning if the AI is going to declare on you, but the converse of that is that you can't declare surprise wars. Since City-States can only be declared on by a surprise war, this ends up hurting Canada as much as it helps them.
2. Hockey rinks are good, except that you can only build them on tundra. Tundra is already not good, and Canada's ability essentially just makes tundra viable, but not good (and it's not as good as Mother Russia); so, having to settle tundra to get anything out of this improvement kind of sucks. This is especially so considering that Canada's tundra start bias seems iffy, assuming they even have one. Plus, it comes fairly late and scales even later.
3. Mounties are good if only in that they're purchasable Naturalists. Other than that, they're Light Cav that don't upgrade from or into anything, making them pretty bad units that you don't want to build outside of being purchasable Naturalists or for free era score.
4. The expansion and resource harvesting is good, but again, tundra is not a good place to be settling cities, and Canada might not even have a bias towards tundra.
5. The diplomatic thing just comes too late for the point where you'll have the tourism to capitalize on it, and if you're earning that much tourism you're probably more likely to win a cultural victory than a diplomatic one.
I think Canada's a pretty neat Civ to have in the game, but the main problems is that other Civs do Canada's niche better than they do. I'm really struggling to think of Civs that are worse than them. Honestly, Georgia's probably better at the diplomatic victory because of their extra envoys than Canada is.
I don't really disagree with anything you are sitting. Some thoughts to add on, though:
1. It's definitely player dependent. Me personally, I'm not one to go around capturing city-states like others, so the biggest negative here doesn't really affect me. It would be a nice little addition to strengthen Canada, though, if maybe they got some bonus for playing nice with these city states to make it more worth that trade off to others who would prefer to conquer them. Maybe a free envoy with them because they trust you not to attack them?
2. I think as Canada that ideally you don't want to settle pure Tundra, you just want to have a chunk of tundra in your cities controls. I'm sure it's just good luck on my part but my start was right on the border of tundra and plains/grassland. I could focus on the good land and work it while plopping my districts down on the tundra tiles, then take advantage of them later on when technology/civics advantages make it more worthwhile to work. Considering the emphasis from much of the playerbase on not growing your cities too large, it's not like you'll necessarily need to be working those tundra tiles until then anyways. When it came time to expand I first focused on settling fertile lands knowing I could fill in the tundra later on and get decent usage out of it. Another thread I read here today seemed to indicate that Canada does in fact have a Tundra bias - they were rated at a '2' for Tundra and a '2' for Tundra hills, with apparently lower numbers being a stronger start bias. A lot of luck involved, I'm sure.
3. Mounties definitely only have one use, but that use is unmatched by any other Civ in the game. If you focus your game on appeal with building national parks in mind, you can have some fun with them.
4. See #2.
5. Agreed. I think I'd ditch the diplomatic points per 100 tourism and give them something a little more useful. Maybe reverse it? Instead of getting favor for tourism, maybe you can get tourism from favor... which further encourages you to nurture your city states for the favor points since you can't attack them anyways.
I'm sure they're towards the bottom in the grand scheme of things, all I'm saying is that there is definitely some fun to be had here. I'd take them over certain other civs that don't really feel all that unique from the others... but this thread is ultimately about overall power and I respect that.
I'm getting to grips with Scotland at the minute I think highlanders got great possibilities but I'm not quite sure where it fits in they are scouts par excellence
Separate names with a comma.