Rank the civs Multiplayer

[Thunda]

I haven't seen a good civ ranking for multiplayer in spirit of how adwatca did it for single player. My mostly interested in seeing what others think since I have little experience in multiplayer.
How would you rank them?

God Teir - Babylone, Poland, Maya,

Wild card - Spain

Top tier - Eithiopia, Arabia, Huns, England, Zulu, Mongolia Inca

middle - portugal, greece

below average - byzantium, ottomans, Siam

Bottom tier - Indonesia, poloynesia, india, denmark

worst - venice


Not complete but a start...as I said more interested in how you guys would make this ranking than my own.
thanks

 

[RStark]

I think that you need to mention the settings of suggested game. In my opinion the most balanced settings for MP are:
- 8 civs played by human
- standard speed of the game
- a map of standard size
- 16 CS
- continents
- other settings by default


The Maya is no more God Tier, because you cannot make use of ICS startegy in BNW as it was possible in GnK.

I don't like agro civs like the Huns, England, the Zulu, Mongolia and China in FFA, because if the neigbour is prepared to defend, it will be difficult to overhelm him. You should also know that early wars are not advantageous in FFA. So I think that they are middle tier civs.

IMHO Egypt is top tier, because the player can play it out in different ways very efficiently (War Chariots can be used for early rush if the land is poor, UA is good for Tradition player and UB is good for expansionalists).
I don't think that Indonesia is bottom tier because the civ can grow to be very powerful if the player finds several islands nearby in early eras of the game. So I put them as "wild card".


My list for the settings given:
God Tier - Babylone, Poland, Korea

Wild card - Spain, Indonesia, Byzantium

Top tier - the Maya, Eithiopia, Arabia, Inca, Egypt

middle - Portugal, Greece, the Huns, England, the Zulu, Mongolia, China

below average - the Ottomans, Siam, Persia, Rome, Austria

Bottom tier - Polynesia, India, Denmark, France, Brazil, Japan, America

worst - Venice

 

[Foffaren]

MP is ruled by war so anything with a strong UU is an upper tier. Same with bonus to science.

If you play duels (wich some people here will tell you is the only way to play MP, I disagree) then aggro civs will end up on top. Huns are strong here.

For FFA's I tend to go for the ones that have a strong mid game.

I'd put Arabia, Zulu, Persia, Babylon, Poland and Korea high on the list.

 

[tommynt]

every civ played by me and having decent land is god tier

 

[Foffaren]

And then there are people like tommynt.

 

[CraigMak]

The best civs which are OP are: Spain, Attila, Babylon, Inca, China, England, Arabia, Mongolia, Maya, Egypt, Poland, Korea, Zulu, Greece, Shoshone, Etheopia

These civs all have the potential to be game breaking due to absurd abilities or UU's that are ridiculously good or both.

What I really hate is people with the fail logic that since I have beaten people with X Civ, then X Civ is not OP. No, that just means the person playing that civ was a far worse player than you or had no idea how to utilize the OP civ.

Obviously some one who goes OCC tradition with shoshone is not op as well as some one with egypt or attila who does not make a single chariot unit.

 

[JohnYoga]

Hello Folks,

My Fam and a friend play BNW MP often. I want to help my sister get a much higher score and have an easier time winning. And, to be honest, I want to make sure I am picking a Civ that is a winner to start with, too. We do NOT war against each other, it is us (mostly individually because we play on huge continents) against the AI. But, we are now experimenting with Pangaea+, Huge.

Do I have this right: The best Civs to play as far as the ones that typically win, have highest score, are less fussy about "road conditions" and the dependence on Wonder Mongering are: Poland, Mayan, Korea, and Babylon?

Thank you,

Marc

 

[Tabarnak]

every civ played by me and having decent land is god tier

Mostly, yes.

I do like coastal starts. You can stay small and exploit a small empire and exploit a peaceful 2 or 3 cities NC start until Machinery. I put the Ottomans and Indonesia in the mid tier list because of that.

 

[HelloGoodbye123]

Venice is not the worst! Ive won domination and diplomatic with venice! Both of those could of been tech victory as well!

 

[Seek]

You guys will probably be interested in this very in-depth tier list from FilthyRobot (currently ranked #4 on Civplayers):

Link to video.
I don't agree with him completely, but overall it's pretty spot-on imo.

 

[HelloGoodbye123]

I always knew the aztecs were one of the best civs

 

[MadHaxxor]

I dont understand why everybody thinks Poland is OP

 

[HelloGoodbye123]

I dont understand why everybody thinks Poland is OP

Mannnnn dont question it, just get on the bandwagon and ride it all the way !

 

[MadHaxxor]

Mannnnn dont question it, just get on the bandwagon and ride it all the way !

haha, I guess it really dependss on what that guy in the video above thinks. I played an NQ game the other day and some guy got iroquois and just complained all game that he had the worst civ. I was surprised by this beacause I would never think of iroqouis as the WORST. In fact I always considered them one of the better vanilla civs. Really I have to completely disagree with the guy in that video when saying iroquois is the worst. Really it's a wildcard civ like spain. Obviously if your start has 3 forest tiles and no nearby forests then you woould have been better off with no bonuses at all, but if you get a start with a lot of forests then you have one of the best civs in the game. Forests make their cities really easy to defend. BNW nerfed large empires so significantly, one way being due to the loss of gold from river tiles, which makes it difficult to dealing with building maintence as a wide empire, but the iroqouis is one of the few civs that can actually go wide easily in BNW, they (probably) wont have to deal with a huge economic strain on their empire since they dont have to pay for as many roads and get city connections easier

 

[HelloGoodbye123]

haha, I guess it really dependss on what that guy in the video above thinks. I played an NQ game the other day and some guy got iroquois and just complained all game that he had the worst civ. I was surprised by this beacause I would never think of iroqouis as the WORST. In fact I always considered them one of the better vanilla civs. Really I have to completely disagree with the guy in that video when saying iroquois is the worst. Really it's a wildcard civ like spain. Obviously if your start has 3 forest tiles and no nearby forests then you woould have been better off with no bonuses at all, but if you get a start with a lot of forests then you have one of the best civs in the game. Forests make their cities really easy to defend. BNW nerfed large empires so significantly, one way being due to the loss of gold from river tiles, which makes it difficult to dealing with building maintence as a wide empire, but the iroqouis is one of the few civs that can actually go wide easily in BNW, they (probably) wont have to deal with a huge economic strain on their empire since they dont have to pay for as many roads and get city connections easier

Yep, I actually like to rate civs with a start bias much higher because you can more accurately know what youre gonna be focusing on. Forest actually arent bad, they may contain dear, and a lot of camps, and with the pantheon +1 food from camps, and their unique workshop, these guys can have a lot of food and production at the same time. Not to mention you can cut down forest if you want to rush something like a wonder! and the forest tiles also hide your capital in the early exploration, I think if your opponent cant see your capital then its a good thing because if youre in the tech lead they wont steal a bunch of techs early on in the game, which is always frustrating.

Another start bias I like is sweden, the tundra bias, (it doesnt really put you in full tundra, more like borderline between tundra and plains) a place where you see a lot of salt! tundra also contains a lot of iron, uranium, dear, a lot of important resources. Tundra is usually at the extreme end of the map, making it easy to defend one front. The bias is probably better on russia though

I would actually consider netherlands one of the worst, their unique ability helps the enemy more than it helps you, their unique unit, well its kinda unnoticeable, and their tile improvement comes in so late, who keeps marsh that late into the game! its almost hindering your cities from growth for the early game if you want to keep that marsh until you finally get the tech and then work the tile, if it was for a total of +5 food then we talking, but +4 is like bananas with granary, which is so easy to do

 

[Foffaren]

There is a lot of if's that has to work to make iriqoi work. Everyone always has 10% production from workshop but iriqoi does not. All that forest that you maybe have in your cap needs to be chopped to get food anyway. What is production without population? I'm 100% with filthy on that.

I did disagree with his Netherlands views though, but it might be because I just love playing them.

Poland is a boring civ. A great one, but boring. I'd actually be sad if I got them in a mp game.