Rating the c3c Civs by DocT

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

I really wondered if there’s a way to somewhat objectively rank the c3c Civs; when I read the usual rankings here, I always wondered why some Civs nearly almost rank horribly, while SGs with them, or my single games, do quite well…
So I looked for ways to measure the ‘power’ of a Civ, aside from personal preferences.
Note this ranking focuses on the Mid to Higher levels; starting with Alphabet for example is not something worth considering for a Warlord game where you have the tech lead anyway.


Traits:

Face it, the usefulness of a given trait depends too much on personal playing style. Oh, and map settings; but let’s simply assume we only look at maps somehow suited for a Civ; no 80% Water Archipelagos with no Barbarians for Mongols etc.
One’s favourite trait is another’s least preferred. For example, many players rate IND among the best traits, while for me it’s definitely the least useful.
So, instead of considering single traits, this ranking considers Trait Synergy.
SCI and IND may both be good traits, but there’s not much you gain from having both together. But England (COM/SEA) clearly gets an outstanding commercial benefit with those two traits.

Synergistic Traits: (+2)
Commerce/ Research: COM/SEA, SCI/SEA, COM/SCI
Builder: COM/IND, COM/SCI
Conquest: COM/MIL, IND/MIL
Fast Expansion: EXP/IND, AGR/EXP, AGR/REL
Fast Development: AGR/IND, AGR/COM, COM/EXP

No Synergy: (+1)
REL/MIL, SCI/MIL, AGR/SEA, AGR/SCI, REL/SEA, IND/REL, COM/REL, AGR/MIL, IND/SCI, EXP/REL, EXP/SCI, REL/SCI, IND/SEA

And if there’s synergy, there also is
Antagonism: (+0)
MIL/SEA, EXP/SEA, EXP/MIL

Why that?
MIL/SEA means you’d get a discount for one of the most important city improvement from both traits (Harbor), effectively wasting part of a trait.
EXP/SEA: On any given map, one trait is near useless.
EXP/MIL: With a MIL Civ, you should start aggressively with military, not with peaceful exploration.

Since traits have the most impact on how a Civ feels, this was weighted twice.


Unique Units:

My personal ranking of UUs is pretty much identical with what’s around on the forum. However, I think two UUs are so outstandingly horrible, that I decided to rank those as 4th tiers.

1st Tier: (+2)
Enkidu Warrior, Hoplite, Rider, Mounted Warrior, Sipahi, Berserk, Ansar Warrior, Immortal, Gallic Swordsman, Panzer

2nd Tier: (+1)
Dromon, War Elephant, Samurai, Swiss Mercenary, Numidian Mercenary, Musketeer, Jaguar Warrior, Legionary, Cossack

3rd Tier: (0)
Conquistador, 3-Man-Chariot, Carrack, Bowman, Impi, Javelin Thrower, H'wacha, Keshik, Man-o-War, War Chariot

4th Tier: (-1)
F-15 (ever used it?), Chasqui Scout (wouldn’t we all prefer the standard Scout?)

UU/ Trait synergy:

The Berserk is the prime example for a perfect synergy between UU and Civ traits: A powerful, amphibious attacker for a MIL/SEA Civ. The Sipahi or Ansar OTOH gain nothing from the respective traits.

Synergy: (+2)
Netherlands, France, Greece (builder Civ and cheap, strong defender); Rome, Japan, Mongols, Chinese, Scandinavians, Aztecs (MIL and attacker); Sumeria (rapid early expansion and cheap escort), Byzantium and England (SEA and powerful ships)

+/-: (+1)
India, Hittites, Arabs, Ottomans, Zulu, Aztecs, Spain, Carthage, Egypt, America, Inca, Iroquois, Russia, Babylon, Persia, Celts

Antagonism: (0)
Germans (What’s the benefit from more frequent promotions when the UU has move 4 and Blitz? And, at that time half-priced Barracks are pointless); Portugal (A Caravel would have move 4, and a lowered risk of sinking anyway); Javelin Thrower (Slow Slaves don’t really help an IND Civ that much); Korea (A unit best used in big stacks to attack cities and a Builder Civ)

Bonus Points:

Before someone comes up with mentioning Babylon is an outstanding Civ for culture, or Carthage rules in MP, I added a couple more categories:

Agricultural: (+1)
Sumeria, Inca, Maya, Netherlands, Celts, Aztecs, Iroquois
(Hard to agree on the runner-ups, but AGR is hands down the strongest trait)

Starts with Alphabet: (+1)
Hittites, Netherlands, Spain, Rome, Greece, Korea, Iroquois, Portugal, France, India, Byzantium, England, Scandinavians, Carthage

Best choices for 100k Cultural Victory: (+1)
Babylon, Celts, Egypt

Best choices for 20k Cultural Victory: (+1)
Babylon, Spain, Arabs

Best choices for MP: (+1)
Sumeria, Carthage, Zulu, Aztecs, Greece

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

…and here’s the result:
(Note in case of a tie, I weighted the UU triggered GA timing; early Medieval the best, then late Ancient, late Medieval, mid Medieval, early Ancient. This obviously is the weakest point in the ranking. Quite a number of Civs scored 5, and I don’t expect everyone agreeing to where I made the cut between 2nd and 3rd tiers.)

First tier Civs: (score in brackets)
Greece (10), Celts, Iroquois (9), Byzantium, China, France, Rome, Sumeria (8), Netherlands, England (7)

Second tier Civs:
Aztecs (7), Arabs, Carthage, Hittites (6), Scandinavia, Japan, India, Spain, Persia, Ottomans (5)

Third tier Civs:
Korea, Babylon, Maya, Inca (5), America, Germany, Egypt, Russia (4), Mongols, Zulu (2)

Bottom Civ:
Portugal (1)

Breakdown: Excel spreadsheet

I must say, Greece surprised me. But aside from that, it’s pretty much as I would have expected.
Especially Portugal as dead last is exactly what I’d guessed…

Comments, suggestions, vigorous disagreements?

 

[Tomoyo]

Greece probably did the best because they are the best at what they do. However, they suck at what they don't.

EDIT: Maya so low?

 

[Keirador]

While I like finally seeing France as a first tier Civ, I have to wonder about the merits of the system. I'd imagine you'd be hard pressed to find a number of people who thought the Hittites are a better Civ than the Mayans.
I agree with Tomoyo that a Civ's ability to pursue alternate courses of action is undervalued.

 

[Tomoyo]

Several years ago, Egypt was hailed as the best civ. Now look at it, just a shadow of it's former glory...

Oh, and you might wanna rename the 4th tier something else.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

I'm absolutely open for suggestions to improve the system - but hey, at least it is a system .

Mayans and Hittites: Odd, but I did consider the trait synergy between AGR and IND already. But aside from that and being AGR, nothing really helps them.
And, completely unintentional (I did not make any ranking based on personal preferences before), I for one do prefer Hittites by far. On DG+, COM and subsequently starting with Alpha is invaluable - despite the 3MC being crap. But so is the JT on higher levels, with no bonus against Barbs .

 

[Tomoyo]

The Hittites may be good for a science/commerce based game, but they do as well in warfare and such. The Mayans can do well with both.

Again, I think you need to fit the ability to adapt into your system.

 

[denyd]

Excellent work.

Only a couple of minor quibbles that lean more towards personal style. I'd switch the Panzer & Enkidu with the Samurai & War Elephant.

Reasoning:
Enkidu: The likelyhood of a early war is rare, so except to escort against barbarians, not much of a UU. If you do happen to win with the EW early, that'll mean a despotic GA, which isn't my preference.
Panzer: Great unit, but normally, I've got the game well in hand at that time. The late GA is a boost for those expensive techs if you didn't use the TOE for them.
Samurai: Attacks as well as any knight unit without needing horses (less available in C3C) can still retreat. Also serves as own defender and triggers a well timed GA.
War Elephant: The extra HitPoint makes them more durable than knights for the same price. Also times the GA for all those yummy wonders.

My only other quibble is I prefer Babylon or Maya to Spain as a 2nd level AI. Spain's trait combo is not as vaulable to me as the Mayan (fast city growth with fast workers improving & connecting them) and Babyons (the kings of culture building).

Once again excellent work

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

@Tomoyo:The Mayans are by no means great to adapt, I cannot agree here. With a dry start, not much room and lots of tundra, they have zero chance to compete in research and commerce. Mayans are all about growth; if you take that away, they are nothing. Compare that to other AGR Civs like Dutch, Iros or Sumeria.

However, I fully agree with your asessment about Greece and their problems to adapt to a hostile world. Only the Mayans I would rate that low in a completely subjectiv ranking as well. And note they score as high as Scandinavia or Japan, and I admitted already the '5' Civs are the weakest part of my list.

@Denyd: The real power of the Enkidu is that it often prevents the AI from attacking you in the most vulnerable phase. If they run around with Warriors, and you with Enkidus, their military advisors tells them to stay away. Thus, with Sumeria you often trigger your GA with Hoover or USuffr instead. Despotic GA is ugly, of course.
The Panzer: Exactly that was the one UU I'm not sure if it should be a 1st tier. The other 9 were no-brainers. Panzer, Samurai, War Elephant and Legionary are about equal to me. But note this wouldn't change the tier of any of those Civs.

 

[Tomoyo]

With a dry start, not much room, and lots of tundra, not many civs would survive!

Oh right. You and your beloved SEA civs.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Ever had the Tech lead mid-Ancient with a total of 3 citizens?

 

[dgfred]

@ Doc, I agree about the Mayans, In my recent emperor game as Celts,
I pinned them in a corner and they were never able to expand as usual.
They stayed weak the entire game and eventually were conquered . They were still scary in the beginning and VERY
aggressive- they demanded from me early and it was ON.

 

[Tomoyo]

Ever had the Tech lead mid-Ancient with a total of 3 citizens?

DocT3?

 

[Longasc]

Many people would have come up with a similar chart, without point systems that are biased. I see no reason why the Hoplite is that great, many players would prefer any offensive UU. I still disagree with the Mayans ranking so low. Just a few examples.

Furthermore, you already had an impression of the civs in mind. This might have lead to BIAS in the evaluation.

Your preferred playstly is also based on COMMERCE, while I would emphasize much more on growth and production. Industrious would not rank as my worst trait, I dislike militaristic as I simply take a different approach.

On the other hand, the results are quite OK - according to my impression of the civs at least.

As we have no really just way to express what is worth +1 or +2 and this system will work with limitations, I would say:

As there are no more Civs coming into play anymore, Civ3 is "complete" as we know , I would like this sheet as a nice tool to compute advantages and to evaluate a civ, but many people will surely doubt that Greece is so much better than the Mayans and can create the same system but weigh in favor of their favorite trait combos -> and come to different results.

Writing down an essay about the strength of each Civ is probably more rewarding, as Ision did. One can easily write a review of any civ taking the principles above in mind - and probably come up with better than purely mathematical yet still biased results.

For reasons stated above Ision was REALLY reluctant to give Civs a ranking at all, and the three tiers were the only concession he made to his wish not to make a "ranking" of different Civs.

 

[Longasc]

Bottom Line:

I would rather prefer DocT's great ideas in single reviews than in this evaluation system.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Furthermore, you already had an impression of the civs in mind. This might have lead to BIAS in the evaluation.
Your preferred playstly is also based on COMMERCE, while I would emphasize much more on growth and production. Industrious would not rank as my worst trait, I dislike militaristic as I simply take a different approach.

Good observations . However, I rated IND quite high in the synergy section (everything except REL/IND, SEA/IND and IND/SCI recieved +4, but REL/IND got +1 for 100k instead), so my disliking of that trait had no impact on the ranking. And if the Hoplite (I don't love thatone as well) would be a 3rd tier UU, Greece would still end as 1st tier Civ...
The one bias due to personal preferences I fully admit is 'Starting with Alphabet' (=SEA or COM); but I don't think many Deity level players will disagree here.

Yes, full Civ reviews would be much more worth than this 2 hours of work. But then, I'm not the best person for that job. I never played c3c or ptw below Emperor (few games of VC3 on Regent, then nothing but DyP). And I do horribly if it's about score - my all time record is something like 5500, and I suck even at CotMs .

 

[dgfred]

Great work Doc, you did plenty . Can't please everyone .

 

[Tomoyo]

@DocT: I love starting with alphabet too, but one cannot measure the effectiveness of a civilization just by their starting techs, even though starting with Alphabet normally gives you a very good shot at tech parity. What I like about the Greeks is the UU. Not for defense, but they make awesome pillagers. I have, at times, "attacked" a Deity AI as Greece, with no chance of taking a city, but I just fought the war and pillaged their territory clean.

 

[microbe]

Oh another civ ranking..this is flamebait, you are warned!

 

[Jopedamus I]

Nice try, doc! But it went horribly wrong..
You have nice theories but really.. England and Byz top tier; Maya, Babs, Egypt are in 3 tier!!
In a nutshell: Your rating-system didn't work at all.