Rating the c3c Civs by DocT

[Kietharr]

Egypt is better than a tier 3, so is babylon (i can warmonger and culture build with babylon better than most of those civs you put as tier 1) you got china and iriquois in the right spot tho.

No way is a panzer tank a first tier unit, sorry but it had to be said, the blitz is useful but it comes to late to make a difference 90% of the time when i play, the samurai and war elephant are first tier, i've never played C3C, just Civilization III so i woulndt know where the C3C units would rank.

 

[punkbass2000]

Recognize that C3C nerfed industrious and religious (which make up 3/4 of the traits in the civs you listed) and that both Agr. and Sea. are new traits that are both quite powerful. Things have changed.

 

[Pfeffersack]

I think the different evaluations of the Panzer are dependent on the relative difficulty someone plays.Play a level you dominate and you will find the Panzer less effective (because you have already won the game the time it comes); moving up delays victory to late IA/ModAge and you have a kind of early modern armor including a golden age.

 

[Arathorn]

Hmm. After playing a bunch of Games with DocT, I have come to agree that his rankings are fairly accurate.

Hmm...I've come to the opposite conclusion....

This may well be a fairly accurate builder's assessment, but a warmonger will have a very different perspective. Starting with alphabet is as important as extra food in every city nearly all game? What a strange concept. LOTS of strange concepts. And a final result that just doesn't pass my sanity test.

Good try, DocT, but I find the evaluations somewhere between comical and essentially useless.

Arathorn

 

[romeothemonk]

Ah, Yes. But we do not play at Sid level. At the Sid level, agricultural is nearly required to win. In fact I have only seen agricultural civs win, Dutch, Iro and Sumeria, with the exception of the vikings on a min landmass archi map. India has been tried and lost repeatedly, both by LK and by Doc, with solid teams for each.
At Sid, the extra food is just too important, and is nearly the only thing that lets you kind of claim some key land in the growth phase.
For the Emporer/DG level of no armies, no artillary, I find his builder/trading game very effective and enjoyable.
More than artillary and Armies, I consider agricultural a broken mechanism of game play, as the extra food for early growth is just too powerful, especially in the AI hands at Deity/Sid. How many games have seen a runaway Sumeria in the late game? A quick rundown of the latest SG's should show at least 3 times where agricultural civs quickly become runaway.
Personally, in PBEM I choose the Celts, otherwise I choose random, play and have some fun.

 

[Jopedamus I]

This evaluation was supposed to be for a high difficulty levels and what is the best level to know its usefulness than SID?As I wrote before this interesting concept that Doc made simply doesn't work and is wrong bacause it doesn't put enough emphasis in early growth! That is why there are Greece, England, Byzantines etc at the top, which is ridiculous.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

I wouldn't say AGR is that mandatory for Sid, as long as you don't start with several Civs nearby. We're doing quite well with France in Bugs3, and Byzantium is definitely a Sid Civ.

And, at foremost, I don't know what you're talking about, Jopedamus and Arathorn :
Growth is crucial. But Growth isn't everything.

And, btw:
Ision's first tier:

Mayans, Persia, China, Inca, Greece, Babylon, Iroquios, Celts, Ottomans, Arabia, Netherlands

My first tier:

Greece, Celts, Iroquois, Byzantium, China, France, Rome, Sumeria, Netherlands, England

Greece, China, Celts, Iros, Netherlands are in both. Nobody ever argued against France or Sumeria. I'd also rate Rome lower by hand - but Arathorn, at least there are 2 MIL Civs in my list...

The whole discussion boils down to Mayans and Incans vs. Byzantium and England. Every second post in this thread was about the Mayans. And sorry, I stick to my personal opinion as well as the rating system here (it may be flawed, but here it weights exactly like it was supposed to do):
Mayans and Incans are 3rd tier Civs above Monarch. If they cannot expand for any reason (natural borders, AI blocking chokes, low food), they are nothing; and that is completely different from the other AGR Civs.
It simply is an unvalid generalisation to claim those are the best Civs of all because they could outexpand everyone - it's like saying Byzantium is the best Civ because she rules on Archipelagos.
But I much prefer Byz or England on a fertile Pangea map to Incas or Mayans on a dry and cold Archipelago.

 

[Jopedamus I]

@DocT: Carthage, Hittites and Spain in second tier are also joke when looking civs that are in third tier..
Of course early growth isn't EVERYTHING, but it's most important. I just think that you should have put more value for the part of the game that has biggest effect in the outcome of the game...
There are also other flaws, but I let you realize them yourself.
Someday, somehow, you will realize that I'm right.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

I'm afraid that sounds quite arrogant...but: Look at my post count and yours. Like in the c3c and RaR credits.
And why are Archipelago or Tundra or Mountain Maps always considered something unusual? No matter what, Carthage or Spain will do better there than Egypt or Mayans. I see the point Arathorn made for warmonger Civs, though.
It's just that people tend to reload until they get their 'River + Cow' start...otherwise this kind of maps would also count as 'special'. But face it, those starts aren't more special than e.g. the start in the DocT3 SG.

 

[Jopedamus I]

So you mean that because I haven't been member in CivFanatics more than couple of months I can't play the game? I have read your posts and I'm convinced you are a very good player and know A LOT about Civ. I am not at war with you!
I personally play only single-person games(couple of hotseat-games with my friend, though). I usually play standard pangaea/continents emp/dg without using armies or artillery, because AI uses them so bad. Sometimes I play deity/sid with using them, because otherwise I'm in deep trouble(sid/pangaea without artillery and armies, auts!)..
I'm sure that here are many players who are better than me, but I know enough to comment something(or so I thought). This topic is a very interesting and I have just wanted to give another view on it. But sorry about that. Obviously it was a mistake because I have not posted a millions of posts and that is the reason why everything I write is a crap and no-one can respect my opinions. So maybe its better for me just to read and play the game and not make any comment. But you make a good work, Doc, and I like read them. So keep up the great work!

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Obviously it was a mistake because I have not posted a millions of posts and that is the reason why everything I write is a crap and no-one can respect my opinions. So maybe its better for me just to read and play the game and not make any comment.

Noooo! That's the opposite of what I mean. But your post above implemented me not knowing what I'm talking about .

My only "problem" with you is that you don't give a reasoning why you'd rate Egypt e.g. as top tier Civ, so it's a bit hard for me to argue with you...

Please keep posting here, we still can agree to disagree after all is said.

 

[Darkness]

@DocT:
While I find your ratings interesting and some of the concepts you used very useful, I really don't think it's possible to define 'the best civ'. The variance between player preference and style, map type and difficulty level makes it IMHO impossible to use one combined system to define 'the best civ'
Now if one would make a list for every level, play style (roughly devided between builder and warmonger) and map types, that would result in a far more comprehensible list.

But if we focus on your list, I must say I see your personal bias (nothing negative intended by this) quite clearly. From your posts in this thread (as well as others I have read) it is quite clear that you are biased in, IMHO, two obvious ways. You have a 'soft spot' for both the seafaring trait, as well as commerce games.

Secondly: Agricultural is the most powerful trait in the game by a huge margin, so there's no way any agricultural civ could end up lower than second tier, especially not the Maya, who also are IND, which is ranked the second-best trait by many players.

Third:
Your UU rankings. I don't understand the Panzer being a 1st tier UU. In most games it comes way too late to make a difference. As I am very biased towards fast units, I'd personally take Samurai and War elephants over Immortals and hoplites anytime. Also, most people (myself included) tend to prefer an offensive UU, which is also an important factor not used in your rankings. Also, any non-land UU would never rate higher than 3rd tier for me.

Fourth:
Alphabet. While this is undeniably the most valuable starting tech, I'd take agricultural over alphabet anytime (even on Sid ), yet both are ranked equally beneficial in your system. The faster growth AGR gives is far more valuable than any starting tech

MP:
Where's the most powerfull MP civ in your list? The Iroquois are AGR, COM and have a great, early offensive UU (the best in the game IMHO). What more do you want?

These are all just my personal preferences shining through I think....

So, all in all, I must say it was a very interesting read and a great effort at what I see as an impossible project.

 

[Pfeffersack]

Again, the rating of the Panzer depends mainly on relative difficulty, IMO and if I understand the background of DocTS rating correctly, it is meant for playing on levels one doesn't dominate.Under this condition I find the rating correct...speed is important and here you get effectively a third attack every turn.For the same price and with GA, if you haven't triggered it before.If you want to conquer the world in the late IA there is no better (U)Unit.

 

[Darkness]

@Pfeffersack:

from the first post in this topic:

Note this ranking focuses on the Mid to Higher levels

IMHO, this means Monarch-Sid level.

The level on which a player dominates varies quite a lot, which adds another subjective criterium to the ratings. So this basically means that for me the Panzer is useful on deity and Sid, while for someone else it might mean that is only useful at Sid level and for another player it means the Panzer is useful at all levels above monarch. This complexes the qualifications greatly...

I agree that the Panzer is a great unit for late IA warfare, but that is up to a player's preference. I, for one, don't do much late IA warfare, so the Panzer probably rates lower for me than for someone who likes to do late IA warfare...

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

The rating of the Panzer isn't important; pushing it to 2nd tier and moving the Samurai/Immortal/WE/Legionary up won't change anything in the Civ ratings. And I was quite happy with that, since I have my doubts about the Panzer, too.

 

[punkbass2000]

My only "problem" with you is that you don't give a reasoning why you'd rate Egypt e.g. as top tier Civ, so it's a bit hard for me to argue with you...

Fully agree with this statement. I don't recall (so don't flame if I'm wrong!) anyone actually saying why Egypt, Inca, Maya, etc. are so good, just that they are the best, everyone thinks so and so on. Same with Agr and Ind. The argument seems to be that they just are the best by virtue of being Agr and Ind I've really come to find C3C Ind to not be all that useful.

One reason I've thought of that might help explain these discrepancies etc. is that people, I would think, garner at least some of their impression of any civ/trait by how they see their opponents in their games. This would certainly lead to misconceptions as, IMO, Agr and Ind are the realtively most advantageous traits for the AI on higher levels. We're all familiar with the AI's poor settler timing (waiting at two pop with a full production box) and poor worker management. Ind, in particular, multiplies in value with each ascending level as there are more and more extra workers for the AI. Sea, OTOH, is quite useless and poorly played by the AI compared to human and thus seriously devalues. The AI is not particularly good at making certain it uses its coast to its full advantages and never uses suicide curraghs/galleys etc. The AI only really gains the advantage of extra movement, and its navy is often lacking anyway. Mil, Rel and Sci are also nearly useless on high levels as the buildings are so cheap anyway (a Mil Sid AI only needs 8 shields for barracks!) The AI doesn't make armies so promotions are less valuable, has one-turn anarchy anyway and has a huge tech lead so that one extra tech per era isn't that big deal. Com and Exp have approximately the same relative value for both humans and AI, IMO.

 

[Darkness]

My opinion:
AGR: Good because in despotism each city tile at a fresh water souce gets an extra food. In all other governments all city tiles get an extra food. Thus, faster (initial) growth. Food is power in the early times!
IND: 150% worker speed (down from 200% in PTW) means faster tile improvement, which means higher GNP and MFG (commerce and shields) and you'll need less workers eventually, thus reducing the upkeep.
Inca: They're agricultural.
Maya: AGR and IND. overpriced (next to useless) UU though
Egypt: War chariot is hugely underrated, but really a good UU and IND

Edited in Punkybass's correction on industrious worker speed...

 

[punkbass2000]

Ind is only 150% faster in C3C.

 

[Darkness]

Ind is only 150% faster in C3C.

My bad. Corrected it.

Still a nice increase in speed, which makes IND a good trait I think.

 

[Jopedamus I]

@DocT: No hard feelings..
Allright, 2 BIG faults in your system:
1) Too much value in UU, that UU/ Trait synergy-category is not needed. For example Greece gets 4 POINTS for its defensive UU and Korea(which has same traits as Greece) gets 0 POINTS. So basically you named Greece as a best civ while Korea is in 3 tier and this is just because of their UU! In fact Korea has UU that is awesome if used right. IF you can survive long enough, just make lot of artillery and Hwachas, put a couple of defenders in a mix and you can conquer any city with minimim risk. And this UU got 0 points. Also, reason why Rome is so high, too much value for its UU and the second mistake you made which also considers Greece as much as Rome and many others is:
2) Too little value on early growth and development. Its so important part of the game. I would have given agriculture civs +3 for that reason alone OR have punished "slow starters" with -1 at least.

Couple of little things also are "overvalue" of commercial trait. Maybe some kind of reward +1 should be given to civs that have cheap buildings (rel, sci) to make it more objective. Also, MP-bonus is useless in this kind of evaluation.
But these are just my thoughts and I KNOW you think differently..