So... is Scythia the strongest civ/most op civ or is it me?

[GameBoy2000]

Hello, I was just wondering, to me it seems like Scythia is quite op. I mean the 2x light Calvary units is quite strong (even more so when you get the +100% production bonus and a good production city.) and when you get horse back ridding, you can pump them out like there is on tomorrow and take out all/most of your neighbors. then when they get out dated, just build up your cities as you wait for the next upgrade and take you out next neighbors or invade another land mass. You can do this until you get a domination victory or leave one AI with one city and go fro any other victory. (Not like they can do anything decent with it right?)

So is it just me, or does it seem like Scythia is op? (Disclaimer: I have only played one game as her and got a domination victory on prince and Pangaea. So I don't know how she would fair in a game not suited to her strengths.)

 

[shadowplay]

Yes, definitely the most OP, and almost certainly the first thing to get nerfed.

 

[GKShaman]

Yes... In the early game as Multiplayer. It is considered "God Tier."

AI Scythia is weaker because of AI issues but as a Multiplayer you should pretty much get horses, get an encampment up and BUILD HORSEMAN.

With the 100% production to Light and Heavy Cav (Scythia should be banned from this) - any player of any skill level can rock a AI game. In multiplayer people have to team up and hold Scythia back early.

Germany eventually (if it can survive) will destroy Scythia mid game.

Right now its Germany and Scythia in the OP civ tier.

 

[Cymsdale]

She's been working well for me so far, yes.

The double light cavalry is definitely one of the more impactful abilities.

 

[weregamer]

Scythia is OP if you exploit selling units, for sure.

Depending on your playstyle, it's powerful but only in the same league as a few others - most of the civs have a situation in which they excel, and in Scythia's case that's going for an early military rush on a Pangaia map.. If you aren't exploiting and you are playing a longer game, Germany for example can pump out almost as many units by mid-late game, and those units will have a good combined-arms mix.

IMO one of the ways Firaxis has taken a fresh approach this time around is that each of the civs is differently overpowered. Some of them are less niche than others, and in general the ones that are niche-ey are more powerful in their niche.

I don't play multiplayer myself and things are different there, but it's probably worth noting that the rumbles I hear from the multiplayer side of the fence are that they often prohibit Gilgamesh and maybe Frederick; in MP I suspect Scythia will find the other players prepared for their rush and ready to outlast and outgrow.

 

[GameBoy2000]

Okay, thank you for the replies. Glad to know I am not the only one who thought that.


Also, if Germany is considered op as well, I am going to have to try them out.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

The healing from kills is really really strong. It could be nerfed to only 25 HP and it would still be well above average as a Civ ability. It synergizes absurdly well with horse units.

 

[Cymsdale]

The healing from kills is really really strong. It could be nerfed to only 25 HP and it would still be well above average as a Civ ability. It synergizes absurdly well with horse units.

Yes. In fact, I think that is even more overpowered than the double cavalry. You can bring a unit out of danger completely simply by steamrolling over a weakened one.

 

[jaegybomb]

Insane production but you still have to pay maintenance on all of them even with the civic reduction. I think there are also benefits to civs with way better power to maint ratios like Sumeria or a middle ground like Rome.

 

[TomeTraveler]

No. The double-up on light horse units is quite powerful and the heal-on-kill at least as good, but I'd rate Sumeria and Rome higher. Gilgamesh's war-carts are available from the start and amazingly powerful, and the infinite-tribal-village effect from barbarian camps a great additional benefit. With Rome, the early power of legions is good but there are a couple of excellent long-term benefits with automatic roads, and monuments.

Edit: The "No" was my vote in the poll, not a negation to the previous poster, who also mentioned Rome and Sumeria and snuck in while I was typing my own post.

 

[rrrwww]

gilgamesh is trash compared to scythia even without using exploits

the only time gilgamesh is at an advantage is like the first 30-40 turns. On deity it might mean 1-3 cities ahead. But after those 40 turns gilgamesh is obsolete and scythia can dominate all game

 

[GameBoy2000]

gilgamesh is trash compared to scythia even without using exploits

the only time gilgamesh is at an advantage is like the first 30-40 turns. On deity it might mean 1-3 cities ahead. But after those 40 turns gilgamesh is obsolete and scythia can dominate all game

This is how I feel. Gilgamesh only beats her if you kill here quickly.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

For single player, I'd rank the Civs: 1) Scythia 2) Sumeria 3) Germany 4) Rome 5) Gorgo's Greece. Not sure about multiplayer but I'd guess that Sumeria might be #1 there. It's hard to imagine stopping a war-cart rush in MP. (This is assuming no unit selling).

Early conquest is just absolutely the way to go in Civ VI. For any victory condition except Religious, conquering 1-3 neighbors in the ancient/classical eras is incredibly helpful. It sets you up to dominate all game. A marked contrast to Civ IV (where rushing was sometimes good, but too much would destroy your economy) and Civ V (where early rushing rarely paid off in single player).

 

[GenyaArikado]

HAIL THE EMPRESS

Maybe she is but some civ will be better than the others so why not Scythia.

 

[joncnunn]

Yup, it's overpowered in the current build due to the one of the exploits.

 

[Roxlimn]

For single player, I'd rank the Civs: 1) Scythia 2) Sumeria 3) Germany 4) Rome 5) Gorgo's Greece. Not sure about multiplayer but I'd guess that Sumeria might be #1 there. It's hard to imagine stopping a war-cart rush in MP. (This is assuming no unit selling).

Early conquest is just absolutely the way to go in Civ VI. For any victory condition except Religious, conquering 1-3 neighbors in the ancient/classical eras is incredibly helpful. It sets you up to dominate all game. A marked contrast to Civ IV (where rushing was sometimes good, but too much would destroy your economy) and Civ V (where early rushing rarely paid off in single player).

LOL. At a similar point, ALL the Civ games heavily favored early conquest, especially Axeman-rushing Civ 4 and Companion Cavalry Civ V. Comparatively speaking, Civ 6 is actually somewhat restrained.

 

[UWHabs]

LOL. At a similar point, ALL the Civ games heavily favored early conquest, especially Axeman-rushing Civ 4 and Companion Cavalry Civ V. Comparatively speaking, Civ 6 is actually somewhat restrained.

In IV, though, while rushing was easy, keeping a stable economy after a rush was hard. I remember at least one game being a little too aggressive with my legions, and had to quit the game after my first rush because I crashed so hard it was unrecoverable (basically couldn't burn cities fast enough). The biggest differences were that in IV at least, if you didn't have nearby iron or copper, the early rush was basically out of the question and you would have to wait until catapults, and as mentioned, you had to be careful. In VI, the early rush is too easy - 3-4 archers and 1-2 warriors and you can take a neighbour civ, even on the higher difficulty levels, and even though they have multiple cities and bonus units.

 

[Roxlimn]

It depends on the terrain. It's pretty hard to take down Gorgo when her capital city is stuck high in a Mountain range and you can only attack with 2 Warriors and 2 Archers at a time.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

LOL. At a similar point, ALL the Civ games heavily favored early conquest, especially Axeman-rushing Civ 4 and Companion Cavalry Civ V. Comparatively speaking, Civ 6 is actually somewhat restrained.

Um, sure? I was comparing Civ VI to Civ IV BTS and Civ V BNW. As it currently stands, early rushing is way, way better in Civ VI than either of those other games; compared to Civ V there's weaker city defenses, so early rushes are easier, and right now there are basically zero penalties for expansion, so early rushes are amazing economically. Early rushing is still pretty good in Civ IV, but between the AI starting with Archers and high city maintenance costs, it gets pretty risky on high levels. Unless you used one of the game's four overpowered unique units, you stood a good chance of failing and/or crashing your economy.

I'm sure that after a few patches or expansions, designers will put more checks on expansion in Civ VI, so it'll be more in line with past Civ games in this regard. Right now, though, early rushing is easily the game's best strategy. There's a reason the Huns generally weren't thought to be top tier in Civ V, but Scythia is usually considered top tier in Civ VI. Rushes are just really rewarding, no matter what victory you want.

 

[Roxlimn]

It's more accurate to say that just like all the Civs before it in a similar state, early war in Civ VI right now is fairly rewarding. And it's the best strategy at high difficulty setting where the AI has worthwhile stuff to steal. At lower settings, it's FAR more rewarding to REX.

And it's not correct to say that you can do anything on lower settings. On lower settings, with less AI stuff to take, it's clearly much less profitable to waste cogs on taking crap cities in suboptimal locations. You can always take them later when it costs comparatively less of your production.