Strong & weak civs, I need help.

[Futumch]

I found the Maya a bit disappointing. If you had the ability to shift your capital once, that might offset the distance penalty that you have with distant cities. You have very little control over where you start, you can hamstring your whole game if you start on a spindly peninsula or hard against a polar mountain chain.

I enjoy most of the other civs but have a soft spot for Norway, Scotland and Australia.

 

[Ticio]

I think you are totally right.

the last game I did with some friends, one choose the mayas.
It had his capital in a very very bad spot close to me.
We all new he was doomed. He had a ton of difficulties making new cities in good or average tiles in range to the capital. At the end only 4 cities had the bonus, and they were average.

I think that your idea of giving them 1 change of capital is quite awesome!

Like the Phoenicians but only once to make sure that your start is not what decides everything.

 

[Bitterman]

I don't get the appeal of the Observatory. For me it's an inferior version of the regular Campus to be honest, its only real advantage being that you can build it faster.

It gets +1 science for every two farms and +2 for every plantation. This means that an Observatory completely sorrounded by farms (six farms which, by the way, would be sub-optimal since they wouldn't be forming a diamond shape) gives you +3 science. If you are super lucky you may have one between two plantations, giving you +6, which is good but very very rare. On top of that those districts do not get the regular campus bonuses, which in my opinion are easier to get and sometimes way better, since you don't have to waste tiles with useless farms to get the most of them and instead use mountains, which you can do nothing with regardless.

Apart from this, there is nothing more you can do to boost those districts. You waste an average of 4 tiles to get +2 science. They don't have extra GPP's or secondary boosts to anything. I mean, if it weren't for the fact that you can build them in 7-8 turns they wouldn't be worth it, at least in my opinion. On top of that the Maya precisely won't have that much space to expand if one want to play them to their strenghts. Every single tile is important. I don't know, maybe it's me, but I fail to see how they perform better than average civs on science.

 

[_hero_]

I don't get the appeal of the Observatory. For me it's an inferior version of the regular Campus to be honest, its only real advantage being that you can build it faster.

It gets +1 science for every two farms and +2 for every plantation. This means that an Observatory completely sorrounded by farms (six farms which, by the way, would be sub-optimal since they wouldn't be forming a diamond shape) gives you +3 science. If you are super lucky you may have one between two plantations, giving you +6, which is good but very very rare. On top of that those districts do not get the regular campus bonuses, which in my opinion are easier to get and sometimes way better, since you don't have to waste tiles with useless farms to get the most of them and instead use mountains, which you can do nothing with regardless.

I was playing a game the other day where I saw a perfect hexagon of Cocoa. It would have been the perfect observatory but of course, I wasn't playing as Maya.

One thing I will say in defense of the observatory, though, is that the 50% reduced hammer cost of unique districts is also a non-trivial bonus and considering Campuses are probably the most built district for most players, it ends up being quite a few hammers saved over the course of the game. Not only does that mean you're getting other stuff out faster as well, and getting the extra science sooner as well, it also means you're getting a boost on your great scientist points sooner. It's hard to quantify, but if every observatory you build is out 5-10 turns sooner than it would be as a campus for other civs, that does add up.

 

[IvoryPavane]

I don't get the appeal of the Observatory. For me it's an inferior version of the regular Campus to be honest, its only real advantage being that you can build it faster.

It gets +1 science for every two farms and +2 for every plantation. This means that an Observatory completely sorrounded by farms (six farms which, by the way, would be sub-optimal since they wouldn't be forming a diamond shape) gives you +3 science. If you are super lucky you may have one between two plantations, giving you +6, which is good but very very rare. On top of that those districts do not get the regular campus bonuses, which in my opinion are easier to get and sometimes way better, since you don't have to waste tiles with useless farms to get the most of them and instead use mountains, which you can do nothing with regardless.

Apart from this, there is nothing more you can do to boost those districts. You waste an average of 4 tiles to get +2 science. They don't have extra GPP's or secondary boosts to anything. I mean, if it weren't for the fact that you can build them in 7-8 turns they wouldn't be worth it, at least in my opinion. On top of that the Maya precisely won't have that much space to expand if one want to play them to their strenghts. Every single tile is important. I don't know, maybe it's me, but I fail to see how they perform better than average civs on science.

I have played a LOT of matches as the Maya, and they certainly aren’t game breaking by any stretch of the imagination, but not once did I have an observatory worse than your average campus, and the hammers help.

Its a very solid UD imo

And while I’m here, and even though no one asked I’ll weigh in on the strong and weak Civ debate

I really hate the idea of “strong” and “weak” Civs, and I abhor when people say “trash” tier Civ. And I’ll tell you why:

— The game isn’t *that* difficult, so the people who want to play on Deity, are likely going to be able to do it with any Civ, and the people who want to play on lower difficulties can definitely do on any Civ
— Civs are so much more than the sum of their abilities. They are leaders, animations, music, architecture, design, and often (for me) these can win out over the abilities themselves (see: Georgia vs Australia)
— The game is quite random so even your strongest Civ can have an unlucky start and your weakest Civ can have a blinder. (And yes, these “tier lists” take that into account, but it doesn’t stop the fact that Georgia can win on turn 150 if the map sets her up)

I’ll probably edit more into that list above as I think of more, but I guess what I’m trying to say is that all the Civs can shine in their own way, and boiling them down into “hurr hurr, Civ X can only achieve Deity victory in 250 turns. Trash trash trash” is reductive.

However, I do think there are examples where the Civs core play style could do with some tweaking (e.g Khmer), and other Civs that are probably *too* good at executing it (e.g GC).

It’s funny, my partner caught my attention while I was reading an article to say “I just won a domination victory on Gran Columbia” and I was “yes dear, of course you did” and returned to my article. But my friend told me he just won domination with Scotland, and I was like “yes! Take me on that journey”

 

[monikernemo]

I don't get the appeal of the Observatory. For me it's an inferior version of the regular Campus to be honest, its only real advantage being that you can build it faster.

Faster campus == more early campus == more Great Scientists points earlier
More campus == cheaper districts

 

[agonistes]

I have played a LOT of matches as the Maya, and they certainly aren’t game breaking by any stretch of the imagination, but not once did I have an observatory worse than your average campus, and the hammers help.

Its a very solid UD imo

And while I’m here, and even though no one asked I’ll weigh in on the strong and weak Civ debate

I really hate the idea of “strong” and “weak” Civs, and I abhor when people say “trash” tier Civ. And I’ll tell you why:

— The game isn’t *that* difficult, so the people who want to play on Deity, are likely going to be able to do it with any Civ, and the people who want to play on lower difficulties can definitely do on any Civ
— Civs are so much more than the sum of their abilities. They are leaders, animations, music, architecture, design, and often (for me) these can win out over the abilities themselves (see: Georgia vs Australia)
— The game is quite random so even your strongest Civ can have an unlucky start and your weakest Civ can have a blinder. (And yes, these “tier lists” take that into account, but it doesn’t stop the fact that Georgia can win on turn 150 if the map sets her up)

I’ll probably edit more into that list above as I think of more, but I guess what I’m trying to say is that all the Civs can shine in their own way, and boiling them down into “hurr hurr, Civ X can only achieve Deity victory in 250 turns. Trash trash trash” is reductive.

However, I do think there are examples where the Civs core play style could do with some tweaking (e.g Khmer), and other Civs that are probably *too* good at executing it (e.g GC).

It’s funny, my partner caught my attention while I was reading an article to say “I just won a domination victory on Gran Columbia” and I was “yes dear, of course you did” and returned to my article. But my friend told me he just won domination with Scotland, and I was like “yes! Take me on that journey”

Please don!t touch khmer.

 

[Ticio]

I have played a LOT of matches as the Maya, and they certainly aren’t game breaking by any stretch of the imagination, but not once did I have an observatory worse than your average campus, and the hammers help.

Its a very solid UD imo

And while I’m here, and even though no one asked I’ll weigh in on the strong and weak Civ debate

I really hate the idea of “strong” and “weak” Civs, and I abhor when people say “trash” tier Civ. And I’ll tell you why:

— The game isn’t *that* difficult, so the people who want to play on Deity, are likely going to be able to do it with any Civ, and the people who want to play on lower difficulties can definitely do on any Civ
— Civs are so much more than the sum of their abilities. They are leaders, animations, music, architecture, design, and often (for me) these can win out over the abilities themselves (see: Georgia vs Australia)
— The game is quite random so even your strongest Civ can have an unlucky start and your weakest Civ can have a blinder. (And yes, these “tier lists” take that into account, but it doesn’t stop the fact that Georgia can win on turn 150 if the map sets her up)

I’ll probably edit more into that list above as I think of more, but I guess what I’m trying to say is that all the Civs can shine in their own way, and boiling them down into “hurr hurr, Civ X can only achieve Deity victory in 250 turns. Trash trash trash” is reductive.

However, I do think there are examples where the Civs core play style could do with some tweaking (e.g Khmer), and other Civs that are probably *too* good at executing it (e.g GC).

It’s funny, my partner caught my attention while I was reading an article to say “I just won a domination victory on Gran Columbia” and I was “yes dear, of course you did” and returned to my article. But my friend told me he just won domination with Scotland, and I was like “yes! Take me on that journey”

I can agree with you, all civs have an intrinsic valor thanks to their speceficics based on music, culture, architecture and so on.
For example, I loved Hungary for the music. Even before playing with them, it was one of my favorite civs just for that.

But I cannot agree with your statement of difficulty and randomness.

Of course, all civs are exposed to an amount of randomness, but not all civs suffer from it equally.

For example:
Greeks and Koreans can suffer if they appear in a map without hills, but this is quite unlikely.


Hungarians if they have no access to city-states or volcanic fissures.

England and Spain if there are few continents or are far from the start.

Maya and Aztecs lacking luxury goods.

Gran Colombia and Germany if... mmmm my mistake

Russian or Mali without tundra or dessert tiles

Etc.


But the chances of getting a bad start are increased with some abilities and vice versa. What is more probable? Being far away from another continent or having no a single hill for you first 5 cities?

Being a game where a good start can meant everything (snowballing), these randomness vulnerability is quite important making civs being objectively worst than others.
Or better said, some bonuses are more likely to be useful.

I prefer a less useful bonus that has a 98% probability of being use that a super bonus that has a 2% of being use. Because having a little to eat each day is better to have to wait until winning the lottery for paying a super meal.


With your first point, the one that you can play any civ on any difficulty. You are right, you can use whatever civ you want and it will be playable, but some will struggle on emperor and others not have any problem on deity even if played by the same player.

I have a harder time playing on king with Vikings (I am starting to get the playstyle though) or Spain than in deity with Germany, for example.

 

[IvoryPavane]

I can agree with you, all civs have an intrinsic valor thanks to their speceficics based on music, culture, architecture and so on.
For example, I loved Hungary for the music. Even before playing with them, it was one of my favorite civs just for that.

But I cannot agree with your statement of difficulty and randomness.

But the chances of getting a bad start are increased with some abilities and vice versa. What is more probable? Being far away from another continent or having no a single hill for you first 5 cities?

Being a game where a good start can meant everything (snowballing), these randomness vulnerability is quite important making civs being objectively worst than others.
Or better said, some bonuses are more likely to be useful.

With your first point, the one that you can play any civ on any difficulty. You are right, you can use whatever civ you want and it will be playable, but some will struggle on emperor and others not have any problem on deity even if played by the same player.

I have a harder time playing on king with Vikings (I am starting to get the playstyle though) or Spain than in deity with Germany, for example.

I see your point, and of course there are civilisations that have objectively more efficient bonuses (We are in the age of Gran Columbia after all), however the point I was trying to make (it seems poorly!) is that I don't believe the delta between "great" and "trash" (ugh) is as big as I see many people here preach.

Ultimately, there are 5 ways to win, and the map can guide you to one of those victories - even if you strip out all the Civs bonuses. The example I use with my friends is that my quickest Deity victory *ever* was with Tamar of Georgia. I lucked into jungle, mountainous era that kept me quite safe, jungle pantheon plus mountains gave me big adjacency bonus and then 3 eras of Exodus of the Evangelists allowed me to sweep the large map with my religion. The map generation with support from Tamar's abilities really allowed me to dominate that game, even though Georgia is routinely referred to as "lol" "trash" "bad" etc etc ((I do think it's a much better Civ now than it's given credit for)).

I think if someone really enjoys a Civ then they can find strategies to make them more usable than the average player, and that's why I think there are intrinsic value to every Civ.

That being said, I would love to see some balance changes in the upcoming patch

 

[Ticio]

I see your point, and of course there are civilisations that have objectively more efficient bonuses (We are in the age of Gran Columbia after all), however the point I was trying to make (it seems poorly!) is that I don't believe the delta between "great" and "trash" (ugh) is as big as I see many people here preach.

Ultimately, there are 5 ways to win, and the map can guide you to one of those victories - even if you strip out all the Civs bonuses. The example I use with my friends is that my quickest Deity victory *ever* was with Tamar of Georgia. I lucked into jungle, mountainous era that kept me quite safe, jungle pantheon plus mountains gave me big adjacency bonus and then 3 eras of Exodus of the Evangelists allowed me to sweep the large map with my religion. The map generation with support from Tamar's abilities really allowed me to dominate that game, even though Georgia is routinely referred to as "lol" "trash" "bad" etc etc ((I do think it's a much better Civ now than it's given credit for)).

I think if someone really enjoys a Civ then they can find strategies to make them more usable than the average player, and that's why I think there are intrinsic value to every Civ.

That being said, I would love to see some balance changes in the upcoming patch

I totally agree with you, the difference is not that big (maybe in multiplayer is more of a problem). But yes, a "better" civ can be slowed down quite a lot by a bad start and a "bad" one have the opposite outcome, for sure!

 

[Ticio]

I'm adding new civs to the weak list and to the strong one.

Let me know what you think!

Also, if anyone has suggestions of civs to put on the list I wil be glad! (My next game will be with India and, after them, Ethiopa (I think India will be weak and Ethiopa strong)

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Strong and weak... Let's stop for a while and take a small step back to get a perspective.
I will ask a very fundamental question. Is strong-weak the way we should describe Civs in a single, not competitive game at all? The game that describes itself and was created as a "one more turn" experience, not "one less turn to victory" gameplay?
I wonder why people do not ask themselves which Civs are fun to play, and which are not instead? Because it is fun to play strong Civs perhaps? Really?
Is the strength of Civilization really important at all? Why we are so focused on all those Tier Lists? What is even the purpose of all those Tier lists?
Do Civ strength is really essential for our Civ game experience? Is beating level difficulty on the minimum number of turns is that what we expect from this game?
Those questions are very important because they build our expectations and in the end also disappointments. Is winning as fast or as easy as we can by picking the strongest Civs is really what makes us play the game? Is this really rewarding for us?

I think all those questions are far much more interesting than a question which Civs are strong, and which are not.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Well actually Civ6 depends more on city-states than Civ abilities.

For example, the suzerain bonus of Rapa Nui and Lahore are much stronger than most of the Civ abilities, and if you suzerain Yerevan it'll be easy to win religious victory, since your apostles will be as strong as Mongolian apostles even if you're playing a blank Civ.

weak Civ+ strong CS>strong Civ+weak or no CS. The tier list will only tell you the "average strength" of each Civ over multiple situations, however it won't ensure superiority.

Korea with no neighboring CS is sure to be weaker than Georgia surrounded by 4 Science CS even in science, but that doesn't mean Georgia is generally better in science than Korea.


As CS decides half of the situation, the map condition decides another half. Born in forest or jungle means you have a lot of extra productions, born next to mountains means your campuses and Holy Sites are much more powerful.

Born on plains? Consider a horseman rush as horsemen move much faster on plain terrain.

 

[Ticio]

Strong and weak... Let's stop for a while and take a small step back to get a perspective.
I will ask a very fundamental question. Is strong-weak the way we should describe Civs in a single, not competitive game at all? The game that describes itself and was created as a "one more turn" experience, not "one less turn to victory" gameplay?
I wonder why people do not ask themselves which Civs are fun to play, and which are not instead? Because it is fun to play strong Civs perhaps? Really?
Is the strength of Civilization really important at all? Why we are so focused on all those Tier Lists? What is even the purpose of all those Tier lists?
Do Civ strength is really essential for our Civ game experience? Is beating level difficulty on the minimum number of turns is that what we expect from this game?
Those questions are very important because they build our expectations and in the end also disappointments. Is winning as fast or as easy as we can by picking the strongest Civs is really what makes us play the game? Is this really rewarding for us?

Well... I did the post when I started to play Civ vi and had no clue to use any civ.
I played with some of the list and pretty fast became evident that some of them had "bonuses" that could help achieve victory, not sooner, but easier.

As my favorite game style is quite specific (expploration and trade) I normally use England, Spain and Phoenicia, even if my friends use Gran Colombia or now Byzantium.
The thing is that is a lot more probable to win with some civs that with others and at the end of the day loosing systematically reduce a lot the fun of playing.

Playing "weakest" civs is also a good option to raise difficulty and fun, for example, we let new friends that do not know how to play, use civs like Gran Colombia, Germany, Byzantium, Korea or USA so they have more opportunities to win.

The players with more experience use civs that are more ... average (I normally use Spain as I consider them the weakest of the "colonisation/commertial" branch but if a friend of mine, that is a beast playing this game, plays with us I will choose England to have more opportunities but still be playing the game style that I prefer).

Of course, a lot more things affect the game that just the civ (city-states access, first city location, terrain, type of map, etc) and it is inevitable to have civs better equipped for a certain type of victory or with bonuses that are more powerful. Is one of the strong points of the game, to have so many different civs!
But I did the post originally to seek for tips when using the civs I consider harder/weaker, but also to point the ones that, I think, are so strong that other normal and weaker civs cannot compete.

I mean, if I had a battle against myself using Mayas and my other self using Gran Colombia or Byzantium, I'm pretty sure that the one using Mayas would lose and by a lot. It can be fun to try to win a disperate game, but after more and more games it would be anooying and boring.
-Mayas VS Spain? good match
-Gran Colombia vs Byzantium? Good match
England vs Germany? Good match but easier for Germany.

But

-Maya vs Gran Colombia? Not so funny

What is not funny for me is that we have to choose a civ for every player on a multiplayer match to make sure we will have a more balanced game.
Otherwise, the game would end before it even started (we normally have the rule to play until modern era but games tend to end before if a player is so strong it cannot be stopped. For example when a good player uses a civ that has very strong bonuses the macht is declared won when we all recognise we cannot win even united).

At the end, the list was, from my point of view of course, about civs that were maybe too strong and other maybe too weak. So tiny changes are proposed to the weak so they can be more viable and to point what make the “OP” civs so strong and can be taken in account (to know what is their strong point, not to necessarily change them).

So, in the case of Mayas, having the ability to change once their capital to another city could make them a lot more viable and funny to play, as you will not be doomed since turn one form a bad city placement.

So, not change their bonuses but let them have more opportunities. As Mayans, your first city and the surroundings are bad tiles? too bad, your principal bonus will be lost (as the new cities on good tiles will have a malus) but, you are Gran colombia in the same spot? meh.. you will compensate with new cities in the good tiles.

Maybe give Maya an ability to change Once the capital city, so the first city will not doom the entire game and give them the opportunity to use their bonuses on good tiles (as an example). This would make them more fun.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Well... I did the post when I started to play Civ vi and had no clue to use any civ.
I played with some of the list and pretty fast became evident that some of them had "bonuses" that could help achieve victory, not sooner, but easier.

As my favorite game style is quite specific (expploration and trade) I normally use England, Spain and Phoenicia, even if my friends use Gran Colombia or now Byzantium.
The thing is that is a lot more probable to win with some civs that with others and at the end of the day loosing systematically reduce a lot the fun of playing.

Playing "weakest" civs is also a good option to raise difficulty and fun, for example, we let new friends that do not know how to play, use civs like Gran Colombia, Germany, Byzantium, Korea or USA so they have more opportunities to win.

The players with more experience use civs that are more ... average (I normally use Spain as I consider them the weakest of the "colonisation/commertial" branch but if a friend of mine, that is a beast playing this game, plays with us I will choose England to have more opportunities but still be playing the game style that I prefer).

Of course, a lot more things affect the game that just the civ (city-states access, first city location, terrain, type of map, etc) and it is inevitable to have civs better equipped for a certain type of victory or with bonuses that are more powerful. Is one of the strong points of the game, to have so many different civs!
But I did the post originally to seek for tips when using the civs I consider harder/weaker, but also to point the ones that, I think, are so strong that other normal and weaker civs cannot compete.

I mean, if I had a battle against myself using Mayas and my other self using Gran Colombia or Byzantium, I'm pretty sure that the one using Mayas would lose and by a lot. It can be fun to try to win a disperate game, but after more and more games it would be anooying and boring.
-Mayas VS Spain? good match
-Gran Colombia vs Byzantium? Good match
England vs Germany? Good match but easier for Germany.

But

-Maya vs Gran Colombia? Not so funny

What is not funny for me is that we have to choose a civ for every player on a multiplayer match to make sure we will have a more balanced game.
Otherwise, the game would end before it even started (we normally have the rule to play until modern era but games tend to end before if a player is so strong it cannot be stopped. For example when a good player uses a civ that has very strong bonuses the macht is declared won when we all recognise we cannot win even united).

At the end, the list was, from my point of view of course, about civs that were maybe too strong and other maybe too weak. So tiny changes are proposed to the weak so they can be more viable and to point what make the “OP” civs so strong and can be taken in account (to know what is their strong point, not to necessarily change them).

So, in the case of Mayas, having the ability to change once their capital to another city could make them a lot more viable and funny to play, as you will not be doomed since turn one form a bad city placement.

So, not change their bonuses but let them have more opportunities. As Mayans, your first city and the surroundings are bad tiles? too bad, your principal bonus will be lost (as the new cities on good tiles will have a malus) but, you are Gran colombia in the same spot? meh.. you will compensate with new cities in the good tiles.

Maybe give Maya an ability to change Once the capital city, so the first city will not doom the entire game and give them the opportunity to use their bonuses on good tiles (as an example). This would make them more fun.

Don't you think the better question for you, in this case, should be "what Civs are good for beginners"? Some Civs like Maya, Mali, or Maori are very fun to play but need some experience to appreciate them. I can assure you they are all fun and pretty strong. Everything depends on the context.
If you start with them you can be discouraged and ruin your further game experience. And it is the best advice I can give for all beginners in general. Do not ask what Civ is strong, but ask what Civ is best for beginners
To start try Rome, Germany, Korea, or Greece. They are pretty simple and decently Strong Civs and you will learn the basics of the game. Than you can try the Civs that are harder to play and fully enjoy them