Strong & weak civs, I need help.

[Navelgazer]

Lily_Lancer's point (as I understand it, at least) still stands: for the most part, what makes the difference between an overpowered or underpowered civ is the player.

I am the abnormal player, who can't quite get a Science Victory because Culture Victory always comes accidentally.

I know what the conventional-wisdom "S-Tier" is but I also don't care. If there were an "S-Tier" list for how I play, it would be Pedro, Tamar, Gorgo, Pericles, Gitarja. Because that's how I play.

 

[Jewelrunna]

Lily_Lancer's point (as I understand it, at least) still stands: for the most part, what makes the difference between an overpowered or underpowered civ is the player.

I am the abnormal player, who can't quite get a Science Victory because Culture Victory always comes accidentally.

I know what the conventional-wisdom "S-Tier" is but I also don't care. If there were an "S-Tier" list for how I play, it would be Pedro, Tamar, Gorgo, Pericles, Gitarja. Because that's how I play.

Well, there's sort of an objective metric you can apply to a tier list for Civ. There are certain qualities that a Civ can have that play to what the games values (high production, strong early military, high science to name a few). Civs that have bonuses that benefit them in those areas are going to be generally better than those who don't. In an asymmetrically balanced game, some Civs are going to better than others by the nature of their design.

That's not to say that any Civ in the game is unviable. Any Civ can be strong in the right hands, and under the right circumstances. Some Civs, however, you have to bend over backwards to accommodate those strengths, and others they fit naturally into the flow of the game.

 

[Navelgazer]

Well, there's sort of an objective metric you can apply to a tier list for Civ. There are certain qualities that a Civ can have that play to what the games values (high production, strong early military, high science to name a few). Civs that have bonuses that benefit them in those areas are going to be generally better than those who don't. In an asymmetrically balanced game, some Civs are going to better than others by the nature of their design.

That's not to say that any Civ in the game is unviable. Any Civ can be strong in the right hands, and under the right circumstances. Some Civs, however, you have to bend over backwards to accommodate those strengths, and others they fit naturally into the flow of the game.

I agree, and if I were to compose a tier list I would keep those things in mind, with Germany and Nubia and Korea and Sumeria and Australia at the top. But aside from Australia, I don't really get down with those playstyles, while weird niche strategies, particularly those that rely on Faith, feel very intuitive to me. I won't claim that Georgia, Khmer, or Indonesia are top-tier in general. I just know they are for me, because they fit me like a glove.

 

[Jewelrunna]

I agree, and if I were to compose a tier list I would keep those things in mind, with Germany and Nubia and Korea and Sumeria and Australia at the top. But aside from Australia, I don't really get down with those playstyles, while weird niche strategies, particularly those that rely on Faith, feel very intuitive to me. I won't claim that Georgia, Khmer, or Indonesia are top-tier in general. I just know they are for me, because they fit me like a glove.

I agree with that perspective! It's important to play Civs that you like to play. However, the topic of the thread is which Civs are strong. When talking about that topic, you have to toss subjective opinions aside and focus on what objective strengths each Civ has. As a longtime Civ and fighting game player, I think that in conversations that focus around the metagame it's not worth bringing up the "well I like this character/civ because they're cool" comments, because that has nothing to do with the metagame.

 

[NukeAJS]

Even though you haven't been playing long, your assessment on those 5 civs is quite accurate.

I say quite accurate because nearly all civs can be played well and can be quite dominant in most situations. Basically, all civs are equal but some are more equal than others.

Basically, S-tier civs require fewer or zero "if" statements to be dominant. Korea is widely regarded as one of the best civs in the game because their only "if" is: "If you have hills, you're good." Unless you get incredibly unlucky or purposefully choose a map with little or no hills, Korea will be able to exploit its main bonus and exploit it hard.

On the other hand, as you noted, Norway has a very good bonus -- raiding with all melee ships starting immediately when you start building ships. But there are too many ifs that are somewhat unlikely for you to be able to actually exploit that bonus. You must -- settle on the coast; build ships; have a neighbor somewhat nearby; they must have cities and/or many tile improvements or civilians on the coast. In addition to that, there's usually not that much to raid in the early game even if those situations are met. On the plus side, you can do that with caravels in the late medieval/early renaissance so that's neat (although privateers aren't far behind)

Spain is similar in this regard except they don't have any real trait that sticks out as being incredibly dominant. They have a hodge-podge of several meh to good traits. The biggest thing holding them back is basically everything requires being on a different continent. Depending on your roll, that could be very difficult to pull-off. Sometimes it's so difficult that it's wiser to not even try because the effort in doing it won't pay back dividends.

Poland is a good example of how the opposite (inverse? converse?) of Spain can play-out. Poland is a good, but not great civ. They have no "WOW!" bonuses in particular (well, maybe the winged hussar but that's on the culture tree and Poland gets one tiny-little bonus towards culture). However, Poland is diversified enough to where you will always be using at least some of their abilities. When you become familiar with their many moving parts, you can start exploiting traits and their synergies all over the place almost regardless of your starting location.

So, the nomenclature is basically -- if you have to say "in this situation" more with a civ, it's generally considered lower-tier. If you don't have to say it at all or it's so common that it doesn't really matter, it's probably a high-tier civ. That's exactly why Rome, Japan, and Germany are solid A-tier civs. As Rome, are you building cities? If so, you're doing Rome correctly. As Japan, are you building districts? If so, you're doing Japan correctly. As Germany, are you placing two districts as soon as you settle a city and using military cards (you're forced to)? If so, you're playing Germany correctly. As Sumeria, are you building their two uniques that are available from the very beginning of the game? ... you get the point

 

[Navelgazer]

I agree with that perspective! It's important to play Civs that you like to play. However, the topic of the thread is which Civs are strong. When talking about that topic, you have to toss subjective opinions aside and focus on what objective strengths each Civ has. As a longtime Civ and fighting game player, I think that in conversations that focus around the metagame it's not worth bringing up the "well I like this character/civ because they're cool" comments, because that has nothing to do with the metagame.

Of course! And in that regard I feel like Spain is one of the weaker civs (though I don't quite get down with the "no bonus to founding a religion" argument. If you're playing Maya, you gotta build farms. If you're playing Phoenecia, you gotta build harbors. If you're playing Spain, you gotta build holy sites. I know it might not be in your standard build order but do it anyway.)

Gran Colombia is pretty obviously double S-tier, if such a thing exists. +1 movement to every unit is absurdly good. And even playing peacefully they're fun, as they can explore the map, settle, and spread religion faster than anyone. They should probably be tweaked.

And a civ like Khmer, which I think is actually quite good at its niche strategy, should probably get half-cost holy sites and aqueducts. A small bonus which fits their gameplan and keeps Firaxis from having to make those officially unique districts, which they basically are.

Freleanor is a special case, because I don't think anyone plays Eleanor except for the challenge of peaceful domination, and Frealanor's bonuses take forever to come online (Engleanor lacks the wonder-building bonus but truly ramps up far better than Freleanor does) but I don't think anyone's really asking for a Frealanor boost - playing as Eleanor is like playing on a special mode, essentially.

But this is kind of my point: Every civ is its own "game mode," really. Playing Gitarja means settling in for building a lot of Kampungs. Playing Catherine de'Medici means you're going to be focused on spies! You can play Norway on Pangea or Mongolia on Archipelago but if you do so you know that you're in for a weird, hard game.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

How many people think Norway is only good at sea?

Norway on land maps is still S-tier. It won't be "hard" but still very quick and easy.

 

[Ticio]

Assuming you’re playing on PC @Ticio, I’d definitely wait on a Steam sale to buy the remaining DLC - it can get pretty expensive buying them full cost! If I had to recommend which one to get first, I’d say Australia (great Civ, fun to play) or the Alexander/Persia one (both really strong domination Civs, plus I personally really enjoyed the historical scenario). As to which is least necessary, it’s 100% Poland; she’s a underwhelming Civ with a very dull playstyle IMO, and the scenario is utter garbage.

EDIT: also, I agree with you about Hungary. I drew up a tier list for my mate who’s new to the game, and put Hungary in S Tier (the best). He was like ‘really, they don’t look that good?’; but after playing, he immediately agreed with me.

SECOND EDIT: I’m sorry moderator, but why have you edited my comment on the basis of ‘trolling’? Ticio has asked a genuine question, in good faith, and has stated his personal opinion - that Norway and Spain are bad, and Germany is good. Lily_Lancer has clearly come here in bad faith to be deliberately contrarian against Ticio, by stating the polar opposite of what he said. I called Lily_Lancer out to defend Ticio - and you’ve censored my post?? Seriously, man?

Yes! i never purchase anything if not on sales XD

The only one I have purchased so far is the one with Alexander. Both civs are quite interesting to me (I have to try them yet) but I purchased it only for "Halycarnassus". I think is my favorite wonder togeteher with oracle.

I will follow you suggestions on DLCs and a really appretiate the feedback. I'm always with doubts about wich one to buy!

Even though you haven't been playing long, your assessment on those 5 civs is quite accurate.

I say quite accurate because nearly all civs can be played well and can be quite dominant in most situations. Basically, all civs are equal but some are more equal than others.

Basically, S-tier civs require fewer or zero "if" statements to be dominant. Korea is widely regarded as one of the best civs in the game because their only "if" is: "If you have hills, you're good." Unless you get incredibly unlucky or purposefully choose a map with little or no hills, Korea will be able to exploit its main bonus and exploit it hard.

On the other hand, as you noted, Norway has a very good bonus -- raiding with all melee ships starting immediately when you start building ships. But there are too many ifs that are somewhat unlikely for you to be able to actually exploit that bonus. You must -- settle on the coast; build ships; have a neighbor somewhat nearby; they must have cities and/or many tile improvements or civilians on the coast. In addition to that, there's usually not that much to raid in the early game even if those situations are met. On the plus side, you can do that with caravels in the late medieval/early renaissance so that's neat (although privateers aren't far behind)

Spain is similar in this regard except they don't have any real trait that sticks out as being incredibly dominant. They have a hodge-podge of several meh to good traits. The biggest thing holding them back is basically everything requires being on a different continent. Depending on your roll, that could be very difficult to pull-off. Sometimes it's so difficult that it's wiser to not even try because the effort in doing it won't pay back dividends.

Poland is a good example of how the opposite (inverse? converse?) of Spain can play-out. Poland is a good, but not great civ. They have no "WOW!" bonuses in particular (well, maybe the winged hussar but that's on the culture tree and Poland gets one tiny-little bonus towards culture). However, Poland is diversified enough to where you will always be using at least some of their abilities. When you become familiar with their many moving parts, you can start exploiting traits and their synergies all over the place almost regardless of your starting location.

So, the nomenclature is basically -- if you have to say "in this situation" more with a civ, it's generally considered lower-tier. If you don't have to say it at all or it's so common that it doesn't really matter, it's probably a high-tier civ. That's exactly why Rome, Japan, and Germany are solid A-tier civs. As Rome, are you building cities? If so, you're doing Rome correctly. As Japan, are you building districts? If so, you're doing Japan correctly. As Germany, are you placing two districts as soon as you settle a city and using military cards (you're forced to)? If so, you're playing Germany correctly. As Sumeria, are you building their two uniques that are available from the very beginning of the game? ... you get the point

I think you are totally right.

Seems that the ones that have to take less "if" are the strongest, even when the bonus are a little less powerfull.

But I think at the end those are fun to play to! is like using an Slotmachine, you have the fun of seeing if you were lucky at the start

Maybe the civs with more "risks" or that they need more "if" to activate their bonus should have someking of escalation on the bonus.

I mean, the bonus become a little more powerfull if you succeed on your way to achive them. I gave the example for Spain of multiple contients stacking (traders through 2 continents +1 food/pro; through 3 =+2, 4=3, etc)

I'm starting to want to play other low tier civs to check on them! more than the strong ones. I think that after Hungary I will try Australia, as you all gave me good feedback about them(if they put the dlc on sale) but what other low tier Civs are there?

I would like to check on them!

 

[trev1972]

Interesting list!!!
Got to say norway was one of the first civ 6 games i played and i had great fun playing them, and took a few coastal cities very, very early.

England - victoria was great mid to late game, with all those free units, but its all changed now .

But personally i find those with early UU are the most powerful, and for peaceful lower difficulty games (i only play emperor) korea is the strongest.

I imagine for deity players it is completely different since whacking the AI early is so crucial.

 

[Deadly Dog]

How many people think Norway is only good at sea?

Norway on land maps is still S-tier. It won't be "hard" but still very quick and easy.

Ok so it took a few posts but I'm getting the picture of your Norway games in my head and it's making me laugh. PIllaging 5 tiles a turn for the whole game? Yeah well that makes sense. With those kind of yields do you even bother looking at your own science/culture/gold output?

As a player who plays both as a builder and somewhat immersively I do check myself all too often when on a conquering spree to ask myself if this is a civ I would want to live in or what the movie about it would be like. The devs must love me because I really try to make their civs work as intended, for the most part.

So I appreciate the perspective form someone who seems to be purely interested in the mechanics and how to exploit them to maximum gain. Many of us can see quite readily how Gran Columbia's bonuses are quite powerful and possibly broken, but that comes just with playing a dom civ as intended. Taking Norway's pillaging bonus and applying it to your own cities is quite a commitment to a strategy which I can believe would be quite effective without being tempted to try it.

So if I reflect on what the "movies" of my games would look like I get a collection that ranges from The Princess Bride (happy Kingdom) to Game of Thrones (Russian soothsayers in the tundra!)

But I never made a Mad Max!

 

[The Highwayman]

How many people think Norway is only good at sea?

Norway on land maps is still S-tier. It won't be "hard" but still very quick and easy.

I think they're better on land due to pillaging. Pillaging was nerfed across the board but Norway got to keep the powerful ability of getting science and culture. Leveraging the free city sounds like a great idea: kill the units that spawn, take the city, fix the mines/whatever, let it flip, rinse, repeat. Do I have that right?

 

[Basajaun]

So if I reflect on what the "movies" of my games would look like I get a collection that ranges from The Princess Bride (happy Kingdom) to Game of Thrones (Russian soothsayers in the tundra!)

But I never made a Mad Max!

In my usual gamestyle, I value peaceful bonuses much more than those focused toward war, so I find little interest in playing those civs unless its for educational purposes. Some exceptions like Gilgamesh who has bonuses for both, but I play peacefully with him too.
So my personal choice for most powerful/favorite civs are ones like Egypt, Sumeria, Maori, Japan. Each of those have nice bonuses for peaceful progression in the form of unique improvements in case of Egypt and Sumeria, hardcore 0 emission production with Maori + Marae, and easy mode adjacencies with Japan + coastal combat bonus, which helps me a lot because I love a bit too much coastal cities.

My civ movie would be something like this. I might not be a warmonger, but I definitely work my people to death

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Are you at war with everyone simultaneously and pillaging >5 tiles per turn? (which means you shall keep an eye on at least 15 tiles)

Do you intentionally pillage city states?

Have you ever tried to independenize your own cities in order to pillage them?

yes

yes

no, I always use an enemy city for that, seems much easier that way. it feels pretty cheap but then again I'm the kind of person who enjoyed the pillage/repair bug in Civ 5

so, I'm up next: why are you dodging my question? do you admit that even if you play norway perfectly they are still slower at Science/Culture victories than other Civs?

I think they're better on land due to pillaging. Pillaging was nerfed across the board but Norway got to keep the powerful ability of getting science and culture. Leveraging the free city sounds like a great idea: kill the units that spawn, take the city, fix the mines/whatever, let it flip, rinse, repeat. Do I have that right?

yes, that's how it's done. the difficult part is you only have one or two turns to repair until the city flips again, so you need 4 or 5 builders to make it worth.

Lily_Lancer's point (as I understand it, at least) still stands: for the most part, what makes the difference between an overpowered or underpowered civ is the player.

I am the abnormal player, who can't quite get a Science Victory because Culture Victory always comes accidentally.

I know what the conventional-wisdom "S-Tier" is but I also don't care. If there were an "S-Tier" list for how I play, it would be Pedro, Tamar, Gorgo, Pericles, Gitarja. Because that's how I play.

sorry, but that's not a an argument. it's not even a "point". of course some Civs have skill ceilings that are different from others. that does not mean that some Civs can't be universally stronger than others. obviously a Civ with literally no bonuses is worse than one with even small bonuses, so let's not pretend otherwise.

even the most amazing Civ player there is cannot make Canada more powerful in warfare than Gran Colombia. even the worst player will likely outperform Scythia with Korea when it comes to science.

Norway is probably one of the Civs with the highest skill ceiling in the game, meaning a better player will perform much better with Norway than a beginner. That doesn't mean that Norway is a top-tier Civ, that's simply being illogical. All it means is that Norway has a high skill cap, period.

your second argument is distinct from the first, but you act like they're the same. yes, every player plays differently, so not every Civ fits every player. that doesn't mean some Civs aren't inherently stronger than others, that's just a wrong conclusion.

Rome and Japan are A-Tier, China and Greece are B-Tier. I'm considering bumping Greece up to A-Tier after the Acropolis buff, but I haven't had the chance to touch them.

Some quick explanations are Rome is pretty much guaranteed a good start because of Trajan's Column and the Legion is very strong, but they lack any insane bonus that really lasts for them throughout the whole game. Very strong, but not absurdly so. In Japan's case, Meiji Restoration seems innocuous on the surface, but is secretly one of the best abilities in the game. Divine Wind is really useful as well, but the Samurai and Electronics Factory are just pretty good at best. Very adaptable and strong, but not obscenely so. A-Tier for both. Very strong, just not as good as the S-Tiers in my opinion

And with China and Greece, it's kind of the same reason. Both have one S-Tier worthy bonus (The First Emperor and Plato's Republic), but everything else just ranges from pretty good in a general sense to good in specific situations. Though again, for Greece I need to reexamine them post-buff.

I strongly disagree and find it extremely hard to ever place Scythia over Rome, Japan, Greece & friends, but I don't want to get into that argument now I think there is no "objective" tier list because people can never agree on what metrics to rank Civs by, and even if they do, those metrics are entirely subjective. So some people will make a tier list based on "how likely are you to win with this at Deity" (which I find kinda dumb), some people will make a tier list based on "how fast can a Civ finish the game?" (which is kinda one-dimensional and inherently prefers religious and warmongering Civs over others) or you could base your tier list on which Civ is the best for multiplayer. There are infinite possibilities and metrics.

so, for example, my personal ranking system would be this: Strong Civs are the Civs that can win games faster than others, irrespective of the conditions of the map or the game. Strong Civs have unconditional bonuses that kick in very early. So to me, the strongest Civs are the ones who have bonuses to more than one VC (not one trick ponies) and have bonuses that matter in every game, as early as possible, because that makes them reliable, and reliability is strength for me. I think we both definitely agree that conditional bonuses (if you found a religion you get X) are super weak and unconditional (start with one wildcard slot) are super strong. It seems we simply disagree on which metric to rate Civs by. And since you consider Scythia S-tier, for example, it is clear your metrics are very different from mine, because I consider them a mediocre Civ who are only good at Domination and Religious Victory (so not very versatile, almost 0 bonuses for switching to peaceful VC). It seems I value versatility higher than you do.

 

[AntSou]

I think some Civs aren't straightforward and maybe warrant more than a play-through to find an effective play style.

For instance, I keep being confused by the argument that Spain's abilities do not support one another. You can use Religion to support your Military and your Military to support your Religion. You can much more easily expand to different Continents and set a Religious base there, rather than needing to bring Apostles from the main continent all the time. The huge Faith income you get from Cities on different Continents means you'll have a never-ending stream of Military Units which you can use to overwhelm the Civs on the Continents you just landed in.

Small changes in how you approach the game can have great benefits. For instance, the Pantheon God of War (Bonus Faith equal to 50% of the strength of each enemy unit killed within 8 tiles of a Holy Site district you own) is pretty good with Spain as long as you take Grand Master's Chapel. You kill units which give you currency to buy more units, which you can spam anywhere, including newly founded Cities. Since you're never spending Gold on units, you'll have it available to spend on buildings, which is incredibly useful when you're spamming new Cities. This paired with Hic Sunt Dracones Golden Age is insane when playing as Spain in the Renaissance/Industrial Era.

Missions and raiding also let you safely de-prioritise Campuses. You'll still need a few, but you'll be alright as long as you keep with the middle of the pack. The Conquistador is so strong it allows you to fall behind in military tech. By the time you need to upgrade (and you'll have the Gold for it), you'll have a bunch of Promoted units which you can then turn to Armies (if you haven't yet by then).

Furthermore, because you'll be prioritising Naval Techs and Civics, you'll naturally find yourself in need of a Navy. You'll have a bunch of Naval Raiders and other Naval units which will beat anything the opponent can throw at you due to your early Armadas. Any enemy district along the Coast is free real estate for Spain. It's all yours.

The +1 Food / +1 Prod from trade routes is not minor. It may seem that way, but the way I see it you're kind of expected to play that with Magnus. It's very efficient since a single trade route will give you something like 6 Food / 5 Prod. Your cities on foreign continents take only a few turns to get to 9/10 population, making you essentially invulnerable to loyalty issues. All those Pops put a lot of passive Religious pressure as well of course.
---

When playing as Spain, try to ignore the fact that you're not leading in either Science or Culture. It's a misleading indicator. On a Standard map / Standard speed, you'll beat the opponent to a Religious/Military victory long before they can win a Science or Culture Victory.

The one disadvantage Spain has is that the game is no fun if you fail to earn a Prophet.

TLDR: Spain is a colossal Snowball on Continents maps (or any map script which results in landmasses isolated by Ocean tiles).


PS: All of this was written with Immortal difficulty in mind.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

yes
do you admit that even if you play norway perfectly they are still slower at Science/Culture victories than other Civs?



.

I don't think so. They're faster. With Norway it is guaranteed to run at 300+ science and culture per turn (from domestic output and pillage) at T100 standard speed, and the time of SV is around T160-170 in the previous gathering storm. (I haven't tested since the recent update, but I believe it shall still be around T170)

 

[The Highwayman]

I don't think so. They're faster. With Norway it is guaranteed to run at 300+ science and culture per turn (from domestic output and pillage) at T100 standard speed, and the time of SV is around T160-170 in the previous gathering storm. (I haven't tested since the recent update, but I believe it shall still be around T170)

Do you bother with the Stave Church or Beserker, or do you get your faith gen from pillaging when going for science victories in particluar?

 

[tedhebert]

How many people think Norway is only good at sea?

Norway on land maps is still S-tier. It won't be "hard" but still very quick and easy.

I think they're better on land due to pillaging. Pillaging was nerfed across the board but Norway got to keep the powerful ability of getting science and culture. Leveraging the free city sounds like a great idea: kill the units that spawn, take the city, fix the mines/whatever, let it flip, rinse, repeat. Do I have that right?

Wow honestly guys, that's really thinking outside the box.

I'm in the 'you need a nice water/island map to play Norway' camp I must admit. I honestly tought ( and I honestly can't figure why I'd come to such an incorrect conclusion) that the pillaging buff only applied to sea raiding for Norway.

Thx @Lily_Lancer for this... I'm looking for different way of setting up my games for challenge and difference. This completely fits the bill ;-) Norway on Pangea, who would have thought ;-)

 

[The Highwayman]

@tedhebert yeah Norway retained the OP pillage that was removed for everyone else. I'm certainly guilty of overlooking things like this. If "x" is deemed to powerful universally, and it's removed except for one civ, would that one civ not have a leg up on most? Can you imagine if they ever brought back stacking generals?

 

[tedhebert]

@tedhebert Can you imagine if they ever brought back stacking generals?

They already did ! Gran Colombia ;-)

 

[The Highwayman]

They already did ! Gran Colombia ;-)

You see what I did there