Sufficiency's Tier List (Pangaea)

[sufficiency]

This has been work-in-progress on teamliquid for a while and I decided to move it here. Many thanks to ScipSC for his valuable inputs on the older version of the tier list.

Note:
1. This tier list only applies to playing on standard Pangaea map with all default settings and standard speed, against AI opponents.
2. The tier list ranks the civs by their versatility and power on a randomly rolled map. Sure, you might be able to achieve domination victory with India by turn 200, but did you have a 4 salt, 3 wheat start? Or, did you find a natural wonder by turn 5 as Spain? Luck is always a factor in the game, but I try to rank the civs by their average potential, not their maximum potential from a good start.
3. Within a tier, the civs are listed in no particular order.

Last Edited: May 9th, 2013

• God Tier: these civs are so good that they can win from almost any kind of starting point, and they are often suitable to win in many different ways.
  Ethiopia, the Mayans, Austria, Arabia, Korea, Babylon.
• --------------------------
• 1st Tier: these civs are in general fairly good, but they are not as good as the God Tier civs.
  China, England, Mongolia, Egypt, the Celts, the Incans.
• --------------------------
• 2nd Tier: these civs are decent, but they are lackluster compared to the other civs on the higher tiers, or require some luck to get going.
  The Netherland, Russia, Siam, the Aztecs, France, the Huns, the Iroquois, Rome, Persia.
• --------------------------
• 3rd Tier: these civs are considered to be not that great but workable.
  Germany, Greece, America, Carthage, Songhai, Denmark, India, the Ottoman.
• --------------------------
• 4th Tier: these civs are comparably pretty bad.
  Byzantium, Sweden, Japan, Polynesia.
• --------------------------
• Dice-roll Tier: way better than God Tier with luck, 3rd~4th tier without luck.
  Spain.

Selected explanations:

Ethiopia: is almost guaranteed first pantheon and religion; UA good for tall empires as well as for domination.
The Mayans: Shrines provide +2 Faith and +2 Science; almost guaranteed religion.
Austria: All your CS are belong to me.
Korea: Free Secularism, very good science, decent UU.
Babylon: Fast GS, very good early science.
China/England/Arabia/Mongolia: Great medieval era ranged UU and other perks.
The Celts: Guaranteed first pantheon; almost guaranteed first religion; decent UU/UB.
Egypt: UB +2 and no maintenance. War chariots are CBs on steroids and do not require horses (and no need to tech up to construction). Good for wide empires and domination victory. Screw wonders .
The Incans: No movement cost on hills and cheap roads; UI is great but can be situational.
Netherland: UI is great, although Guilds might be a bit late. UA is fantastic for a solid early start.
Russia: Very strong if spawned near a lot of strategic resources. Sell strategic resources for gold and get extra hammers.
Siam: Pledge to Protect + Aesthetics.
Iroquois: Mohawks do not require Iron, free trade routes (with luck), great UB.
Germany: dice-roll UA, landies are OK but greater number is not always useful for a melee unit, Panzers are too late.
Greece: Why not play Siam? Protect + Aesthetics nullifies the Greek UA.
America: UA is useless beyond very early game. B17 way too late. Minutesman saved America from joining Japan in the bottom tier.
Carthage: Water resources get extra hammer for an early edge, but it's also harder to improve them if they are luxuries; walking over mountains is very strong; free trade routes if you settle on coast; workable on Pangaea but not that great.
India: Really hard to expand with, but if you do manage to get things rolling India becomes fairly strong (good luck getting to that stage on higher difficulty); War Elephants save India from the bottom tier.
The Ottoman: Decent UUs.
Byzantium: Good luck founding a religion with the beliefs you want on higher difficulties. Cataphracts are decent but way too many AIs beeline to Civil Services.
Sweden: Good luck maintaining all your friends on higher difficulties. Caroleans are decent but they are melee units and it's a bit late.
Japan: Good luck on Iron; UA is nearly useless; Zeros are too late.
Polynesia: Great on water maps only.
Spain: 500 gold ~ Immortal start (buy worker and scout). 1000 gold ~ Deity start (buy worker, scout, and settler). No natural wonders in sight? Well........

 

[Matthew.]

List for the most part seems to be close to what the majority vote, but there are some points I am confused about.

-You forgot to explain Russia.
-You say you don't rate the Civs by random starts yet rate Netherlands high with the reasoning that a lucky Polder start is powerful. An unlucky Polder start and limited use of Sea Beggar on pangaea is listed as 1st tier?
-Iroquois too high on list.
-Greece too high on list.
-India too high on list, as least with current reasoning. Tall doesn't have happiness issues.

 

[joncnunn]

-You say you don't rate the Civs by random starts yet rate Netherlands high with the reasoning that a lucky Polder start is powerful. An unlucky Polder start and limited use of Sea Beggar on pangaea is listed as 1st tier?

I'm playing the Netherlands in my current game; there's no tiles that a Polder can be built within 10 hexes of my starting location. Extending the range to 15 hexes adds all of one tile, which is far away from all resources.

So I agree with the above poster, Netherlands rating needs based on there NOT being tiles for polders instead of being based on having multiple polder tiles.

Also, most players would use 500 gold for one settler rather than worker + scout; and likely with 1000 gold two settlers (founding on luxuries) instead of buying the AIs extra starting units.

 

[Biologist]

These types of lists are always somewhat subjective, but there are a few things I find odd.

I don't see where any explanation was given for America's placement. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I'd like to know what basis they were rated on.

Many things are stated to be "overpowered" with no real explanation of why that is so or under what circumstances. A unit that is overpowered should be something gamebreaking, something essentially invincible under the established rules of the game. Frankly, the combat AI still has enough flaws that many units can seem overpowered in human hands. In my current game as America, I have run over multiple civs using Minutemen. I could say they are OP based on my experience, but most would disagree.

I would also argue that England is much more water-dependant than the Ottomans, and that the Ottomans function perfectly well as a "terrestrial" civ with Janissaries and Sipahi.

 

[sufficiency]

These types of lists are always somewhat subjective, but there are a few things I find odd.

I don't see where any explanation was given for America's placement. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I'd like to know what basis they were rated on.

Many things are stated to be "overpowered" with no real explanation of why that is so or under what circumstances. A unit that is overpowered should be something gamebreaking, something essentially invincible under the established rules of the game. Frankly, the combat AI still has enough flaws that many units can seem overpowered in human hands. In my current game as America, I have run over multiple civs using Minutemen. I could say they are OP based on my experience, but most would disagree.

I would also argue that England is much more water-dependant than the Ottomans, and that the Ottomans function perfectly well as a "terrestrial" civ with Janissaries and Sipahi.

So the thing about England is that Longbowmen can be upgraded to Gattling Guns yet still have the +1 range. Essentially England still has a ranged unit (that does not require setting up) in early industrial age.

I am sorry if some of the explanations are fairly casually stated, e.g. "XXX is OP". With time I can expand upon each one of them. However, considering the difference between each civ is not that big, to be "OP" is really some sort of perks a civ has that allows it to play dramatically from other civs, to great positive effects. For example, you can run Maya, do ICS, and ignore NC for a very large chunk of the game and not fall behind because you can run Messenger to the Gods and have +2 science per city from Pyramids. You can't just grab any civ and do it and not expect to fall behind in science.

 

[Wargizmo]

I feel that France, Rome and Persia and Mongolia should be higher.

The first three have just incredible UAs that give you such a significant advantage, the latter has the most powerful UU in the entire game and is downright broken on Pangaea

Certainly they're more than "not great but workable"

 

[sufficiency]

I feel that France, Rome and Persia and Mongolia should be higher.

The first three have just incredible UAs that give you such a significant advantage, the latter has the most powerful UU in the entire game and is downright broken on Pangaea

Certainly they're more than "not great but workable"

For your record they are in second tier, not third.

 

[Arachnofiend]

India's UA does not help with growing tall because happiness is almost never a problem for a tall game. The only time it is a problem is at the very beginning when you are trying to put up 1-3 more cities for your Tradition start as fast as possible, a problem that India's UA just makes much worse. If you're playing OCC you will probably never find a time when you need another happiness bonus beyond Monarchy and the other normal stuff that everyone else gets.

Also the Keshik/Khan duo is far superior to Longbows. Never underestimate mobility.

 

[smallfish]

Also the Keshik/Khan duo is far superior to Longbows. Never underestimate mobility.

Camel Archers

Camel Archers killed off Sweden in a hill start with the Great Wall

Camel Archers murderized Persian Golden Age Pikemen (mostly Immortals) and murdered Persian capital in general

Camel Archers were about to kill off his neighbor Gandhi who had Chichen Itza of all things (lol), but then the Indians threw a "Strategic Blocking" peace deal to the Americans and America got Mumbai which the Camels were besieging... so then America died in Mumbai, while in a 6-turn resistance, while Camels played havock with impunity because the city was in resistance even as it fell

Then India died. Then Dai Nippon declared war, America sent in swarms of Trebuchets and Minutemen/Pikes (this being Immortal)... and they all melted in front of Logistic Camels with hill terrain blocking their invasion route (and of course, the Greatest Wall)

But suddenly Darius declared war to take back his beloved Persepolis, and so 1 Logistic Camel and a heavily wounded Musketman held off the American Hordes (tm) while every other Camel beelined to take back Persepolis from a GA Persia. Persia then entered Industrial, started spamming Riflemen and Cannonae... Camels made ALL of them go away, like ice melting under global warming

Even with 50+ str cities, Persians couldn't hold up against +1 range Double Attack Camels. Darius died cursing the Camels for "killing off HISTORY'S GREATEST BELOVED LEADER"

Then Camels went after America. New York (54 str) died to Camels and Cannonae, Washington DC had 80 str thanks to Himeji/Kremlin... but with +1 range double attack Camels wiping out every American riflemen sent in and taking potshots at the marble of the White House, the now numerous Camel Cavalry (those who weren't heavily promoted Camels), riflemen and a pair of Cannons finished the hell out of the Potomac city. D.C. fell in 1785 AD... with Camel Cavalries staring at the Japanese hellbent on taking back Tokyo (and Boston, and Philadelphia) from the now defanged Americans, who now only had General Patton to save them from the Camel rock and the Japanese Hard Place

And now the Age of the Camel was over. The time of Artillery was at hand, and on the very next hypothetical turn, the two Camelfriend cannonae became the first 3-tile shooting Krupp guns in the welt....

:3

 

[Matthew.]

Yeah still not seeing Russia or Netherlands. For Russia not only are you just as dependent on lucky resources as Aztecs/Rome (I'm assuming this is the reason they are listed as 2nd tier, since no iron = dead end for UU's) but AI is hesitant to buy if they already have some of their own. So you are basing Russia as first tier not because of Cossack or Krepost, but on the off chance you may be able to trade an extra 5 iron or so. Seems like too much of a gamble when the structure of your list seems to be focused on "gamble Civs" getting docked points.

Same thing with Netherlands. In the right situation UA works great. Otherwise the use is extremely limited. Seems like too much of a gamble for 1st tier.

I'd also question why Iroquois and France are not flipped (or at least France being added to 1st tier) The rest of 2nd tier makes sense, as each of those listed have a drawback: Aztecs/Rome, UU line ends if you can't get iron. Persia's 10%/1move only works during GA's. Celts reliant on forest tiles to get faith. Mongolia gets an awesome UU at the cost of fairly "meh" UA.

It seems like France/Iroquois break that trend. Lack of forest tiles can really kill off Iroquois overall effectiveness and Mohawks have a short window before pike spam hits the field. Yet France always gets +2 culture and Musketeers come at a very powerful time. The culture allows for some powerful policy combinations and the quick jump up to muskets from longswords results in a huge power difference. Musketeers simply plow through pike spam and the AI is often ill-equipped to deal with a well-timed Musketeer push.

Of course it is your list so you can structure it however you want, but I'm assuming you posted it for discussion/critique, so there ya go

 

[sufficiency]

Yeah still not seeing Russia or Netherlands. For Russia not only are you just as dependent on lucky resources as Aztecs/Rome (I'm assuming this is the reason they are listed as 2nd tier, since no iron = dead end for UU's) but AI is hesitant to buy if they already have some of their own. So you are basing Russia as first tier not because of Cossack or Krepost, but on the off chance you may be able to trade an extra 5 iron or so. Seems like too much of a gamble when the structure of your list seems to be focused on "gamble Civs" getting docked points.

Same thing with Netherlands. In the right situation UA works great. Otherwise the use is extremely limited. Seems like too much of a gamble for 1st tier.

I'd also question why Iroquois and France are not flipped (or at least France being added to 1st tier) The rest of 2nd tier makes sense, as each of those listed have a drawback: Aztecs/Rome, UU line ends if you can't get iron. Persia's 10%/1move only works during GA's. Celts reliant on forest tiles to get faith. Mongolia gets an awesome UU at the cost of fairly "meh" UA.

It seems like France/Iroquois break that trend. Lack of forest tiles can really kill off Iroquois overall effectiveness and Mohawks have a short window before pike spam hits the field. Yet France always gets +2 culture and Musketeers come at a very powerful time. The culture allows for some powerful policy combinations and the quick jump up to muskets from longswords results in a huge power difference. Musketeers simply plow through pike spam and the AI is often ill-equipped to deal with a well-timed Musketeer push.

Of course it is your list so you can structure it however you want, but I'm assuming you posted it for discussion/critique, so there ya go

I think you are probably right. Let me play some more France and Iroquois in the near future and examine them more closely.

For Netherland, its UA by itself is good enough for Tier 2 imo. The polders are nice bonuses.

For Russia, yes, it is possible that you will end up near very little strategic resources and end up wanting to kill yourself. But other civs will suffer from this problem as well -at least as Russia you won't suffer as much in case you only have 2 horses (because with your UA you will have 4!). It's not great, but most other civs also suffer from the lack of horses and iron. Also, unless you have a desert/coastal start (which Russia does not have bias to), it's extremely rare to have no horses and iron at all in a 7 tiles radius.

India's UA does not help with growing tall because happiness is almost never a problem for a tall game. The only time it is a problem is at the very beginning when you are trying to put up 1-3 more cities for your Tradition start as fast as possible, a problem that India's UA just makes much worse. If you're playing OCC you will probably never find a time when you need another happiness bonus beyond Monarchy and the other normal stuff that everyone else gets.

Also the Keshik/Khan duo is far superior to Longbows. Never underestimate mobility.

I think it is wrong to dismiss India like that. Assume reasonably you can grow to 30 pop as India in your capital, you get 12 happiness for free. If you can grow a city to 10 pop, you get 2 happiness for free. I don't see how much stronger this can get - you don't need to build anything or pay any kinds of upkeep.

Sure, if you want to play OCC, India's UA is overkill.

I feel that the issue with India is that India expands way too slowly due to -6 happiness per city. Getting started is very difficult, especially on higher difficulties when AIs expand like crazy. But once India gets above the curve (i.e. 6 pop) it's a really good civ... but getting there is really, REALLY difficult.

 

[Biologist]

Glad to see the missing explanations added. One thing I would suggest to ease readability would be to add a line between each explanation, as with the tier lists above.

Now that I see your explanation for America, I agree on some points and somewhat disagree on others. The B12 is powerful but generally does come late in the game, at a point where the outcome of many (but not all) games has been decided.

The only thing I disagree with is the UA being "useless" beyond early game. The land-buying portion may or may not be useless. Its utility depends largely on where resources appear on the map, how many cities are settled or annexed, and whether there is a need to buy tiles rather than just expanding to them.

The free Sentry promotion to all land units, on the other hand, is powerful enough to move America up a tier in my opinion. Scouting is generally accepted to be one of the most crucial elements of the early game. Better line of sight means you meet city states and civs faster and have a better chance at discovering ruins and natural wonders first (helpful in the latter case if you want to settle one; even non-Spain civs can benefit from the right natural wonder).

Sentry is also an advantage when fogbusting to protect early workers from barbs. Finally, Sentry on all land units is a big advantage in warfare. Spotting for siege units, scouting enemy positions, and catching sneak attacks before they reach your borders are all useful applications for a promotion that is generally not a priority when promoting units (due to needing Cover, March, etc.). The value of Sentry decreases once you have an airforce that can expand your line of sight and spot for artillery, but by then you're probably building B12s and the game is almost over anyway.

 

[Xahz]

Disagree with basically your entire third tier. Carthage, Songhai, and America are all much stronger than you give them credit for. Byzantium and Sweden do not belong at the bottom either.

That being said, tier lists are a waste of time and map-specific tier lists are even worse.

 

[InDubioProReo]

This game all depends on your starting point, if you know what you're doing and you get a favourable location, you can win with any civ.

 

[Furycrab]

This game all depends on your starting point, if you know what you're doing and you get a favourable location, you can win with any civ.

People just like to make tier lists...

Personally... On a Pangaea. I put the Science civs all fairly high tier (which includes two civs that you don't list and considering you could have picked them all up on sale for next to nothing, you really should).

I put most of the Warmongers (including Japan) in first or second tier, because almost no matter the start, on Pangaea it will almost always be an option to smack a neighbor or two and turn into an immediate runaway.

I place most of the Diplo ones fairly low, but I'll favor the ones with a bigger flavor to letting you War. For that Reason I prefer Greece and Sweden (Sweden is much better played aggressively, if you don't you are mostly playing the UA and UU wrong) over Siam. AGAIN, this is pangaea.

The rest of them are likely mid tier ish except for Arabia and Persia that I find a little better than average.

I dislike England on landlocks ever since they took out all the siege and indirect fire promotions from the Longbows.

My god tier would only have the Huns. Just because Horse Archers on Pangaea are hilariously broken.

 

[sufficiency]

This game all depends on your starting point, if you know what you're doing and you get a favourable location, you can win with any civ.

Except this is a rounded estimate, factoring in your spawning point.

In the process of making this list, I rolled 30 maps as Spain just to see how often I can find a natural wonder first and get 500 gold in the first 20 turns.

 

[Gucumatz]

Its fun reading these things. Not that I agree with a lot of these rankings, but hearing people's opinions is interesting.

 

[Dr.Phil]

On large and huge Pangaea maps, though, America is BOSS.

 

[ahawk]

my perception of the Ottoman being a water map civ.

The Janissary is a pretty solid UU. Sipahi, not as much.

I suggest re-thinking the Ottomans a little if you see them as too much a water map civ, because that same logic could easily apply to Carthage (free harbours is a phenomenal advantage on a mostly water map, but is not nearly as potent on most pangaeas) and you still went on to rank Carthage.

Honestly, I can rush Janissaries and often steam-roll an enemy AI's military because of how bad the AI is at keeping its ranged units at a safe distance; Janissaries can take a bunch of damage from ranged units before closing in, then after closing in, kill the unit and be right back in the battle, good as new. That's no little bonus. The only reason the Janissary isn't awe-inspiring is because of the musket-era units having a tiny window in vanilla and a smallish window in G&K. But when I rush to get them, Janissaries can often lead the way to conquering at least the better part of one enemy civ. I wouldn't put a ton of stock on them in multiplayer, but since you're going off of single-player, then consider the Janissary as a solid unit and something to try out.

 

[Seabastian Civ]

I also disagree with the Ottomans being a "water map civ." As ahawk said above, Janissaries are downright insane against the AI where you can use their heal upon kill ability to its fullest. Combined with their attack bonus, they are (in my opinion) the nastiest gunpowder unit out there. I think the UU rankings thread agreed.

Sipahis aren't as great but they are definitely useful when you're losing a war. Send them in behind enemy lines to pillage like hell. You will lose the unit most likely, but their spoils in gold plus the damage they can do to improvements will cost the enemy dearly. You can keep the enemy lands in disrepair, keeping them from mounting a killing blow while you regroup. They obviously also function excellently as spotters for air strikes and artillery.

Ottomans' UA is mostly icing on the cake, encouraging a combined arms force. Their UU alone should get them into your 2nd tier, 3rd at least.