Sufficiency's Tier List (Pangaea)

[Arachnofiend]

I consider Byzantium to be the same "LOLRANDOM" tier as Spain; if you are in a position to get enough faith to actually found a religion then Byzantium is one of the best civs in the game, if Theo gets stuck with nothing but shrines and temples to help churn out faith then she's a bottom dweller.

 

[sufficiency]

Why do people tunnel vision the friendship part of Sweden's UA and call them bad because of it?!

You're using Sweden to beat people up, generate Generals/steal Prophets to give to city-states for 90 influence, get your Caroleans out for free March Rifles->GWI->Infantry, repeat. If you're warmongering, you can still have 1-2 consistent friends until you kill them, at which point you won the game.

Friendship is not the focal point of the UA; making people fear the beard is.



Man, think about how many times China has been nerfed since vanilla lol. GG strength nerf, GG generation nerf, CKN nerf, iirc TWO Paper Maker nerfs(at least one). And yet they're still awesome

Don't get me wrong, Caroleans are very strong. But they are Rifles replacements and by Industrial Era I feel that melee units are far less important.

If Caroleans were Musket replacements I would have placed Sweden one tier above.

 

[VilePilot]

But they are Rifles replacements and by Industrial Era I feel that melee units are far less important.

Yeah games should be won by rifling IMO. Not technically won, but you should be on your way to victory by then.

 

[Light Cleric]

Don't get me wrong, Caroleans are very strong. But they are Rifles replacements and by Industrial Era I feel that melee units are far less important.

If Caroleans were Musket replacements I would have placed Sweden one tier above.

I think it's the opposite with melee units. Swordsmen are horrible, Longswords are situational, Muskets are decent but often play meatshield. Rifles is when they actually start getting to be able to attack.

Get Siege/Cover on them, which is very doable because your promotions don't have to go towards March, and they can be very potent against cities as (Great War) Infantry. They can do about as much to the cities as they take, and with March + a nearby medic they can heal 20 HP back, and still take up space to block stuff from attacking your ranged units.

 

[LoneRebel]

Thank you to those who explained why Greece and Japan are considered so much weaker nowadays.

I guess lists like this just go to show that I've been putting too much stock in Death_by_Smiley's civilization ranking guide on Gamefaqs. I believe he ranked Arabia as the weakest civ in the game. Then I go over here and see that it's god tier. Can somebody explain that as well?

I understand that Camel Archers have something to do with it as smallfish's post so hilariously illustrated. Camels are like Keshiks, except they don't get Khans. However I doubt that a single unique unit would take a civ to god tier status.

Is it the Bazaar? I can certainly see how that could be useful.

Is it the UA? +1 Gold for each Trade Route...that really doesn't sound very big to me. And double oil seems to be just a decent extra ability added to the trade route bonus. So unless the UA was buffed in G&K, I'm not seeing where Arabia's god tier status comes from, except from the Camels and the Bazaars.

 

[kirbdog]

Desert starting bias (folklore abuse) counts, if you're not rerolling maps.

There is a ton of gold to be had from selling luxuries in the single player game. Arabia basically gets another 8 gpt per turn per luxury and another 1 gpt per turn per additional city. It adds up.

Camel Archers are basically tied with Keshiks for the best UU, so that's good too. Arabia basically gets the OP unit thing the Mongols do, combined with the best gold bonus and the best starting bias.

Double oil doesn't hurt of course. Pew pew.

 

[ds61514]

Thank you to those who explained why Greece and Japan are considered so much weaker nowadays.

I guess lists like this just go to show that I've been putting too much stock in Death_by_Smiley's civilization ranking guide on Gamefaqs. I believe he ranked Arabia as the weakest civ in the game. Then I go over here and see that it's god tier. Can somebody explain that as well?

I understand that Camel Archers have something to do with it as smallfish's post so hilariously illustrated. Camels are like Keshiks, except they don't get Khans. However I doubt that a single unique unit would take a civ to god tier status.

1) As discussed, in the beginning of the game, you didn't need anything other than Horseman to rule the world. Therefore, Knight UUs were unimportant. In my 1st Deity standard win (~1 month after the game came out), I used Chinese horseman against Musketeers....

2) CAs used to have only 3 movement. With 3 movement, you can't move onto a hill, shoot & retreat. With 4 movement, you can.

3) AIs can't handle mass air. While this didn't really matter at the beginning of Civ 5, having excess oil really helps a lot now.

Just FYI, information from 2010 is incredibly outdated. Moreso than other games, the balance has swung wildly. Top civs have included:

Greece

China

Siam (Wats didn't need libraries, Wats could be gotten for free after monuments + temples)

Japan (You used to be able to get Samurai ~Turn 50)

Austria

 

[tomtom5858]

Top tier civs used to include:
Austria

To be fair, they're still a top tier civ. The Hussar is less than impressive, but the Coffee House is an excellent UB. It's a Windmill replacement, but it can be built on a hill, which is nice in and of itself. In addition, while it only provides a 5% boost to production as opposed to a 10% boost on the Windmill, the 5% is universal, boosting unit production and wonder production. In addition, it provides a +25% bonus to great person production. The UA is cool, but after the fall patch, it's really only useful for permanently keeping a CS ally that's about to fall out of favour.

 

[OwlRaider]

I don't understand exactly how you rated civilizations, by raw power or by versatility. You emphasized random starts and flexibility yet you have Arabia as god tier for example. Sure, Arabia with a good desert start(as in some desert hills and flood plains/oasis) can become very strong if you manage to secure desert folklore and perhaps Petra too. However without at least a mediocre desert start(not 100% guaranteed despite desert bias and not guaranteed to be good when you do get it) Arabia loses a lot of its appeal. Also Arabia is only good for domination victories, and is mostly suited for going wide rather than tall, so as far as versatility goes you're down again. On the other hand you have Sweden as 4th tier, which I suspect is caused by your inexperience with Sweden to really unleash their potential. Their UA seems murky, but as long as you hand pick your enemies(whether it's your neighbor or the civilization everyone else hates) you should be able to maintain plenty of friendships to get your GPs going, their UUs aren't bad either and GP gifts to city states gives you very easily CS allies, whether it's just for benefits or for a diplomatic victory. You should be able to maintain a healthy supply of GGs by constantly warring 1 or 2 civilizations near you, while maintaining friendships with the rest.

Those were just 2 examples that I clearly disagree with and are on opposite scales(1 being obviously too high, the other obviously too low), than there are others like England who on Pangaea standard are simply wasted as you aren't guaranteed to have a coastal start on Pangaea. Being land locked as England means that all you got is Longbows and an extra spy, nothing to hang your hat on, especially since regular Crossbows eventually get the +1 range too with enough experience, so the Longbows aren't as game breaking in the long run and definitely don't make England a tier 1 civilization on Pangaea.

All in all I think you should clarify whether you're going for flexibility or raw power, and also I think you are heavily biased towards certain civilizations and against others.

 

[GhostSalsa]

I am not real clear where the idea that Pangea map is equivalent to a "standard" setting comes from. Does that just mean it is most popular map for diety/quickest-finish strategies? That doesn't have much to do with versatility, if the actual majority of players don't play that way (the only statistic I know of is the steam achievement list, where continents has twice the player volume as pangea).

Or for me, who is not an average player. Who prefers Immortal but doesn't gouge the AI of its fake money and break game mechanics just to come back here and show off, etc. I prefer to enjoy the game and the way I enjoy the game is to keep things intense and have fun with underdog UAs like Japan and Denmark.

Of course, I agree with most of the OP's list order anyway. It is a good list. I just felt like musing on what seems like a common condition of diety-myopia here.

 

[Unresolved]

Most of the players here do a pangaea map. That's why we consider it standard. Out of the regular map lineup, it's considered tied with continents for the hardest map type.

 

[kirbdog]

Define hardest. Pangaea type maps (any single landmass map) allow the fastest finishes. I think it shows up so much just because it's part of the ideal settings that people like to use so that their turn count at victory doesn't go up.

Playing for turn count and/or at 7/8 is a focus of the forum that doesn't necessarily characterize the Civ-playing population at large, who may instead play for novelty, "roleplay," score, challenge of weird settings or self-made rules, etc.

 

[GhostSalsa]

Most of the players here do a pangaea map. That's why we consider it standard. Out of the regular map lineup, it's considered tied with continents for the hardest map type.

Where is that quantified? There would be no way to quantify how people "here" play without a voluntary-response poll which would just select for the most vocal forum users which is, again, myopic in favor of "power-players."

A select and probably statistically tiny group of players who are all playing the same way, speculating over which is the most "versatile" civ. Hmm.

Yes, I'm sure pangea is very hard in practice. Still, a focus on fine-tuning play strategies for high performance likes to reduce complexity and capricious elements.

 

[Unresolved]

In the (5?) original map types, continents and pangaea are definitely the hardest because water maps are easy in comparison. There was a thread debating this a few months ago and no one really argued to the contrary.

This forum, which is what I referenced in my other post, does not make up the majority of civ players. I think people are generally more competitive here and that's what draws them to a large site dedicated to strategies.

 

[kirbdog]

Once again define hardest.

To pick a random comment from the past, there doesn't seem to be such consensus.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11864221&postcount=8
"Pangea is way easier. You can meet everyone right of the bat start fostering good relations, and all the free cash from meeting CS. I would mark Pangea at least a half a difficulty level easier."

If you start on a landmass with no other civs, no city states, perhaps even no ruins, that is definitely harder than playing on pangaea or continents. Your early development is set back roughly 30 turns from not getting the free gold available on pangaea or continents. Also from being required to get naval techs early and getting CS quest boosts later. Even if you aren't playing for a fast finish, having slower development makes the game harder.

Islands are easier only in the sense that some players have a hard time defending themselves against the AI, and if so, islands help them (but less than it used to). Some players might also find it easier to conduct naval invasions, so it helps them.

I do find it hard reconciling the belief that pangaea is hardest with the belief that it's the most common setting. Players most commonly pick the easy map settings. They'll set to 5 million years if they want a fast domination victory so that there are less cities on hills. They'll set to hot if they want a desert start. They'll set to high water level if they want to give the AI less room to expand. And so on...

 

[Matthew.]

This forum, which is what I referenced in my other post, does not make up the majority of civ players. I think people are generally more competitive here and that's what draws them to a large site dedicated to strategies.

Maybe, but I think part of it is, too, that most of us here have put way too many hours into this game so discussing which Civs play best at higher difficulties is one of the few things that maintain interest.

And yes, the players here represent a very small portion of the people that play this game. Steam achievements only show like 3% of players beating Immortal and Deity, which of course is only a rough estimate since that number isn't completely accurate. So yes, all the discussions on strategies and play at higher levels is naturally only encompassing a small portion of the playerbase.

 

[Unresolved]

Most of my personal experience with the differences of islands and Pangaea comes from a very limited pool. I probably play a 50:1 ratio of pangaea to islands, so my experience with playing water maps is minuscule at best. That being said, I cannot come close to achieving a domination victory on a pangaea Deity map while I can win one on an island map if I have a good enough start. That's without actually knowing how to really play water maps at all and having to do some experimentation in the process.

As for this forum, it's a question of which came first: the chicken or the egg? Does this forum attract competitive civ players or does it make civ players competitive? I'm compelled to go with the former because you need to care at least somewhat about the game to look for strategies of it online.

 

[Light Cleric]

The real "challenge" from a Continents map is dealing with a runaway AI on the other continent, which is at worst the same as a runaway on the other end of a Pangaea. Early in the game, yes, you have less cash from CSes, trading partners, etc., but so does the AI. The AI's biggest strategy, which is to spam the living hell out of all the land it can, is restrained by water maps, and it's further weakened by having to work more costal/ocean(read: bad) tiles with its huge population.This is (part of) why Archipelago/Small Islands maps are very easy.

A runaway on your own continent is much easier to manage than a runaway on the other side of Pangaea. And if it's on the other one, you can swallow your entire continent whole and go visit the other continent's runaway with some nukes

 

[LoneRebel]

I don't understand exactly how you rated civilizations, by raw power or by versatility. You emphasized random starts and flexibility yet you have Arabia as god tier for example.

*snip*

All in all I think you should clarify whether you're going for flexibility or raw power, and also I think you are heavily biased towards certain civilizations and against others.

As someone else said at the beginning of this thread, some people just like to make lists.

I suppose it appeals to that part of the human psyche that likes to rank and categorize things. However, when they start thinking that their ranking is absolute, then that's where we have a problem.

I do find this list useful, but at the same time I would not consider it definitive by any means. For the reasons that you listed and for many others as well (such as why Pangaea is considered the standard map; I always thought it was Continents; that's the one listed by default when you first start a game and also it's the closest one to Earth's actual geography).

 

[Unresolved]

As someone else said at the beginning of this thread, some people just like to make lists.

I suppose it appeals to that part of the human psyche that likes to rank and categorize things. However, when they start thinking that their ranking is absolute, then that's where we have a problem.

I do find this list useful, but at the same time I would not consider it definitive by any means. For the reasons that you listed and for many others as well (such as why Pangaea is considered the standard map; I always thought it was Continents; that's the one listed by default when you first start a game and also it's the closest one to Earth's actual geography).

You could play the Earth map. Though that has some kinks in it.