Uh, you say that traits are the most important for your evaluation and then you present a list based on civilizations instead of leaders? If you think that a civ with multiple leaders is always in the same tier regardless of its particular leader, that would suggest that traits don't come into your evaluation at all.
tier list
- Thread starter fatgirl2009
- Start date
Uh, you say that traits are the most important for your evaluation and then you present a list based on civilizations instead of leaders? If you think that a civ with multiple leaders is always in the same tier regardless of its particular leader, that would suggest that traits don't come into your evaluation at all.
I wonder which map scripts you use. Apparently you hardly ever get isolated or semi-isolated starts.
Absolute Zero
Settler
I could have sworn the Hippodrome replaced the colosseum...but no, it's actually a theater. Anyways, it does giveIndia should be in the tier 1 list.
Byzantium in the tier 3 or 4 list, because of their weird UB. (no artists slots and nofrom dye)
from horse.It's somewhat subjective, though. I think the Cataphract is pretty strong.
1. I also said: "a strong UU can make up for weaker traits." All the civs in the highest tier have either strong UU, strong traits, or both. (In most cases, it's both.)
2. Leaders from the same civ tend to have similar-strength traits. (In some cases, they share a trait, like India, Egypt, Greece.) For example, Hatshepsut and Ramesses are about equally good, IMO (the only difference is CRE vs. IND). So are Genghis and Kublai, Julius and Augustus.
In some cases, one leader may be better, but both are good. For example, Darius and Cyrus, or Mehmed and Suleiman.
I can't think of any civilization that has two leaders that are very different in strength (one is very good and the other is very bad).
NihilZero
WHEOOHRNY
Some observations:
UB can often be more important than UUs. Less glamorous and exciting, sure, but you can nearly always get some use out of a UB, whereas the UU will often go unused.
The Hippodrome is awesome because it gives double culture slider happiness.
While a lot of Civs have "themed" leaders who are similar (Celts are Charismatic, Indians are Spiritual, etc) there are civs who have marked differences in the quality of their leaders. The most obvious example being Persia. Cyrus is good, but Darius is in God Tier.
UB can often be more important than UUs. Less glamorous and exciting, sure, but you can nearly always get some use out of a UB, whereas the UU will often go unused.
The Hippodrome is awesome because it gives double culture slider happiness.
While a lot of Civs have "themed" leaders who are similar (Celts are Charismatic, Indians are Spiritual, etc) there are civs who have marked differences in the quality of their leaders. The most obvious example being Persia. Cyrus is good, but Darius is in God Tier.
England?
Elizabeth or Victoria > Churchill
shyuhe
Deity
I play fractal so it doesn't happen too often. In any event, if a civ is better than average on 80-90% of maps and average on the rest, doesn't that make it better than average as a whole?
Absolute Zero
Settler
What's so bad about Churchill? CHA is a strong trait. PRO...not so much, but in Churchill's case, it can give Redcoats a small boost. Plus, with the CHA experience discount, Churchill can get pretty strong archery/gunpowder. On lower levels, it's even possible to Oracle -> Feudalism and longbow rush.
Victoria and Elizabeth are probably better, but I don't think Churchill's bad.
NihilZero
WHEOOHRNY
Tiers are opinions, unless you can come up with a mathematically verifiable scientific system for rating civs. 
Tiers are opinions, unless you can come up with a mathematically verifiable scientific system for rating civs.
Data of some sort, hopefully. Although math threads scare me too. The OP wasn't as clear as he could have been in the phrasing of the question, but "what's best?" threads have been done a million times over. DAFS.
Fluroscent
Emperor
Data: HoF
Best: HC, Darius, Elizabeth. Depending on game type.
IMO, the only thing that really stands out is power early UU's. If you can massacre your neighbours with quechas/immortals/war chariots/praets, then the civ/leader is critical.
But map layout and AI distribution is much more significant than what leader/civ you play, although some traits are clearly better in the vast majority of scenarios.
Best: HC, Darius, Elizabeth. Depending on game type.
IMO, the only thing that really stands out is power early UU's. If you can massacre your neighbours with quechas/immortals/war chariots/praets, then the civ/leader is critical.
But map layout and AI distribution is much more significant than what leader/civ you play, although some traits are clearly better in the vast majority of scenarios.
obsolete
Deity
LOL. One need not waste their time reading further after that.
Fluroscent
Emperor
Are you suggesting that the HoF data does NOT suggest that those leaders are favoured? I certainly didn't claim anything else.
Your posts match your SN perfectly.
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
surely this is impossible without taking into account the map type and to a lesser degree speed and degree of difficulty . for example......
Terra maps..........Portugal moves to top tier.
Archipeligo.........Roosevelt moves to the top.
emperor / immortal / diety.......traits like ORG , EXP , IMP , CRE become more useful
Raging Barbs.......resourceless UU`s improve.
Marathon..........fast workers lose power while early UU`s or UU`s with legitimate beelines become more powerful.
there are numerous other examples where Civ`s move up and down the rankings as settings vary
Terra maps..........Portugal moves to top tier.
Archipeligo.........Roosevelt moves to the top.
emperor / immortal / diety.......traits like ORG , EXP , IMP , CRE become more useful
Raging Barbs.......resourceless UU`s improve.
Marathon..........fast workers lose power while early UU`s or UU`s with legitimate beelines become more powerful.
there are numerous other examples where Civ`s move up and down the rankings as settings vary
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2008
- Messages
- 27,086
I would make an argument that both India and Maya could be deemed "excellent" in terms of being in the hands of the player. Both Indian leaders have excellent traits (Ghandi especially) and arguably the best UU in the game. The Indian UB is rather marginal but few civs have everything right. I really like the Mayans as a civ. FIN combined with Expansive (which is one of my favorite traits which I consider highly underrated) are a great combo. The UB is synergistic with the Exp trait to grow large cities fairly early in the game to work more of those FIN cottages. The Holkan may not rule the day but it is resourceless so it you can get it online quickly, great anti-barb and effective against archers. In the right situations, Holkan rush are not out of the question. I have great games when playing at the Maya and think they are without questio an excellent civ in the game.
Portugal at bad civ. I think not. While IMP on it's own may be considered somewhat weak by many. EXP and IMP are highly synergistic with bonuses on the two food based units. While no direct economic benefit like other traits, the two make up for by allowing for extremely fast rapid expansion to grab up all the good land and resources. The Carrack is definitely a situational UU and better on certain maps, it does provide something important that comparable units of its day cannot. The ability to carry any unit over oceans. This can be exploited many different ways including early colonization of land/islands overseas long before others can. There's also the surprise attack exploit only matched by the later Dutch UU. The Feitora is considered generally weak but I think it's a bit underrated, especially on certain maps - but yeah CH's are rarely built it seems. Regardless, while I would not put Portugal in the excellent category, I think bad is grossly underrating the civ. Portugal is often strong in the AI hands and I hate having them near me.
Many amateurs haven't gotten past the Pyramids or similar beelines, which I agree have little synergy with a leader like Sitting Bull. With such playstyles many traits as well as the utility of all the early UUs are underrated.
But I agree about underrating Sitting Bull...after all, look how many people would still choose someone silly like Ghandi of the Indians all the time for competitve multiplayer
vranasm
Deity
I really like MM even if I don't play him much, but in 3-4 games I had him I got pretty much a lot of fun. His UU is not great on offense but can greatly help on defense supporting your expansion against those pesky barbs and can be show stopper for more annoying neighbors.
Spiritual is in my book great trait, since I really really hate those 2+T anarchys everytime i wont to do something. Financial is great.
I like to some extent SB too. His no resource UU is not something you would love for rushes (at prince and lower you actually would more since they will meet mostly wars by neighbors and you don't need to find bronze and connect it to cap to milk them), but they are great defense, combined with pro archers it's almost like 2 UU's. Should play him more.
Spiritual is in my book great trait, since I really really hate those 2+T anarchys everytime i wont to do something. Financial is great.
I like to some extent SB too. His no resource UU is not something you would love for rushes (at prince and lower you actually would more since they will meet mostly wars by neighbors and you don't need to find bronze and connect it to cap to milk them), but they are great defense, combined with pro archers it's almost like 2 UU's. Should play him more.
NihilZero
WHEOOHRNY
While I agree with the rest of your post, I don't think we can base our estimation of civs on how the AI plays with them. In fact, good civs/leaders for the human and good civs/leaders for the AI are two completely different categories that are often in conflict. The AI consistently does well with Charlemagne and Justinian, for example, using the combination of Imperialistic settlers and powerful shrined religions to build a scary empire early and frequently dominate longterm. This strategy is no good for a human, at least not at any moderately challenging level, because upkeep costs are problematic and missionaries are expensive.
IMP in general is pretty good for the AI, although Victoria usually builds too few units and Genghis is a bad techer.
