[R&F] Tier Rankings

[Ever Adrift]

I haven't posted all that often, but am a long-time lurker. I've been disappointed that there hasn't been much discussion of civilization balance, power for various victory routes, primary strengths, etc.

I always have loved the Tier Lists and the debates over the relative strengths of each civ. Now, of course, it is subjective and different playstyles and favored types of victory will affect peoples choices...

So I've decided to (A) run a poll allowing people to vote for the four civs they find most powerful given their playstyle and victory types so that we can get a general sense of which civs are in the top tiers and (B) ask everyone to discuss this. Hopefully someone else can keep a nice tier list prepared and updated...

NOTE: The poll had to exclude 6 civs because of the number of options available. I excluded Aztec and Korea for being clearly OP and top tier to the point of being ridiculous. I excluded Rome and Arabia because I get the sense that most consider them at least near the top tier. I excluded Norway for what seems to be a universal belief that it is bottom tier, or at least close... and I excluded England because of continued nerfs that have left poor Victoria near the bottom.

We should of course consider those civs to.

For my part I voted for Persia, Cree, Greek - Pericles and Russia.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

You and I have a very different understanding of Norway. They get +50% production to naval melee units which is further improved by the card gives (iirc) +100% production to ancient naval units. When you combine that with Magnus you get extremely powerful chops very early on. They aren't bottom tier for that reason alone. I think it would be best to include all the the Civs and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[BenitoChavez]

See this thread. The OP hasn't updated it in a while but there is still an active discussion going on.

Excluding civs based on your own perception kind of defeats the stated purpose of your OP.

 

[Ever Adrift]

You and I have a very different understanding of Norway. They get +50% production to naval melee units which is further improved by the card gives (iirc) +100% production to ancient naval units. When you combine that with Magnus you get extremely powerful chops very early on. They aren't bottom tier for that reason alone. I think it would be best to include all the the Civs and let the chips fall where they may.

Sorry to have excluded it! I had to cut 6, so I just went with the ones I thought most people considered OP or weak. But please, keep making your case. We really ought to develop a tier list, perhaps even mini-ones for each victory type...

 

[Ever Adrift]

See this thread. The OP hasn't updated it in a while but there is still an active discussion going on.

Excluding civs based on your own perception kind of defeats the stated purpose of your OP.

I get that; it's certainly not a scientific poll. I had no choice if I wanted to do a poll; you are limited on how many options you can provide and that limit is 6 fewer than the number of civs. I made the choice to exclude 6 based on what I perceived to be a general consensus - I'm sure I'm wrong about some and that's why I wanted people to argue about it. The poll is merely to help identify consensuses on civs - not to be a Tier List itself. Especially wanted to see how people liked the new civs and civs that have been altered/empowered by R&F changes.

I did the best I could; can we give it a try and vote? Argue about the other 6, too - or show me a better way to do a poll that necessarily must exclude 6 civs?

 

[RealHuhn]

I find peaceful strategies a lot more fascinating because you have to think about so much more than just building an army and conquer fully developed cities (on Deity).

Therefore my choices are Russia, Germany, Australia and Japan. All of them are very solid and versatile builders.

Since R&F I also like all faith generating civs. I don't have a clear winner among them though. At least not yet.

 

[Ever Adrift]

I have found the Cree to be incredibly powerful; I didn't expect them to be one of the civs I really latched onto. The early trader and it's ability to expand territory is far better than it seems at first, the Alliance boost helps get era points for Wonders and gets you in contact with all city states. You are pushed to build commercial districts and expand easily - I get ridiculously rich with them. I end up buying armies and buildings...

The Dutch are also really strong (especially now that polders have been improved). If you get some good city positions where rivers meet you can get boosts as good (if not better) than Pedro - and those boosts aren't tied to something that you want to chop nor are they geographically tied to the equatorial region.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I still think Sumeria is the best (along with Aztec and Rome thanks to the self replicating legions nonsense). War Carts pretty much solve all problems and the ziggurat is relatively stronger due to the nerf to science from pop and rationalism

Other 3 choices were
Scythia-- Game wide combat bonus
Greece (Gorgo)-- Wildcard Slot which can do weird strats like early GG/Dark Age cards
Russia, easier early settling

 

[Ever Adrift]

Aztecs are too powerful, I never play with random civs partially to avoid them.

Part of the problem is the Aztecs ability can't really be adjusted for game length - if you play Epic or Marathon (or use any mods to lengthen eras) then the Aztecs become far more powerful because production costs go up for everyone else, but they can still chop a district with 5 builder charges. Add to that the power of Eagle Warriors and just, too much. I hate normal speed so I just can't play with them.

 

[Bizrock]

Sumeria UU is just plain stupid, why no one nerfs it yet? This is the only Civ that can easily smash Deity early on. And if Sumeria is AI and is near you, you auto lose.
Macedonia is not that OP as Sumeria, but have so many big bonuses for domination that also help with other things, you can go for domination and accidentally win another Victory path.
I vote for German and Russia as well but was almost by tier, don't think they are Overpowered.

But Korea is stupid, why they thought that would be balanced?

 

[Lily_Lancer]

No Aztec?
How can you include that much Civ but miss the definite strongest one

Best of all types of victories:
Domination: Aztec
Religious: Aztec
Cultural: Aztec
Science: Aztec
Conquest: Aztec
Score: Aztec

 

[isau]

Assuming I'm limited to the ones listed here:

• Mongolia - So, you get x2 normal combat bonus from diplo visibility. You also get +1 diplo level from a Trading Post in a civ. And Cavalry have +3 combat. So if I'm figuring this right that's... 3 x 2 x 2 = +12 from diplomatic and then an additional +3 for a total of +15. Did I calculate that right? It makes me want to just declare war on Genghis the second I see him so he can't plant a Trade Route on me, which happens instantly by the way, so once the trap is set the only way to shake the buff off him is to lose the city. He is one of the few AI civs who can put a serious hurt into my plans.
• Scythia - Any buy-one-get-one-free civ is always going to be significantly powerful.
• Zulu - Same as above. The only thing about him is when played by an AI he's less likely to stack bonuses because the AI isn't very good at farming corps and armies.
• Russia - Just good overall sets of bonuses and in a perfect position to capitalize on new systems in R&F.

Making up the bottom:

• Georgia - Bad Unique Building, questionable ability set overall. The 100% Faith from war is especially strange. AI can't begin to use her bonuses, outside of lucking into Golden Ages. Also suffers the Spanish curse of requiring a Religion to use some abilities but having more struggle founding the religion than civs that don't particularly even need a Religion.
• Khmer - Strangely specific bonuses that are unrelated to each other. I suppose he would shine if you somehow found a specific need for Holy Site culture bombs next to rivers that miraculously still had decent Faith adjacency bonuses. Also, abilities based on Aqueducts. I suppose some people enjoy suiciding Missionaries to create Relics?
• Norway/England (not listed, but still need to be mentioned) - For reasons mentioned elsewhere.

Making up the "weird spot":

• Poland - Really not bad overall but what's up with the bonus to relics and then not having a particularly reliable way to generate relics? My hand feels very forced there with religion picks.
• Spain - If you miss out out on a religion this one is a wash.

 

[Ever Adrift]

No Aztec?
How can you include that much Civ but miss the definite strongest one

Best of all types of victories:
Domination: Aztec
Religious: Aztec
Cultural: Aztec
Science: Aztec
Conquest: Aztec
Score: Aztec

Argh, read the full post people! And the follow-ups!

The Aztecs are the most obviously over-powered civ, and is designed in a way that makes them too powerful to play as/against at all on epic or marathon speed where the district building ability is even more ridiculous given that district costs are higher at those speeds...

I had to leave out 6 so I tried to leave out the 6 I thought most likely to be considered top tier or low tier. My choices are certainly criticizable, but no matter which 6 I chose to exclude people would be annoyed.

What I really want is to have someone a bit more experienced than I make an actual tier list and use this to help situate the new civs and civs that have had substantial changes in power b/c of R&F.

So again, I excluded Aztecs for being the most obviously powerful. Korea was excluded for much the same reason; it's so powerful it's broken. My opinion, but again - going to get criticized regardless. Left Rome and Arabia out for generally having been treated as high-to-top tier on these forums (and not having been impacted too much by R&F or even strengthened). I left out Norway for generally being treated as one of the lowest tier civs on these forums, though admittedly they have been improved over time and there are clearly some big fans of the civ. Left England out given the repeated nerfs to the civ that was already only mid-tier.

Don't like it?

Make the dang tier list and let us debate it!

 

[MarigoldRan]

Why'd Chandy only get two votes?

In the classical era, with a war or territorial expansion, their berserk 4-move elephants are stronger and cheaper than knights, and have more movement speed.

Their Stepwell UI is amazing, too. It means you never have to build a granary, ever again.

The only Horse Rush more efficient than Chandy's boosted elephants is Scythia.

 

[Ever Adrift]

Chandragupta just doesn't hold up as a top tier, in my opinion. The Cree's UI is better than the Stepwell as is Indonesia's - both help increase not only production but housing and food. Persia's UI is probably even better due to it's improvement to appeal as well as providing culture and tourism; plus add in Persia's speed and ability to engage in war is just about as good. The passive ability for India isn't bad, but isn't really easy to control leaving you feeling a bit like a crappier Mvemba. Nubia is probably more dangerous early on, as is Shaka and Mongolia....

 

[MarigoldRan]

45 Strength 4-Move Pachyderms that stack debuff on enemies that you can build in the Classical era?

Their passive is decent and their UI is good. But the Varu under Chandy is Godly and totally awesome to use.

I understand Varus are primarily a defensive unit when you're Gandhi due to their slow speed. But with Chandy, those things are monsters at conquest. It synergizes so incredibly well with Chandy's ability. They're faster and cheaper than knights, with similar combat strengths (after the debuffs are added in) and come an age earlier.

 

[MarigoldRan]

"Why not just giving every civ different characteristics in single-player game and MP game? Firaxis, think about it."

That is a good idea, Peter Chu.

 

[Disgustipated]

No Korea? I'm playing another game with them now. I would vote for them, but I don't see them on the list. I voted for Australia instead.

 

[PeterChu]

NOTE: The poll had to exclude 6 civs because of the number of options available. I excluded Aztec and Korea for being clearly OP and top tier to the point of being ridiculous. I excluded Rome and Arabia because I get the sense that most consider them at least near the top tier. I excluded Norway for what seems to be a universal belief that it is bottom tier, or at least close... and I excluded England because of continued nerfs that have left poor Victoria near the bottom.

I do feel Firaxis needs to consider the design logic of civs by separating the single player game and the MP game. England in Civ 6 is a case in point.

Those nerfs made with respect Pax Britannica could be good or even necessary in terms of the civ balance in the context of the MP games. But they neglect such is not the case for single-player gamers. They just destroy an interesting civ to play that could make an U-turn in the mid-game with a maritime trade empire strategy, expansive but not extremely warmongering.

It is true beyond England, there remain various civs that are thought as too OP for MP games. Therefore, they are quite often simply banned by sophisticated MP gamers. But if Firaxis trys hard to achieve a well-balanced civ design especially for MP games ( this would be a good thing for CIv 6 to become an e-sport), I am afraid some single-player gamers might start to think EU 4 is more interesting. For single-player gamers, civ balance is really not an issue; it is rather how different civs could give you different ways to gain interesting strategic gaming experiences under the same game framework, IMHO.

Why not just giving every civ different characteristics in single-player game and MP game? Firaxis, think about it.

 

[Ever Adrift]

No Korea? I'm playing another game with them now. I would vote for them, but I don't see them on the list. I voted for Australia instead.

They were one of the 6 I left off (you can't have as many poll options as civs) because they are pretty obviously top-tier. Annoyingly OP, honestly, like the Aztecs.