What do you think are over/underpowered civs in VP?

[tothePAIN]

@Recursive Can diplomacy be changed so that AIs who go authority are more likely to go to war? Or should even try to be at war constantly?

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

Not trying to drag the thread to be just about Spain but Spain gets a lot of bonuses throughout the entire game and a particular part of their kit solves a major issue for human player on higher difficulty which is maintaining a navy without having to waste hammers on them; Spain -if faith is micro managed correctly- can go from no navy to a reasonable naval force in a matter of a single turn especially there is no coolsdown on unit purchase with faith and they do receive full XP which is huge.
Also if you are using 4UC -who is not?- you get a ridiculous powerspike with gunpowder as Armada's are one of if not the single most OP unit in the entire game and it's kinda comparable to the old SOTL before the changes; the fact that with just barracks and armories they can start with Blitz promotion and raiding party III is game changing and you can easily defeat any naval force and occupy a big portion of the map with just Armadas is super strong.
Conquistadors true power lie in their ability to found cities, they come a full era before Pioneers, they are much cheaper to produce, the do not halt ciry growth or cost you population and they are a decent fighting unit with +2 sight.
Missions are kind of cheesy building IMO, it's definitely strong but as Spain you are mostly going to pick fealty as your medieval tree which already boosts the production when building castles and at this particular stage of the game you are better of using your faith for something else other than building castles .... I think the only time you would actually want to buy missions with faith is right after settling a new city.
Haciendas are kinda cool, not as poweful as Kasbah or Chateau per se but it produces a lot of yields if you are not going to place farm triangles.

 

[Cokolwiek]

but Spain gets a lot of bonuses throughout the entire game

No, they are specifically early game geared (faster population growth and faster and stronger pantheon and religion) and uniques are both on the same tech in the same era. Founding cities in medieval is usually just as horrible as founding them in renaissance. If you had any valuable land to settle you should have done it earlier, they get only ancient era buildings and will spend ages, literally two or three ages to even catch up. They will be lucky if they will catch up by industrial and basically be a great drain of resources and happiness for half of the game. Even a city that was founded in early classical will have one or two more buildings, improved tiles, and will have seven or eight population. I never understood late settling. It is usually used by players who have abysmal happiness problems and poor city development decision making. I am not saying that's true in your case, but I can't agree that having this ability is beneficial to Spain. It's non-existing for the most part. Spain greatness lies in the food and faith bonus in ancient.

but as Spain you are mostly going to pick fealty as your medieval tree

Oh, I think that would be a waste of Spain's potential. You already possess much advantage in development of cities and faith as Spain, especially with going wide progress or authority, so the logical consequence is statecraft if you want to continue or even artistry if you want to settle down. You don't need more food (already have), more faith (already one of the strongest religion), and quicker castles and armories (you won't defend, and most of your experienced army already is here, you can build them slower for supply cap mostly.
In statecraft lies much more culture, gold and science than fealty. And this is what wide or warmongering Spain needs in the midgame.

who is not?

Yyy... me? And I think most of the community? Whoever play it I think should be mentioning it in every balance and strategy topics, because they are completely imbalanced to the whole game. Inflation of yields, different timing of powerspikes, different tech priorities, it changes too much.

Poland gets a massive boost in the late game when it chooses its ideology, starting with 3 policies right off the bat. Its a major shot in the arm. The civ can look lackluster for a long time but it gets a very solid boost in the late game that makes it competitive. Its not top tier but I do not think Poland underperforms.

I think it is. Early yields > later yields. Especially early yields >>> yields at the time of ideology. Moreover so because tenets only magnify what the player already possesses in number of cities, buildings, yields. Compared to many abilities that are relevant from the get go, either from their nature or in the form of early yields, it is weak. But I don't complain, Poland was never a real power in Europe, not to mention the global stage. It would be extremely unsettling to see a relevant Warsaw. Trust me, I live here.

 

[Recursive]

@Recursive Can diplomacy be changed so that AIs who go authority are more likely to go to war? Or should even try to be at war constantly?

They already get a bonus towards going to war.

       ////////////////////////////////////
       // War Bonus
       ////////////////////////////////////

       // Do we have bonuses towards war?
       int iWarBonus = 0;

       // Natural war inclinations?
       if (bConqueror || bConquerorTraits)
       {
           iWarBonus += 3;

           // Easy target?
           if (bEasyTarget)
           {
               viApproachWeights[MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_WAR] += viApproachWeightsPersonality[MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_WAR];
           }

           // Warmonger + unique unit active? Slay them all!
           if (GetPlayer()->HasUUPeriod() && bWeHaveUUTech && bWeHaveUUActive)
           {
               viApproachWeights[MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_WAR] += viApproachWeightsPersonality[MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_WAR];
               viApproachWeights[MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_HOSTILE] += viApproachWeightsPersonality[MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_HOSTILE];
           
               // AND we're going for world conquest?
               if (bGoingForWorldConquest || bCloseToWorldConquest)
               {
                   viApproachWeights[MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_WAR] += viApproachWeightsPersonality[MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_WAR];
                   viApproachWeights[MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_DECEPTIVE] += viApproachWeightsPersonality[MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_DECEPTIVE];
               }
           }
       }

       // If we picked offensive policy trees, war is better for us.
       PolicyBranchTypes eAuthority = (PolicyBranchTypes)GC.getInfoTypeForString("POLICY_BRANCH_HONOR", true /*bHideAssert*/);
       PolicyBranchTypes eImperialism = (PolicyBranchTypes)GC.getInfoTypeForString("POLICY_BRANCH_EXPLORATION", true /*bHideAssert*/);
       PolicyBranchTypes eIdeology = GetPlayer()->GetPlayerPolicies()->GetLateGamePolicyTree();

       if (GetPlayer()->GetPlayerPolicies()->IsPolicyBranchUnlocked(eAuthority))
       {
           iWarBonus++;
           
           if (GetPlayer()->GetPlayerPolicies()->IsPolicyBranchFinished(eAuthority))
           {
               iWarBonus++;
           }
       }
       if (GetPlayer()->GetPlayerPolicies()->IsPolicyBranchUnlocked(eImperialism))
       {
           iWarBonus++;
           
           if (GetPlayer()->GetPlayerPolicies()->IsPolicyBranchFinished(eImperialism))
           {
               iWarBonus += 2;
           }
       }
       if (eIdeology == GC.getPOLICY_BRANCH_AUTOCRACY())
       {
           iWarBonus += 3;
       }

       // Temporary attack bonus?
       if (GetPlayer()->GetAttackBonusTurns() > 0)
       {
           iWarBonus += 2;
       }

       if (iWarBonus > 0)
       {
           viApproachWeights[MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_WAR] += (viApproachWeightsPersonality[MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_WAR] + iWarBonus);
           viApproachWeights[MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_HOSTILE] += (viApproachWeightsPersonality[MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_HOSTILE] + iWarBonus);

           // Easy target?
           if (bEasyTarget)
           {
               viApproachWeights[MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_WAR] += viApproachWeightsPersonality[MAJOR_CIV_APPROACH_WAR];
           }
       }

 

[Drakle]

Actually revising my opinion on Austria early game. They are really good if you get the ball rolling, and get lucky with quests. Playing Tradition Austria, where I ignored early wonders and focused on getting some units out to clear barbarian camps, and box the AI civs out of my settlement area (nearby area with tight mountain passes and hills). Much better than sinking a ton of effort into Stonehenge, which is too early for city states to request.

I got two different city states asking to discover the lands of a civilisation, which with +50% rewards, is worth over a Ancient era tech. Went from being behind on tech, to the tech leader quite quickly.

I got connect a resource, which a nearby city state had, who became my ally after a barbarian camp clearing. So 1 camp cleared, resulting in two city states ally's and a big load of gold, which I used to buy more worker boats (God of the sea and then Coral monopoly, plus trading away the resources to AI civs).

Finally I got the war between city states, between one ally and one non ally. The non ally requested a trade route, and boom. Boost with both, triggered golden age, and a ton of money. Almost enough to perform a diplomatic marriage. Of course I decided that a few workers, boats and gold investments were worth more than 15% great person generation and no influence loss at this stage of the game.

 

[azum4roll]

AI Venice is very good, as long as it's a purely AI game. Humans always manage to exploit Venice's weakness, but AI treats him as a normal civ and lets him spam trade routes everywhere without warring him until late game, when he goes wider and stronger than everyone else.

He would've won my last AI game if he actually knew how to win (switching to the world ideology and building the CEP, or giving up cultural victory and building spaceship parts), instead of spending 50+ turns warring his neighbours.

 

[ElliotS]

Spain is my current vote for best civ. The faith to get an easy religion on Deity, the food to keep up with the AI, the ability to get a navy with faith, and a really, really good UU. They're extremely well-rounded and have worthwhile bonuses all game. They're top of the pack for me, tho I haven't played everyone in a while.

 

[JamesNinelives]

The civ I've had the most feeling of power playing is actually the Shoshone. They are a bit hit and miss because of the randomness of ruins, but getting multiple free techs and faith boosts is just incredible when it happens. It almost doesn't feel fair. The Shoshone's unique improvement is also very useful and versatile. That said, I think a lot of civs have something about them that stands out compared to the rest. Playing the Iroquois recently they have lots of food and production, their mobility in forests and jungles is incredible during wars and mohawk warriors unlock early and are very spammable. Ethiopia seems quite strong too, although I don't have any experience with them.

I guess the civ that is most consistently strong in my games as an AI is the Maya - a free great person is cool, but particularly their UI granting faith and science in the classical era is very powerful. Egypt is also often quite strong - building wonder after wonder they can shoot ahead of everyone else, and having an early UU means war against them before they get going isn't easy. China and Russia are also often quite strong - I think good generic bonuses make them quite adaptable. Siam does pretty decent too. The warring civ that stands out to me is The Mongols. I dislike them to be honest because the guy is always shouting, but I've seen them conquer quite successfully. Also notable is Greece defensively - Hoplites sure make one hell of a shield-wall!

In terms of civs that do poorly, I find the AI often doesn't do well as Assyria. I know they can be very powerful in player hands, so I'm not sure why but I've never seen them in a top position in my games. France also looks really awesome on paper, but somehow I haven't seen them be very successful in AI hands. Perhaps because their UU doesn't kick in unless they capture a city, something they both share. I haven't seen Rome do too well either. On the other end of the spectrum, Byzantium also also often does poorly in my games. It's strange to me because they feel pretty great to play with (once you learn how to use them), but I often see them loosing cities as an AI. I've also never seen India do particularly well in a games I play, maybe because I use large maps and they perform better in tall/crowded settings. Lastly the Ottomans don't do great in my games either, unfortunately.

It's interesting to hear people saying Austria does well. I've seen Austria perform strongly recently, but in the past I've also seen them get invaded early on and struggle to get back on their feet afterwards. Perhaps the improved CS for city fortifications recently has worked in their favour. Spain I have seen do very well lately, with the harsher inquisitor mechanics. I suspect they won't stand out now, but I guess we'll see .

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

No, they are specifically early game geared (faster population growth and faster and stronger pantheon and religion) and uniques are both on the same tech in the same era. Founding cities in medieval is usually just as horrible as founding them in renaissance. If you had any valuable land to settle you should have done it earlier, they get only ancient era buildings and will spend ages, literally two or three ages to even catch up. They will be lucky if they will catch up by industrial and basically be a great drain of resources and happiness for half of the game. Even a city that was founded in early classical will have one or two more buildings, improved tiles, and will have seven or eight population. I never understood late settling. It is usually used by players who have abysmal happiness problems and poor city development decision making. I am not saying that's true in your case, but I can't agree that having this ability is beneficial to Spain. It's non-existing for the most part. Spain greatness lies in the food and faith bonus in ancient.

I kinda disagree with Spain being an exclusively early game civ; Buying ships with faith is relevant till the very end of the game and it's highly synergistic with the other part of the UA more ships = more conquering and more conquering = more ships.
Maybe the food aspect is less relevant as the game progresses but your capital will be far larger and more developed than almost every other capital in the game.

Mid game settling viability depends on the map, i know in like 70% of the map rolls every single piece of land gets grabbed by the end of classical era but some times the map script generates a huge map with good settling spots still open till the industrial era; the hit to policy, techs cost and happiness is not substantial if the city you settle is actually good and can compensate for these.

Oh, I think that would be a waste of Spain's potential. You already possess much advantage in development of cities and faith as Spain, especially with going wide progress or authority, so the logical consequence is statecraft if you want to continue or even artistry if you want to settle down. You don't need more food (already have), more faith (already one of the strongest religion), and quicker castles and armories (you won't defend, and most of your experienced army already is here, you can build them slower for supply cap mostly.
In statecraft lies much more culture, gold and science than fealty. And this is what wide or warmongering Spain needs in the midgame.

I think the argument about statecraft is valid solely because statecraft is significantly better than the other 2 medieval tree in a vaccum but that's a discussion for another thread, not because Spain does not benifit as much from fealty; in fact fealty suits Spain much more than most other civs simply because it generates so much faith that getting the most out of it would net them more yields especially if you got a good faith sink -you already have buying ships-.
In my experience wide progress spain does not actually run out of gold and fealty does generate reasonable amounts of culture, the main setback of choosing fealty is lack of a good science policy which is an issue with fealty tree rather than an advantage to statecraft.

Yyy... me? And I think most of the community? Whoever play it I think should be mentioning it in every balance and strategy topics, because they are completely imbalanced to the whole game. Inflation of yields, different timing of powerspikes, different tech priorities, it changes too much.

While in theory any addition to the game contributes to yield inflation, i don't think the yield inflation is very noticeable in 4th UC ... The change in power spike timing hence the tech/policies prioritization is a thing tho.

 

[Cokolwiek]

Indonesia. What do you think of it? I tried to play some game with them because I wanted to evaluate wide progress effectiveness vs. wide authority. They are just weak. Like really weak. Especially since they favor already production-poor coastal starts, and BAAM, one of you few precious hills just got rendered useless because of plantation on it. They unique ability is mediocre at best, and they are kind of forced to authority because of ancient unique unit.

in like 70% of the map rolls every single piece of land gets grabbed by the end of classical era

Exactly. It is even higher percentage on standard setting like continents or pangea. Sometimes pioneers/conquistadors are a good idea. But usually they are only for one city on one tile island or so. 80% percent of the time, they are useless.

I think the argument about statecraft is valid solely because statecraft is significantly better than the other 2 medieval tree in a vaccum but that's a discussion for another thread, not because Spain does not benifit as much from fealty; in fact fealty suits Spain much more than most other civs simply because it generates so much faith that getting the most out of it would net them more yields especially if you got a good faith sink -you already have buying ships-.
In my experience wide progress spain does not actually run out of gold and fealty does generate reasonable amounts of culture, the main setback of choosing fealty is lack of a good science policy which is an issue with fealty tree rather than an advantage to statecraft.

Excuse me, but this is mistaking causes with outcomes. First of all not all maps need navy, so again it is heavy situational. Secondly, Spain's strength lies in amazing early development and wide-friendliness. That means it will not have problems or have less problems than most others with high number of cities, hence, high production and supply cap, hence building its fleet normally. Its main advantage is so good that it lessens the benefits and usefulness of its secondary ability.
Thirdly, due to the fact Spain is exceptional at early development and infrastructure, it really doesn't need fealty. And it does not mean there's something wrong with fealty. Fealty is a great policy for an undeveloped warmonger, who focused on units and conquering, and gained much culture and science that way. Things fealty boosts which are infrastructure, faith, production, are already abundant in Spain. It is a dead alley because doubling down on them will not end in twice the outcomes.
Fourthly, yes, statecraft is usually the strongest option, but it is much more so for Spain, because its synergy with being wide, with diplomatic pressure, with large military, with tons of science, culture, happiness, and other yields delivered from city-states.
Fifthly, fealty does something different than statecraft, and it does not mean it needs more science or that statecraft is overpowered or always better than it.
Sixthly, historically Spain kinda went fealty and feudalism over statecraft (like England, or the Netherlands) in Early Modern Era, and it ended bad for her.

While in theory any addition to the game contributes to yield inflation, i don't think the yield inflation is very noticeable in 4th UC

It is, especially while going wide. But I think it is more impactful on immortal plus. It is one of the reasons one YouTuber who always play deity with it is able to drag difficulty down so much, he can consistently beat every game even while making some serious mistakes.

 

[CppMaster]

M

It is, especially while going wide. But I think it is more impactful on immortal plus. It is one of the reasons one YouTuber who always play deity with it is able to drag difficulty down so much, he can consistently beat every game even while making some serious mistakes.

Marbozir?

 

[Cokolwiek]

Marbozir?

No, "Hello, I'm Martin Fencka, and welcome to another episode of..."

 

[crdvis16]

Indonesia. What do you think of it? I tried to play some game with them because I wanted to evaluate wide progress effectiveness vs. wide authority. They are just weak. Like really weak. Especially since they favor already production-poor coastal starts, and BAAM, one of you few precious hills just got rendered useless because of plantation on it. They unique ability is mediocre at best, and they are kind of forced to authority because of ancient unique unit.

The last time I played them they felt good. I played them progress with a focus on WLTKD and religion.

Their UA plays well with festivals (like Netherlands) as the pantheon and then tailor the rest of the religion for stacking WLTKD bonuses (like China) to play off of the Candi.

You can settle lots of cities rapidly and can settle some locations you otherwise wouldn't. The early global monopoly bonuses from your spices are strong (+6 happiness helps with early wide happiness while the food/production bonuses help cities get going).

They didn't feel top tier or anything but they also didn't feel weak, at least in that game.

 

[andersw]

I play quite a bit and averaged maybe one game every week this spring and I feel thats still not enough to confidently claim what civs are strong/weak.
It can also depend quite a bit on map settings, their start and their neighbours.
My playstyle (I enjoy warmongering) also affect what type of AIs do ok.

The good (not in order):
Aztecs, have you seen a game where they didnt found? I guess you played without barbs then, super solid in early game which carry them for a long long time.
Poland, you cant go wrong with free policys.
Siam, "Influence with City-States starts at 40." this means yields as soon as you meet a CS, this is very very strong in the early game.
Carthage, half a worker in gold on settle AND a free lighthouse, this is very often a powerhouse civ that you'll struggle to keep up with.

The bad (not in order):
Ethiopia, from op civ nerfed -> trash, rarely manage to do anything.
Germany, strong mid-lategame in theory but need to compete with better statecraft civs to get benefits, realpolitik+hanse+statecraft isnt bad but since they have no other bonuses, by the time they've reached statecraft they are generally irrelevant.
Denmark, can do well but mostly the pillage and the runestone/berserker rush combo are maybe too complicated for the AI.
Indonesia, no useful benefits.
Zulu, weak special promotions, tribute ability garbage after tribute nerf.
(havent played with venice for ages)

In my hands... well depends and good/bad varies a lot more than when the AI plays imo
Mongolia, Egypt and Aztecs probably takes the big OP prize but there are a lot of other strong civs.
Of the bad above Zulu got some improvements, not sure if its enough, Indonesia also feels very weak in player hands, Denmark without Iron (or isolated) is garbage.

 

[BiteInTheMark]

I think you have to separate any ranking into "In AI hands" and "In human hands"....

At my observation, AI tends to perform greatly with "generic" civilizations which have bonuses, whose didnt need any special play style and offer bonuses for things you do anyway. Like China for founding cities and gaining GW or Ethiopia for founding a religion and finishing policies. Those civilizations cant miss their bonuses, cause they are so basic to the game, that even low level AIs are getting advantages.

On the other side, AI have often problems to get a use of very specific play styles, like from Denmark, Aztecs and especially Venice. Never would an AI only declare war to someone to plunder improvements but without the wish to conqer a city.
Best civs in human hands are very likely warmongers, cause its still the easiest way to win over the AI, due to its still lacking capabilities in warfare.

Btw. I see Austria as one of the top civs. Playing for example Germany against Austria is so annoying, cause they can accumulate so many votes already early on an cripple you right from the start of the diplo game.
And nothing is more fun than getting a random alliance with a CS in classical, paying 500 gold and holding this alliance without any additional effort for atleast 2 eras.
If you ever were able to construct 2 early CS alliances with a faith or cultural CS, you wouldnt call them mediocre or less.

 

[Cokolwiek]

Playing for example Germany against Austria is so annoying

Because the correct destiny of Austria is the Anschluss.

In my recent games also Sweden, France and Assyria tend to be the sore losers. As many of you pointed out, the AI is very weak at managing militaristic civs.

 

[andersw]

Because the correct destiny of Austria is the Anschluss.

In my recent games also Sweden, France and Assyria tend to be the sore losers. As many of you pointed out, the AI is very weak at managing militaristic civs.

I can understand that the AI struggle a bit to get most out of France, keeping things alive as Sweden can sometimes be an issue as AI (depends what neighbour they hammer), Assyria with Tower and drill promo is just crazy, you can take out pretty much any civ with spearmen.

 

[JamesNinelives]

The AI actually does relatively well with Sweden in my games, but on the other hand handles Assyria terribly. I think some of the mechanics are much easier for the AI to use than others.

Aztecs, have you seen a game where they didnt found? I guess you played without barbs then, super solid in early game which carry them for a long long time.

Even the Aztecs struggle sometimes in my games, whereas in human hands I see them as rightfully very powerful.

AI have often problems to get a use of very specific play styles, like from Denmark, Aztecs

I'd say you're on the money there.

Ethiopia, from op civ nerfed -> trash, rarely manage to do anything.

Honestly, this is very surprising for me to read. I don't consider Ethiopia to be top tier, but I've never seem them do super badly either. Their bonuses are relatively easy for the AI to use; they pretty much alway found. Although again the perhaps doesn't use them quite as well as a human would.

Indonesia, no useful benefits.

Free luxuries that you are guaranteed a monopoly on (which gives nice yields I might add), and an early UU with honestly quite strong promotions. Indonesia has gold for days and guaranteed good relations with multiple civs because they all want your luxuries. Founding with them is often easy as well - if you have a plantation start Springtime is excellent, if not go festivals. Alternately they make desert and tundra significantly stronger because you're gauranteed exta resources for Spirit of the Desert and Stars and Sky. And the Candi gives extra culture and faith which is hardly something to complain about!

since they favor already production-poor coastal starts,

Except they don't . Unlike in vanilla Civ 5, Indonesia in VP doesn't have a start bias! (I checked the wiki: https://civ-5-cbp.fandom.com/wiki/Civilizations)

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

So i have just tried Songhai for the very first time (Emperor, Still in medieval era but top of the score board and already starting to run away).... I had no idea it's that powerful, the early gold from encampments clearance is quite impactful, every single unit getting amphibious, war canoe promotions change a lot of how you approach the battlefield.
My start was not even that good (Coastal flat lands with Jade on grassland/plains but hadsome nice river tiles and a couple of horse tiles as well).

 

[Akbarthegreat]

Ethiopia, from op civ nerfed -> trash, rarely manage to do anything.

Honestly, this is very surprising for me to read. I don't consider Ethiopia to be top tier, but I've never seem them do super badly either. Their bonuses are relatively easy for the AI to use; they pretty much alway found. Although again the perhaps doesn't use them quite as well as a human would.

Spoiler :

In my current game, 6/19 hotfixed on King difficulty. I find it very ironic that the very civ that was so hopelessly OP science-wise in vanilla civ5 is literally one era behind Ethiopia on turn 114.

I don't remember the exact number of techs they had at this point, but when I had checked some turns ago Ethiopia had 20 while Babylon had 10.