JamesNinelives
Emperor
I agree. The Inca still do pretty well in general though, at least in my games.
What do you think are over/underpowered civs in VP?
- Thread starter salty mud
- Start date
I agree. The Inca still do pretty well in general though, at least in my games.
I found Inca's TF is in a weird place. It's too high food to be spammed everywhere instead of mines, unless you play Tradition. And its only strong in the early-mid game. I agree that TF need a boost in order to stay competitive through the whole game.
But their mountain abilities are still godlike. AI just can't handle unreachable archers shooting down on them. It's almost unfair to AIs.
But their mountain abilities are still godlike. AI just can't handle unreachable archers shooting down on them. It's almost unfair to AIs.
Best Venice
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2020
- Messages
- 3
Does no one else feel the Huns are incredibly op. They are strangely absent from a lot of the conversation about civ strength. Most civs have a unit or a bonus that helps them in an era, but the Huns have ALL of their bonuses online in the classical era. Including their fatigue bonus which ensures a win in any war if you can drag it on and allows you to withstand coalition/joint wars. Not that you need to drag it on because you have a resourceless UU in the classical and capture bonus on Horse units in an era where they are strong. You also have a UI that more or less ensures you have enough production to go early campaigns and a minor culture bonus to help if you maybe didn't have as many barb spawns as you wanted meaning for me this means they appear to be quite reliable as well. If you pick Monty you can not get barb spawns or not get a lot of jungle then suddenly you are quite mediocre. As Atilla you can beat Monty 1v1 excluding a uncommon successful jaguar rush, your bonuses actually help you win wars Monty's only reward you for doing so and you are more consistent. I feel like Attila is good in the hands of Human, somewhat AI lol, and objectively one of the best civs. Maybe my judging of power is a little flawed idk. England, Sweden, Carthage, and Ethiopia are very powerful imo as well. Also Portugal is really good, Portugal>Korea.
JamesNinelives
Emperor
I find the Huns are good, but not in a way that's uncounterable. Like, their primary focus is warfare and they are very good at it, but you can still out-tech them if that's your focus (and play defensive) or get the world to turn against them pretty easily (if other civs don't hate them already). If they do to well in the early-game there's not much you can do about it (and on one game when I found them on another continent I just straight gave up), but they don't stand out in the mid-late game IMO.
A lot of warmongers feel OP in the right circumstances. Huns are up there, but so are lots of civs.
Mongolia is pretty OP if you are patient. Those skirmishers are basically invincible, you can just slowly grind any enemy down. I don't play him though because I find that a bit boring.
Mongolia is pretty OP if you are patient. Those skirmishers are basically invincible, you can just slowly grind any enemy down. I don't play him though because I find that a bit boring.
Mongolia is also nerfed right now because logistics is behind infiltrators, so the skirmishers need 150 xp for logistics. Also, the skirmisher doctrine made Mongolia much stronger in open terrain vs. rough terrain than before but also weaker in rough terrain.
Last edited:
Best Venice
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2020
- Messages
- 3
"If you build a civ for war and can't conquer your not gong to be strong" i would think that this would be a given no and you offer that hypothetical i raise you this one If you build a civ for tech or culture and get snuffed out by a stronger military that strategy seems pretty bad. Literally every strategy, policy tree, or Civ has counters, strengths, and weaknesses. You criticism might very well be apt but i think it would depend on the likelihood of which event occurs, obviously warmongers are going to fall behind if they cant win wars that is by design just saying that provides no insight. If you guys believe the current balance patch to favor turtling and warmongering particularly classical/medieval to be difficult you would be absolutely right and that would be what you tell me. Even then as far as Warmongers goes i think Attila is undeniably top 3 and most of the weaknesses Attila and his style of play would have most warmongers would also have to greater effect. Maybe to others credit, Monty is unique in that he can almost always secure a religion and the extra gold from barb kills can maybe allow to get progress rolling early rather than authority. I personally find authority warmongering to make the game dramatically easier for me granted i play on emperor or king. Which maybe leads me to question how we determine which civ is better than others if you do well on deity you are good civ and that is the measure by which we determine how good a civ is. If you tiered civs England would probably place higher in deity lists than if the difficulty was lower lol. If i give you a 1v1 between England and Sweden with even tech to start Sweden wins 90% of the time. Polynesia goes from pretty bad to top tier depending on map type. Maybe it's me i also find calling civs like Germany, The Dutch, and Austria good hard because if the AI's were intelligent enough (not saying i expect them too be) or against human players they would be mostly garbage and very very easy to counter.Germany would get city state sanctions, no one would trade with the Dutch, and people would stonewall Austria in the congress with decolonizations and DOW's on her city states. Multiplayer seems to be hard to run with this mod set correct but maybe its all the multiplayer games i play in general and in base game but i can't help but consider things like this. If certain strategies only work because the AI are negligent enough for them to work are they good? If the AI sit and let you get a diplo or culture victory is it a good victory type?
Sorry for the long ass post and i don't wan't to insult anyone particularly with my first couple sentences, iv'e played 1,600 hours of this game and quarantines got me fiery.
Sorry for the long ass post and i don't wan't to insult anyone particularly with my first couple sentences, iv'e played 1,600 hours of this game and quarantines got me fiery.
pineappledan
Deity
id be interested to see an assessment of whether Mongolia is hard countered by militaristic civs with rough terrain bonuses now (Iroquois, Inca). I don’t play with skirmisher doctrine, but it seems like a fairly straightforward rock-paper-scissors.
I played Mongolia against Denmark and only vassalized Denmark in the face of Berserkers with the help of a great general that took my territory to within 2 of his capital and let me build a road network and cycle skirmishers.
In rough terrain, skirmishers do so little damage that the defenders can heal through it, particularly in friendly territory. I'd hate to be Mongolia trying to invade the Iroqois.
Personally, I'd also rather have the old Mongolia UA than the new one, as tribute these days is weak. The old Heavy tribute conquering of a CS was meaningful. This one isn't, because tributing isn't.
Best Venice
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2020
- Messages
- 3
Warmongers IMO
S: Huns, Sweden
A+: Zulus, Songhai, Persia
A: Romans, Greece, Mongolia, Ottomans, Spain, Aztecs
B: France, Japan, Denmark
Obviously other civs can wage war but of the civs that this is their absolute primary desire this is how i would tier them. Even though i think Ottomans are a progress civ i still consider them a war civ cause the Janissary is so impactful and i think the can reasonably reach it without losing. A tier and above can be better than one another game to game but i think the rankings are generally base on consistency and efficiency more than strength. I think Mongolia could be a nightmare but the Huns, Swedes, and Songhai are probably going to be more consistently winning wars and getting ahead.
S: Huns, Sweden
A+: Zulus, Songhai, Persia
A: Romans, Greece, Mongolia, Ottomans, Spain, Aztecs
B: France, Japan, Denmark
Obviously other civs can wage war but of the civs that this is their absolute primary desire this is how i would tier them. Even though i think Ottomans are a progress civ i still consider them a war civ cause the Janissary is so impactful and i think the can reasonably reach it without losing. A tier and above can be better than one another game to game but i think the rankings are generally base on consistency and efficiency more than strength. I think Mongolia could be a nightmare but the Huns, Swedes, and Songhai are probably going to be more consistently winning wars and getting ahead.
BiteInTheMark
Deity
Cant remember seeing Babylon playing in top tier leage, but its a very strong civ in human hands, cause all their abilities are playing hand in hand. I really like them, but I wouldnt call them top civ.
Ethiopia is solid in AI hands, cause.... what can you do wrong with Ethiopia. Their bonuses are so generic, that even AI cant do that much wrong with it. But besides the easier start and some tech, they not really have much long lasting power. Have a neighboring England, and all your technological progress is gone as fast as you try to lead.
I tried several times polynesia and always are ressources on the coast, which break the Moai chains. 2 yields for a UI, which is extremly limited in its positioning isnt overwhelming either.
Fully agree about Siam. Give them a chance to meet most of the CS early on (pangea), and you get an early game monster delivered. Especially maritime and religious CS are really nasty yield pushes. Ive met now several times a Siam, which was able to transform early yield boosts into a solid early game lead and then snowball afterwards.
Polynesia is normally doing relativly well in my games. A start with other luxury plantations and the fitting pantheon is a really nice start. I agree about the UU, but less about the Candi, which seems solid to me, if you are able to stack WLTKD.
Incas Slingers were absolutly op in early warmonger hands. Gaining +1 range with already a composite bowman was so silly. Now, the special slinger promotions is not really worth to mention, I agree, but calling the terrace farm not good is something I cant agree with. The UI comes relativly early, is able to be placed nearly everywhere and you are able to create 6+ yield tiles extremly early, not even mentioning the additional yields for bordering farms. And building cities on top of a mountain and gaining 1
for free is nice too.The huns are one of my favourites too, even I dont play them as war civ.
The yields from their extremly early UI are so awesome high, even culture without any technological progress. Simply plant them everywhere you can and stack adjactancy bonuses. Faster border expansion is really nice too and the UU is good enough to do take atleast one neighbor out if wanted.
I agree with this. I do think Babylon is very strong in human hands (my recent runs with them have reminded me how amazing the bowman is), but then again lots of civs are. Ethiopia is strong period.
You can build Moai on top of resources.
JamesNinelives
Emperor
No harm done, but you should know are a lot of people on these forums with ridiculous numbers of hours in this game haha. So be careful quoting your playtime, you might find yourself outplayed
.They can only be built on hills though? I know The Inca have a hills bias but even with that, some games you just don't have that many. I agree that the Inca have lots of other bonuses though; their UA is really good.
I enjoyed reading all of your posts, thanks for joining the discussion. I've played a ton in quarantine too, so let's discuss!
Overall I agree with your assessments of warmongers, but not Zulu. He just seems like a substantially worse Sweden. I'd put Shaka quite low, like below Ottomans (who are quite strong when not at war, I value that flexibility).
I would also put Songhai in S-tier. Just great at war while also being good at other things with the Tabya. I suppose you might get unlucky with horses though.
Also were you playing single player on standard speed? As single player I find things aren't as aggressive as you describe. I used to play multiplayer and this just isn't the best mod for cut throat games. You need to ban a few civs and other things (like God of All Creation)
I was only ranking these civs for humans, not AI performance. Right now AI performance on Deity is affected by who picks tradition far more than most other factors.
But to be clear, you think Ethiopia isn't a top tier civ, because you might start next to England?
What makes God of All Creation OP in multiplayer? If anything, wouldn't it be weaker because humans don't get pantheons as quickly?
You pick it, get good science and production. Build army, attack your neighbor, while he was building workers or shrines. He gets salty.
I guess it's weaker than in a singleplayer game for like 10 turns? If pantheons get claimed on turn 40 instead of turn 30 it doesn't hurt that much.
I do find it interesting how everyone has such different lists of civs. You guys are discussing the war civs and what I consider the best war civ isn't even on the list!
Assyria has all of its bonus come on line rather early and they all synergize together. It has a power UU that never obsoletes out. A huge tech bonus early that lets you get military techs quicker and means you don't need to go up the top of the tree early, making the military teches even faster. And then when you do start conquering cities you get a huge science boost. The extra unit EXP also scales through the game meaning you get l4 units later on, starting with +1 range or double attack for bombers is just insane.
Assyria has all of its bonus come on line rather early and they all synergize together. It has a power UU that never obsoletes out. A huge tech bonus early that lets you get military techs quicker and means you don't need to go up the top of the tree early, making the military teches even faster. And then when you do start conquering cities you get a huge science boost. The extra unit EXP also scales through the game meaning you get l4 units later on, starting with +1 range or double attack for bombers is just insane.
