Zardnaars Civ Tiers

[Zardnaar]

Not exactly an article as such Eventually I'll probably do it as on once I'm finished(assuming Ision doesn't return etc) Heres Isions list he left us.

1st tier - Mayans, Persia, China, Inca, Greece, Babylon, Iroquios, Celts, Ottomans, Arabia, Netherlands

2nd tier - America, Egypt, Sumeria, Byzantines, Aztecs, Zulus, Japan, Germany, Russia, France

3rd tier - Vikings, England, Mongols, Carthage, Korea, Hittites, Rome, Spain, Portugal, India


For comparisons sake heres my list of civs and the tier they're in. Note that I do have a different opinion/playstyle than Ision and theres no real right or wrong ansewer. I agree with probably around 70% of his list.

1st tier - Mayans, Persia, Egypt, Greece, Babylon, Iroquios, Celts, Ottomans, Arabia, Netherlands, Sumeria

2nd tier - America,China, Inca, Byzantines, Aztecs, Japan, Germany, Russia, France, India

3rd tier - Vikings, England, Mongols, Carthage, Korea, Hittites, Rome, Spain, Portugal, Zulu

What can I say I like Egypt

Egypt, Arabia, Babylon are on the bottom of the 1st tier list while Iroquis,Sumeria, and the Dutch are at the top.

In the 2nd tier China, Inca, Byzantines,France are at the top, Aztecs, Germany, Russia are at the bottom.

And finally the 3rd tier. The top of the list is England, Rome, Carthage. At the bottom Portugal, Zulu, Mongol

Overall best civ: Iroquios

and the absolute worst civ in the game PORTUGAL but I'm just about willing to call a tie with the Zulu.

Note that this is my opinion which in the grand scheme of things doesn't really matter.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Note that this is my opinion which in the grand scheme of things doesn't really matter.

it is, however nice to see, that for the absolute top and bottom Civs I can wholeheartedly agree.

Notice you value commerce very low, is that a correct impression?
You have 4 COM Civs in your 3rd tier, and 4 more SEA Civs...don't think many will agree with that (not arguing about a particular Civ); I'm surprised to find 2 of the 3 widely considered the strongest traits here that often.

 

[Zardnaar]

I really like the commercial trait and it is one of the best traits. However alot of commercial civs have average (or worse) UU- Musketeers, 3 Man Chariot, or have poor synergy- Hittites, Rome or are just to slow India and England etc. The Iro and Greece have strong traits/synergy and France and India are good the rst hmmn.

Also with 4 civs in the bottom tier that ae seafaring are gems like Portugal and Carthage. The Vikings and England are ok but have semi optional UUs. Seafaring is a great trait but most civs that have it are flawed in some way compared to better civs IMHO. Sure on the right map they're great (England) or if you restart until you get a river/cattle start but most of the time I prefer other civs. They're better on the higher difficulty levels though on islands where you can exploit the AIs lack of contact and build the Great Libray 1st and then gift the city to the weakest civ and take it back sometime in the industrial age

 

[Ginger_Ale]

England - good commercial strategy, a well timed GA with either Smith's Trading Company or The Great Lighthouse. I do not think that they are 3rd tier. In C3C, their UU rules the seas until destroyers.

Rome - I think their traits go well together. Militaristic to conquer new teritories, and with the less corruption of commercial, it will be more productive. It has better trait synergy than some other MIL civs.

France's UU - this is actually much improved in C3C like the MoW. Defensive bomard makes most vets attacking go to regs, and so on, much improving the chances of winning the battle. There is no real need for riflemen when you have this unit, especially since it has defensive bomard. It comes at a good time as well to trigger a GA.

 

[GoodGame]

Unless England can exploit map bottlenecks, England is toast in a land war against a militaristic enemy with a UU in the ancients or early medieval, especially if you built a long, strung out coastal civ (that its traits favor). A 'yeoman' longbowman for England would have been more useful for keeping England competitive.

Otherwise it'd be one of the best trait combos.


I agree on Rome. The key to Rome is to only build-up cities that have true commercial characteristics, and use most of the captured cities as barracks forts (or sell them and abandon them). Focus on capturing luxuries, and generally avoid culture buildings (except when unavoidable) in favor of discounted marketplaces.

I agree with you on France too. The key is in the ancient age to expand fast with minimal war and research. Build cities more 'expansionistic', by spreading out, especially for luxuries and commercial bonus tiles, defend, and then build inwardly. With Industrial, it's easy to expand early with long, simple road networks.
Main weakness is guessing where the saltpeter is.

Question: with def bombard, Musketeers start a GA with a successful defense?

England - good commercial strategy, a well timed GA with either Smith's Trading Company or The Great Lighthouse. I do not think that they are 3rd tier. In C3C, their UU rules the seas until destroyers.

Rome - I think their traits go well together. Militaristic to conquer new teritories, and with the less corruption of commercial, it will be more productive. It has better trait synergy than some other MIL civs.

France's UU - this is actually much improved in C3C like the MoW. Defensive bomard makes most vets attacking go to regs, and so on, much improving the chances of winning the battle. There is no real need for riflemen when you have this unit, especially since it has defensive bomard. It comes at a good time as well to trigger a GA.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

in favor of discounted marketplaces

No discount on COM structures.

Question: with def bombard, Musketeers start a GA with a successful defense?

You can always trigger a GA with successful defence. But, the Musketeer has no Lethal Bombardment; so, they cannot kill anything with defensive bombardment (and if they could, it wouldn't happen ever - the AI will not attack such a unit with a 1 HP unit ever).
But lethal bombardment can trigger a GA in general - Dromons and C3C H'wacha can do that trick. And yes, H'wachas can promote to elite and subsequently even spawn MGLs that way.

 

[Invisible Rhino]

I'm glad to see you boosted India. I never agreed with putting them in 3rd teir. They have my two favorite traits and my absolute favorite (as in personal taste, not straetgically) UU.

 

[farting bob]

I wouldnt rate the dutch as highly as you did. Their traits are very map dependant and the UU is one of the less noticeable ones (defensive, only a small bonus). On a map suiting there traits, it is still a top tier civ, but on other maps they can be very average.
India arent that great, and probably deserve their 3rd tier status, but There UU is wonderful, even if thats only because its so unique (the stats are the same as its base unit, but without any resources).
Egypt is very good for builders (IMO only babs beat them for peaceful games) so i would rate it top tier, but its a shame the UU stinks. Still, it always seems in my games that egypt are strong even with the AI playing them, and my first win came with them, so im biased.

 

[Tomoyo]

I think the Dutch definately deserve their ranking. Any AGR civ should be ranked very high. Seafaring is a fine trait, combining expansionist and commercial. The UU gives a perfectly timed GA, too.

 

[Invisible Rhino]

India's UU gets an extra hit point. Other than the AC no other unit gets that. You basically don't need to build barracks, have iron, or have horses, to have veteran knights as India. That's a huge bonus if you know how to use it. Putting them third tier is very questionable in my mind.

 

[Zardnaar]

India has a decent UU, the commercial trait (great) and religeous trait (ok). Compared to alot of the 3rd tier civs they're looking quite good.