servport.blogg.se

Otherwise, overall I think you got most of the list right with a few minor tweaks. Portugal is incredible in single-player, but will get absolutely obliterated in multiplayer games. Some are extremely starting dependent like the Mayans.Īnother big issue of contention with Civ Tier lists are "difficulty" (generally if they work on Deity they work on everything), and more importantly, multiplayer vs. Some civs are better coastal, some are better on a new age/apocalypse map, etc. It's a bit counterproductive when the point of the list is to rank leaders, and I honestly think that your original idea of "Consistently Excellent", "Situationally Amazing", etc would be a lot more useful because Canada and Russia shine on cold maps, but not so much on naval or hot maps. Honestly, screw the "traditional" tier list which I always found stupid as it the typical school grades of F > A get abolished and suddenly you get S, SS, God Tier/Broken, etc. So ok.Īll together, I don’t think it would hurt if people occasionally said nice try and said what they agreed with about a list, rather than instantly pick out 1 or 2 issues with a massive, highly subjective opinion piece. Her district bonuses are generalist and help throughout the game, her archers allow for the all powerful early war that transitions into a sim city game. I actually came to defend this low placement but as I looked at her abilities (ranged units are great offense or defense) and start biases (tier 5 towards the best end game strategics), I actually agree this is too low.

Nubia seems to be one that struck a nerve, and I hear that as she was also one of the civs I won first at on several difficulties.

I love the Tamar mains who ride or die with her but I’m a certified Hater. I think Rough Rider could be a bit higher but not much. I think Cleo’s abilities should bump it up, but almost every game over ever played with her has gone disastrously bad so I like it. Sure there may be civs you love here (Gitarja) but they’re in the right ballpark.Ĭ tier: no one likes to see their favorite civs down here and I see that in the comments. It contains many of the OG civs that haven’t gotten love as the power creep of the last 5+ years has set in. Some (maybe a bunch) could be lower, especially on a more spread out list.ī tier: this is a good tier. But I don’t think too many of these should really be higher. Spain on some maps (there it is again) is S+. Some people really go to bat for Mansa Musa. A couple head scratchers there for sure, and if you made me choose something wrong with this tier list is that there are civs that just don’t belong this high no matter how you look at it.Ī tier: this is a good tier list of generalist civs. I think there are probably ~5 civs that probably belong another tier (or two) down, and that’s probably my biggest critique of this whole list. S tier: I think almost any civ you would consider bumping to S+ is here, so that’s good! I think some of the best civs for focusing one victory type and dominating at it are here too. I would push for Vicky (AoS) here, and it’s not unreasonable to think a few others could bump up here (Columbia) but I think are a better fit in S tier. Khmer is my favorite civ, so his placement is objectively correct :). The broken tier: almost all of these civs feel generally the strongest in the game. So while so many people are listing things wrong, I might point out things I agree with. That’s fine, but you’re narrowing the scope of a tier list that the OP didn’t. I’ve seen people here say “well in multiplayer games” or “well if you turn off culture victory” or go to bat for some of the most map dependent civs in the game. It’s not perfect, but that’s an impossible task because this is highly subjective stuff with a game that has a myriad of difficulties, maps, and win conditions. Hot take: I think this is a fine tier list.