| Tier-List: The Best Civ-Design Posted: 08 Aug 2021 05:08 PM PDT  | Ok, that will be a bit longer. A while ago, I started that one just out of thinking about the topic and then had fun to do a write up of my thoughts. With two new civs right ahead of us, I think it's a good time to publish it, to inspire some thoughts about the design of civs in general. I hope, some of you will enjoy it. I asked myself: What Civs do I find to be well designed? There are some Civs that I enjoy a lot to play (and to play against too) and some I find ultimatively annoying and I wanted to take a look on all Civs in that regard. This Tier-List is not about how strong the Civs are and also not directly about how much I like to play them though. It's about how well they are designed as a part of the game. Obviously, that is still very subjective as different people want different things of the game and enjoy other aspects or play-styles more or less. An important point for me is that Civs are not only fun to play with but also fun to play against which usually means that you have options to deal with the civ while the civ has also options to deal with all situations, in order to make it a fair and dynamic strategy-game. I am talking mostly 1v1s - team-games usually just use one facet of a civ - and as water-maps are a rather rare part of the game, I only consider them slightly. MY TIER-LIST https://preview.redd.it/t0fv7xyo08g71.png?width=892&format=png&auto=webp&s=fb1519f164a1901b520f58f472aa016c1eb7cdf8 CRITERIA - Balance: A Civ should be good, but not too good. I also dislike when Civs feel situationally OP (Britons in early Castle Age, Flemish Revolution at times). Being competitive throughout the game is what feels correct for me. (Having stronger and weaker phases throughout the ages is a desirable part of the game though.)
- Logical Coherence: How well do the aspects of the civs make sense in relation to each other and how do they synergize? (Positive examples: coherence of the whole Franks' design; Mayans' Eagles countering the Archer-counter. Negative example: Portugese, all aspects are just a gameplan on their own basically.)
- Uniqueness/Inspiration: How different are civs to the other civs? Is it rather a vanilla Civ (Persians, Magyars) or do they play out in a very unique fashion (Malay, Cumans)?
- Versatility/Adaptiveness: How many options does a civ offer, how much do they depend on decision making and strategy choice? Do you have to (and can you) adapt to situations or do you just always go for the same thing?
- Fun: Very subjective criteria, so that I didn't consider it too much, but I gave some small bonus points for Civs that are generally considered (from what I assume) smooth and fun to play. (Otherwise for example Mongols and Franks might be C for being too one-dimensional and Mayans might be B for the heavy Archer-focus and being borderline overpowered. But we like them, don't we?) Keep in mind that this is probably your main criteria for picking a civ. So, when your favorite civ is ranked rather low - be aware that I just didn't attribute much importance to that factor. (A most-fun-to-play-tier-list would be a nice idea for another post. I put in the comments what I think would change if I emphasised more on that aspect.)
CIV BY CIV Where are Sicilians and Burgundians? I didn't include them because I think that they're not finalised and not fully figured out at this point, I also wrote this before their major buffs. Potentially: - I think, Sicilians could maybe make it A-Tier because of their massive uniqueness and also the whole building-power-and-Serjeants-theme is quite well synergizing, but right now I see them as a situational Tier-C-civ. Their strongest option is uncounterable Knights that are either too weak or situationally OP, which is fun but an issue. How good Serjeants actually are during the ages is yet to discover. Same question about the Donjon. Instant spawning units, a crippled tech tree and a very slow unique unit are negative points which will keep them from highest Tier, but I think they have the potential to better than just good.
- Burgundians should make it B-Tier quite clearly in the long run: Quite unique with the early-tech-theme, but relatively boring tech tree otherwise and not very versatile at all, Cavalier/Paladin and Coustillier kinda have the same function. Strong gun-powder is cool though and early Paladin is surely fun to play with. Should be a civ that's just average in its design. Before their buff they were just D-Tier for being underpowered. Right now, the Flemish Revolution is still a very big question mark and difficult to judge.
D-TIER: I think both civs aren't even THAT bad, because at least they're very unique and kinda balanced overall but they are the two civs that have the most massive problems in my opinion. They can be fun to play with but are usually extremely ugly to play against. - Britons: Probably most one-dimensional civ in the game, you just go always into full archers. Problem? Those archers can't really be countered (cost efficiently) when you micro them correctly. At the same time, you can't make too much happen with them, so that they create stalemate games with no decisions, no action, no options. Unique unit serves the exact same function as the main unit too. The first unique tech is exactly what they're given for free which is super lazy and problematic. Warwolf is cool and they're quite unique and probably fun for some people, just driving on the OP range, but yeah, that doesn't outweigh the negatives for me. When I win with Britons, it feels like I did nothing for it. When I lose against Britons I feel cheated. It's dumb.
- Goths: Situationally op, can become unstoppable or ultra hard to stop once they're outboomed enough. But then again, they don't have much going for them to actually get there, so they are always underpowered and overpowered at the same time which never feels really balanced. What they got to help them early on is generic (immediate loom) and made them into a laming-civ which is bad for the game in my opinion. Very civ-matchup-reliant, some Civs kill them, some have almost no chance from a certain point onwards. Decision making is there but it's super basic most of the times: You go infantry and then you adapt a little bit to the opponent by making bit more Pikes or bit more Huskarls or maybe add Swordmen. (Btw, I actually like to play them because they fit my playstyle a lot and I like infantry, but many people hate their design and I see that they have very good points for that.)
C-TIER: Civs that just lack something to make them better or more interesting. Actually, this Tier could arguably be even switched with the D-Tier, because other than the D-Tier-civs, those ones aren't very recognizable. But they're less problematic. - Persians: Just your most regular Knight-civ that is worse and more one-dimensional than the other Knight-civs. Kamandaran is useful but kinda boring and difficult to afford, War Elephants are iconic but unaffordable, second Unique Tech almost useless, douching is funny but shit, the eco-bonuses are passive and don't allow for exciting things, team bonus sounds much better than it is, other than that they don't have anything that distinguishes them from other Civs. They are really a civ with no big issue, but they are arguably the most generic Civ of them all.
- Spanish: Overall quite bad, terrible eco and no military bonuses either and also one-dimensional with the lack of Xbows, but then situational OP with the Conquistadors and the trade-bonus. Biggest D-Tier candidate for me but at least the Conqs can be fun and have a pretty unique style and I think it's interesting to have at least a civ in the pool which is actually best when played straight into FC. Also basically the last-man-standing tower-rush-civ which adds variety.
- Portugese: I think with a full gold-composition they can be quite good, but if they don't do that, then they're super bad which makes them very one-dimensional in the end despite them having a wide tech tree. Interesting UU, interesting to have balistics on gunpowder, one of the rare water-UUs, but that's about it. All of the cool stuff kicks in late and not very often. Same with Feitorias which are either trash or broken AND are quite strange as an idea to begin with. I think, it's clear that they're somehow problematic, just not problematic enough for D-Tier. They have the full-gold-comp Castle-Age-push going for them and are fine on closed maps and water maps.
- Koreans: Their lack of melee-options makes them something like an underpowered Britons version. You gotta go Archers with some trash-support which isn't that strong of a composition. UU is very good and makes them basically avoiding D-Tier, but it doesn't really cut it against strong Cavalry which makes them only a buffed version of the Archer-line. UT-Onagers are good but not too often relevant. Kinda weak, kinda non-recognizable since the tower-nerfs, arguably the least fun civ in the game too, also very slow. Another D-Tier-candidate. Biggest thing they've going for them is probably that they feel decently balanced right now (for players who are capable of playing archers). Instant Guard Tower gives you some nice defensive options at times. Also Turtle Ships are cool as hell, sadly not meta.
- Burmese: Similar situation as Spanish, with a UU that is a mixture of weaker than the Conq and more problematic at the same time (note: I'm still not sure how they play out since being changed). Good infantry and free wood-upgrade makes them a bit less generic and less bad, but not that much. Being ultra bad against good archer-civs makes them one of the most civ-reliant matchups in the game though. Civ-win against Indians, Civ-loss against Britons. Average balance is fine but it's pretty much luck based if they're good or bad.
B-TIER: Civs that are fine. They might have problems but can compensate with good stuff or they're just solid throughout the bank. Majority of the civs, naturally. - Berbers: Well balanced, fun, quite recognizable with the Camel-theme. I love Genitours actually but they're rarely a factor and also serve the same function as the UU. Also pretty one-dimensional which is their biggest issue here. The decision-making is always just Knights/Camels or Camel-Archers and it's most of the time kinda obvious what to do. But they work out pretty well, being mobile and fun.
- Mongols: Situationally OP in early and late game, but in their case it feels more like strategic diversity, less like a balance issue. Mangudai super fun, interesting alternative build-orders possible, average balance is fine. OP on hunt-heavy maps though, also definitely one of the most one-dimensional civs, long-term-gameplan is almost always the same. I am not sure why they never feel oppressive to me in late game, but somehow they don't.
- Huns: Kinda straightforward, some options, well balanced, smooth transitions, fun to play with. Full CA can feel op sometimes and they're also not that unique and adaptive. Tarkans very cool but most of the time not worth it. But overall they feel just like the clearest B-Tier civ. Just good. Not much to push them higher than good.
- Magyars: Pretty vanilla tech tree and bad economy, but just their late-game-comp, their accesibility and the pretty interesting UU pushs them quite clearly into B-Tier imo. No chance to be ever more than that though. Just a mobile, fun, easy-to-learn standard-civ.
- Vikings: Eco is borderline op, but makes them very fun to play. Great Archer-transitions and nice infantry-options with cool support from the UTs. Also arguably the most fun water-unit in the game. A-Tier candidate but they lack options in some situations and it feels odd that an infantry-civ is mostly played into archers.
- Teutons: I love them personally and see them as an A-Tier candidate. Eco is not OP but makes them super smooth to play. When you like to play melee, they're just so enjoyable, but they are too lackluster for A-Tier probably. They struggle too heavily on the ranged side of things, they're very unmobile, are very matchup-reliant because of that. Teutonic Knights iconic but hardly useful because it mostly serves the same function as the rest of the Teuton's army. I also like the UT's but too often they are too difficult to afford.
- Franks: Most popular civ along Mayans and best civ beyond the top-level, because they're just so straightforward designed into their Knight-play. Super fun, super smooth to play, very logically designed. It's just that they're borderline OP and one-dimensional at the same time which is a bad mix. It's a strategy-game afterall and Franks can just feel a bit too "dumb" in that context to be considered more than average in their design for my taste. "Here, you get a new civ. - Thx, what are they good f - SHUT UP AND GO KNIGHTS."
- Turks: I like the idea of the Civ being designed to have no (Trash-)Counter-Units, basically the anti-thesis to the Byzantines there. I don't feel though, that they went this path to the end. The bonus armor on the Scout-line was a nice addition that I like, but still leaves them vulnerable to Archer-plays. Other than that they have a bad eco and get good pretty late. The early Imp power spike is pretty interesting though, they have fun army comps available and multiple gameplans too. I dislike the sick range of the Janissaries though, they outrange Mangonels and TCs too hard, always think they're a gimmicky and unbalanced unit. So, many pros, many cons, pretty much the opposite of the Huns somehow.
- Vietnamese: Arguably the most solid of the archer-civs. Decent eco, good Archers, Rattans are very nice, clear design of the civ to be an anti-archer-civ and very coherently built to be that. In that, they are too one-dimensional though. They feel like a smoother Koreans with the lack of a Plan B and general lack of (affordable) melee-options. Also similar problem as the Berbers that they have two UUs which serve the same function (Imp Skirm and Rattans) which is pretty sad in my opinion.
- Saracens: A pretty distinctive one with the market options, the extra damage of the archers and the camel-theme. Only problem is just that all the options aren't that great. Lacking Cavalier is an issue in many situations, the archers don't have any advantage in combat. Again, UU serves (almost) same function as their camels do anyway. Feels like they could be A- or C-Tier too, very subjective in many regards.
- Slavs: Personally a clear A-Tier for my own taste but objectively they are probably too one-dimensional and unimaginative for that. I think they're pretty perfectly balanced, have all great Melee-options and cheap siege as a good complement to that. Bojars and Orthodoxy are a bit lame though and they lack something that really sticks out in any way. They're just the smooth standard-melee-option.
- Celts: The Slavs' crazy cousin. Don't have similar Cav-options but even better infantry and siege. I think honestly that the Hoang-push exploits some weaknesses of how AoE is designed but I am not sure how much that must be contributed to the civ. Apart from that, just with their quick infantry and great eco I do like them quite a lot, but they're surely too one-dimensional to be seen as greatly designed overall and also they're lackluster in mid-Castle-Age. Interesting point that their eco-bonus makes them more versatile in a way.
- Indians: Honestly, a candidate for C-Tier solely because they struggle so hard against Pikes and also quite a lot against archers, which makes them massively matchup-reliant. Other than that, I actually do love them. Super smooth eco, the Camel-line works so well with the bonuses, I think Imp Camel is a great addition and mega fun to play with. It's just a major problem that the Elephant Archer is so useless. I feel that they could be borderline S-Tier if they'd be similarly useful as the War Wagon (the civ probably needed a general nerf then, but simply in terms of decional dynamics it would be pretty great). Very hard to rate them. After understanding that they must be seen as a mobile counter-civ, I actually tend more to A-Tier.
- Ethiopians: Something like the ranged version of Berbers or Slavs? Slightly too one-dimensional but overall very well designed into the style they play out. I think Shotels are actually a pretty interesting addition which I consider to be a bit under-explored because the archer-line is so dominant and they're so risky to play with their low HP. Then again, this archer dominance also takes away from their versatility. They could be versatile but actually, they tend to be not. I also like the access to camels but again, not too relevant, same as their potentially amazing UT-siege. (Feels like they would be amazingly designed if Archers would be slightly worse in the general AoE balance.)
- Italians: Could potentially be C-Tier for being a bit underpowered on Arabia, but I think they're kinda smooth and I love the Genoese Crossbow in terms of the idea and how they play out if you get there. Obviously hard to afford, but sometimes they're amazing. Also with Condos, Cav and gunpowder they got some options and play out as one of the more adaptive archer civs. On water arguably just op, don't know how that must be rated. I think on land maps they'd be A-Tier for me if they would be simply better; with the current balance and their underwhelming early options it's more a lower B.
A-TIER: Civs that are interesting and balanced and have either some aspects that divides them from the average well-working civ or are just pretty much flawless overall. - Aztecs: A favorite of everyone for a long while and now after all the nerfs, they finally seem to be balanced too. Eagles alone make a civ fun and unique, so that all the Meso-Civs can be found in the upper Tiers of this and also the lack of cavalry kinda forced more out-of-the-box designs, I guess. Aztecs are a bit too Eagle-focused in their design I think, to be considered S-Tier though, especially as Eagles can be so oppressive. The Jaguars make sense, the UTs are nice and the eco is smooth, Archers are a decent option, so it's A-Tier for sure. I think it's pretty much a civ with nothing that I would criticise or change (anymore) except maybe the Jaguar balance, but it hasn't that many great ideas either and the full-Eagle-play can feel OP sometimes because the unit is so good.
- Byzantines: Extremely versatile, decision-making based and out-of-the box. They're said to have no bad matchup. Many people struggle with them because they just can't really decide what to go for with them but I actually see that as a plus - you always have to come up with a new plan for any game. I enjoy about them that you can keep producing counter-units while still investing a lot into eco or a powerful main-unit at the same time, made a thread about that before. Cataphracts are quite an amazing unit too and synergize extremely well with the rest of the options. A unit that feels kinda one-kills-all but is still not considered OP? Pretty impressive. With fast(er)-Imp-plays, full-Trash-plays or more mixed approaches they might be actually the civ that have most options of them all. Only problem? Many options are not that strong, at least long term, because of the bad eco behind it and they're slow. It's hard to actually push with them and when the opponent has a good plan and knows how to adapt to your reactions and gets into a situation with a really good composition, then they just fall off. I actually do think their balance is good though, it's just that they are not that fun to play for many with their lack of a power-plan. The counter-thesis (hehe) to Franks and Britons.
- Khmer: Probably the most explorative early game and full of options during the later stages too, backed up with a super smooth economy. They're fun in so many ways, allow for so many unusual strats, they can go for just usual Scouts-Knights- or Archer-Xbow-plays but also Siege-heavy, Elephants, Scorps, on closed maps they can do some out-of-the-box-play with Ballista-Elephant-cuts or super-fast FC. The extra range scorps also allow for countering some of the most annoying armies in the game. House-hopping very fun and a great idea. Main problem? They tend to develop into situations where they feel ridiculous. Heavy Knight-play with Scorp-support is for some civs incredibly hard to stop. Super-fast-Castle can be insane. Mass Scorps with Hussar support are one of the most ridiculous comps in the game and can become simply unstoppable for some civs. It's fun to use it, it's super ugly to defend against it. With Celts, Mongols, Goths and Britons they are probably one of the civs that just tend to feel unfair and I think that's not what you want in the game.
- Mayans: I think they're the prime example for creating a coherent, strong gameplan with the amazing archers and good eco behind and then the option to make the Eagle-switch against the counter to archers and also as raiding-support. Plumes do serve the same function as their main-line but add some significant additional qualities which makes it an interesting decision to go for either. The reason that they're not S-Tier is that they are too mono-thematic with the Archer-plays and how that, with all they have going for them, just tends to be insanely strong. The "Mayan privilege" of being able to afford huge armies on low economy is sometimes just ridiculous and 100-HP-Elite-Eagles are one of the hardest things to deal with in the game. Similar to Franks, they are just too easy to play. It's also crazy, just quantitatively, how many bonuses they have. Not quite the smart design approach to just bomb a civ with advantages and then being happy that they're good.
- Tatars: I think many would expect them to be just B-Tier, but I like how many little things they have going for them and how all of that synergizes. Xbow- and CA-transitions are so smooth while they still have Cav-options, including even Camels and a pretty good Cav-UU which can be even better than just going Knights. One of the Civs with the most useful (or rather, most relevant) Unique Techs. The funniest unit in the game with the Flaming Camel which even can be useful in some rare situations. The sheep-bonus (or bonuses) is one of my favorite eco-bonuses because it feels very relevant, it allows for options, it's useful throughout different stages of the game and is still not OP in any way. Mobile, versatile, well balanced, more adaptive than the Huns for my taste. For S-Tier just not recognizable enough and not too fun, I think, because most of the time they play into quite common units.
- Cumans: That's some controversial choice for sure. Obviously it's about their completely different approach to the Feudal Age which makes them probably the most unique civ in the game. I like this mostly because it is actually balanced so far, which seems super hard to achieve. I think they're still not figured out and are very, very difficult to play and to play against because you gotta make decisions without having much experience, and I honestly like that a lot. Some say that they're too mono-thematic with the Feudal-boom but I'd argue that this view just underlines that they're not explored. There are several ways to use the Feudal-TC and it should be adapted to the situation. The earlier siege is questionable because it tends to be either too expensive or too broken (Arena-TGs) but I think that I still like the idea. In terms of military options, they're fine.
- Japanese: Probably the most standard of my A-Tier and also the one which I probably like the least but that's what I found impressive about them in a way: They seem kinda standard in many ways but they have so many small unique things about them which actually makes them very versatile and adaptive and gives them strength in unusual scenarios. One of the smoothest M@A-Archer-civs to begin with, but also options to go for Infantry-Siege and in some situations even Knights can be an option. Yasama adds an interesting option of late-game-towers. Samurai are pretty special in their versatility of use-cases because they counter so many different unit-types. Also all of that is achieved with pretty low "effort", they don't have a ton of bonuses or specialities, they're just tweaked a little bit and still play out quite uniquely. I also would count them as one of the best balanced civs.
- Bulgarians: Basically a more explorative version of Slavs? Some absolutely insane Melee-options, probably the civ that can most often use a Longsword-switch, great Cavalry as well, balanced by their weak economy but that again compensated with the early M@A and their defensive options. Cheap blacksmith allows for big Feudal-play, cheap Siege-upgrades allows for explorative Imp-plays. Konnik can be insanely good but are still not considered OP because they are difficult to afford. Krepost gives nice options offensively and defensively, the cheaper TCs also give you the option to make additional ones just to defend certain areas. Just many things going for them. Only problem is their lack of ranged options that makes them one-dimensional just in regard of the unit choice (or unit-type-choice rather).
S-TIER: Not only good, but actually full of great ideas, very unique and super versatile, just great tools in the context of a strategy game. - Incas: I have made a thread about them where I explained in detail my view on them. Having two UUs, having (unique) counters to everything, having a smooth but not OP eco, having their options extremely well complementing each other and being able to turn a Byzantines-like-playstyle into actual power. The upgraded villagers is also a pretty cool idea imo, even though the resulting tower-rush-option is debatable as it made them more versatile in theory but more mono-thematic in practice. I would count them as S-Tier with and without this option though, so I don't care too much about it. I also count them to the perfectly balanced Civs.
- Lithuanians: I think the Lithuanians might be the civ with the most amount of fun ideas. Buffed Knights is fun and it's really cool that you get this buff not for free but you actually add a new strategic aspect to the game there, with their faster working monasteries helping that path. The early food gives you initiative and allows for many tweaked build-orders. The faster trash makes them smooth and allows them to play out defensively too, the additional TC-range is an idea that I like a lot even though it's very situational - it adds strategic options. With their lack of further eco bonuses they're still pretty well balanced despite all what they have going for them. Only issue is the Leitis for me - a mix of useless because of the Knight-option and then situationally OP if you can actually mass them. They can be very fun though. A plus here is also how unique they feel with not too many tweaks, similar to the Japanese. Very "elegant" design in a way.
- Malians: I mentioned them in the Incas-thread as the only civ that can match them in the aspect of being able to have (unique) counter for everything and also the option to turn them into offensive power-military. They can be played into both main-gameplans of the game (M@A-Archer and Scouts-Knights) very smoothly and can transition from that into different pathways. They can counter archers with their Milita-line, they have Camels against Knights but can also go into Pikes or Xbows. Having an infantry-counter as UU adds up very well to that and as situational the Gbeto might be, they still can be super fun to play with and have good use-cases. The wood savings allow for cheaper transitions which fits that playstyle well and together with the free gold upgrade it gives them a decent but balanced eco. Small bonus is also that they can counter the most annoying Civs and compositions in the game. You never feel helpless with Malians. If I have to pick an absolut #1, it's probably them.
- Malay: I personally don't like them that much because I think they basically force you to over-invest into economy to begin with which can be an issue in the usual meta (see old Burgundians, Cumans). They can play around that though, Drushing into the faster uptime or clicking up early into walls and eco-upgrades. They're obviously very unique, allow for very different build-orders and several approaches. Viper had them as #1 for Arena, Nili frequently praises them as his favorite Civ and all that without them having any oppressive army-options. It's simply that they play out uniquely and adaptively, having good options for many situations. The fast age-up is not only an economy bonus but also allows them to make quick decisions and adapt to situations faster. goldless Two-Handed-Swordsmen are fun, Karambits can be fun situationally, Elephant-spam is a fun option. Harbors and Fish Traps cool options on hybrid and water maps, still not oppressive on those maps. Nothing what they offer is oppressive and too easy to play though. They're skill-based, decision-based and very unique. With their lack of strength on open maps, I could very well understand to rank them as A or B though.
- Chinese: Being arguably the best civ in the game, you can make an argument that they're just too good and unbalanced to make it S-Tier, but an interesting point here is that they never feel all too crazy when playing against them and also they're only OP on top level. They are strong but beatable and everything they offer is skill-based. The extra vils are super strong - when you actually manage to pull off a good start. Their tons of good options are amazing - if you manage to make the correct decisions. That's why I can forgive them being almost OP much easier than Franks, Mayans or Britons. Despite their unique start, they are similarly adaptive and versatile as Incas and Malians. The UU is amazing and fun, but still fair to counter and same goes for their Cav- and Archer-plays. Their tech options seem to be chosen perfectly with FU Arb and Cavalier + Camel-option, while having no Paladin, no Hussar and no Parthian Tactics, no BBC is important to keep them balanced. The lower tech cost makes them more adaptive, allowing for easier tech-switches which synergizes well with the flexible tech tree. They just feel smooth and "complete", more than any other civilization. The ultimate skill civ?
That's it. Hope you enjoyed my views. Feel free to discuss, post your own tierlist, share your thoughts about my thoughts!
[link] [comments] | |
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/y10px18fy6g71.png){kind=link}
No comments:
Post a Comment