The basic reasoning is this: the more capitals your empire conquers, the more all other advantages begin to snowball. This thread is for discussion of the tier rankings once this fact has been admitted/accepted. I’m not really looking to debate this point here, and should anyone completely disagree with me, then I’d prefer they start their own thread, respectfully. The above criterion basically means that, since warmongering gives the greatest advantages to a civ looking to win, then warmongering advantages count more than others. Korea, for example, are not just 'a science civ', since their UA means that by the Industrial Era you can have a good enough tech lead to win by Domination very easily.Īnd here’s where I make the statement that many of you will find controversial, which is this:. This is about ease of winning, not speed of winning, or versatility of VCs. All the same, it will be considered separately since some civs have large advantages to faith, and some none at all.Īs for what we are actually rating, adwcta said it best in the OP of his thread: It doesn’t really provide any benefit in and of itself. War: advantages that make it easier to kill enemy units and capture their cities is important regardless of whether or not you are on the offensive or defensive.įaith: faith is really a meta-value since it can be turned into science, gold, culture, and even units. Gold: advantages that grant more gold mean the choices about what to build/rush buy are less severe, and every VC is made significantly easier by making CS alliances slicker These advantages are more important on Deity than on Prince, for example, where you can win really easily and quickly without even building libraries.Ĭulture: advantages that allow for the quicker enacting of social policies mean that the powerful meta-advantages they bring will similarly snowball. Science: the advantage somehow boosts research, allowing key techs to be reached faster, catching you up to the AI faster, and extending the dominance you enjoy once you’ve overtaken them. I would say that there are only really five kinds of advantages that a civ can have over The Neutrals on Deity:. For example, Brazil are fantastic at CV, but if the arrangement of the map and some of the game consequences don’t go your way, you might struggle getting that CV and have to change VC, in order to win. Our Tier list analysis therefore must weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of each civ against the Neutrals.īut I think we must also consider what general strategies are most likely to win, and then compare how much easily those strategies can be won with each civ, not rank them according to how easy it is to win with the civ in a set of decent conditions. I hope this does not offend some punk band out there that likely have the same name. I will hereafter call this civ The Neutrals, for the sake of simplicity. If we have a feeling that Venice is better than Austria, for example, we must actually consider how much better each one is than the neutral civ. My view is that if we want to construct something like an objective tier list for Deity SP civs, we must first imagine a completely neutral civ with no UA, UU or UB, and then compare how much better each civ is to this imaginary civ.ĭirect comparisons cannot really work. TLDR: To my knowledge, there have been a number of Tier lists made over the years, but in my opinion they fail in undervaluing conquest as a game mechanic, they consider maps types that are not so often played at Deity, and they compare civs against each other, rather than to some objective standard.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |