I'm also open to our respective experiences being a lot different from the other, so don't take it as an attack (except on diplomatic visibility, you can take that as an attack). Consider this more peer review than anything.
I'll focus on the more egregious cases so you have something to start with. It might be ranked from PvP experience, but that's a lot of reticent PvP if so. Other cases, like the ranking on Aztecs and Macedon, are only reasonable if. PvP isn't necessarily all war, all the time, but if you see certain civs on a map, you basically have to wardec them first and hard, and just the ranking on Korea alone indicates that you don't play with many aggressive players. You clearly don't get pillaged or wardecced much, either, because all of the cavalry civs are ranked WAY low for PvP matches. why? Diplomatic Visibility has been rather useful since R&F) Others are given too much weight (theoretical science and production versus tempo-attainable yields). some categories that lend civs an advantage are missing completely or misunderstood entirely (e.g. You're also missing more relevant columns to civ performance, namely snowball and self-defense capabilities (read: military production), which are far better predictors for a civ than their on-paper bonuses. It's not just a matter of one or two civs being out of place, but rather, so much of the list pays too little heed to (necessary) aggression that most of the rankings come off as either arbitrary or biased. Personal biases aside, too many good early and mid game civs are at too low a tier for a small pangaea map, and too many late-game civs are ranked way too high. Your list is visibly biased toward AI performances or bad players in far too many places, not competent player usage. Somewhat TL DR version (because there are a lot of issues): Therefore I believe it would be more accurate if the overall tier would be an average of the best two or three victory types of a civilization. But being able to opt for all five of them is unnecesarry. Being dependent of only one victory type is not an optimal situation to be in. It is treating civilization as a weak link game in which you are also dependent of your worst victory type. However the chart seems to favor civs who are better allround. A civ is only as good as its best victory type. You can only win via one victory in the end. When playing with Sweden you are probably not going to go for a domination victory anyway so why would you lower their overall score for that. I do not think that you should take the two or three worst victory types, per civ, into account when determining their overall tier. I use it often, so I started wondering about something. AI Bias Value Chart - Values vary by up to ± 2 each game.įirst of all: really cool chart.A Not-So-Brief Guide to Worker Stealing.Tile Improvements Summary (New Frontier Pass).The rules can also be found on the Subreddit Wiki. SFW posts that are marked NSFW will be unmarked. Posts that ask for, link to, or advocate piracy in any way will be Posts that are abusive in nature will be removed and the user that
Posts about past leaders or structures that are included in the Should instead be posted in /r/CivPolitics. Posts comprised of current leaders or events are not allowed. People to look at in the image or explain in the comments. If you post a screenshot of the game, please point out what you want Screenshots of graphical glitches are not allowed unless they are Including trade screens, are not allowed. Posts that only show your relationship between one or more Civs,
Civ 6 gathering storm tier list potato mcwhiskey series#
These types of posts should either be posted in /r/civ_memes,Īll posted content must be related to the Civilization series,Ĭivilization Beyond Earth, Alpha Centauri, or Colonization series and Memes, image macros, and reaction gifs are not allowed as posts. New Frontier Pass | April 2021 Update: Bug Reports Megathread