no

i9 14900K 3060 32GB 4800MHz

Yeah I tried getting into BBG but the game is so different I can’t get into it. Also an important thing is some civs are lower because their are just strictly better options. In BBG I presume all civs are on a more equal level.

@@Lenny533 I don't agree with the philosophy but it makes the list make more sense for sure. And yeah, BBG makes all civs at least have a niche, and most are at least playable. It's been like 1.5 to 2k hours since I played vanilla so I'm just going on how my gut remembers each civ though.

@@CheapShotFail I find it sad that so many interesting civs are F. Maybe we will do a F tier only stream.

We don't care about CPL or BBG.

@@Lenny533 For sure, I remember when I played vanilla I really enjoyed Tamar just for making it easy to chain golden ages, it's clear Firaxis had some interesting ideas for those civs they just didn't equal up to the rest.

Okay yeah there really game prod is really good but often the not settling turn 1/2 destroys your tempo. And the threat building is bad often. Maybe they are better than we thought but I dislike them. I would have to play them more. My gut instinct is that there bad but maybe I am wrong.

Agreed except the part about why CPL banned him. That was only part of the reason, they also banned him because his spawn algorithm didn't factor in other civs properly and would often result in him spawning without proper land to settle if there were too many coastal civs, forcing him into a griefer (or waiting 10-20 turns to settle, maybe not horrible for marathon but lethal for online speed). Glad they gave him the rework recently, he's really fun to play and it's a nice bonus that you don't feed your opponent tiles to pillage because you don't need that many farms or mines.

@@CheapShotFail thank you for the explanation!

If you can make them work they can be strong but not Mongolia strong. I just dislike them and compared to other options they are badish. War civs are generally way worse in multiplayer than single player because you will have to actually defat a defense.

I am glad that you like the breakdowns! And I agree with you that a lot of Civs get a lot worse in multiplayer.

You have a point with Portugal but the reason why it is so low is that it is inconsistent. Some games it will be really bad and others overpowered. It really depends on the map and the civs picked. If you get 2 costal citys to trade you will have a really good game but that is so inconsistent/ unrealistic on Pangea. That is why it is so low. Brazil is so high because it is not a costal civ at all. You can go for work ethic or Comerica hub openers and both are really strong. And you can rush for coliseum. The only problem is improving your tiles til mercantilism when you can improve rainforest. The civ has a really good Early game and that is the most important thing in civ. Norway is really not good enough for non costal games. The pillage thing is good but compared to and C tier civ it is bad. Their units are underwhelming and their building is really bad. You need to go religion but the problem with it is going holy site into harbor will mess your settler Tempo up. You really want 10 citys by turn 50/55 Often it is to slow and not good enough compared to other options. I hope I clarified my opinion on it enough. If you have something to add I would love to hear it

Brazil feels weird because I generally want to chop rainforests, you can't plant them like you can with woods, and you are waiting until mercantilism to get lumber mills for them. And as strong as their unique unit is, what else about Brazil would make me incentivize focusing on naval domination? Unless you can rig a rainforest map I don't see how they are better than any of the other A tier civs and some of the Bs like Hungary

Yeah you have a good point with the problem when you spawn without rainforest. We usually play with better balanced start. I think that influences our choice. But Brazil is still really strong if you get an okay amount of rainforest as long as you get some you will have a good game.

The thing with their unit is that you can pre build them in 1 costal city With the +100% card towards quadrirems and some galleys. For that little investment you can kill any costal city if you are not super far behind.

Usually I don’t mind the rainforest but it is a big problem. That why it is lower A tier

Yeah that is why we gave her such a bad Garde

Trying to conquer Eleanors lands is one of the most frustrating things to attempt in the game. You almost have to take multiple in one turn otherwise it flips back in 3 turns

In the best case yes but getting to that point is really hard. There ability really doesn’t do much and a good push is fast enough to out speed the ability. The tempo just doesn’t work out often enough.

Why ? I am interested in your opinion.

Keep in mind it is very multiplayer oriented.

@@jyutzler Ah, that makes more sense, then.

So first at all I don’t get when it criticize a tier list without you make your own and also without argument. Second : It doesn’t looks like a pvp tier list, Black queen Cathy is A or S tier in multiplayer. Looks like a general tier list.

@@blinkjo I was going to, but realized that this is multiplayer-focused and that a more comprehensive argument wasn't really worth it, as my experience is solely singleplayer.

I personally agree with you. I played them a few times the last days and I personally prefer Hungary over Korea. However with Korea you can rush industrialization and do their unique unit push. That is why we put them at A tier and Hungary in B. Hungary just can’t get there if the person you’re at war with knows what there doing. A war can slow you down to much.

How do these people still have money left