Anyone else think the Celtic trait is awful?

[ZeGlenster]

So they're basically like the Huns. Capitalize early or you'll have a rough game later. Still, compared to the other expansion civs (Huns especially, I won't be surprised if the ram gets nerfed) the Celts are pretty weak. There are no game breaking "gotta have it" beliefs so racing to religion isn't really all that important, just beating out enough civs to be a founder is. IMO the Celts aren't even the fastest for founding, Ethiopia is. The Celts will get the pantheon first but the Stele is a way better faith producer than the Celtic UA considering it's 2 faith for every city unconditionally, assuming most people build monuments in every city. The Celts just need a little tweaking to get them on par with other civs is all. Right now I'd rank them pretty low in overall strength.

I wonder if there is a competitive scene for Civ V, that ranks the different civs in tiers and such. Like the system they have for Street Fighter and Pokemon.

[SlickSlicer]

I wonder if there is a competitive scene for Civ V, that ranks the different civs in tiers and such. Like the system they have for Street Fighter and Pokemon.

I don't understand how the game could be competitive until they do away with simultaneous turns and bugs in multiplayer. Simultaneous turns ensure that civ v multiplayer can't be played the way the game is meant to be played (the way it works in singleplayer). They break the game in innumerable ways. Several units that should be strong can end up being really crappy in multiplayer due to the way simultaneous turns work. Horse archer units (camel archers, Hun horse archers, Keshiks), for instance, are great in a regular game. In multiplayer? not necessarily. You can't always take advantage of being able to rush in, attack and retreat, or even just rush in and attack to begin with. Sometimes you'll send them in and they'll get attacked before YOU can attack. That is NOT the way they're supposed to work. They're supposed to give you both mobility and range at the expense of power. But in multiplayer, the fact that they have less power is a lot more of a liability than it is supposed to be. They can be killed before they even have a chance to take advantage of their unique aspects.

As a whole, they make combat really dumb. Somebody with a far numerically inferior force can win by simply being faster on the draw every time.

Ugh...there are so many reasons why they're bad. But the basic one is that they throw off the way the game is supposed to be balanced and the way combat is supposed to work.

==================

now as for singleplayer, here there are numerous problems as well. Mostly these have to do with the AI. Certain civs are not going to be good on higher difficulties simply because the AI is full of bull. Egypt sucks at higher difficulties because the AI gets such a huge production bonus that it renders wonder building strategies irrelevant.

You could, however, make a tier list for different civ v difficulty levels based on which civs are best at taking advantage of the AI. Certain civs are better at this than others. Egypt can be good in a regular game, but against the AI on higher difficulties they're not as good (my opinion).

[zephyrtr]

I kept a tier list for a while. I now think things are much more balanced, since the bottom civs got a bump and Babylon got a nerf. It's hard to do because a naval Civ will fare much better on archipelago, but much worse on pangaea. I kind of assume everyone plays on continents or small continents whenever I'm considering 'tiers' for civs.

The problem is I'm not so sure on Religion just yet, how powerful it is or what. My current feelings on it is that it's rather strong. Buying Great People later on feels pretty evil, and the unique Belief buildings (Cathedral, Pagoda, Mosque) can be a big boost, especially if you're not doing the whole missionaries and inquisitors thing.

[ZeGlenster]

I kept a tier list for a while. I now think things are much more balanced, since the bottom civs got a bump and Babylon got a nerf. It's hard to do because a naval Civ will fare much better on archipelago, but much worse on pangaea. I kind of assume everyone plays on continents or small continents whenever I'm considering 'tiers' for civs.

The problem is I'm not so sure on Religion just yet, how powerful it is or what. My current feelings on it is that it's rather strong. Buying Great People later on feels pretty evil, and the unique Belief buildings (Cathedral, Pagoda, Mosque) can be a big boost, especially if you're not doing the whole missionaries and inquisitors thing.

In my Celt game, I am sitting on about 5000 faith, and i could make great engineers and seize whatever late game wonders i want.