Yeah so there are definitely some things that are debatable on this tier list so I’ll try to talk about some of the controversial ones, Spain and Brit are S tier in my opinion, Spain is probably very biased because I play Spain a lot. But I feel that they are S tier because they have so many powerful options and most of those options balance a good economy with early aggression, the 3 builds I play with Spain are the greedy ff ( 3 villagers- age 2- 700gold- transition- 700 wood- 5 villagers- age 3- Spanish gold- 1000 wood- 9 rods/ 2 falcs - 9rods/2 falcs), this is a very powerful build because I can use spainish gold and the 1000 wood to produce skirmishers from 2 barracks and if you need to, rods from 2 barracks, their build is a fast way to win games and have a decent economy behind it in case your attack fails, I also use the standard all in ff sometimes, and I also use age 2 logistician Spain, the fact that Spain is so flexible and can get a good economy behind early aggression. British are also S tier for the same reason I put Spain in S, brits have few bad matchups because of how flexible they are, you can go VC for greed, you can rush and get a good economy behind it from your extra villagers, and the British can get a very fast age up time assuming they don’t go for age 1 trade post, if they go for age 1 trade post the age up brits can get is a standard age up time that you would expect from Germans for example. Dutch can defend rushes as long as you ship the correct cards, like 8 pike, CM, etc and they have a very strong economy, i tried to put the civs on my tier list in left to right Order, the civs to the furthest left are the best of that tier, I has a hard time deciding where to put Dutch, and a just gave up and out them between japan and Spain, but now that I think about it, Dutch are probably lowest S tier or highest A tier. Port highest A tier in my opinion, if it’s a stagecoach map or a water map they are S tier, and if it’s not they are low A, so I think that balances out to high A, France india and Sweden are the same power So don’t mind how I put France most to the left out of the 3. Inca and china are the highest b tiers, I decided to put Inca ahead of china because Inca have better units, haud are mid B, I don’t play a ton of haud but I see that they can be very strong in the right hands and if I knew more about them I would probably put them in low A tier, ottoman units are beastly and I wasn’t too sure where to put them because the economy they have is very weak, they could probably be ahead of china, but with the fact that there are maps with no Tps now in ranked, I think that if otto gets one of these maps they are pretty garbage. Lakota are B, would be high A if they hadn’t gotten nerfed, Lakota feel very strong early, but if you lose your mass in age 3, it’s pretty hard to come back from that. Tepees are very strong aswell, and if it’s a map with a lot of trade posts, they would be high B, as the trade posts supplement the weak economy they have in age 3. Russia is underrated but still bad, low B, I like how good Cossacks are, and Cossack musk strelet is pretty formidable if you can get enough. Spice trade is a good card for Russia too, it gives you longevity, witch is something you don’t have with Russia in age 2 otherwise. Aztec are trash, only good unit they have is eagle runner. Weak economy even with 10 wp boom (plus 10 wp is super easy to punish.) if I had a choice to decide how to buff Aztec, I would give them a 2 tc card, and make them get 1 free warrior priest per age, and the warrior priest limit increases by 1 per age. Definitely my opinion and I know people are going to disagree with some of the stuff I say, I’m definitely baised toward Spain and also India. If anyone else wants to post their own tier list on here I’ll be happy to see what you all think. there are some civs I didn’t talk about because I think most people know why I put those civs there, like Sweden in mid A, india in mid A, Germany in high A, japan in highest S, and china in high B.
You left out the USA 
Idk I couldn’t find a tierlist on tier maker that had them, they would probably be high B tier
Is this 1vs1? or team? Because the tierlist wobbles a lot depending on that
1v1, Spain kinda sucks in team unless you go revolution, the reason I think Dutch are really good is because the only bad matchups they really get are against Brit French Spain and probably japan, but I could see the argument for high A tier for Dutch aswell, if you would like me to show you my team tier list here it is
I think all the S tier civs are equal power on this list and could really be put in any Order, Brit highest A tier for sure, economy is amazing, but units are pretty average, india is a powerhouse in my opinion, this is the civ I play team with most of the time, they have a good economy and great units ( except the sowar but your team can cover for you cav wise), Inca are just really good once you get 13 kancha and chicha brewing, chimu spam, or bow spam are both good options, Russia is low A tier because they are pretty good in team, they have a good economic bonus that really starts to come into play with extra town centers, Cossacks are really strong for 1 pop, oprinchnik raids are disgustingly strong if you catch your opponent of their guard, I also kinda like Russian cav archer. All the B tier and C tier civs are probably self explanatory, ottoman can to the build and be good, but your going to be slow and not able to contribute to your team for a while unit wise, Aztec have eagle runner, but they simply don’t have the economy to sustain a mass of them, Aztec treaty is probably decent though because they have lots of farm improvement cards.
At your tier list Ottomans are weak thanks to developers. I dont understand why ottos getting weaker weaker again. This game is unfair for some civs.
The top list was 1v1 the second one, the bottom one is team, ottomans are weaker in team, ottomans are decent in 1v1 but not amazing I hope that answers your question on why ottomans are different levels on the two lists
I understand that historicaly ottoman got decline at 1800-1900 but 1453-1700 Ottomans are great power but I dont think this game reflects properly. I opened some topics that Ottomans have few units, dont have skirmishers and dragoons. So this is the consequences of this condition and also bad economy.
Yeah, ottomans are difficult to balance correctly, they don’t need a buff to units, they need a buff to economy, but if they buff the economy too much, we have another civ like japan with amazing units and amazing economy. Ottomans are good super early game, but after the 15 minute mark, the slower making villagers really starts kicking in hard, that’s why all in builds like FF into jans and falcs, or double rax jans are the most used builds with ottomans, even then they need a small buff to economy, maybe an age 3 card that makes villagers train faster.
I agree man. I dont say Ottomans will be great all the way but Ottomans needs some love by devs. I hope they add some units and a little buff to economy.
Goodness, use paragraphs.
Anyway, I don’t think Aztecs are that bad, they are B Tier right now at least. IMO all civs are pretty well balanced right now.
Dutch and Spain may require some nerfs, but otherwise, all is generally well.
I wamted to like you post, since I agree that paragraph woidl have been really needed…
But then I saw you asking for Dutch and Spain nefd, the only civs I play.
Nerf Dutch by increase wood cost of banks by 25 and decrease food by 25.
Neef Spain by removing the faster shipment arrival from logistician
But really we need to nerf Sweden Post imperial carded unit stats more Zahn anything else right now in my opinion.
Yeah in terms of civs to nerf, Spain dutch and japan are probably the 3,
Aztec are bad, bad units. Weak economy, only redeeming quality is unit shipments in age 2, but a lot of them are bugged and deliver a different amount of units from what they say they do
10 slinger—>9 slinger
9 slinger—8 slinger
6 coyotes—>5 coyote
When I look at the B tier civs I don’t see a close resemblance in power to Aztec, China is much better than Aztec, Lakota are better, ottomans are better, although I could probably understand moving Aztec to C,
The game is definitely more balanced than ever and the fact that there are only 4 civs that need a change is pretty impressive.
Your tier list is very likely accurate, because it represents the civs I see online the most in order from the highest tier to the lowest.
Aztecs being the lowest is odd. I like playing as Aztecs because the Jaguar Prowl Knight counters a very common combination of Musk+Husk. They have sick melee units for people like me who don’t like to micro skirmishers. And the units look cool too. They have 3, 5 and even 2 eight villager cards, which are very good, as well and the war priest cards being good. You can make advanced scouts, jaguars, and coyotes for options against skirms, the scouts and jaguars are good because they aren’t hard countered by anything such as anti cav units. I don’t think they are bad at all and aside from urumi the jaguar prowl knights are the best counters for musket spam (which is VERY common) in the game. The arrow knights need extra multiplier versus artillery, thats about it though. Without the house of baranca card, the ports for me are without question the hardest to win as, with the card and tradeposts I seem to be able to hold my own or outpace other civs. That was a really clever move by the devs giving them that card, it makes the civ very interesting and playable.
This game does not reflect History at all.
-Caravels were faster than Galleys, but in the game, the Ottoman Galley is a faster version of the Caravel.
-Portuguese did not use Organ Guns.
-Samurai were not primarily Swordsmen.
-The Monitor is a Bomb Ketch, not an actual Monitor, which would be a turreted Ironclad.
-Indians do not even have their own Ships.
-Germans have no Musketeer, even though Prussians had the strongest Musket firing lines in Europe.
This game is LOOSELY INSPIRED by History, not a simulation of it.
They even made Portugal revolt into the Barbary States, and have Mameluke cards. There is no actual History, only little nods to it.
My team tier list would be this one.
My rationale is that in team games some strats can be good that you cant pull in 1vs1. So the list will be radically different.
S tier - Broken or OP even if you make mistakes you are good (you can make any strat and will combine easily with anyone)
A Tier - OP with several options, good eco/military units and can even carry other civs
B Tier - Balanced. Is mostly good but lacks in terms of a definitive winning strat
C Tier - Can be good, but its usually a one trick pony.
D Tier - Bad. Even though it can be played, most civs will surpass these civs with ease.
Spain is currently broken in team games due to logistician exploit hence the S tier.
Lakota is just winning with raiding while the team mate FF’s
Ottos could be C tier in team games as they lose to many skirm compositions or become a one trick pony (abus spam) which is very vulnerable to cav spam. But i guess they are more playable.
Russia is C tier since they are VERY VERY vulnerable to cav and only have either strelet mass of late opri raid.
Azzy’s cannot compete until the late game with other civs and albeit eagle warriors are nice, large masses of skirm cannon still kills them.
1vs1 tier list
S tier - Broken or OP even if you make mistakes you are good (you can make any strat and will combine easily with anyone)
A Tier - OP with several options, good eco/military units and can even carry other civs
B Tier - Balanced. Is mostly good but lacks in terms of a definitive winning strat
C Tier - Can be good, but its usually a one trick pony.
D Tier - Bad. Even though it can be played, most civs will surpass these civs with ease.
In this case Brits and Japanese take the top spot due to their versatility and ability to counter most matchups.
In B tier, Azzys India and Russia due to their hard crushing rushes and France/Portugal due to their FF’s.
In C tier China and Dutch since they are unable to rush effectively and must defend until they can outboom opponent.
What logistician exploit? I don’t know what you mean, I know it’s powerful, but not an exploit, I think your 1v1 tier list is pretty accurate, but I feel like China is pretty good because they can get a solid age 2 mass with old Han, they can ff, they can even FI. China has been buffed quite a lot since when DE first came out, and i feel like the Chinese rush is pretty formidable. I really hardly ever see Lakota but when I do they are pretty annoying with all the bow rider and axe rider raids. I also think Dutch should at least be A, they have a boom similar to that of japan, but without the OP units, they also age up before most other civs, they tend to do a 15-14 villager age up, this means that while still forced to sit in base until fortress, they can sit in their base very comfortably because they have banks to mitigate not getting mid base gold mines. The main problem of the Dutch is hunts, but if they manage to overcome this they are very strong
I’m sorry, what? Dutch is S tier at least.
The team logistician cards can give all spanish allies with logistician extra res. So if you send Team inqusition all the spanish allies also gain the 400 res + the 10 LOS. That is kinda of an exploit… same with team explorer, team coastal defences, team archaic infantry, team cheaper barracks etc…
You cant rush with Dutch and unless you send colonial militia you are going to suffer (a lot… at least at my level) from early rushes in 1vs1. After your set up is complete, then you are OP, but the issue is, most civs wont let you make your setup.