Performance/tiers of each civ on team games

[Good ol Ivan]

Yeah I know we already had a shitload of threads about civ ranking/listing civs based on how good/bad they perform...
But I believe we still haven't had a thread about how OP/UP/mediocre each civ is on team games...
It's an interesting thread but I suppose its pretty vague/changes too much as 2v2s =! 3v3s =! 4v4 and then we have water maps. And it also depends a lot on the civs of your teammates and/or how good they perform. But what the hell.

Imho it goes like this:
1. Japan (same as in 1v1, yumis behind a wall - and the more the game advances the stronger they get). Doesn't apply if it's hard to wall tho. But otherwise Japs deserve to be at top if we define team games as 3v3s in Deccan.
2. Iros (Not as strong if game reaches late game tho, but still Iros are Iros)
3. Ottos (their late game is pretty shitty, but they are just too easy to play and abus are even easier to lame)
4. Sioux (its even easier to lame bow riders, weak late game tho. But if you play a 2v2 as Sioux and your ally is Ottos you already won the MU).
5. Brits (same as Japan - lbs behind a wall and manor boom are quite strong).
6. Germany
7. France (overall they are mediocre, Germany has a better FF and Brits have a better boom - but its gg if France reaches late game so they can't be below average)
8. India (a strong individual unit composition doesn't matter as much in a team game. Also weak late game, idk they just don't seem as good as they are in 1v1s)
9. China (Their FF isn't that vulnerable as in a 1v1 so they are a pretty nice choice in certain MUs. I haven't seen this civ often enough though tbh)
10. Aztecs (eh, at least they can put pressure early I guess)
11. Russia (I honestly don't know how to feel about them. I mean they can pull off a decent colonial and they are annoying through late game with opis, but they really lack options through fortress/mid game)
12. Dutch (too weak through early and late game, in team games Dutch are easier to play but they still seem to have too many points against)
13. Ports (I guess their late game/goon spam can be quite decent, but otherwise they are just far too weak on land maps)
...
14. Spain (why would you pick them)

[airgorden]

IMO Japan, and French, Otto, and Aztecs are really hard to stop in team.
Otto has abus and as long as he has a compitent ally guarding = really strong.
Aztec fast rush on deccan is tough too. Add in a china sending Provincial admin. 1st card so the whole team doesn't have to worry pop space and can just rush can be annoying.
Japan units are just so strong.

And china simply just spams old hand every game. Can we over whelming in team. Russia Team fast inf + 2 china train faster cards = instant old han army. China team cards are OP.

[gibson]

Japan + otto can literally fight 3v2 on a high hunt map where they are rushed lol

[Marco1698]

Yeah I know we already had a shitload of threads about civ ranking/listing civs based on how good/bad they perform...
But I believe we still haven''t had a thread about how OP/UP/mediocre each civ is on team games...
It''s an interesting thread but I suppose its pretty vague/changes too much as 2v2s =! 3v3s =! 4v4 and then we have water maps. And it also depends a lot on the civs of your teammates and/or how good they perform. But what the hell.

Imho it goes like this:
1. Japan (same as in 1v1, yumis behind a wall - and the more the game advances the stronger they get). Doesn''t apply if it''s hard to wall tho. But otherwise Japs deserve to be at top if we define team games as 3v3s in Deccan.
2. Iros (Not as strong if game reaches late game tho, but still Iros are Iros)
3. Ottos (their late game is pretty shitty, but they are just too easy to play and abus are even easier to lame)
4. Brits (same as Japan - lbs behind a wall and manor boom are quite strong).
5. Sioux (its even easier to lame bow riders, weak late game tho. But if you play a 2v2 as Sioux and your ally is Ottos you already won the MU).
6. Germany
7. France (overall they are mediocre, Germany has a better FF and Brits have a better boom - but its gg if France reaches late game so they can''t be below average)
8. India (a strong individual unit composition doesn''t matter as much in a team game. Also weak late game, idk they just don''t seem as good as they are in 1v1s)
9. China (Their FF isn''t that vulnerable as in a 1v1 so they are a pretty nice choice in certain MUs. I haven''t seen this civ often enough though tbh)
10. Aztecs (eh, at least they can put pressure early I guess)
11. Russia (I honestly don''t know how to feel about them. I mean they can pull off a decent colonial and they are annoying through late game with opis, but they really lack options through fortress/mid game)
12. Dutch (too weak through early and late game, in team games Dutch are easier to play but they still seem to have too many points against)
13. Ports (I guess their late game/goon spam can be quite decent, but otherwise they are just far too weak on land maps)
...
14. Spain (why would you pick them)

good job I agree with almost you wrote even I don''t team. Just I thought for logic, why would you consider port so bad? Yeah on Land map they are probably the worse civ but they have got multiple TCs so they have many villagers more quite faster = faster boom and you can start making huss to switch for only goons in 3age. You could just send some upgrades for them and boost them because of arsenal too. What do you think about my idea?

[britishmusketeer]

Lol at team games defined as 3v3 on Deccan.

[edehollandsbrother]

I thought China was considered OP because of old han reforms.

[deleted_user0]

Somppu 3v3 ranking (balanced land map with tp).
1. Ottoman (lame) - If you can trust your team mates anticav you can go pure abus. Which counters pretty much everything. Strong rush but also fortress is op.
2. Japan (lame) - Shrines are harder to kill than in 1v1 because distances are so long. If you survive rush, you win. Mid-Late game units are just absolutely lame.
3. Sioux (lame) - It's all anticav your team needs. Catching sioux raids is impossible in colonial (without sioux) so it's tough... On the other hand sioux eco is very bad.
4. India (lame) - Agra gives your team automatically map control. Eco, units, rush are all strong. Zamburaks are op age II goon. Well-rounded strong civ like in 1v1. And never forget team urumis.
5. German (lame) You can spread your 2 uhlan raids to all three players. It's just lame.
6. Iro (semi-lame) Much slower than in 1v1. No stereoid units like abus gun. Certainly you can mass early meaty infantry mass but there's nothing amazing with iros in team games.
7. China (lame with yaks, otherwise semilame) You can be forced to play colonial which is average at best. But if china manages to age up it becomes strong like in 1v1. And with reforms its unstoppable.
8. Aztecs (Takes map, able to rush hard and 3 team vills are op. Ask garja for more tips.)
9. Russia (Rush civs are generally stronger in team games. That's why ruskis are above french and brits. Forward blockhouse gives you nice map control. And in mid-game you can go pure strelets which are OP with strelet combat.
10/11 French/Brits (Regular civs. Brit colonial is perhaps a bit stronger but french late game is better.)
12. Porto (Bad colonial but 20 range goons in late game. Which is lame as fuck)
13. Dutch (It's just weak like in 1v1. Skirm range can be abused in colonial though)
14. Spain (Poor colonial, ff just doesn't work so well in team and poor eco. Rush may be a little faster than with brits/french. But eco is 2x worse.

[_DB_]

Dutch ,French and Brits are stronger in team game than they are in 1v1. I agree with Spain being worst civ to pick in team. Probably nothing is better than Japan in team.

Imo, my list-

1) Japan (unbeatable, no way to win)
2) Sioux (unbeatable, no way to win)
3) Germany (Ulhans are annoying)
4) India/Ottomans (India boom is more scary than India rush if map is not deccan. Abus fakin OP)
5) British/Iroquois (There's no way you can outboom Brits till 15 mins unless you're Japan)
6) Dutch/French (Dutch might suck in 1v1, but they are very good in team game, even if game goes colonial, they can mass early skirms and trust someone for anti cav. French is just too good in team game than it is in 1v1)
7) China/Russia (China is nothing special in team game until they go team FF or go industrial. In indus no way to win. Russia do fine imo.)
8) Garja (Garja)
9) Ports (Okay)
10) Spain (Spain sucks anyway. They don't have a good unit to train. They can just go huss semi and mass lancer, still lancer isn't the best unit to mix in your team game composition)

[anonymous123]

It would again come down on what map you compare and how good your mates are. For ex. deccan you can just wall off your base with enough resources and civ like china/ports/spain/otto/ can just FI. If you got decent mates in my opinion deccan is more or less nr10 and all FI civ here rocks. I personally think it would more be dependant on your mates and map spawn. But if you are considering Deccan 3v3 with decent mates, I think china would be best civ, china FI would be just unstoppable (99% of time, 1% depending on what civ your mates are). I think more than individual civ comparing a combo of civ would be more apt because sometimes you are just forced to change a civ depending on your mate's. Also because team game is not 3 1v1's but rather how 3 players can co-operate into a single impenetrable unit.

[Kaiserklein]

German are way overrated for team games... OK they get a good early cav mass, and they get annoying raids. But whenever you have german in team, you are told to cav. Yet, if it goes to age 3 stages, you will just lose because no goons : maps are big and you need to be fast, and ww are too slow, plus they die to enemy goons. In fact, against any civ that has goons, going cav as german is pretty useless

Dutch are ok in team, because they can just FF and spam ruyts (decent skirm/pike rush too). Usually team games are less aggressive than 1v1s,so dutch will be able to make its fast banks boom. Then sometimes even go age 4 and dutch age 4 is OP

For the same reason as dutch, brit are really good for team games : they can simply boom and take map. And russia is a really good team civ cause they get mapcontrol and can use strelets to their maximum potential (unlike in 1v1 cause enemy will spam cav) thanks to ally anti-cav. And 5/4 cos/13 strelets in the bh makes even more sense on big team maps

[Papist]

Sioux are really good imo. They are not one trick pony like France or Germany (that always go cav), they can make strong cav and anticav. Their cav units are all good raiding units, which potentially allows the Sioux's team to double raid (cav civ raids with huss/uhlan while Sioux raids with br). Their eco spike also lasts for a very long time - they have a ton of OP hunting cards, along with bison cards, an ageup that delivers bison+a hunting bonus' this ridiculousness can be exacerbated further by the Cheyenne bison tech. The result is that Sioux are still on hunts while everyone else is moving onto mills, or hunting in exposed positions. ThThis allows them to age quickly and spam their OP cav.

Sioux will usually be the first civ to have max eco in longer games, since their firepit allows them to quickly get out 99 villagers, then go xp dance to get all their hunting cards and crates.

Sioux may whither away in the late game, but games rarely get that far when they are age 4 with max eco and have access to bow riders, axe riders, rifle riders, and wakinas.
-------------------------------------------------------
Ottos can be OP too. As Somppu mentioned, abus spamming is powerful, but they can just as easily go to 3 and 4 and create a deathball of upgraded janissaries and falcs.

[Jaeger]

Yeah I think germany is overrated in team games too, why can't you just raid with 2 huss everywhere instead of 2 uhlans? Sure Germany gets out a lot of uhlas fast but idk after like 9-10 minutes i thkn brit can easily outcav germany.

I also don't get how people rank brit so low in both 1v1 and in team games. In team, they are more vulnerable to raids, but their eco is better than japan.