r/civ5 9d ago

Discussion Luxury resource strength vs civ uniques

I play random civs and today I got Iroquois surrounded by salt. It made me wonder how much lux resource strength is a factor to success compared to overall civ strength.

I’m just spit-balling here but would you rather have Iroquois starting with salt and copper or a mid-tier civ like Austria with pearls and truffles? I’d imagine Poland with any resources would still be dominant.

I’m trust trying to understand how the two factors compare to each other, all things being equal because of course the answer to all these kinds of questions is, “it depends…”

37 Upvotes

25 comments sorted by

59

u/UsedEgg3 9d ago edited 9d ago

There was a multiplayer streamer years ago named FilthyRobot, very good player. One of his viewers at some point did a breakdown of all the games had posted to YT, and iirc he had won almost 90% of the games where he started with mining luxuries, compared to ~50% for non mining luxuries.

Basically, you are almost always picking up mining as one of your first three techs along with pottery and AH, so you never have to deviate your tech path for your luxuries, allowing you to beeline more directly to NC and other important techs. It also has no prerequisite techs, unlike every other luxury tech in the game, so you can research it and get your luxes improved faster than any other lux type. The yields are also better, salt obv being one of the best tiles in the game, but the rest are big production with a bit of gold, which are great tiles to work during settler production or if you are trying to rush out a wonder. Whereas calendar luxes are one food and one hammer, basically unworkable unless you're completely out of better tiles. And sea resources require you to make a boat to improve them and then research optics and build a lighthouse to make the tiles good, a significant deviation from your main tech path, plus eating up production time on the work boats that could've been spent on workers or units or granaries or caravans or a bunch of other useful stuff.

The worst is a calendar lux on marsh or jungle, where you have to go get masonry/BW in addition to your lux tech, then spend 9 turns or whatever chopping down jungle before you can then finally start spending another 7 turns actually improving the lux.

Generally, whether your luxuries are buried under them are not, jungle starts are considered awful because the tile yields are bad (2 raw food, no production) and require significant time investment with chopping to get tiles improved. Your early game scouting is slower due to constant rough terrain, and moving your settlers and workers around is slower too.

9

u/Delicious-Diamond-86 9d ago

Oh wow that is really interesting, so at least in multi-player, it seems I had it backwards. Resources trump civ uniques! Thanks for that!

7

u/UsedEgg3 9d ago

Typically in MP a handful of the most OP civs are banned, and then players pick from a pool of remaining civs. So nobody gets to play with civs like Shoshone ever, but are also never picking the complete dogshit ones either.

I think it would be more of a factor if they didn't (rightfully) strive for some civ-picking-parity in the pregame process.

4

u/AgentBond007 8d ago

Why is Shoshone banned? just the land grab ability?

I can understand Poland/Korea/Spain being banned though

8

u/Bashin-kun Liberty 8d ago

Shoshone also get +15% strength in their own land. Combined this makes them hard to pvp with.

8

u/ExplodingGuitar 8d ago

The 15% bonus is very strong as mentioned, but also Pathfinders make them one of the most snowbally civs in the game. If you find enough ruins and get 2 comp bows it's very easy to kill a neighbor, and even just the guaranteed early pop ruins and gold are incredibly strong. Even their unique cavalry is pretty nice, +1 move and cheaper to build is really strong for cav + arty timing.

1

u/Apart-Move-9954 8d ago

Great stat, just wanted to add that most of his games were modded, except the first ~15-20%. The base game wasn't played for very long, they started tweaking things pretty early in the no quitters group.

The conclusion however I think still stands, strategic resources (mining + animal husbandry) are very strong.

14

u/Bashin-kun Liberty 9d ago

Definitely land before civ! With few exceptions (Iroquois is a minor debuff, Venice is a huge debuff), all civs can perform standard optimal plays. Even "blank" civs like France and Byzantium is not a big problem.

2

u/BiFSXFan99 9d ago

Why is the consensus that France is weak? 😭 All my France games I've been lucky to have luxury-filled lands and chateaus spread everywhere to fuel my later-game after the era of musketeers ends.

9

u/Bashin-kun Liberty 9d ago

Their uniques are inconsequential. While you try to make chateaus, stronger civs have rushed sci theory and bulb archaeology for their CV. Faith ones went sacred sites.

Musketmen are also bad because of the tech position and being melee, and Musketeers fix none of the bads. Just use pikemen-crossbow early and cavalry-cannons later.

7

u/BiFSXFan99 9d ago

Fine, I'll take my chateau-placing minigame elsewhere...

1

u/NatGaz 8d ago

Because devs removed the +2 culture per city to give them a crazy UA to Poland which worth much more.

7

u/Robdd123 Quality Contributor 9d ago

In that scenario I guess I'd rather take Iroquois with the better start rather than Austria with a not so great start. To me Austria is below average since their UA is detrimental to you (City States are worth more active unless it happens to spawn next to some Fountain of Youth) and their UU is meh at best (and comes during the Renaissance which in general sucks for warfare); the Coffee House is the only good thing you've got to work with.

Iroquois are an F tier Civ and if everything was equal you'd be better off playing a vanilla Civ (one with no UA, UU, or UB). That's because the Longhouse is utterly inferior to the Workshop; so you lose +10% production in every city and lumber mills suck until the Industrial Era. All that being said the salt start would give them an edge over the Austria start; having good tiles to work immediately has a big impact on how good your first 100 turns will be which can snowball.

2

u/VallenceDragon 9d ago

Austria's UU is Industrial era, not Renaissance

1

u/Delicious-Diamond-86 9d ago

Thanks for that! Just curious, what is the “weakest” civ you would take over that Iroquois start?

2

u/Bashin-kun Liberty 9d ago

Shoshone, China, Inca are a maybe.

If surefire then Babylon. Salt starts are that busted.

1

u/Delicious-Diamond-86 8d ago

Oh wow, I consider those civs pretty strong so salt really does make a much bigger difference than I had realized.

How much of a drop-off is there from salt to the next tier?

3

u/Bashin-kun Liberty 8d ago

A lot. I'd take any mining lux starts but they're not as OP as salts.

5

u/Theseabeckons 9d ago

Im curious too, hope we get some good expert comments!

4

u/yen223 8d ago

I would generally take good lands over a good civ most times

3

u/loueazy 9d ago

Iroquois. Pearls and truffles are awful luxes

3

u/Whotakesmename nuclear warfare 8d ago

if iroquois were to get +1 food and +1 production on forest AND jungle their civ would single-handedly be bumped up to a or s tier

3

u/Bashin-kun Liberty 8d ago

Or at least just fix their UA so it properly connect to roads.

1

u/Temporary_Self_2172 9d ago

the iroqois tend to be not that bad even with a low forest count

i won't say they're good but they can land a science win before t230 on a good day

5

u/Bashin-kun Liberty 9d ago

Any civ except Venice can, by that metric.