2 spearmen and 1 archer?

Really guys? That’s so fucking weak for Abbasid’s house of wisdom feudal military wing. Are you kidding me?

The one thing I would ever need to go military wing for is against civs with MAA, like HRE. ONE early man-at-arms can defeat the 2 spearmen and 1 archer. It’s totally worthless. Imagine any other landmark in the game saying “spawns 2 spearmen 1 archer”. Wtf?

Could have given the house of wisdom some defensive emplacements at least. How hard is that to figure out.

1 Like

The Military Wing not only gives you those 3 units, but gives you access to an upgrade that gives 15% more HP to infantry units and is not excessively expensive. Against civilizations like Ottomans, English, Delhi or something like that strong in Feudal it could be useful.


And not only this, gives you instant access to build a ram to kill any tower rush and protect your ram from enemy dark age spearmen or villager.

I always go military wing vs dark age agression like ottoman’s or mongol tower rush and it works like a charm.

Maybe the spearmen spawn could be directly feudal age spearmen and not dark age. But despite that it is a great feudal wing.


Even the 15% health wouldn’t make the 2 spearmen and 1 archer able to defeat even one early MAA. And that scenario is way more common than needing instant rams to defend a tower rush. Most often against English and Ottoman I’m not even producing infantry because I need horses to counter their archer swarms. The 15% health doesn’t help against archer swarms because they’re overkilling anyway.

Joanka at what rank? In 1v1’s?

I haven’t found it to be worth while in teams. It’s like everyone knows Abba is by far the lowest ranked civ right now so they just dogpile on me. Seriously, the difference between win rate for Otto and Abba is nearly 10%. You’re platinum right? In the platinum league Ottoman is beating Abba 61% of the time.

Ottoman is abbasids worst matchup and I’ve not found military wing to make any difference there. Whether I kill their first two spearmen or just ignore them, the next thing to appear is 20 archers with mehter and rams, every time. And if you don’t go eco wing you’re already way behind by then. 15% health on infantry does not even come close to 15% attack speed, 15% movement speed, or two armor on their entire army, including the rams.

You’re out of your freaking mind. Abba’s win rate vs Otto, English, Delhi are all the worst, sub 40%. This is conquerer rank where you’d think they know what they’re doing. Clearly military wing isn’t “strong”, it’s WEAK.

I’m not for the defensive placement idea.

My issue with Abbasid is that they have every but 1 tool that would allow them to be aggressive earlier like most civilizations. And that thing is a “strength” during Feudal. As it is, their “strength” in Feudal is booming.

Despite gaining access to the Camel Archer which is a superb unit, it is too expensive and costly of a unit to lose so early on. Because Abbasids have access to so many economical benefits, it heavily incentivizes them to ignore everything and just boom.

So maybe it would be cool if the Military wing did something to give them an early advantage. Maybe 20% cost reduction on Camel units, or making Composite Bows available in Feudal. I don’t care too much for the Abbasid’s booming style, so maybe I’m not the best one to speak for them. But, I so wish at least the Military wing would give a proper incentivization to be aggressive. The 15% health bonus to infantry is nice, but compared to say Delhi’s 20% attack speed increase on top of their increased production, healing Scholars and free techs, you can see how Abbasid just does not compare.

So to summarize this rant, I’d rather them change the wing to give aggressive bonuses instead of defensive ones. I really don’t want to see Abbasid sink further into the turtle-booming gameplay that they have been so known for lately.


I’m high platinum rank, yes. I only play abbasid in ranked and my win rate is near 60% on 1v1 and 70% in team ranked.

Sincerely I don’t know how can be these stats that bad. I find new abbasid extremely adaptable to any kind of game. Every wind build order is now viable. Before the patch, just eco wing was a good feudal wing.

Otto is a hard match against abba, yes. I often go military wing and mass archers and horsemen. You only need time until castle age then you can instantly build a mangonel with your archers, and give them attack speed that turns Abbasid archers into a machine gun.

The military wing is a direct counter of mongol tower rush. If you spot they are going for dark age spears, and for so they are going to tower rush you, just go military wing, build a ram, and start killing his towers. This gives you an insane advantage, because he has spent a lot of resources on deny you most probable the gold or the berries, but you don’t need gold to research rams :slight_smile:

Against english in 1v1, I go most probably eco wing, then get a second TC, and see what is he doing. Right now are two strong tactics as english, feudal longbows rush and fast castle then maa spam.

If they are going for feudal longbows i would just spam horsemen and archers and defend, if they are going for fast castle I will put every single worker on aging up with military wing, then I would spam maa and xbows and build a mangonel.

To be honest, english and french are one of the easiest matches. I always smile when I see english or french in front because I know exactly what they are going to do and I know the exact timming to counter this.

In high level games I have seen that strategy against ottos with victory.

Another thing is that the average Abbasid player is a greedy and that’s why the MU has it bad.

There are still things to see of them in the Golden League 2 tournament.

1 Like

I didn’t show you the average. I showed you the top 1% of players, where Abba is worst. It’s actually a tiny bit better in the average leagues. There’s nothing more to see.

“Pro” level is top 0.1% (a conqueror 1 has nothing to do with a conqueror 3 or a conqueror 3 with a top 15/20).

The patch didn’t come out that long ago and the Abbasids were changed quite a bit. We’ll have to see in a month what’s up.

1 Like

Idk why you can’t acknowledge what’s currently showing in experience and data while you wait though. Should be plenty of Abba content in the next phase of the Golden League.

Abbasid isn’t favored on a single map, if that says anything. They’re categorizing Abba as an “Off-Meta” civ, apparently the most off-meta.

We will see in Round 3 how the Abbasids perform.

I keep asking myself how can be this possible. Abbasid got several buffed in the last patch, where you no more need eco wing to get the villager discount (yep they nerfed it a bit), and you can choose the wing you think it fits best for the game.

I’ve been playing abbasids since I started playing the game, and right now they are way better than ever. Right now for me, they are the best civ for team games. They are extremely adaptable, and if you get with civs like french, or english, who can defend the front with archers and early knights, you can easily go 3TC boom into castle age and spam a lot of full upgraded +15% health MAA, spearmen and xbows.

I’ve won a lot of games doing this, when I reach the castle age with that economic advantage where I can just spam infinite superpowered infantry, who can build the siege I need in the field, nothing can really stop me.

It’s true that the strength of the abbasid are mainly their ability to economic boom, and maybe this is why they are rare seen in the actual super aggressive meta.

But maybe they have a chance in no pro scenary.

“3tc boom into castle age” is the classic abbasid strategy with eco wing. I haven’t found a build to make military or culture wing work yet. Trade wing is really great below a certain elo, but anyone diamond or better immediately shuts down my trade and then I’m super screwed.

But yea, the most reliable strategy is the 2-3 TC eco boom with military wing for castle age, just as it’s always been. Arguably worse than it used to be since fresh foodstuffs was nerfed.

Can you pm me your in game name so I can watch some replays or look at your profile on aoe4world?

This is a great chart, where do you find the up-to-date version of this?

I knew the ottoman were bad against english, i struggle with against them.
I’m a bit surprised about Ottoman vs Rus, i usually have no issue against Rus.

Ottoman are great against Abbasid because they have the best unit to counter camel, and basically one of the only counter to Camel archers in the entire game: janissaries.

To balance abbasid they should give them some more bonus early on, (like a better military wing, 2 spear 2 archers?) but reduce the attack and cost of camel archers so they aren’t so unbalanced based on matchup, with maybe a bit faster shot speed, so that the dps is similar but they are more weak against armored units. Camel archers are supposed to be archers but they have the attack strength of crossbows…

Also in late game they are kinda the best unit in the game at max pop. Which create huge imbalance based on matchup. They need cheaper but weaker camel archers so they can be better in age 2 but less strong in age 4. A bit like they did with Delhi elephants and i think it was a great change. Camel archers also need this fix.

Any new abbasid data from the golden league? 90% of games have been played, it’s just the finals left next weekend. I don’t see any clear data on which players played abba in which games and how they did. I tuned in to the stream for a few matches to see malians defeat abbasid in one match and the rest that I watched abba was not picked.

I see this on Aoe4World, but it seems incomplete or possibly inaccurate. Anyway it has Abba in 2nd last with 43% win rate.

If you go trade wing in feudal, you really don’t need to set up a trade route and start to train traders from the beginning. You only need to ensure the 3 traders spawned do the first travel, then you will have enough gold to get “for free” all the feudal economic upgrades.

After that first travel you can check the game and put a trade route if you can secure it or it is safe.

Its not ambiguous evidence though it’s the winrate for each matchup

win rates can be very different at different levels of play and even when they happen to be at the same side (which is often not the case some civs have low win rates at low level and low winrates at high levels) e.g both positive win rates it is not necessarily for the same reasons.

The screenshot above is from aoe4 world, but what Heftydogg did not tell you is that the sample size is small conqueror level (for which he checked win rates) even the website itself tells you " low sample size it is not a good idea to post on reddit" I guess they should add “nor on forums”. On top of that there are lot of variables that bias the results including selection bias e.g some civs are picked more on maps in which they tend to perform well, if players were given random civs to play and were equally good at all civs then win rates would be a much better metric.

Also there is an issue I noticed from checking “the streamed matches data” and while stremed matches are only a subsample of the total high level games is that most of the time the winner is the guy with a bit higher ELO regardless of the matchup and who is favored so if you get more " higher Elo English vs lower Elo Ottomans" games than " Higher ELO Otto vs Lower Elo English" games you will get a misleading winrate.

It is hard to infer causality without very in depth scrutiny.

Also notice that the current win rates for ranked 1v1 are these (the screenshot of Hefydogg is relatively old). In his screenshot you see 54.3% for conqueror (151 games). Right now I see 52.7% with 262 games. And remember this is an estimate so it should be read as 52.7% +/- x with some degree of confidence but the website does not show x (you could calculate it). (see the fresh win rates below)

Then you have the problem conqueror does not represent the “high level of plays”. So at the end of the day we hardly have any samples for high level plays. I also add the fact that those numbers are estimates so if you read.

Lastly you could have people that are not main ottomans playing ottomans and since the sample is small they will have a big impact on the stats.

This is the win rate table for Conqueror games.

And these are the current win rates for different ranks
WinRates1v1RankdedConq_split per rank

(I don’t know why the sum of number of games across bronze, silver don’t sum to the amount for the catergory “All”. Anyway I just took the numbers from the website.

Now imagine Conqueror Malians players come to forum (which is way more valid than Gold players doing the same thing) to complain about Abbasids being OP and needing big nerfs because Malians have 46% win rate against them in conqueror. Meanwhile Abbasids have low overall win rate.

Then you get things like Malians having a 44% win rate against English in Gold but 60% in the current Conqueror sample. They also have a 36% win rate against Ottomans in Gold but 49.5% in the current Conqueror and so on. So should Malian players from Gold come complain about English being unbeatable ?

The number 1 way to get better ranks in the game (and by a large margin) is to have a better macro even with 0 strategy and after turning off the brain and not thinking at all and the threads made about imbalance in Gold/Plat/Diamond whatever (I would say even in low conqueror btw) are mostly pointless

1 Like