This year we have seen a lot of diverse type of tournaments : 1v1 Random Map, 1v1 Arena, 3v3 TG (BoA), 1v1 and 2v2 empire wars, and currently we’re seeing a 1v1 only arabia. I happen to notice that Bulgarians were never a popular pick in any of those tournaments. Furthermore, in BoA where the draft was 34 civs (30 picks + 4bans) they were usually the civ left. Why is this? Well, I thought about it a I think I have come to a conclusion:
-they have no relevant eco bonus: tc costing less stone is quite irrelevant. You won’t make 3 or 4 extra tcs upon reaching castle age. At the same time, if you make a tower to defend yourself in feudal age, you probably are behind in eco and should go aggressive 1 tc push.
-they military bonus do not have a good synergy: if you’re going against Bulgarians, you should spect m@a, no Brainer. But m@a + scouts is really weird to see… And Bulgarians lacks xbow, therefore no sense in make m@a into archers.
-they rely too much in stone: krepost and stirrups, both need stone. Until stirrups, Bulgarians have neither a relevant military bonus nor an eco one. By that point in the game, any other knight civ would be far better economically than bulgarians (franks, huns, teutons, persians, Lithuanians…), and also will have better army
-their late game is not that impressive to justify being that behind in early/mid game: konnics are good, really good… But not that better than a teuton paladin or a Lithuanian one (and let’s not talk about indians or khmer pocket). There’s no reason at all to pick bulgarians as pocket
So, considering all that, I see them a little behind other civs. What’s your opinion on the matter? I think their military options are not bad, but they could use some eco buff. Maybe free stone mining? That way you could get the stone to get your castle upon reach castle age, or just have more konnics.
What’s your opinion?