Average out Goths as a civ counter or get countered

T90 is top100 player and currently he is 114th on the ladder while a 1000 elo player can lose/win every matchup

Sure, but there are many people better then him. If Viper said that T90 can’t talk about game balance because his elo is lower it would be ridiculous.

1 Like

no. they really don’t. you can literally lose to any manner of things from any manner of civ below 1600. you can lose to an Ethiopian scout rush because you didn’t scout it.
there is literally any number of reasons to lose this game and for the massive majority of players the number one reason is player error instead of balance.

talk balance? sure. but most the time people sub 2k aren’t losing because of balance.

I know for a fact that the reason i lose games isn’t balance and is likely stuff i could do better.

1 Like

I’m not talking about an “advantage” I’m talking about straight up counter to the civ. Where you don’t have real options. You missed the WHOLE point. I’m not talking about changing Mayans (neither nerfing/buffing which you ALWAYS have to put like). I’m talking about slightly changing Goths to be a civ with options and having options to fight it with (the best would be for all civs).

Jesus, read man. You’re exactly like that guy that was not reading a single comment on the thread and was just posting some ridiculous comments without even playing the game.
Wait, you are him right now.

Every civ has a chance against Mayans. There are units and things you can always make to counter individual units of Mayans.

Let me clarify because you don’t understand - I don’t care about Mayans. The issue I see is about Goths themselves:

Let me remind you AGAIN that:

If you don’t understand some philosophy presented in this thread and you’re not meeting the requirement then you don’t understand some concepts and likely this thread is not meant for you.

Getting Supplies for Mayans doesn’t make them any better in their standard builds against any, literally any other civ than Goths. Anyway I ALREADY SAID IF YOU NEED TO COMMENT ON IT DO IT HERE:

This argument is really bad. You can always use it no matter the civ no matter the balance.
Going all in to end the game early or lose should never be a way to go. It’s so one-dimensional.

I specifically aimed this thread to hear input from higher rated players. Since this is a topic that not everyone has a lot of experience with.
Almost always I see the threads overtaken by people who are not playing competitively (at all).
Yes, I’m interested to hear input from anyone but we have a couple of really low players in this forum that SHOUT the loudest. As you can see.


except mayans can beat goths.

do damage before they get huskarls on the field.

except you said they should get supplies. which is a buff.

yeah thats why every civ sees so much tournament play just like Mayans right? oh wait.

its not all in though. you just do early agro with archers, to do damage, which should be very easy for a civ with as good a eco as mayans and who gets cheaper archers. i’m not talking about going 3 archery range feudal. even if goths get a castle up, the fact is they need an eco to support huskarl production in the first place.


That’s so disrespectful. I guess you 2 know so much more than me about this game. I give up.

didn’t say that. i just think your logic is not sound.
you believe counter civs shouldn’t exist but you are completely fine with some civs being head and shoulders better then other civs?

that straight up isn’t logical.
“this civ shouldn’t be able to beat this civ just because it exists” (which isn’t even the case because for goths to even counter Mayans requires castle age + castle + anarchy; and even then it just opens the door).
also you
“I’m fine with mayans being the most picked civ and head and shoulders a great civ because at least other civs have a chance against them”

1 Like

I don’t like limiting discussion to 1600+ as it smacks of “argument from authority” fallacy. BUT, from my driving game experience, I think it may well actually be valid. In driving games, cars have to be balanced, just like civs in AoE. Now, you have to get the absolute top players to do the test driving to balance the cars, and I mean the absolute top, like the top 5 in the world. The reason for this is that if a car is harder to drive, a worse driver will lose more time, and if it’s balanced based on their driving, it will be OP when the best driver in the world uses it. So, in AoE we have the same thing. A civ might be harder to get the most from than another one, so if two civs are balanced so that they are equal when both are played by 1400 players, the harder civ might be OP when both are played by 2300 players. You would ideally limit the discussion to the very top players, as even a 1600 player will not be getting the most out of each civ like a 2300 player will, but obviously people who could contribute would then be in even shorter supply. Even if a 1400 player knows lots about the game, and is only lacking in speed of keyboard and mouse operation, that will still cause their play to be deficient and they aren’t getting the most out of the civs. The worse execution could affect the performance of some civs more than others, so like in driving games, you really have to balance based on the very top players getting the absolute most out of each civ.

I’m nowhere near 1600, and I understand&respect that this thread was attempting to ask a question I’m not qualified to answer. I wouldn’t consider it elitism and certainly wouldn’t call it c*ncer.

Also, please respect the OP and keep questions of whether mayans ought to be nerfed out of this thread. It’s off-topic.

1 Like

I guess he was just saying that a civ should not have a such large probability of victory depending on the matchup.

The focus is goths. Goths are really favorite vs mayans and some other civs, but really behind teutons and some other civs. In an extreme way.

He was just saying to change goths to make them slightly worse vs mayans (and in general archer civs) and slightly better vs teutons (and similar).

I do not thinks he cares at all about changing mayans…

1 Like

I know this. However if he thinks that’s not fair, how is it fair for mayans to be as good as they are compared to some other civs?

1 Like

in 1v1 arabia clearly mayans are a top civ. To balance them vs Turks and Italians you need to nerf mayans and buff the others. But this is a bit off-topic, the focus is goths.

Maybe he still thinks that weak civs need a buff…

and my point was not about mayans anyway. i was just using Mayans as a good example.
it was about his thought process.

he think’s it isn’t fair for one civ to have a huge advantage over another civ.
okay i can understand that.
but his logic only pertains as far as counter civs. so its not okay for Goths to basically hard counter Mayans. and its not okay for Teutons to hard counter Goths.
but its okay for S tier civs to be as strong as they are and have clear cut advantages over other civs in the game?

do you see how that comes across?
I’m fine with counter civs. you want to know why? because no matter what, there will always be top tier civs in this game. at least this way those top tier civs will have to struggle at some point.

would it be better to even everything out? yeah in an idea world maybe, but that just won’t happen as there is simply too many civs and too many units for that to be reasonably achieved. no matter what you do, some civ is going to get hard countered in some way.

But here you see your ELO coming across. Top players can exploit small advantages almost perfectly, and win a game of something small. Weaker players make bigger mistakes, and small advantages don’t matter as much.
If a player in a particular matchup has a 95% chance of losing, that probably wouldn’t be fun. You wouldn’t experience that, and neither would I, but the OP might. That’s part of what he’s discussing.
The civ-pick can be however you want, and it can be ‘fair’ that you get a civ-win, but in my opinion it shouldn’t be that way. (Even thought it doesn’t effect me much.)

Balance has already improved significantly since DE came out. I don’t see any reason why balancing specific match-ups (ie reducing civ-wins) shouldn’t be part of the aim of balance. Nerfing S-tier civs can (and should) happen in parallel.

I agree that balance is significantly improved but I’m just saying no matter what you do some civs are going to hard counter others. Teutons for example have huge advantages over melee civs but also lack ranged.

Unless your prepared to further homogenize the game you won’t have any noticeable impact on "civ wins ".

And you say nerfing s tier civs should happen in parallel but the op disagrees. He’s made it clear if anything he thinks s tier civs are fine.

I honestly don’t care what they do with balance but if youre going to argue civ wins shouldn’t be a thing uou should also actively oppose s tier civs being as strong as they are, and the op wants to have his cake (rebalance civ wins) and eat it too (s tier civs are fine)

1 Like

Both 2HS and EliteEagles trade equally in numbers with EliteHuskarls.
2HS and EH both take 5 hits to kill each other (60/13=4.6 vs. 70/14=5)
EEW and EH take 7 hits to kill each other (100/16=6.25 vs. 70/11=6.3)
so in either matchup whoever gets the first hit in wins.

With El Dorado?
Mayans EEW should beat Huskarls easily with the extra 40 HP.

Maybe remove bloodlines and add the +4 on cav armor instead.
(like briton cavalry)

That way you make goths more versatile and not only infantry.

elite eagle warriors (mayans) have 100 health and have 13 attack and 3 armor (fully upgraded)
elite huskarls have 70 health and have 16 damage attack and 2 armor (fully upgraded), and also have 3 bonus damage vs eagles.
this means huskarls deal 16-3 + 3 for 16 total damage to eagles per hit.
eagles deal 13-2 for 11 damage per hit.
both take 7 hits to kill the other. whoever lands the first blow wins.

the difference is, its faster and cheaper (Gold wise) to produce Huskarls, who cost nearly half the gold of an eagle.

1 Like

is this supposed to be serious?
Negative armor on the huskarl? It is already fairly weak in imperial against melee units.
Moreover negative armor on a foot sholdier with a shield?

Improve HC for goths? On what basis? Its just weird.

All these matchups you present as auto-loss for goths are perfectly ballanced.
Goths have Siege & hand cannons , they have dirt cheap infantry that is produced in a split second.
You can overwhelm any melee focused civs with those.

And you specify that these are for 1600+ players? These look like sub-1000 rants to me…