Hey guys how are you, hope you are well. I was checking the aoestats website and went for the lowest 5 civs winrate and it was like this:
-Vietnamese (46.8%)
-Tatars (46%)
-Saracens (45%)
-Portuguese (44.4%)
-Koreans (40%)
Actually i don’t care about the Portuguese escpecially with their 20% discount on gold, this is really big buff, but the most two civs for me that really need a buff ASAP are the Saracens & Tatars, and it is ok to buff the others later, but for now i really think the Saracens & Tatars need a buff very soon!!!
For Saracens i really noticed that they are in the lowest win rate for a long time!!! I think they really need a big buff escpecially after the devs removed their (+3) archers bonus attack vs buildings to become +1 each age.
For the Tatars, because they are CA civ, i think their problem is bigger than to be a civ problem, their problem is linked to the general problems the Cavalry archers have and i think we did enough posts about the Cavalry archers problems
My suggestions:
The Saracens:
-Decrease the Mameluke gold cost from 85 to 70, also decrease the frame delay for the Mameluke or increase his spead move.
-Give the Saracens light cav a speed/attack bonus, because as we know the Arabian horse historically was the best horse in the world, so the Saracens light cav have +1 attack per age, and move 5% start in castle age, so with husbandry tech it will move 15% faster start in the castle age.
The Tatars buff suggistion:
-Cavlry archers training 25% faster or 15% cheaper.
-Flamming camel can be created in the castle age without a unique tech.
-Silk armor can be applied to Keshik.
-Make the silk armor +1/1 not only pierce armor.
But actually for the Tatars even with this buff i think it will not be enough since their problem-as i said before- is linked to the general problem in the Cavalry archer so the devs must fix all the Cavalry archer problems especially the frame delay and ROF and also cost and training time.
So what do you think guys?!
A good measure for civ strength is play rate on a reference map like arabia, where 3/4 of the games are played. There you can see that the worst civs include Koreans, Italians and Turks. If you look at the win rate, Khmer are pretty bottom tier, while they are considered OP by a large part of the community.
The CA bonus overlaps a bit with other civs, an original option may be reduced frame delay. The other two options are fine imo.
Saracens do not need a huge buff, but this is good, considering that their UU is never played
5 Likes
Khmer is only pretty strong in Team Games NOT 1v1 in Arabia.
The thing what I’m quite annoyed about Saracens is that they supposed to be a Camel civ but no one plays with Camels.
3 Likes
All these civs are strong in their own way. Try them on black forest, 4v4, with booming trade. So, how weak they are then.
Just because they suck badly on 1v1 Arabia does not mean they are bad.
1 Like
But actually they are bad in general and they need a buff especially the Saracens and Tatars.
Yeah with their 85 gold you will never see them 
Yeah their camels need a bonus, but if they applied my suggestion about the Arabian horse it will be good too, because the Arabian horse was and still the best in the world, so they must give the Saracens light cav +1 attack per age and increase his speed by +5%
I would more prefer to strength their identity as Camel civ like Indians.
What suppose to be good is to take away the Knight Line and giving Saracens Camels bonus damage to eagle warriors, siege and more to elephants.
1 Like
The big joke is that the indeans must not be a camel civ but an elephant civ. Actually they need to make more work about the design and the classifications of the civs in general.
For Saracens actually i prefer to make them a horse and camel civ instead of being a Naval civ!!!
I don’t think Saracens needs to buff. Civs like Portuguese and Turks much weaker.
Saracens has good market, even late game they can sell 100 wood/food for 19 gold instead of 15 or 17.
Their Mamelukes OP so don’t buff it. Thats why it costs tons of gold.
If i am true, India has both Camels and Elephants. So its not big problem.
Winrates from aoe2stats are largely irrelevant and have been shown multiple times to be flawed, for example a few weeks ago Britons were sitting at 45% winrate. If you believe Vietnamese and Saracens are bad civs I don’t know what to tell you. I wouldn’t oppose a mameluke buff but making as if these 2 civs are in the same tier as turks, koreans and portuguese is laughable.
If you want to look at stats then it seems that pickrate at 1650+ Elo has been rather representative of tournament results so far. On the other hand even that could be flawed because pro meta is not the same as ranked meta.
These would give the following top 5 worst civs:
Turks 1.38%
Bulgarians 1.36%
Indians 1.35%
Koreans 1.23%
Portuguese 1.22%
2 Likes
The Mameluke is not OP, and this 85 gold cost is just ridiculous and they need to decrease it.
Without correction of the skill difference the winrates are of no use 
I want to see the elo differences when they win and when they lose
Did you say the portuguese with their 20% discount on gold is weak?! This is maybe one of the strongest eco bonuses in the game, it is not the civ problem if they can’t deal with it, the same for koreans 20% discount on wood is very good too and maybe it will be better if they applied it on siege too
Khmer is frequently picked and played in KOTD3 and even before when it was easy wall their fast fc was really strong. They are defo a quite strong 10 1v1 arabia civ.
Also Saracens are completely fine what the heck. Their market bonus is a bit like the chinese situation imo, it relies a lot of timing and thats why it gets weaker the lower the elo gets.
3 Likes
As i said i don’t care about other civs, i was talking about the Tatars and Saracens, and yes the Saracens need a buff after they reomoved their +3 attack bonus
How about we conclude on one balance topic and then move on to the next?
A ton of balance suggestions that are unresolved will do us no good
1 Like
So your justification is that they were nerfed once to be not hilariously OP, so they need a buff now because your numbers dont align ? What if the devs never made the mistake of giving them Obsidian Arrow for free in feudal already ? Would you argue the same ?
1 Like
No but what they got instead?!
Nothing they were OP they were truely nerfed there is no need of compensation. They got the bonus at the first place if you want something. Dont do as if they are still on pre DE state.
1 Like