I’d love to hear anyone’s opinion explaining how they arent. Played as then 3 times tonight, and wrecked everything. Wall into castle and cavaliers backed by mega eco, doesnt seem to have a counter in team games. I havent given them a whirl 1v1 Arabia yet, but I cant see how theyll lose. That’s without mentioning the UU.
Explain to me how they arent immediately S+ tier and broken?
Of course! Those players will try playing them like other Knight civs, not adjust their playstyle to the civ strengths, get wrecked from misusing the civ strengths, and then conclude they’re not broken 11.
That’s true, If i try to play them as an archer civ, they arent too op!
both new civs are TOO OVERPOWERED !!! WORST ! if u dont buy the DLC u still can get matched against them on RANKEDS !!! WHAT THE HELL IS THIS ??? PAY TO WIN GAME???
Bro they are a complete new tier above S , just watched 2 games on twitch and its so unfair, then i went and read the new civ bonus and i dont wanna play rankeds until they get nerfed i’m out of ranked games. what is happening to this game?!
What i saw? a +2600 team elo game on arena don jon rush and a arabia game (same elo) with a guy having cavalier on castle age against crossbows, wht the hell
They are op, and they will nerf them next patch.
It is difficult to get a balanced civ from day 1, and devs probably want the new dlc civ to be op rather than up.
I just hope they don’t get overnerfed and useless, they have some interesting things
they are op so that they force the players to buy the dlc
Only 3 times? That is not enough. Claiming that the Burgundians are “broken” after only 3 games is foolish. You should at least play 10 games as Burgundians against EACH other civ to really tell if they are broken or not.
…or…you can just wait a couple months to allow all the other players and game devs experiment for themselves, and contribute to the entire community rating for Burgundians win rate for ALL popular game modes (1v1 Random matches, Empire Wars, and Team Random matches as examples). Also: famous and skilled AoE2 analyzers, such as YouTubers Spirit of the Law and T-West will surely provide their own mathematical analyses.
I am not trying to bash you for asking everyone else their opinion on the Burgundians. I applaud you in making this post to ask that question. However…you claiming that 3 games are enough to justify already that “Burgundians are broken” is foolish when it is too early to call.
I recommend that you add a question mark (?) to the end of this post’s title. THEN you offer your post to a more reasonable, fair debate platform.
Totally expected uproar for a civ that is just released and have no irl data to compare them with. OP? Yeah. Give it a few more months and if it is still op, then u might have an argument.
Now? Throw that foolish idea away, sit back and watch. They will be adjusted and nerfed in due time.
All new civs are broken upon release. The only exception I can remember is Tatars.
Hard to judge whether burgundians are op. Their castle age is extremely strong, but their imp and precastle are not great. They have no pre castle buffs besides potential early eco upgrades (which might delay castle time). And in Imp (especially post-imp) they really have only paladins, halbs (and palas have no bonuses and are missing bloodlines), they have horrendous siege, bad archers, their skirms are missing the important armor upgrade.
That said castle age cavs might be strong enough it doesnt matter atm (even w/o bloodlines).
cavalier and paladin upgrade at half cost?
But no bloodlines for the Burgundian civ. That means, that their Paladins are subpar to all other generic Paladins, such as the Persians, and wholly outclassed by the most powerful Paladin civs: the Teutons (with +2 extra melee armor post-Imp), the Lithuanians (additionally attack based on # of relics garrisoned), and, above all, the Franks (highest HP, even without Bloodlines themselves).
I am more concerned about the vineyard tech. Someone on reddit said 7 vills produce around 1 gold per 7 sec.
Then 50 vills pruecw a gold per sec and 25 villa around very second sec, slightly more than a relic which produces 24 gold per minute.
Late game you get 80 farmers which count as 4 bonus relics in gold, if Ou got 2 relics yourself than each relic counts as an extra farmer than nexer need reseeding thanks to the team bonus.
This bonus seems much more potent than aztecs relic bonus or Indians suktans.
They should remove hussar upgrade, that will stop their op trash war potential. If they have decisively supar trash.
Somebody proposed this bonus 1:1 actually a while ago on the forum. I remember it clearly.
I’m waiting for some serious number crunching to see if the eco bonus is really worth it. As i see it, i would grab the eco tech during age research time in a fast castle build, but i wonder how much of an economical advance it would get me.
$10.00 USD cost is not that bad. Coming from a player who has played horrendous pay-to-win videogames, I declare that Age of Empires 2: Definite Edition is not a pay-to-win game.
At least…not yet it is. It CAN turn into a pay-to-win game, yes. If the devs continue to dish out DLCs. But most likely, the devs will run out of excuses to add more civs in this game that already has almost 40 civs (which is quite a lot), that represents nearly ALL medieval-era civilizations that can be covered in a videogame that is history medieval-based.
But even if the devs did mange find, like 10 more civs to cram into this game, most likely they would not add all those 10 new civs all at once, or all within a whole year. If they are smart, they will spread out all the DLC releases over the next couple of YEARS so that they can (1) stretch out the longevity of the game, (2) grant themselves and Microsoft a profit at times when they are lagging in profits (say, like when they need extra funds from AoE2 gamers so that they can further develop AoE4 or something like that).
No…AoE2 is NOT pay-to-win. Not by a longshot. If you REALLY want to experience a TRUELY horrific pay-to-win game, then I recommend you try out World of Tanks, World of Warships (both on Steam) or Fire Emblem Heroes on Google Play-Store or King’s Throne: Game of Lust on Google play store. Those 4 games truly are catered to the gamers who spend literally hundreds or even thousands of USD on a monthly basis.
I hope so too. My hunch is that the Burgundians will be the civ to be nerfed the most, and that Sicilians may receive a slight nerf (or none at all…they are pretty okay if you ask me).
ok for 4vs4 what about 1v1 or 2v2?
Paladin half cost lol!
insta win
“Insta win”? Are you really sure about that?
How about you test that theory of yours yourself, and then come back with some proof. Or…be patient and wait a couple more weeks until many other players have played Burgundians in 1v1 matches and see how their results paint the Burgundian civ.
Point is in 1v1 their imp is pretty damn great. Paladin and Hussar are both super expensive techs, suddenly becoming very affordable. So you will still fight with Paladins against other people’s Cavaliers.
If you are playing against an archer civ, it will be pretty much gg at that point, especially with already a great Castle age.
I agree, their feudal age does not have any bonus, so they might be quite weak in 1v1, since their castle opening is also not super strong, as they need to wait at least a 100 seconds to get Cavalier. From then on they bascially have knights with +2 attack (Lithuanians can get this as well) so I am not entirely sure how strong this really is. The cheap Paladin is probably the most significant upgrade.