Agree. Easy way to end the discussion about Inca tb and small change to Chinese taking a bit on their versatility (you’ll float less wood in mid-castle age). However, I’d assume devs would be very reluctant to swap bonuses as it might confuse some of players.
Well their ca are actually pretty good on arena because of extra range and attack, also their magyar hussar are great vs siege so they certainly are better than huns. Still not a good arena civ because you are likely die to before you have your units fully upgraded or enough castle for production so halb/siege or arb/siege is superior here.
Yeah while on arabia lower and mid elo players might at least how to open (even if execution lacks) in my experience on arena even players with decent elo oftentimes have no idea what to do or which civs are good.
Btw your list misses Teutons which are surely one of the best civs on regular (not the moa6 version) arena but you definitely got a point with these winrates. Vikings no.1 is ridiculous.
Viper also shows arena tier lists of other players somewehere in his video and 3 out 5 lists had Teutons no. 1. Just a matter of play style I guess.
… and also don’t tell anything useful if you don’t interpret them correctly. Just looking at winrates never tells how good a civ actually is, properly analyzing is so much more work than comparing one number. I mean people take a civ with 6% percent play rate and then compare their winrate with another of 1% playrate. Simply doesn’t work that way and there is many other factors.