Cumans 2 TC in feudal still so broken

I just played a game in gold rush where I got like 4 or 5 vils with a wolf train and then a scout rush after and the cumans player still managed to hit castle at the same time as me and as soon as we were castle he raided me with like 20 scouts and 10 spearman! Lmao!!! All thanks to 2 TC feudal age

Play Cumans yourself then?

Do you have the recording of the game?

1 Like

Learn to play a clean Feudal Age and that won’t happen. It’s as simple as that.

Yes, I can tell that without watching the game. Cumans going for a 2nd TC (and “20 scouts and 10 spearman” for that matter) just cannot be up as fast as a clean Scouts into Castle Age build (which will hit Castle Age before 20 minutes), even if the Cuman doesn’t lose any vills.

So it’s clearly not “All thanks to 2 TC feudal age”, but rather comes down to your flawed gameplay.

The Cuman TC bonus can certainly be discussed (I think it’s fine though), but this right here just seems like a rant because you’ve lost and have no idea why.


Yeah, this is the issue with making sweeping generalizations about how a civ is balanced (or not) based on a single data point (this one game). All the more so when a player doesn’t seem to be familiar with how to execute many basic strategies successfully (obvious from your cav archer thread). Not saying this to be rude, just to paraphrase the old saying, “if you want to change the world, change yourself first,” and you might find that the game is more balanced than you currently suppose. Of course it’s not perfectly balanced, and I and others are still waiting for buffs to weak civs (Goths, Viets, etc), and there is some discussion over whether, say, Persians are too strong right now. But there’s an overabundance of new or lower ELO players complaining about how “broken” a strat/civ is because they don’t how how to counter it. I’ve seen threads about some of the most easily countered units/strats, longbows, war elephants…I half expect to see someone saying that the mighty Xolotl warrior rush is overpowered, and now that Aztecs/Incas can make cavalry, they have no weaknesses.

Well I’m not a new player I have almost 2000 hours in the game but almost all of it is from Arena in HD. I used to never play anything else and now DE map pool is forcing me to play all these open maps and I’m forced to try all these new strategies. So in a way I’m a noob but still pretty undefeated on arena in my de rank unless I’m trolling. By the way I was around 1800-2000 Elo in HD. Its pretty rare that someone will go CA on arena and I only used it a few times. Now that I’m seeing it used more it does seem weaker than the other options. But again I wasn’t being completely noob to the game when complaining about how broken 2 tc feudal and the cost of hca is compared to Cavalier and even Paladin to be honest the paladin upgrade on a 1v1 arena is basically over kill and a way to show opponent strength of your eco as spirit of the law even showed in his video that the paladin upgrade is only worth it if you have 50 cavalier on the field. So basically HCA is double the price of going cavalier and 1000 resources more than Paladin, I still think they arent worth the price.

What do you mean by “4 or 5 vils with a wolf train”? Did you waste 4 or 5 vils to lure wolves into the ennemy base? or did you manage to kill 4 or 5 vils with the wolf train?

I don’t see the opness anymore in cuman’s feud TC in open games like GR or arabia. If a player decides to build de 2nd tc, he gives away an important amount of time and resources that could be invested in army or farms and actually that should delay the castle time. So it doesnt sound logical to me the situation’s description unless the losing player didnt manage his economy properly (farming, gold, wheelbarrow timing, etc).

Besides, 2nd tc building time has been increased in feudal, which adds another factor that reduces the feudal boom effectivenes.

It would be helpful to watch the recorded game because I can bet that the losing player did something wrong there.

1 Like