Scroll down to see 1v1 win rates by elo. Ottoman is positive win rate at every level other that 1900+ elo though that range is skewed by italian fi laming.
2 Likes
the duality of man, nerf otto & buff otto.
meanwhile hausa and Japan players are like “first time??”
1 Like
This clearly shows that devs are trying to do a fair job if the general hatred towards Ottomans is so high in the community. Historical grievances? Who knows…
Regarding the easiness of Ottoman gameplay makes them popular and this shouldn’t be confused by their power. Many low elo players win by Ottomans due to free villager spam system and their singularity at gameplay which are Janissaries can do a decent job. At higher elos, they perform worse for a reason.
According to these statistics, China and Sweden are stronger, so if these two countries get nerfed in turn, the Ottoman’s nerfing can be considered as the 3rd, the study will be based on statistics, not according to the complaints of a few players.
2 Likes
The balance is done for low levels says Tilanus so if at low levels the civilization has normal stats no nerfs or buffs, usually the complaints are heard when you spam them many times in different Threads.
I hate civilization and I hate them spahi so of course I want nerf or better civilization removal but I don’t care if they listen to me or not
1 Like
Implying that someone hates other civilizations/cultures because there are so many Europeans playing the game is totally inappropriate and inaccurate.
Regarding the thread. In elos 1700-1900 (less influenced by Italy) it has a Winrate of 50%. Ottomans, historically, at mid/lower levels have been problematic because of their free villager bonus design (although they produce slower).
It is the typical civ that loses its strength after a certain skill level, so I would make very few changes to this.
2 Likes
The balance of civilizations is made so that the low levels do not suffer a very broken strategy in their levels and so that there is equality at high levels (that is why Italy is going to be touched).
What I explained too 
If they are going to nerf something, let it be by increasing the price and/or the time it takes to do something. I would not like that, for example, they eliminate or change the improvements of the mosque. I like them the way they are now.
People seem not to realize that the Ottoman has actually received some nerfs, for example:
-
Nizam previously had a bonus against all infantry and the upgrade anti-infantry rifles increased that bonus even against skirmishes. Then that bonus that was granted by the armory upgrade was changed so that it didn’t affect skirmishes and other light infantry, but still had bonuses against skirmishes. Now this unit only has a bonus against heavy infantry in the basic stance. Can no longer be obtained at age 2.
-
The card that improves the resistance points of buildings was moved at age 4, and the age 3 town center wagon was removed from this age.
-
The tolerance that the abus had to the projectile was reduced.
In my opinion many of the changes that were made are treaty focused, so making drastic changes to fit with supremacy is not the way to go (if you should make any changes at all). Increase the price or time obtaining so as not to affect performance in treaty and late game.
1 Like
Not at all what i meant. What i said is that because of his particular nationality he might have some biased opinions.
Lol yeah I’m british but don’t play brits I actually like inca/malta/hausa the most. There are a lot of people that do only play the civ of the country they’re from in real life though I guess.
China is a much larger concern for me than otto, it’s so much easier to win with china than any other civ currently, it’s way stronger than even sweden.
5 Likes
I listed 3 civilizations with a high green value, there are 22 civilizations in the game and I said the 3rd civilization that should be nerfed is Ottoman, in this case your effort to make a perception is a simple racist discourse.
1 Like
That is still imprecise.
My main civs have always been Ottomans and Indians and I am a player of Spanish nationality.
Another thing is that there may be bias on the part of players who have X civ as their main, but, for that, there is the debate and the argument.
1 Like
I’m not saying he is plays otto because he his turkish, what i am saying is he might, might have a bias due to his wording in the comments and of course did not mean to offend.
1 Like
hahaha if the Ottomans are hated by a large number of players, imagine how little illusion it makes me and surely many others also that they take Morocco as a new civ…
Where are u from Adri? Im spanish, from Valencia.
Both possibilities make sense, both belonging to a country by nationality/origin and having a main civ, we should all be impartial and fair for the balance.
Hola, soy de las Islas Canarias. Parciales no, imparciales y justos.
Mi experiencia (y lo que se ve) me dice que el sesgo está en aquella persona que tenga una civ principal, no tanto su procedencia.
2 Likes
Ups, corregido, es lo que tiene escribir deprisa y corriendo mientras curro…
Canario, genial, estoy de acuerdo contigo, la gran mayoría de “injustos” suele pecar de egoista cuando se trata de su civ principal.
En mi caso, mis civs principales son Alemania, España y Francia. Aunque me gusta jugar todas. Y no dudo en criticar sus aspectos rotos desde un punto de vista objetivo de equilibrio.
2 Likes
I hate otto both to play and play against but I’d like morocco as a new civ tbh.
1 Like
Germans, Spanish and French are not Broken (at the moment).
I would say that French is the most balanced civ right now.
2 Likes