Ethiopians small nerf?

You can also have good civ and bad civs. Some suits your play style, others wont.

On average playing as Ethiopians wont result in a high win rate. Just looking at the data: You are better of picking Goths than picking Ethiopaisn, since the winrate of Goths is higher then the winrate of Ethiopians. But the win curve over time for both civs are completely different. They also fit different play styles.

As Ethiopians you are on a clock and you have to strike fast. That is your main strength in winning the game. As Goths you are most likely behind for the full game and you have to hang on. If you managed to let the game go to post imp, then you will most likely win.

The stats are clear: Based on win rates there isnt really much difference between these two civs, but they play very differently.

Might be true for you but not for others. For instance, in my experience very few games end in feudal. You might get a (dis)advantage there but most of my games are decided in castle age or imp.


Just ask around who considers which civ to be better and why. Having a high win rate in imperial is not very good when you can pick plenty of civs that can force games to end in Feudal. Heck, you can consistently beat goths with mayans, even though on paper, it looks like that shouldn’t be the case.

I do not know how to consider cases where players go to Castle, even though the game is already over. Not long ago, I had a game where the opponent did reach castle, but was already so much behind that he lost anyway. I count this still as a feudal-game, because reaching Castle, in fact, just prolonged a lost game.

Fair enough, can happen sometimes. But I don’t consider losing 1 or 2 vils in feudal a lost game and this is the kind of advantages I or my opponents gets in feudal in the majority of my games.

About your Mayan - Goths example:
Why is Mayans in the top 5 easiest civs for Goths?

And to look the other way around: Based on the win rates Mayans should fear Goths the most: Based on win rate it is their worst match up:

You can bring in the argument of few games, in for this i will agree, but at least it shows it isnt that easy for Mayans to beat Goths.

For balance, look at global winrates. They count for all played game with that civ. Length doesnt matter. If most games are ended early on, then the global win rate should be mainly determined by the win rate of that civ at quick games.

No one denies that the winrate of the early game of the Ethiopians is great. That is their main strength. They have to kill quick. They are good in succeeding in killing quick. But there are also lots of games in which you cant kill your opponent early. Then the Ethiopians are pretty bad. There winrate pretty much drops if the game continues.

Picking your strategy based on the civ match ups is what makes the game interesting. Some civs are designed to kill early. Others have a castle age spike, while others have a post imp spike. Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of every civ determines which strategy you will pick.

In the end global win rates are the rates you have to look for.

1 Like

What exactly is your argument here? I am sorry but games are getting faster and I don’t find much enjoyment in spending almost as much time in the queue as actually playing. At least the trushes weren’t an instant quick gg and I got to at least play the damn game for longer than dark age + 2mins.

My wording was probably misleading. Not saying that goths aren’t a great archer killer. But a lot of the times you can prevent the Goths from reaching that point and close out the game early. You can do it consistently. I would personally prefer to be Mayans than Goths in the matchup, despite the win-rates. 1650+ is unfortunately still a broad range, and I am sure that the higher you go the less you’d want to be Goths in the situation.

My problem is not (completely) the fact that Ethiopians are way too good in Feudal, my problem is the inconsistency, that it’s OK for some civs to be blatantly OP, and not OK for other civs… just huh?

you read me wrong man, I actually think Ethiopians get their power spikes in Feudal and early Castle, late-game their faster firing rate is not that impactful because the game is more about macro and spamming the correct unit type so while something like Ethiopian Arbalest does slightly better vs Elite Skirmishers, it still does badly enough to not trade cost-effectively (late game). Furthermore, late-game they can’t tech into many unit types, essentially being stuck with FU Arbalest, FU Halberdier and whatever Siege option they wanna pick (anything works from BBC to mass Trebs to mass Siege Ram). But their infantry, UU, cavalry are all NOT late-game units so Ethiopians in late game I can actually see dying pretty easily to civs like Mongols, Lithuanians etc.

Ethiopian bonus shines when it’s like 12 archers vs 7 Scouts, or 12 Crossbows vs 5 Skirms with only +1 armor because you just tech switched into them after your opponent made a hole in your walls. There it’s rly strong, perhaps too strong but again, I think since this is their “main” bonus it should stay, I would nerf their eco slightly if anything or the free Pikeman upgrade. With these nerfs they would still get their power spikes but wouldn’t be insane at 20 min in the game.

1 Like

It’s a well known fact you can do nothing against Eth archer besides your own weaker archers #ohwait

My argument is that the Inca trush was so much more powerful than a standard trush that it would often end games in feudal age. And of the few trush games that go to castle age, it’s 1 of 2 cases:

  • the Inca dude got the lead and just need to spam eagles to finish of his opponent
    -the Inca dude messed up and the enemy has a god map so said enemy can stomp the Inca player

So not really the kind of games where you play the game for longer than dark age + 2 minutes.

At this point it looks like you’re just calling everything OP to feel better about the Inca nerf. Heck you even call the buffed elite boyar OP despite your belief that most games end in feudal age…

1 Like

More obnoxious than OP. Also, Arabia is not the only map still. In the end it most likely won’t change much, but don’t think it was a change that was needed.

Well that certainly lasts longer than games do currently, so thanks for making a whole post about literally nothing.

Answer is of course, depends.

The game is mostly balanced around 1v1 Arabia for the most part, and that’s the way it should be.

I say this as a guy who loves 4v4 Michi, and Diplo games.

1 Like

Well the OP accusations are targetting 1v1 arabia here as far as I know.

Except there isnt really any proof for 1v1 Arabia which suggests this civ is OP…

1 Like

do people come over keep raising balancing stuff, even check the win rate?
it’s disgusting for those who doenst even understand the game and keep giving out some opions like that.