Its going to take a while to statistically show that but +3 food per villager every age means they’ll be much slower compared to the legacy Op civs like Chinese, Mayans, Aztecs at pro level and Franks at mid elos. If you ever saw a tournament game where someone lost to Chinese, Mayans or Aztecs with a different civ like Tatars or Berbers or Lithuanians, its simply because of their economy and how fast those civs can progress compared to other civs. Hindustanis sadly won’t be in this list anymore and will move down to be comparable to civs like Byzantines, Huns, Malians etc, basically an average mid-tier civ.
Yes and at that time, Indian camels had +1/+2 armor and +4 attack vs buildings and I also think they had Arbalests.
I think Hindustanis nerf is fair. Now they are Meso civ (Eagle-like Ghulam) with also access to strong camels and gunpowders. One of the best eco bonus in the game on top of versatile tech tree is too much. It would be better to hit eco for keeping their versatile options of camels, ghulams, gunpowders.
Then, why Bohemians are nerfed again? they are below average in Arabia. their nerf confirm the fact that balance also account closed map.
I agree that Poles nerfs are too small. They still have best farming with too much options and best Hussar. But I am happy that devs are on right track of nerfing them.
On the contrary, They nerfed Houfnice again and not touching Turks at all. Now Artillery is half price of Houfnice upgrade and being better with 14 range. Considering other good closed map civs are nerfed, Turks become strictly #1 civ on Arena.
I am not sure what sort of Michi TG map you play, but last time I checked, Franks aren’t OP on Arabia, Mayans aren’t OP on Arabia, Aztecs are maybe OP but also very hard to play… You are lagging 5+ patches behind my friend if you think Franks are OP, Camel civs are a thing these days and as for Mayans, Arbalest got nerfed a few patches ago and killed most Archer civs, Mayans are sitting at 50% winrate and in tournaments they are not a first pick, they are drafted but normally as civ #10 or something.
I don’t ever play michi and very rarely play other closed map TGs. Anyways, I’m not saying Franks or Mayans are “OP” but they’re extremely powerful and most played civilizations on the ladder, tournaments of different kinds and have top-10 win rates.
Stats for 1700+ starting from your elo onwards. Yes, Camel civs are popular but no Mayans aren’t 50%. Mayans are at 55.71% 2nd. At 2k+ , they are highest with 60% win rate. Franks are at 54.11%.The xbow nerf, impacted weak archer based civs, not strong economy civs like Vikings or Mayans.
Stats of S-tier tournaments with majority open land maps in the map pool -
The Grand Melee 9 vill start - Mayans 2nd most played civ on Arabia, 2nd highest pick priority overall. Franks 3rd most played civ on Arabia, 5th highest pick priority overall
[The Grand Melee Stats - Google ###############################################################################################################
(Stats from Liquipedia scroll to the bottom. The stu,p,i,d forum is censoring the link)
RBW Empire wars start - Mayans most played civ on Arabia, 5th highest pick priority overall. Franks 3rd most played civ on Arabia, 2nd highest pick priority overall. RBW: Legacy AoE2 Stats - Google Sheets
Unfortunately Memb’s tournament doesn’t have stats sheet. Anyways I hope NAC 4 gets some to add more evidence on why Mayans isn’t a civ#10 or so. The only way Mayans is that low, is when there are plenty of closed maps or water heavy maps which is less common.
When these civs were 3rd or 4th, they were only behind Hindustanis or Aztecs, Mongols in TGM. In any case they’re top civs on the ladder and in tournaments and this is inspite of having many so called “broken” civs. Imagine what would be the case now after those broken civs are no longer broken and winnable by Franks and Mayans.
These civs were top-10 picks even before that in RMS Cup 2, Kotd 4, RBW 5, Kotd 3 and every tournament that was primarily land map-based dating back to Kotd-1.
Its just such an understatement to say that Franks or Mayans is not a top pick in tournaments. You can say that they’re not as high as the civs nerfed in the current patch but they’re just right after them.
Poles nerf is pertinent. 20% decrease is enough. Hindustanis nerf also should be -20% decrease, Villagers 8/12/16/20% cheaper instead of this overnerf. We will see that Poles doing average in open maps and Hindustanis becoming useless at the end of this nerf.
I won’t deny stats, and I won’t check them believing in your good faith. My explanation for this is that Franks have a good Feudal, probably on maps like Land Madness or Dry Graveyards (where walling is less rewarding) Franks can be good. I won’t deny Franks are good, the problem is that IF you get counterpicked, you insta-die. Before, it was just Byzantines and maybe Chinese. But now, there is a new kid in town named Gurjaras, and Hindustanis Camels got buffed compared to old Indians to the point that going Knight + Monks or Knight + Pike + Monk isn’t viable while it was before.
We can’t look at stats alone in judging things, we must look at gameplay too and Franks gameplay suggests that they have 2 things going for them: their strong Scouts in Feudal, and their early Castle Age timing (Berry bonus + farms). If you failed to create a lead by early Castle Age, I would unironically rather be Dravidians or Goths than Franks. Trash Light cav, unplayable Skirms, hell even their Siege Shop is bad aside from a generically FU Bombard Cannon. I guess you got the cheap Castles in the late game, it’s something I suppose, still you know what they say, army > buildings in Imp generally speaking.
I will agree these civs are top 10 ish, but I don’t understand why so much hatred for Mayans and Franks and harder to play civs that are equally powerful on Arabia, such as Khmer, get a pass because people hate the “Legacy Civs” just for hate’s sake.
If we must hate on all top 10 civs, then Khmer, Mongols, Berbers, Tatars must make the list too, Tatars have Paladin in their Castle for 40g, Berbers have a very strong all-in of the meta unit of the moment and their Imp also looks solid with BBC, cheap Hussar and good UU. Why do these civs get a pass? Because let’s take Britons and Mongols on Arabia, I would for sure prefer Mongols over Britons, their Feudal and Imp are MUCH better at the expense of an only slightly worse Castle Age.
Mayans… if their winrate is good, I guess that’s because of 3P armor on Eagles? I don’t see any other reason.
Sure, early game you collect a bit more hunt. Farms last longer, too. The Goths example teaches us that +1 vill isn’t enough to make a civ relevant. And in the end, Mayans can play like 3 units, Eagles, Monks and Archers and UU if you get to that.
I guess their late Imp isn’t bad for the simple fact that you can spam from a 100 pop as opposed to the regular 130+ since their army is so cheap. But in this case we shouldn’t ignore a civ like Byzantines either, good on Gold Rush-like maps, stellar on hybrid, and their discounted units, like Viper said, might really start being OP when every other overperformer got nerfed and yet they still get a -25% (Camels especially).
Bottom line: winrates aside, we can also look at gameplay. Franks + Mayans are fine imo. They can have strong power spikes yes, but they also have limited units to work with. If we hate on those, we must hate on Khmer (basically Franks but better on Arabia) and Byzantines (basically Mayans but better in Imp on maps with lot of gold).
Of all legacy civs the only one I would maybe nerf is Aztecs but at the same time they have such a gimmicky playstyle (Eagles + Monks + fast Imp builds on Arena) that I’m not even sure that that’s a good idea, risks leaving the civ in trash state.
Poles nerf is only scratching the tip of the iceberg, Knight spam in Castle age still will have no counter, 3 extra farms you need to drop won’t make a difference, Pikes still won’t be a counter, Camels still won’t be a counter. They still get more gold due to Stone bonus and this is important late game where you need to grind an even bigger mass of (cheap) Cavalier compared to what you would have to otherwise.
Their UU is still sick (25 HP more than a Champion in Imperial Age and Cavalier armor!) but NOT EVEN USED just cuz they have so much going for them! You can actually play Poles like Byzantines, spam trash, only instead of full Halb you go 50% Obuch 50% Pikeman and add BBCs and GG. Obuch Skirm is a very good comp vs everything, even vs Cavalier it’s not bad if you add a few Pikemen, you really only struggle vs a fully-boomed Paladin spam and vs Onagers.
They still have Bombard Cannon, Siege Ram (both with SE).
The civ is actually a good Arbalest Civ on par wtih Koreans or Byzantines, you can play Poles as a generic Arbalest civ and not feel bad about it!
Their Monks get Redemption, making them viable on Arena and very good on Arabia where you can full boom and stop Mango + Knight pushes extremely easily.
And super late game they still have the best Hussar in the game with bonus vs Archers, bonus vs Gunpowder, like tbh the Hussar alone might make Poles the best late game civ in the game, as long as you wall right, and maybe add a few Obuch, you can grind down any gold comp given enough time.
I would say Poles will start to feel fair when they nerf the Szlachta Privileges to -50%, or possibly even -40% (with price reduction). They will still have a strong late game but not as oppressive as now where it’s nearly autowin.
Berbers, Cumans and Franks now will beat Poles, this is my estimation. Let’s wait which side will be right. Neither Knight spam nor Obuch will be OP, late game Winged Hussar+Arbalest will be above average, that’s all according to my estimation.
I don’t see how. In Imp, none of these civs stand a chance. Maybe Berbers if allowed to macro perfectly.
In Feudal, yes Poles are “weak” just like Hindustanis or Mayans or Burgundians are “weak” in Feudal. I guess generic Feudal age is enough to make you weak these days. Rip Malians, Berbers, Byzantines, Lithuanians and about 50% of civs with such a weak bonus or no bonus that you can call them “weak”.
Really take a civ like Burgundians, their ideal game plan in Feudal is get Bow Saw and Heavy Plow with full walls, then make Skirms or something to defend your walls and boom (I am talking Arabia here, on Arena they are understandably broken). So I guess yes the fact that you must fight for the walls like every other civ and can’t just pure boom makes poor Burgundians weak
Poles are similar. Shame that you can spam only like 5 Folwark farms in Feudal as opposed to the 16+ you’d like! But really if the recent Villese vs Viper game in a tournament we saw teaches us anything, is that Poles are fine on Arabia too as long as you don’t intentionally delete your starting Archery Range.
Berbers will kill Poles with Knight+Camel spam with support of Camel Archer and Poles won’t be fast enough to Berbers agression in mid Castle Age to Mid Imperial Age.
Franks will beat Poles with stronger early game and Castle Age. Late Game isn’t also bad with Halberdier+Throwing Axeman some Paladins (Obuch isn’t enough and Franks has Hand Cannoneer, too).
Cumans 2 TC boom is already stronger than Poles Folwark until Imperial Age. Cumans will beat Poles wiith Castle drop and Kiphcak which is already succesfully used tactic with Cumans against Poles.
I don’t think Burgundians is broken in Arena, Turks, Portuguese, Bohemians and Bengals are more common than Burgundians. On open maps Burgundians will be below average now in my opinion. Lasty nerf is bad targeted as well.
These are my estimations, we will see that it will be actualized statistically within 2 weeks.