which is roughly 4 Knights give or take.
In truth people lose units for free all the time, such as Skirmishers to Mangonel shot, Knights badly microd vs Pikes, people like to have control of their own mistakes and think they can come back but when you are told that you must play from behind due to outside factors, people get mad.
Human psychology really, “I want to be the one wasting the 4 Knights and not them be given for free to the enemy” even though in numerical terms, it’s the same.
A posteriori rationalization happening right here, Malay have a very strong and hard-to-stop Elephant push that can happen at 16 min when opponent is still Feudal. They also have 4 extra vills by Castle Age and can play FU Crossbow. So if we consider only their early Castle Age potential, they get there with 3-4 extra vills and being able to do 2 possible strats, Elephant flood or Crossbow flood, so they are not very predictable either.
Goths is even better, getting 1 of best Drushes in the game (you don’t even need to go to Gold), they get FU Knight in Castle Age, usable Crossbow and 1 of the best UUs in the game (unlike many others, it’s very good in Castle Age also). And of course the “extra vill” that Mayans also get, Goths get it too
Really you are basing your reflections on anecdotal evidence, personal experience, impressions and not logic or observation of how high-elo games go and what strategies are applied.
I’m even willing to admit that:
are top tier on Arabia/similar open maps.
I’m willing to admit that:
are top tier on hybrid maps
are top tier on Arena.
But I ask: is this really a problem? Are we arguing nerfs for nerfs’ sake? It seems to me that these civs have a nice spot on some maps and are average on others, for example Persians and Byzantines are very average on Arabia and Mayans aren’t very good on Arena (they are probably still top 10 ish but decidedly weaker than top 5).
I’m even willing in some cases to admit that some strategies these civs can employ are too strong, for example I think Mayan Archer discount is too good, but I see no problems with Aztecs Eagle Flood or Chinese as a civ in general, Aztecs are very predictable, you know they HAVE TO win in Castle Age because they suck hard in Imp and their composition in Castle Age is predictable too, few leftover Archers from Feudal and Eagle flood with Monks and Siege. It’s strong but also very predictable, Aztecs player will never try to 3 TC boom, they cannot do archers long-term and they cannot do Cavalry or UU.
So again I ask, are we arguing nerfs for nerfs’ sake? Right now in the game, I see a good mix of civs, and 20+ civs are top tier depending on the map. On maps like Haboob or Land Madness, you even see people pick Magyars, a decidedly mid-tier civ but top tier on that mode.
Are you arguing for nerfs because you would like to see Burmese or Malay or Teutons top tier on Arabia? Because it will be fun for 3 months, then you all will start complaining again that Teutons is too strong on Arabia after we have nerfed everything else and a cycle of nerfs risks only leaving a bland and boring game.
Khmer farms are good on Arabia also, you can do a number of hard to counter and unpredictable strats as Khmer on Arabia, such as Tati rush, 23 pop Castle Age, 16 min full Feudal Castle Age timing, I’m not talking about some 25-min boom you do with Khmer, at that point you might do Teutons also, I’m talking about the fact that Khmer farms gather at a faster rate so you reach Castle Age faster and you can start pressuring with Bloodlines Knights, gaining the momentum and initiative in the game.
no see, this is the stuff that makes me know you are low elo for a fact, you add Mangonels vs Skirmishers, not Knights, and in any case you keep flooding Crossbows because you only need like 3 Knights to beat a basically infinite # of Skirms.
So no you are wrong, you don’t add Stables, you always make 1-2 Knights in Castle Age to snipe Mangonels and Skirms as ANY civ, if you see +2 Skirms you just keep flooding Archers as the Britons.