Eco bonus for bulg maybe. Even if is a siege technology discount
Flame camel available without unic tech. Silk armor slightly better.
Trainable sheep for tartar in Mills
1 Like
Sounds so abusable, in any map where sheeps are in high numbers that would be even broken
1 Like
Why would having maps with high sheep have an effect? Wouldnât it be the other way round?
If I donât have starting sheep I would go ahead and create some from the mill. Cost 30f, 7 second train time, can harvest 150 (since tartar).
It could be limited, like only 6 sheepâs may be created (like cuman mercenaries), but I would limit it.
Let in be something like malay fish traps with unlimited food potential but quite micro intensive and slow since you need to keep train sheep in Mills manually.
Try out the scneario trainable sheep nothing to get a feeling how it would play out.
Britons approve this
And burmese? They need as many help as bulgarians do
1 Like
Then next we should discuss about Saracenes. They lose too many games. Ah no, the pro gamers know how to use a market and win many games with Saracensđ
2 Likes
Um it would have to be way more than that. Like 100w 15 seconds.
And Turks/Italians?
Imo Turks and Italians need a very solid buff, then the other civs may need something minor.
Tatars could get a smaller buff as well.
Bulgarians and Berbers do not need a urgent buff, but still I would appreciate a small push
You never played Arena do you?
The concept sounds good and pretty unique. While I think tatars are in a fine spot Iâve heard people point out that their sheep bonus is not good enough. Maybe this could help with proper limitation for avoiding it to become abusable. Maybe making them cost 50 food in dark age and 100 food afterwards.
I do not understand the push to give Tatars more help. They are a great civ.
The only real weakness to the civ is a lot of missing armor on the Infantry, but thatâs totally alright with me since their archer, cav, and siege trees are all extremely solid. Iâm certain any significant dip in the winrate is mostly due to statistical anomaly due to low sample size and an excessive representation of Mesoamerican civilizations and Goths. The Tatars lack of armor on the infantry means a clear weakness to civs with the Eagle warrior or a similar unit where the Champion is usually there to chop it up.
To put it in perspective, the Mayans alone practically get 5x as many games played as the Tatars. The Aztecs and Goths get about 4x as much play. The Incas get about 3x as much. That means (assuming 1.5% play rate) as the Tatars, you have about a 25% chance to have a matchup against one of these civs where Champions is the answer to one of their dangerous options, and you donât even get a good 2h-swordsman.
Additionally, low pick rate tends to hurt civs in win rate, simply because familiarity is a factor to take into account. I am not of the mind that the Tatars need any adjustments. Civs can have problem matchups. The Tatars have approximately a 53% winrate in games at 20-30mins at 1650+, which is where youâd expect the free techs to kick in and make an impact. That shows that the civ has distinct windows of strength that can be abused, and this early in the meta development itâs clear to anyone that the adaptation and meta around this civ is still in itâs infant stages as far as the gameâs history is concerned. More changes, now, is way too early.
4 Likes
That is the reason i said burmese needs as many help as bulgarians.
Of course turks, italians, portuguese and koreans are higher in my priorities list
Tatar, calvary archer and sheep civilization
1 Like
Less games played that tells already everything. Bad civ wonât get any high play rates and sample size is enough to show how weak Tatars are.
Tatars are nice but look at the rest. They are much better.
1 Like
Less games played tells you less. Because thereâs less games. Less games gives you less information to work off of. To argue that a lack of information is, by itself, information, is a shoddy and lazy argument. You donât know that, you just want to claim that without evidence because it serves your position.
1.3% play rate, in a pool of 35 civs, means theyâre getting a 1/3rd of the games that should be expected. That is a significant lack of information to work with. There is simply not a large enough sample size to support your claim. Which is why I donât understand the push for Tatars. I play tatars. I think they are great. You donât think so? Fine. Donât act like the data supports your argument. It objectively doesnât.
Hereâs the opinion of someone you might care about.
He says theyâre average. Which is totally okay with me.
1 Like
I think it could suggest that Tartars are perceived as a weak or tough to play civilization if the pick rate is particularly low but that depends on whether there is a correlation between pick rate and win rate. In any case, at 1650+ they have been between 42-46% win rate for the past four patches which suggests they are a bit below average
Stepping away from the numbers - my issue is that they are super predictable with cav archers / cavalry given their infantry is brutally bad. I think other cavalry archer civs have a bit more versatility than Tartars
I would advocate a buff to their late game as they seem to fall off very hard. My view would be to give them either two man saw for a decent eco boost or bombard cannon to increase the viability of their siege
1 Like
And why you never see Tatars in Tournaments? Because there are 30 other civs that are better. I already play a lot with Tatars. Just for fun but if I really want to win or hoping for a bigger chance I play other Civ because I know they are stronger. Every argument you will give for Tatars that makes them strong I can give a lot of other arguments other civs are stronger.
1 Like
You make some good points. But pick rate also gives us an idea what everyone else thinks of a civ. Instead of the extreme minority here. Yes maybe you think the civ is fine.
But the vast majority of players statistically feel that Franks gives them a higher chance to win and their confidence is so high that Franks are better, the pick rate is THREE HUNDRED PERCENT higher. 1.5 vs 6 (rough values from the last time i checked )
Imagine starcraft had one race picked 4x more than another race.
Besides the statistical analysis⊠Why is it fair according to you that a civ has an awful match up against 4 civs. Not 4 weak civs, 4 meta civsâŠ
In contrast we have a power house civ like maya that has 1 bad match up against goths. So they crush other civs and are only weak to 1.
Tatar doesnât crush other civs and is weak to at least 4. Balance? 
By your own admission this isnt necessarily true. The sample size is too low to accurately say if that win rate in that time period is consistently accurate for 1650
What is ironic is how the win rate over time for 1250-1650 is almost inverse.
And at the same time their pick rate is dropping. While power houses like Franks just have a higher and higher pick and win rate the more patches are released. Yay go 5 eco bonuses on top of an amazing military buff on one of the most meta units. So fair. Much balance.
1 Like
My point wasnât that the statistics support my argument. My point is that the statistics do not support his. I was explaining, in detail, why the data doesnât support his position. My position is simply that I feel the Tatars are in a very good spot right now and that the statistics do not indicate the contrary. Not that the data supports that position, simply that it doesnât contradict it.
Harping on the statistics in this way serves no purpose. The data is simply too thin to be interpreted with any sort of confidence, and itâs clearly possible to interpret it in vastly different manners. Put it this way - Tatars have excellent trash options with better-than-FU Hussars and FU skirms, leaving Halbs as the only sore spot in an otherwise flawless trash compliment. Yet, despite that fact, the Tatars have practically the same 40+ minute victory rate as the turks. Are you going to consider this an accurate representation of the lategame options the Tatars have access to, or would you agree this is a vivid statistical anomaly? Because thatâs my point.
I think theyâre in a fine spot and I firmly believe the data doesnât support the position that they need buffs. Tell me why Iâm wrong. Because if your answer is âdataâ youâll need to explain why you trust the overall winrate with the 30% rate in ultra-late games.
Lastly, itâs okay for a civ to have obvious weaknesses. Not having a good champion is a weakness for sure, and Iâm not going to claim itâs doing them any favors. But if you want to have a game with unique civs that all feel and play differently, youâll need to have civs that have more obvious, and less obvious, weaknesses. Practically all the top players feel like Haboob is a map that you need scouts for because of how open it is and how far away the main woodlines are, but thatâs not a good enough reason to buff the Mesoamerican civs in the eyes of practically anyone. When youâre focused on certain maps and game modes, itâs easy to miss the forest for the trees, and in this case, a map like arabia is distracting you from just how many maps the Tatars are unquestionably solid options on and that variety is a strength to be considered. I donât think the meta has figured out how and where the Tatars are best at, what builds best take advantage of their bonuses, and crucially what maps those bonuses best apply, and as such, I reiterate, it is way too early for more changes.