I typically flood with at least 14 barracks.
Do you notice he classified almost every archers UU in S-Tier / A-Tier ?
The only S-Tier non-archer unit is an anti-archers, I think that said a lot on the current state of the game. With Cav units in A-B tiers and infantry in B-C tiers.
It doesnât tell everything cause tier list are subjective, but yetâŠ
1 Like
What elo is this ornlu?
Heâs 1700 ELO 1v1
IDK about TG
Obviously I think he put the Cata too high, should probably go into low B tier. Definitely below the Leitis, which suffers from the same lack of pierce but a tremendously lower cost (so itâs easier to justify production, esp in castle age) even though the cataphract can get to that point in some matchups where itâs a civ loss. If thatâs the only reason he likes it it should be in C tier (along with the war elephants) but I agree thatâs itâs cost is justified in a few narrow MUâs.
Generally the rest, I agree with. Outside of one or two notable exceptions heâs pretty close to my own evaluation.
2 Likes
I exceptionally totally agree with you. The unit is so expensive, requires many upgrades and hard to get, even after the buff. Leitis is better.
I donât think that âsays a lotâ of the Game, knight line is not an UU and they are the Best units in Game (IMO)
Yes, thatâs one of the reason why most of cav civs are not very dependant of their UU. Cavalry is fine in general in the game, but infantry is so rarely efficient and infantryâs UU in this ranking is a good example.
1 Like
Yes, infantry is mostly useless, I do think thats a Bad design considering they are the Main portion of most armies.
Hope we see some regional units in the future that make infantry more viable, same way as eagles⊠the new searjents and flemish militia kind of says that they are trying. Unfortunally is not good enough
Hey everyone, Iâm glad to see my video igniting so much discussion! Tbh I pretty much never check here, but one of my twitch viewers mentioned it, so I just wanted to clarify some stuff for people who may be new to my content 
-
Regarding the thumbnail, itâs true that I didnât want to spoil the actual tier list, but tbh my goal was simply to fit all of the UU icons in one image alongside the tier list⊠In case you didnât notice, the listing of the units is simply alphabetically with the 3 new UUs listed first⊠I just did that because that is default ordering for this specific list on tiermaker. I didnât realize that it would seem so clickbaity until afterwards 11
-
The point of the video is to encourage thoughtful discussions and to present my opinions. Not that I am the arbiter of all AoE2 knowledge, but I have played this game for almost 20 years, and have been casting expert games and tournaments for the past 3 years. Some of my conclusions are based on my own playing experience, but as I am a 1700 pleb, I focus mostly on what I see in high level games.
-
Obviously itâs impossible to completely compare every UU to all the situations in which they can be made. I tried to consider their role on a variety of maps for 1v1s and TGs, as well as looking at them in both Castle and Imperial Age. The reason I rate some situational units higher than others is based on how often those situations come up in high-level play. Also, the reason I talk more about team games is because most UUs are almost never made in high level 1v1s. Team games have unlimited gold via trade and also tend to go longer, so there is more opportunity to see more UUs there (in general).
Hope that clears up any confusion <3
14 Likes
Thanks for that. We need something to quibble over, here in the forums. >:P
Mameluke for C tier.
1 Like
Very easy to explain: castle production is limited, so CA type units have that advantage that when played right, you donât have to replace them often, so the castle production downside is less harsh.
Huskarl being both anti-archer and S tier is easy to explain as well: without it, the whole Goth civilization would lose to any kind of decent archers. So it checks the box of being a âmust buildâ unit, then add on top of that the cost, the spammability from barracks and you get a S tier unit.
If we had a civ that is super weak to infantry but it had jaguar warriors+a tech to make them spammable from barracks+ a bunch of bonus to help this game plan jags would be a S tier UU.
3 Likes
Teutons wanna have a talk ^^
Teuton Inf kills Goth even 1v5 unit count 
But seriously. Any FU Champ civ basically kills Goth early imp if you play it the right way. ANd Teuton as well as Viking infantry just clapps Goth with better UNits and eco no matter the stage of the game. Bulgarians with Baggins insta THS rek Goth early imp hard. ANd should you get to Cataphracts with Byz its game over for Goth even if they spam 210 pop Halbs.
5 Likes
Found the low ELO legend 11.
Iâve never played multi-player nor have I ever played the game competitively, I just play treaty games against the AI so I donât even have an ELO rating.
That explains a lot. Treaty and single player games are terrible for judging the strength of a civ.
But they are great for judging the strength of a civilisationâs tech tree and unique units.
In my opinion:
Arambai, Conquistador, Kipchak and Janissary should be a tier below - Elite versions of these units are very underwhelming, even though they are boosted in Castle Age, I could even make an arguement to put Jannissary to B-tier, because they are very slow
Cataphract should be C-tier, Konnik should be either C-tier or B-tier - too expensive
Jaguars should be C-tier - Too expensive, too slow
Rattan should be S-tier - very boosted unit, canât be killed easily when massed
Keshik should be S-tier - cost nothing, very fast training time, good stats
Flemish Militia should be C-tier, because the unit is very strong
They arenât that expensive and their stats justify the cost.
Kipchaks are awesome beyond Castle age.
They are not that awesome anymore, they are like Mangudai, but very low damage and hp
Cataphracts are very expensive and stats do not justify the cost, the unit which has justified cost is the Battle Elephant.
1 Like