nothing to be surprised about, they lack arbalest and the switch to CA is hard, while also not being good as a pocket since they lack a powerful cavarly option.
Actually, after people discoverd how strong drush fc was, it was only aztecs and mayans (because they could counter aztecs with plumes 11). Huns were not as strong and they lost every time they faced a meso.
Anyway, back on topic. The problem with ranked tgs is linked with how the random options work. If 7 people have chosen random, the civs should be random, but the one dude who wants to play his civ force everyone to go back to meta civ. There’s no point in choosing subpar civ if your opponents go for the strongest options always.
@phoenix1089 btw, the problem with the stats you posted is that actually 1650+ tgs includes some really low elo players. You should see what arabia tgs look like at 2400+ elo.
Yeah, Franks are strong, but the fact Khmer (and to some extent even Malays lul) exists is still a big problem: battle eles are still way too strong even in castle age and most games can be ended with just 20 eles and your allies xbows pushing the enemy flank and simply destroying their base.
And even with eles civs out of the picture, there are still the indians that, assiming your flank hasn’t lost his xbows army, are the best pocket by far.
The big problem with this situation is that strong tgs civ are not necessarily strong 1v1 civs (eg. Indians) and by nerfing them you would make them even worse in 1v1