In my experience, eco means little in 1 hour long games. Since we talking about FU longbow…
I would rather have an entire lot of civs over mayans for that game. In fact, i would rather have franks, persians, spanish, portuguese, koreans, slavs, ethiopians, mongols, huns, teutons, berbers, vietnamise, maybe aztecs or incas, or ottomans (if TG), sarracens (for late game market), byzantines, celts, and chinese. With a bit of training, maybe italians, japanese and vikings.
Edit: forgot magyars, they are another good civ for bashing britons. Also malians are good for that. No opion on TLK civs tho.
1 Like
Cuman have got SR+SO+palas. Keshiks are good arrow sponges. Both these civs have full armour + Parthian tactics on their CA so you can try that. Bulgarian also have SO and SR and while they no longer have palas, I guess dismounted konniks can distract longbows. Lith only have palas but instead they are the very best it shouldn’t be too much of a problem. So imo with each of these civs the matchup is manageable (not like say Mayan vs Goths)
1 Like
The problem with this kind of discussions: As long as you add other units to the composition, you can make every units OP.
For example: I think MAA are OP in feudal age. They say they are countered with archers, but i can make skirms too. So you cant counter the MAA with archers. So MAA has no counter and need a nerf.
This is just an example of the kind of discussion i see in this thread. This kind of discussion means nothing to me. So i havent seen a real argument for nerfing the archers of the british that makes sense to me.
1 Like
These civs are actually good beating the british. But i always stay one step back when the talk is tatars. Maybe because they “used” to be bad, idk.
Feels light cav death spam is the only option. Not that i’m saying it’s bad, i mean the exact opposite - but i never liked tatars anyway.
1 Like
Don’t you take a look back at your eco? Or check if a raid is going on?
Hello devs
(i just did the multiple ? for the min requirement)
You didn’t manage to convince just a small section of the community that Britons need nerf.
And you expect devs to apply it?!
12 Likes
Do not necro 3 month old threads that are completely out of relevance, please.
5 Likes
tbh britons are op on some special maps where you can abuse the range advantage.
But these maps are rare i think even not in the actual pool and you are free to mirror britons on these maps.
But for sure, these maps are also played rarely in ranked because britons are op in these.
Maybe there could be a trade-off to make britons stronger in general but not so op in these maps.
But then britons will somehow lose their identity.
Yeah, many civs can be made OP if some features of the map are unbalanced. You could make a map covered in gold mines and with just enough wood and food to go feudal and get a market up and all of a sudden Sarracens/Turks become top tier.
2 Likes
This is exactly why a reference scenario for balance makes sense. 1v1 arabia makes a lot of sense since 3/4 of the games are played there.
Britons are clearly very good there, but there are at least 3-4 civs definetly stronger, plus other civs with equal strength.
Britons are good in arabia? Never heared this before…
They are very good, maybe even top 5. Aztecs, Mayans, Chinese and maybe Khmer are superior, but then it is not super clear which civ is the best.
Some pro players put them in s tier if I remember correctly! The same of Aztecs!
3 Likes
Definitely top 5, their castle age is very strong
3 Likes
Britons are very far from top 5 Arabia.
This is where they are:
They are actually the 7th worst Arabia civ.
Funny fact, almost all of the worst faring civ in Arabia, are Archer civs, which dismantles the “Archers OP” meme.
1 Like
Well, as explained plenty of times, these data mean nothing like this.
Their play rate, which is way more relevant, is very large. Very close to top 5.
I am pretty sure that every decent player agrees that Britons are a very powerful arabia civ…
1 Like
Tbh arabia is not suited for archer civs, so I don’t wonder about this statistics.
Also lieryy prefers to play cav civs in arabia, which should tell you anything.
Also britons are played more often in many other maps than arabia, it is not a mapm where they excel. Much better in maps where the terrain is better to abuse their range.
1 Like
The data does actually mean a lot, specially when it is constantly being expanded by more and more games.
Time to face it, most people have no idea of balance, Arabia should never be the standard of balance, and Archers are not OP, nor are Britons a “S Tier” civ.
True, it is actually dominated by Cavalry and Infantry civs, because the map is so open, Melee gets a chance to shine.
True, but the question is if they were strong in Arabia, and other playeers said they are Top 5, when they are actually Bottom 7th.
1 Like
I think many poeple think britons are op because spiffing brit said it…
I had to laugh so many times during his video…
and of all civs to be op he chose britons :DDD
but of course he chose a map they actually can shine if you don’t pressure them.
1 Like
No, it was a meme for a long time, ever since the game launched, really.
Britons are legitemately OP in Black Forest, where they can shoot you down from behind a whole forest.
In Arabia? They just get run down by Cav. 3 out of 5 Top Arabia civs have Paladin, even the bad Paladins (Celts and Byzantines).
Fast Infantry, Siege Archers and Paladins dominate Arabia, not Archers.
1 Like