Spiffing brit actually chose highland, but it’s also one of the best britons maps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msr27PwObVM
watch it, it’s so funny what he says, almost every word you have to laugh about 
1 Like
This stat thing is really getting to some people head. Britons are an excellent arabia civ, ask any decent elo player or any pros and they’ll tell you the same thing
1 Like
I really don’t get it why are we keeping this?
If this didn’t get concluded during 3 months, it never will
4 Likes
Dude, out of all those civ only Mayans and Aztecs are truly arabia powerhouse.
Celts are strong, yes, but those stats represent almost only Hoang 11. Furthermore, they are not a mobile civ, even tho you seem to think otherwise.
Byz are not even close to being one of the best civ in arabia, they are more like a B tier.
Teutons are really good, but once again we are talking about a civ which is not exactly known for his mobility, even tho they have strong kts. Once again, not a top tier civ.
The strongest arabia civ atm are Aztecs, Chinese and Mayans followed closely by other civs like vikings (who in your stats are not even mentioned btw, just like Chinese) and Britons.
After what you wrote you are not exactly in the position to say something like that 11
1 Like
Well, we are trying to say the larger the win rate, the stronger the civ. This may seem intuitive, but it clearly fails in describing the reality. Vietnamese are not the worst civ in arabia and britons are a top pick in all the tournaments. The results of the model win rate = strength do show things that are not true.
I said somewhere else that play rate is more useful since people pick a civ to try to win. The lowest pick rate is definitely for Turks, which are considered the worst arabia civ. The second worst win rate is for Italians, which are extremely bad.
There is also mathematical evidence why win rates cannot be indicative of the strength of a civ. I do not want to annoy anyone with computations, but pick just this intuitive hint
If britons play 100 games, they will face a lot of times Aztecs and Mayans (large play rate) and very few times Italians and Turks. Clearly this implies less victories for Britons since Aztecs and Mayans are much stronger than Italians and Turks.
If Britons played uniformly vs Aztecs, Mayans, Turks, and Italians, they would face Italians and Turks more often (hence more victories) having a better win rate.
Another intuition I can give you without computation is this. If one civ is infinitely OP (say, it starts with 10 cobra cars), everyone would pick it since it is impossible to win otherwise.
The result is that such a civ has a play rate close to 100% but win rate at 50% since all the games are mirror…
2 Likes
Guess we should balance the game around Hoang, then.
Clearly works and he knows what he is doing.
Woad Raiders.
Overly-efficient Trash and a great UU, with Arbalests.
You do not need mobility when your one-punch just breaks through.
Sure man, that’s why we see him top 8 in every tournament
Don’t get me wrong, Hoang is a good player, but time to face the reality: he is not that good, otherwise you would see him in tournaments.
I’d go with the opinions of the actual best player who do not agree with your statements.
Hell, even by saying that “paladins dominate arabia” you show you know little about the map, since in close game at a decent level no one would ever consider them since the upgrade costs too much, takes too much time and the resources are limited considering you have to make loads of units during the other ages. They’re seen here and there, but usually it’s in game they’ve already almost won
He knows only that strategy, he doesn’t even know attack grounds and how to patrol
That is all he needs.
Just goes to show you how the game is really meant to be played.
that’s actually not true, just the possibility to go for paladin is a big advantage, it forces your opponent to get aggressive and trade even if he doesn’t gets the best one. That’s how these games get decided often.
Youre right paladin comes in not very often, but if it comes, it’s most of the time saying “game over” to the opponent.
1 Like
With the resources of the paladin upgrade you may win the game using different units…
… which normally are not used in 1v1 arabia since the thing the celts usually spends gold on is siege. They usually go halbs + siege, go have a look at how pros use them. They are amazing if they manage to have a forward to push, otherwise they have a awkard transition from xbow to halbs-siege. Great ara civ, but not S tier.
Good trash? Yeah. Cata? They never see play in ara 1v1, they cost too much and they require a castle. Arbs? Yeah. Out of your three point two remain, but you have to consider that their eco is really bad. Just this make them an average civ at best.
Ask the pros if they are a S tier arabia civ, you’ll see that the answer will not be different from mine
It’s not like usually other civ attacks too dude, then you to run around trying to take fights, that is if they do not already have a big ball of xbows. Really strong civ, not S tier.
If in a game you have the time and the res to research paladins it means you had already a very, very strong lead. Pala upgrade in arabia cost way too much, if the game is close you are not spending res in unit you have to replenish.
That doesn’t show anything. If it was like that we’d see hoang rush left and right from pros in tournaments, yet he is the only one doing that strat and notnpassing even the qualifiers
3 Likes
We will see this in KOTD. Catas were used by Hera against DauT in a tournament hosted by Mario Ovalle. Overall they are a mid tier civ, arguably upper mid tier
I totally agree, they are below S-tier (same with Khmer, etc.) because they have bad knights+xbows and you can’t upgrade them in imp
No that isn’t the reason. But we aren’t supposed to discuss why he isn’t replying
I think i have replied to all of your points. And just because you aren’t convinced, it doesn’t mean everybody views the same as you do.
Their bonus is op, and you can deny all you want but that is the case given all the benefits Archer have recieved in DE, including a little bit of more range(tested by someone on reddit from aoc userpatch). People don’t win all the time because they don’t know how to play them and especially, there are other factors too in matchmaking (blatantly, your speed for example)
1 Like
Have you played them yet?
6 Likes
I think it’s the mistake many players generally make, they just see the benefits, but not the downsides.
As Britons, you have almost no chance to have a comeback in the game. Once your behind, your lost, because your defense just sucks.
As Britons you have the tools to play the map and deny many things your opponent does, but you HAVE TO, otherwise your opponent just gets a better composition, because your composition is very cheap, but not the strongest.
Thats just some points, why britons are not as strong in reality as they may look.
I think even pros often think they are better than they really are, because see just seem to fit everything they want for a civ. When britons are actually played in pro they often not hold their promises.
1 Like
Some games. But, as always, not what my suggestion is based from.
???
How can you say they are high-tier or even op if you have almost no experience with them?
And are we allowed to ask where your opinion is coming from? Please don’t tell me “Because viper says so”.
Just try them a few times against other players in arabia. Then you will come to the same cnclusion as us.
1 Like
From watching streams of high level and testing. I am lacking in speed/apm/micro to play perfectly britons.