True, although killing boars is not that easy with scouts early, denying hunts are still really important vs them cause every 100 gold you deny slows down their castle time by a bit since it’s largely gated by how many times they have to buy gold (which is usually gated by cooldown of the golden gate). The issue is even if you slow them down, civs like Delhi still struggle vs the horse archer timing.
you misspelled “eco”. not that a mongols know anything about the hindrance of making a scout from a TC when 1) they can make just once 2xvills with stone to compensate 2) can make a stable dark age to make scout without involving the TC.
Granted i don’t know much about the timing to do the stable but if i don’t mistaken there is a BO to make an early stable + some scout and raid your oppenent so it would mean that the counter for mongols to the rus is already integrated within the civ itself.
SO about mongols…they got everything for themself like Rus. Money ? they got it. Early and easy aggression ? they got it. +50% gold !!! they got it god damit ! Unit spam ? they can =D
Easy multiple TC ? they got freakin it ! X’D
I know it’s a different question than the actual topic but in the other hands you got civs that struggle to just do generic stuff properly. Others that can do just one or two things slightly better than generics stuff. It’s not about feelings we are talking about. It’s mathematical. The asymetry could lure in both way if those civ was just slightly better than others. But as you can see by the played rate Mongols/Rus are way stronger. Because they got every aspect of the game right for not much effort (…compared to the benefit).
true about every aspect
Although don’t forget that
If you convert the ressources gathered by vills with the golden gate
– And i’ll assume it by calculating with the wood camp without the outpost near it to be the less efficient possible –
3 civ you got 20% more worth of ressource gathered. meaning if you gather wood with 3 dark age wills to convert it on gold you have a 20% gathering advantage on your oppenent. Virtually 20% faster granted you have to wait 2 minute to get those gold back (the one that you lost because of the deer) but it is still better than what your oppenent is able to do even in a scenario where Delhi got free AND instantaneous mining tech. I don’t think it’s that bad for the Rus…or i miss something ?
Mongol players will generally never double produce villagers using Ovoo stone as it’s too expensive for 1 extra villager.
They can make an early stable ofc though to get 2x scouts out.
Not sure what this all means to be honest. They got money?
Early aggression due to Ovoo 2x unit production, yes.
+50% gold? You mean Steppe Redoubt Castle Age landmark? Yes, it’s a good landmark, not the best necessarily though.
Easy multiple TC? Why is it easier for Mongols? Most Mongol games I see go off of 1 TC.
Personally I think Mongols are strong but not by any huge margin.
You can see the winrates of the top 1000 players in 1v1 here:
It actually shows the game is fairly well balanced in terms of civs. The pick rates of the civs will skew those results somewhat though. Doing stuff like fixing Delhi bugs and Rus Horse Archer bugged attack rate will help even more overall.
1 Like
obviously if the Mongols are broken too xD
Mongols and Russians are the strongest civilizations at the moment
your picture just show that most of the time Mongols are balanced compared to Rus and Chinese. There is a huge margin between top 3 civs and low 3 civs. i don’t know where you get that picture either nor if top 1000 player is relevant.
“Money” is gold ! haha ^^’
2 vills to avoid getting behind in vills number against the rus thanks to the ovoo. What’s the better to do for mongols against the rus ? I don’t really know since i don’t play mongols.
But in any case you didn’t denied the possibility to make scout with a stable being a valid answer against Rus’s scouts so i assume it’s valid ? Meaning the second vills for stone doesn’t matter i guess.
Edit: i often saw within LoL community people make the mistake to solely look at the winrate. it’s not that simple. you have to consider the pickrate as well and even further have to consider what is the skill level of players picking the less used character/faction. Because it will tremendously impact the winrate
Where did the chart come from??
Someone extracted and posted the details on reddit AOE IV. Why would the top 1000 not be relevant to a balance discussion? Below that you’re not losing due to civ choice or balance, you’re losing due to eco inefficiencies, mistakes, suboptimal decision making, etc. And I say that as someone who loses because of those things too 
There are too few games unless the data is just from a small window in time like a Saturday afternoon from 5pm to 7pm. I play on my off day 30 games a day EZZ. You telling me 1000 players only played on avg only 17 games each??
All bugs need to be addressed first THEN the only 2 nerfs I would suggest until we figure out what a bugless meta looks like is nerf the scouts HP to 70 HP and slow down seige units with currently higher than 1 tile/s (1.25 tiles/s should be the highest speed for any seige in the game IMO).
the scout is just to versatile for its cheap cheap cost. Scouts see all have a decent speed can kill solo villagers has high fire dmg regardless the animation cancel, has high base hp to tanking given its cost.
It’s a snapchat from a 1 week period earlier this month.
The matchmaking tries to even things out by elo, even in the top 1000. The pick rate is the most interesting factor here imo, since it shows that Mongols and Rus get picked way more than any other civ. The players who mainly play these civs, would maybe not end up in the top 1000 without the civ being strong.
For me it shows that their matchmaking is working good, rather than all civs are balanced 
There is still a big difference between a top 50 and top 500 player
1 Like
Ok you lost me at “someone”.
HA ! i can return your question aswell ! ^^
Why would it be ? why not top 500 ? or top 3000 ? or top 10 ?
see ? just like that ! lol
the amount of player and the range of their skill can change tremendeously the amount of winrate and pickrate. That’s why it’s important to know why you bick that number and why starting to the top.
But once again you lost me at “someone” anyway…
Might as well just remove the other 6 civs and leave mongols and rus cause ladder is just those two anyway
Here another SS from one of my games.
I think Devs should nerf HRE instead of RUS 
and buff English more maybe even nerf horseman which was the only thing to counter english longbow rush.
Mehhhh from the first month it’s gotten out of hands. I don’t see future of the game so bright from
now on. They were still talking about HRE nerf when people are asking for buff. So many things unbalanced and bugged. They need to focus on community instead of their own ideas. They already made things worst in my oppinion…
You were lost way before “someone.”
One thing to note in that Viper game was he outplayed the Rus pretty heavily in feudal keeping their bounty down to 260 which delayed the Rus castle noticeably and it still was a very difficult game.
At least the devs said they had improvements for landsknecht in the works which I’m hyped for. (that said English is considered a bottom 4 civ by many pros on most maps right now)
It is one thing that civilization is attractive to play and another that there is no nerf in this game. Mongols, some bonus from the Rus, the Chinese artillery and I would dare say that the production speed of the French villagers must be nerfed. HRE has to improve the balance of its Landmarks.
If you want to buff something, there are useless Landmarks and civs that need to be fixed.
Perhaps, from the dev stream though the goal is to bring the other civs up to the power level of the Mongols instead of nerfing them, so while there might be some small nerfs, I expect the Spring patch to be like 80% buffs.