So how are the new Civs?

How are the two new civs? Any pros and cons?

Georgians have a weak early economy, with 50 less food, but they can easily snowball with self-healing cavalry that takes up less pop space, as well as stronger towers with piercing arrows (spamming these is a lot of fun). Great scout rush, and a great tower rush if you can find a hill to build on. Also a great overall economy.

The Armenians, on the other hand, are much better with lategame aggression, as they have basically no useful military bonuses on land maps except for Pikes and Halberdiers an age early. If they’re attacked early, it will be hard for them to defend, but if you wait to attack them, they become practically unstoppable.

1 Like

Armenians I am finding have got a pretty “weak” army. No real “power unit” to speak of, more that they feel like they are supposed to be more dangerous earlier due to them getting infantry lines earlier.

Composite Bowman feels kinda situational, and easy to circumvent for an opponent.


That’s true in theory. Unfortunately, the devs don’t realize just how weak swordsmen are, so even when players get them an age early, they’re still not useful until Fereters arrives. As a result, they’re much more of a late-game powerhouse than the Georgians, which means they’ll probably be dismally bad on open maps.

1 Like

Exactly, I played them vs Portuguese on Arena and I’m literally clueless what to go for. Everything would die to organ gun + bbc except monks with machine gun micro :rofl:

I won’t say it’s weak. It could be handicapping if you don’t force drop in time. But free mule cart means net +50 resources compared to other civs. And you can skip wood completely in Dark Age.

1 Like

tbf, there are very few civs that can compete with portuguese on arena. it’s saying less about the armenians than it is about the portoguese