Teutons are NOT underpowered

Just look at some high level games and what people pick in touraments.

Great monks, great halbs and great siege. What more you need on arena vs arambai.

On arena they dont struggle at all vs ca or mobility at all. That purey applies to open maps. Halb siege onager and every cav/ca civ dies pretty hard.

Teutons have very little bad matchups on arena. The only real one is britons as SO can’t really be used here. They also can struggle against mongols but if you play smart and don’t let them get to 50 mangudai they still do fine.

Give Lithuanians +2 attack on their town centers on top of the +3 range

They don’t need buffs and there is no reason to change it just so you can have your personal pet change

Furthermore I fundamentally like how teutons knights work. They trade a clear weakness (speed) for two fundamental strengths (armor and resistance)


Fair enough, tho I think they’re great as an infantry/siege/defensive architecture civ

That’s going to be a very small sample size. Pro tournament games where Teutons played against one of these specific civs in arena.

I actually did find one though, in Masters of Arena 6, Running vs Babaorum, Teutons lost to Burmese. No idea if Arambai were involved, I have not watched it yet. Seems very likely though, since Teutons hard counter Burmese Elephants and Champions, and soft counter their monks with conversion resistance.

In Masters of Arena 5 there was one game between DraCoNT and ACCM where Teutons beat Britons. I don’t see any other pro tournament games between those civs, and I feel like these single game results are misleading because I agree Britons are favored here. I also agree that Teutons struggle vs Mongols because Mangudai are so great against their Siege, Knights, and TK’s, while avoiding the Teuton Halberdiers pretty effectively.

Well it doesn’t always have to be that specific matchup. Like teutons vs huns is kinda representive for ca/cav civs. Sure some similar civs might do a bit better here than huns but in the end teutons have the perfect army against these kinds of compositions on closed maps.

Pretty sure there was no arambai at all in moa6. Iirc that match was monks vs monks and baba pulled it off vs teuton surprisingly enough

You’re right. He went Burmese Monks against Teuton Monks. I can’t believe that worked, what a strange game 11

I went to check MOA6. Unfortunately there are only 3 games in Teutons are actually played and they lost 2 of them, but the player skill here affects a lot (like tatoh got destroyed by Vinchester by Frank tower rush)

  • The ranking is based on generic ranking, so Vietnamese are better than Teutons as they can handle other civs (archer civs) better than Teutons, not the specific matchup

  • Teutons are banned pretty often, so they are absolutely not weak, but not sure are they top 3 potential. They die way too hard to range units imo, to the point that if I want to pick a civ on ladder to win I don’t really want Teutons.

  • I actually forgot about Turks…

  • Cumans are probably worse than Teutons now I think, you may be correct on this one

+2 Melee Armor on Infantry is a joke, completely turn their Unique Unit into ever more of an absurd niche pick. But I guess they love the harmony of civ having multiple similar units. Great.

Teutons have no balance issues per se, but design issues.

  • They have 6 bonuses, but of which only two really matter in general. The farm discount and the extra melee armour on basically half the techtree. The free herbal medicine and murderholes have good identity but are situational, same for more garrision space in towers and tcs which could be summarized in one bonus tbf. But longer healing range for monks doesnt really work at all, cause when would this bonus be used in a way it shapes your strategy. Now compare this to britons and franks who have 3 or 4 bonuses and all of them are really strong and strategically relevant which makes them so strong as they even benefit so much from each other they form a deathball strategy.

  • The melee armour bonus is also not really nice design wise. It just mirrors the gimmick of the UU and spreads it on all units teutons make aside siege but they get iron clad. And it does balance the lack of husbandry for sure, but only vs other melee units that dont do bonus damage. Against archers they still suffer. Instead of covering a different weakness that the UU leaves open.

  • Teutonic Knights have no use. Not only because against other champs you can simply do your own champs with more MA but also because a unit that is that expensive, needs castles and is slow af, will still die to archers hard. Against stable units, you go trash halbs, against barracks units you go your champs, against anything else you dont do TK anyhow. It is just a meme unit. They would need something of an effect that is outside the sphere of base stats, just like tarkans have bonus damage vs buildings and high PA.

  • They dont really form a consistent identity. Which comes from the weirdly design composition of bonuses, UTs and UU. Seems like really Teutons bonus sheet is just under construction and waits to be cleaned up again. If you remove all the overlap and the unused aspect of infantry adding arrows of crenellations teutons would look like this.

1 Like

Well first off note that moa6 was played on a different arena map, namely clown arena. It’s an an arena map ofc but there is very little space between the bases so the meta shiftet significantly. Normally on arena you see halb siege or UU quite a lot but as on own clown arena your defensive castle basically is a forward one most games featured early imp arb and bbc push. So compared to regular arena archers were used a lot more frequently. A lot og the games actually were decided by who won the bbc dodgeball. On the flipside expensive compositions as teutons one fall somewhat off here.

What I said above is also the reason why vietnamese was so frequently picked here. Vietnamese is a solid arena civ but it’s not a top one. Maybe you can argue that they are on clown arena but not on regular. Teutons is for sure better here and I also don’t see how they struggle against archer civs. Halb SO or even halb onager (or champs instead of onager if your opponent has an infantry archer civ) is the perfect counter here. If your opponent makes bbc you get your own and eventually you can make crenellations. Sure Britons is a different topic as they outrange siege but apart from that every archer civ usually dies to that.Maybe Ethiopians have their shot here but but still I’d favor Teutons in this one bc of better infantry and the cav option (always a nice element of surprise).

MOA6 is unfortunately the only arena tournamnet I have remembered so far (recently). I have saw other Regicide maps but I dont recall seeing Teutons often either. Any tournament example for Teutons for me to refresh?

Well I don’t know by heart but I bet in last lord of the arena for instance there was a lot if teutons (if they werent banned all the time). Also you can see showmatches, there has been a lot recently. For instance one of the top arena players modri bascially matched up vs most of the regular top players (hera, lierrey, yo, daut, …) and he usually tends to play teutons a lot.

The Huns actually came from a showmatch example where it was a weird pick but works… but I forget who played. I think Yo is pretty bad at Arena tho 11

Your SO+halb option may work, maybe I ranked Teutons lower because I always pick Britons in Arena and destroy Teutons with fast imp +range archers. But I can imagine all other archer civ suffer from SO.

The garrison bonus is quite handy in a variety of ways when dealing with raids. It is true that if the opponent does not raid you, you only get piece of mind from it, but the same could be said of the Roman building HP bonus.

WOW MAN… its like you are a typing contradiction… you say small sample size is bad, then literally pick ONE person’s opinion

you disagree on stats and say you have a degree in something that is literally governed by numbers, and then pick answers deemed right or wrong by your own awe inspiring mind… well done. im glad you came an corrected everyone here…

maybe L2P before you go around correcting people… archers have power spikes, skirms nail your eco and cant apply aggression, mangos counter scorps (you said they counter archers) and the list goes on and on…

missing husbandry is a huge handicap v archer civs, teutons have less on open maps (relative to other civs) to combat archer civs…

example: even magyar free attack upgrades helps them fight archers (trying to pick one of the less obvious advantages) nevermind franks or berbers simply being able to churn out more kts to apply pressure on the power spiking archer player…

1 Like

i completely agreee with everything else, but your conclusion took a hard left turn…

teutons have a very clear identity, but that doesnt necessarily mean they are a strong civ…

their identity is slow, melee tanky unit, which you admitted to. they have the highest armoured unit in the game, highest melee armour siege, general infantry and cav… that is a very clear identity…

i feel like this kind of stuff is the garnish they spread on a meal, it doesnt do jack, people usually throw it away, its just there to make something look more aesthetic…

the balance team is possibly either fairly lazy or overworked… trying to balance things around meta units, then generic units and finally UUs… (adding and removing paladins for balance, nerfing the entire elephant line instead of fixing broken khmer, when it was broken, removing blast furnace from lith instead of a more creative change, not touching LS + supplies for 20 months)

Being slow high melee armour is no identity. Its comical. Britons also dont have more range on their knights, Goths dont have more PA on their champs etc. Identity is what irl feeling they give you. Its more than just having one stat buff spread like butter over too much bread. Like Teutons should have crusader wars and Hanseatic Trading identity. Monks that strive for relics, units that come and take your land and build a castle on it. This is identity, just how Nightelves in wc3 are close to nature, and undeads raise skeltons. The more melee armour is just the gimmick of the UU doenst mean it can work as identity of the whole civ, because such a redundance just makes civ wins or losses more likely and is in general no design but just lazy balancing without vision or love for the civ.

And yes, I consider Free Murderholes and Herbalmedicine ok, but more garrision space as two different bonuses and on top of free herbal medicine monk range just feels not to add anything.


So, are you asserting that a small sample size isn’t bad, or are you just ragging on him for making an appeal to authority after dismissing his dismissal of a bad statistical analysis?

As opposed to…? Just taking the data at face value and making changes based off everything it says without any rational, incisive thought on the subject?

“If you torture the data enough, it’ll confess to anything.”

You do realize he’s expressly speaking about Arena in the specific post you quoted, yes? Archers really do very poor in the long term on Arena and you really need to have a powerhouse archer civ to do much with them in the short term or the long term. Skirms are a terrible idea on Arena 99.999% of the time because Scouts/LC/Knights to snipe siege/monks and secure relics are so important.

Okay, yeah, so you didn’t read that he was talking about Arena. Oof. I’d go over the “examples” you listed as all the civs you like better in the archer v scout/kt matchup, but I think it’s pretty clear you missed the mark here.

1 Like

Agree as well depending of the matchup, there are else very very good or else very very bad.
gl for playing teutons vs huns or tatars and gl for playing franks or heavy oriented melee civ vs teutons.
Too many bonuses which are not interesting and uu which was used to be very situational but since the added armor on infantry and supplies now tk are just completly useless.

As for arena, they are fine but they aren’t for open map.