Just thought this was an interesting point from the video: Teutons have a better eco bonus than Indians.
I don’t really trust any of the other conclusions because SotL doesn’t take into account the difference in when you click up, but the maths for Indians & Teutons checks out.
If you’re going for cavalry you’re likely to have at least half your vills on farms any point after early Feudal, so Teutons save more resources.
In addition the Teuton bonus helps when reseeding farms, and gives some extra flexibility by making it less bad to delay Horse Collar.
Assuming teutons have a better eco bonus because it saves more resources when they are at different times and have different effects is just non comparable.
For example, at minute 23 in our extensive 3TC boom testing, Malay have more total resources collected than Vikings INCLUDING 725 resources being added for the viking economy bonus. There are quite a few civs with higher resources saved than the civs with better booms by resources gathered in both 3 and 4tc tests, for example we have civs like huns and even teutons being beaten by Chinese and Indians due to their faster ups due to their eco bonuses and more villagers earlier.
Yeah but keep in mind the cost of the units, camels are cheaper both food and gold, so less villagers in certain resources or more production with the same vills, so unless you are booming no rush 45 mins, indians boom is superior by simply being faster.
He did great to calculate a case that did not exist. Which was one assuming that no civ could up faster due to their bonus (giving them +2 villagers working early on per villager faster for 3tc, 3 for 4tc), and entirely based on a couple of rogue games from a couple of players. Especially saying that a 16x player cant do a 26+2 fast castle, that was fully insulting to Marv (or merv as SOTL spelled his name in the video)
He’s greatly underestimating Khmer, Ethiopians (on Arena), and any other civ that can get a fastfast castle, but I’d expect the comparison between Teutons and Indians to be approximately accurate.
“If every civ uses the same build order, these are the best ones” is what this video is claiming. That’s what should immediately tell you that it’s garbage. SOTL makes neat, nerdy videos, but neat and nerdy do not mean realistic or even correct, as this piece of trash makes glaringly obvious.
If every civ always has a free 4 TC boom and only makes Villagers while booming, then these are the best civs for booming is what I’m taking away from the video. I won’t dispute the math. But I doubt free 4 TC booms without military is commonly applicable, even on Arena. How economy bonuses affect both economy and military growth is the more realistic booming analysis, I think. But even then there’s no way to universally generalize such an analysis due to ideal military compositions and economy bonuses changing how this-or-that civ balances a booming economy. Maybe a generalization built on civilization type, but that’s the limit.
I mean his videos are always wrong because they are based on no real game scenarios, he tends to compare units without any kind of micro not even IA micro or patrol, hence his stats are only in paper or situations that are less likely to happen human vs human with a good understanding of the game.
Any civ can boom, what makes them special is how fast and effectively they are while doing so, in this case indians get cheap villagers and better army composition at early imperial, while the teutons need more time to get all their powerful units and techs, so that reduces any economy lead they could get by saving all that wood in practical games, unless you are trying to make a contest on who can get more food at certain minute their boom is inferior.
Maybe now after the nerf on indians they can shine again in team games, but sadly for 1x1 the lack of speed and ranged units prevents them to be a top tier civ.
