The dude that assesed winrates updated the charts

last updated: 5 march


Very interesting.
So in the first places we see a lot of knight civs, anti-knight civs (Indians + Celts) and Meso Civs (Inca + Mayans).

*and the new Civs are obviously not “OP” or “broken” as so many in this forum complaint about…


Whatever happened to aoestats? They stopped updating their database about a month ago.


As far as I remember they update periodically and the website is managed by one person. Perhaps he just didn’t get to it yet because of real life stuff…

1 Like

thanks for sharing this…

also BIG LOL at these forum know it alls… again im proven right… cav dominance in the ladder. outliers are incan trush and hoang civ.

new civs are OP?!? BIG LOL… also yet again confirming how bad italians and malay are… like how many times does it need to be proven? if malay are consistently winning any match its because its some weird map, they are garbage on arabia and players know it …

eagle warriors!! how many months ago did i say they are more than good enough replacement for cav? somehow these poor mesos with their lack of cav are still winning… shame poor civs without cav…

like this stats guy literally went out and confirmed almost everything ive been saying…

because i know stats arent everything, and ive seen it myself and ill admit it… i have about a 80% win rate with spanish even though im at the highest elo ive been, so i know a low global winrate doesnt mean the civ can not win, it just means it is much harder to win with that civ. the same applies to garbage like malay. you can win with them, but either through abuse or simply playing better, as opposed to britons where you can be considerably worse than your opponent and still win


One thing I like about these charts as the winrates according to elo.

For instance, Vietnamese in that charts seems to be very balanced at very high elos, but struggle a lot in mid-low elos.

Thus, a minimal buff to vietnamese could make them more enjoyable for peasants, but OP for pro players. Beware what do you wish for.

Contrarily, other civs have bad winrates across all elos. We should focus to buff them first.

Arena is a weird map? Islands is a weird map? 4 lakes is a weird map?

Non every civ needs to shine on arabia, and malay are actually decent even there if used properly (which is really hard to do because you need to adapt BO to the faster age up). They are like chinese, civ with insane potential due to their eco but that very few people can use correcty. The difference is that chinese option are geared towards open land maps, while malay’s are towards closed/water maps.

And I strongly disagree with the approach of buffing “difficult” civs (malay, chinese, byzantines, vietnamese, even italians I’d say) to get them more accessible at mid/low level. Just stop complaining and go grind some BOs 11.

1 Like

Hey he included the elo weighted plots and that statistic part anylising the effect of tech/units availability on winrate that I suggested on reddit to him. Guess that didn’t work out well.

It’s not like 9 out of the 10 “bottom” civs can go knights just fine. Not like two of them literally have paladins with a bonus.

Given how the “Frank nerf didn’t work” post is getting so much traction on Reddit despite, you know, Aoestats warning its visitors it’s not updated yet, it should be pretty obvious people just don’t care. They probs read old topics about old Vietnamese and assume it’s a bad civ, and conclude it’s not worth trying too much with them.

Anyway I still don’t trust these stats the slightest. No one is going to make me believe that Tatars are as strong as Spanish on Arabia (because let’s be real this is 100% Arabia biased). Also look at those huge swings. Suddenly Goths aren’t in the top anymore (not that them being in the top on Aoestats meant anything lol)

1 Like

That is because Tatars is not an easy civ to play. extra sheep means you have to adapt your build order, and CA is also very micro-intensive unit (same as Conqs, but Spanish can also go Knight-Paladin).
Somehow, I see modest increase of Tatars winrate in highest winrate, but Spanish struggle in all elo.

They already dropped from Top5 after dark age nerf (have to cost 50 gold in Dark age) in the anniversary patch. Gunpowder accuracy buff in the last patch probably hurts Goths more.


I have seen Tatars being picked more often then Spanish in the Hidden Cup 4 qualifiers.
It all depends on playstyle and skill level.

I also think that Spanish are easier to play at an average skill level. Tatars are still the preferred civ in many Pro games though…

1 Like

Adapting the build order, as in, by making it easier? More sheep food delays farms and thus lets you more wood to do something else in the early game. It doesn’t sound like the Chinese or Malay bonus.

Good thing Tatars have cavalier and keshiks then.

But they didn’t drop as far as this “shows”

It actually helps them. Because Goth HC are what is supposed to prevent them from losing to high quality infantry.

Oh right people forget to take the bonus sheep in castle age and we are supposed to balance around all ELO

One thing very valuable to see is that the dude made a chart to analyze the civ winrate across all ELO (including +2000).
Of course low sample size, it shows another trend we cannot see in +1650 stats in Aoestats.
Civs such as Aztecs and Khmers show drastic increase in their winrate in the highest ELO (and average winrate in most ELO), which makes sense that most pros consider them as very good civ and frequently banned/sniped in tournament. But in Aoestats, they have average winrate because Aoestats show only +1650 data.

I hope we can see accumulated data after a few months later, and we can see somewhat reliable winrate data for only high ELO.


whatevs bro… stats dont lie, i can understand china not having as high a win rate as the civ is good, but there its because its a difficult civ with very clear weaknesses, but still incredibly strong, malay lacks an eco or military bonus on arabia

im guessing you actually mean hybrids like 4 lakes… well if those maps were played more then it would make sense, but when arabia types are the overwhelming winners, and even then with hybrid and closed map factored into the equation, malay still loses…

big le, please clown, go tell that to everyone that doesnt use them, and the few who do use them, still lose with them…

yeah it was pretty cool, he seems to have gone to a lot of effort, even if it just gives us a rough idea, its still interesting to know

its sad about how the civs are classified though, which gives an even bigger warped perception (vikings being a infantry civ, but actually playing as an archer civ)

they do fall into the bottom 3rd though, and higher elo are smaller samples, meaning they can swing much quicker if there are more player wins, as opposed to civ wins. and isnt that specifically shown by the fat distribution of their wins? meaning its unreliable due to low player count? or am i reading it wrong

as opposed to celts with a high player count giving a more accurate %

but agree on this for sure

this was specifically for you, you cant see the daylight for what it is…

Berbers best civ in the game confirmed then

yes, if you look at 1 single thing then they are… but even looking at multiple factors (which is what im talking about) malay still sucks. but wtf do i care. ive been proven right over and over, i dont need to prove anything to you

Well they perform great against the civs with lower winrate. Especially if you overwhelm an archer Civ in early castle with your knight spamm it’s a quick gg.

However the matchup against the other top civs is more challenging. The have a disadvantage against Franks in the early game and really need to go for the “one TC 3 stable strat” in early castle to have a chance.

Teutons and Indians also counter them…

1 Like

whats ironic is a bunch of people here specifically said khmer is only oppressive in the lower elos where the ez farms make it easier for dumber players to manage and thus discredited the complaints against khmer…

the same applies for teutons (people here said their low speed hurts them more in higher elo games, yet thats where they are winning more)

both of these might be anomalies due to play count though

Low elo players do not treat Khmer as a strong cav civ with spectacular eco bonus. Generally Khmer is perceived as a siege/elephant civ, which is not a great meta for Arabia. At higher elos you see that high level players either play Khmer like Franks, or use some mixed strats like xbow or arbalest etc.

1 Like

i thought berbers are really flexible, in that their own camels are actually better up until imp camel, as well as their access to HCA + cheaper camel/knight(if teutons go too skirm/siege heavy) being able to fight teutons if they can drag the game into imperial, where the berbers units perform better (eg heavy camel v cav)