As the saying goes, there are 3 types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Believing that stats “don’t lie” is not only a display of poor critical thinking but will probs get you scammed someday.
“them” can be any civ in the game rofl.
Well given you also called Applauded a clown and a know it all, I think the “daylight” is that I’m not the only one who triggers you. Who would have thought not everyone wants to go on a “cav OP” crusade fueled by stat worshipping and claims that cav counters don’t work?
“Hey guys, if we ignore that maps other than Arabia exist, that we forget that most “bad” civs have bloodlines, that Cuman and Burgundian have bonused paladins, that there is more to stats than looking at a graph while only looking at the points in the middle of the funny brackets, I’m totally right”
Because high level player use them on Arena. But hey, this isn’t a real map right
It’s almost impossible to outboom a Teuton player as Berbers since you don’t have any eco boni that come close to the Teuton Eco… So you have to be very aggressive. Raiding with Camels is bad as Teutons can Garrison +10vills in their TCs (=75vills in 3TCs). They also have stronger pikes.
Berber knights lose 1v1 against knights from the Teutons. → this means the only chance you have to do significant damage to a Teuton player in the castle age is to do an very aggressive one TC push and invest everything into knight production to get an military size advantage…
No. Malay have trouble in general being part of the general pool because their eco bonus is so vividly different from the rest in how it operates. With literally any civ other than Malay a generalist plug-and-play build order will work 95% of the time. You cannot go into the game as Malay with a generic gameplan, as the quicker uptime will completely disrupt timings
Playing the Malay requires foresight and some planned adaptation beforehand and that is a massive downside in Matchmaking with the general public. They are absolutely busted in a controlled environment with players who have a gameplan for them prepared. Don’t even think about buffing them for the general populace, you will get them autobanned in Comp games.
As usual, statistics requires some amount of insight and interpretation to ascertain useful information, and seeing Malay do poorly in random map games shouldn’t surprise.
for one these winrates include 1100 elo players. of course cavalry is going to appear more dominant, its more a move friendly and requires less micro.
that said huns are a cav archer civ - berbers tend to go camel archers at higher levels, incans are a trushing civ, and celts are an archers into infantry civ. so in the top 10 we have for the knights you love so much - Berbers (sometimes), Franks, Teutons (sometimes), Bulgarians and Lithuanians.
GASP. HALF the top 10 civs are knight civs. guess you’re “Dominance” isn’t so dominant. and 2 of those are only “sometimes cavalry”.
now lets go look at how cav civs are doing in HC4 Qualifiers
as an example just using the left side first two rounds - cav civs won 27 games out of 85 games played. (and that includes Indians, who don’t use knights).
that doesn’t seem so dominant to me, especially when you consider archer civs won 41 games out of 85.
so you want to talk about stats? how do you like those stats? those stats say that the pros seem to prefer archer civs over knight civs to me.
Statistic prove once more that Portuguese are not “fine” at all which has been repeated time and time again on the forum ever since they got their minor tech speed buff that is so heavily overstated, just like the gold bonus.
The few good civs are miles away from the bad ones
Teutons cav Armer was a massive overbuff and a mistake, if this way Arena the winrate would be even worse unbalanced.
Gunpowder civs are just bad, no surprise, when will they finally buff handcannons etc.
Heavy cavalry archers strinkking so high on that hard to interpretate chart could indicate that we finally should nerf parthiwn tactics to +1/+1. They are too God fully upgraded.
How are you guys counting which one is an archer civ and which one is a Cavalry civ?
Huns can go both Cavalry Archers and Knights
Magyars can go both Crossbowmen/Arbalesters and Knights/Paladins. They can even go Heavy Cavalry Archers and Hussars/Huszars.
Vikings, an infantry civ, goes for Archers mostly.
Mongols have no problem going for Arbalesters, completely ignoring cavalry archers (not Mangudai). The only thing missing on Arbalesters is Ring Archer Armor, which doesn’t matter in early Imperial age.
The main problem with them is the nature of the mechanics. When you have single use power spikes like First Crusade and Flemish Revolution, how do you balance them? To avoid being OP when those techs are researched, the civs must be made worse at all other times. The player must be behind when the tech is researched, or it’s OP. If the power spike from the tech is only enough to bring the player back to level, then once the armies have traded against each other, the player has lost their single use spike and is only left with the civ being worse, so they will gradually lose. So the problem is that the nature of the single use mechanics leads to civs inevitably being either OP or useless, with them predictably being nerfed into uselessness as the lesser of the two evils.