Time to check the stats

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

Since it has been nearly 20 days, the stats should have been settled by now. I will try to make the content more objective. If you like it, please like the content. My opinions would in the next comment though.

Dev’s idea of balance (official): 45 to 55% winrate
Dev’s idea of balance (unofficial): 47 to 53% winrate + suggestions by pros

So by that regard, I won’t be saying anything about 47 to 53% civs in this post. So let us start:

1vs1 Overall:
Franks: 53.3
Portuguese: 46.91 (marginally)
Byzantines: 46.7
Spanish: 46.55
Tatars: 46.15
Vietnamese: 46.04
Malay: 45.93
Cumans: 45.78
Burmese: 45.69
Saracens: 45.3

Team Games overall:
Burmese: 46.78
Byzantines: 45.83

1vs1 Pro:

  1. Mayans, Huns, Chinese, Indians (marginally) (all > 53)
  2. Portuguese (marginally), Burmese, Persians, Saracens, Byzantines (45 < all < 47)
  3. Turks (44.38), Sicilians (41.46), Cumans (40.97)

1vs1 Arabia Pro:
0. Mayans (55.27)

  1. Incas, Huns, Chinese, Indians (55 > all > 53)
  2. Lithuanians (?) (45.7)
  3. Saracens, Byzantines, Sicilians, Portuguese, Malay (43 < all < 45)
  4. Turks, Cumans (all < 43)

1vs1 Arabia:

  1. Franks, Indians, Bulgarians (marginally) (all > 53)
  2. Turks, Byzantines, Vietnamese, Sicilians, Tatars, Saracens, Cumans, Koreans, Spanish (45 < all < 47)
  3. Italians, Burmese, Portuguese, Malay (all < 45)

Some people say that we should only consider pro records, but I have 2 points:

  1. They mostly play with random civs, so sometimes there is an unusual civ given to them on a non-Arabia map
  2. The sample size is quite low to figure out something. As you can see Lithuanians are underpowered in one of the lists.

So looking at all these lists, which civs do you think should be buffed/nerfed?

2

None of them go below 45% or surpasses 55% winrates, so none need to be buffed or nerfed.
This is actually the most balanced this game has ever been.

2 Likes
3

My opinions are giving huge changes to Mayans, Cumans, Saracens, Turks and Burmese, while small changes to Malay, Spanish, Portuguese, Sicilians.

My thoughts on changes themselves:

  1. Mayans: resources last 12% longer (reduced from 15%). I know it isn’t huge.

  2. Cumans: a huge topic in its own right. But say Age-up can be researched at Mill, so that TC never becomes Idle. Removed Feudal Age TC.

  3. Turks: Cavalry Archers have 90% accuracy naturally. Chemistry available in Castle Age, but is free only in Imperial Age (attack boost for Crossbowmen/CA if you need it desparately; optional)

  4. Burmese: Starting in the Castle Age, Lumberjacks do not need Lumbercamps/TCs to drop off wood but work 5-10% slower. This synergises with free Lumber upgrades, especially 2 Man Saw which is an expensive but rather weak upgrade.

  5. Saracens: Zealotry moved to Castle Age. Madrasah moved to Imperial Age. Madrasah now makes Archery Ranges work 60% faster. (I don’t know if it would be enough).

  6. Goths (I know this isn’t on the list): Extra population space works since Dark Age (minor, chill)

  7. Malay: Gain Champion. Forced Levy effect changed. It unlocks Malay Warrior (generic name) which is a reskin of 2HS Swordsman (some reduced attack bonus vs Eagles) which costs 60F at the Barracks. The idea is to let them have a unit which can overrun the enemy when having gold.

  8. Sicilians: Farm bonus changed. Farms provide +50F every age starting in Dark Age. So it is not locked behind those mill techs. It is an early game buff.

  9. Byzantines: Imperial Age discount extended to 35% (from 33%).

4

Oh really?

Should have checked these stats.

5

Portuguese are at 46%, only Cumans Turks and Sicilians are below 45%, and there is not much you can d for them, they have all been buffed recently.

Mayans cannot be nerfed further without breaking the civ either.

The game is balanced.

6

Excuse me? What was the last buff?

7

Steppe Lancer cost buff.

8

Burmese, Cumans, Sicilians are underpowered.

Korean War Wagon is overpowered but the civ is underpowered in general.

Spanish and Turks need only very minor buffs.

Goths and possibly Indians need rebalance.

Turks only need Gunpowder buffs in the lategame.

Burmese have good economy, they just need the 2nd Archer Armor

Saracens need Memeluke tweak and Madrasah buff but definitely not 60% faster working Archery Ranges

I think this civ needs a rebalance

Malay are a strong civ

Underpowered

Byzantines only need minor tweaks, do not touch the Age-up bonus or the Trash bonus.

They are still useless.

1 Like
9

Arambai needs more nerfs for sure, But according to a skilled player, Burmese are far from being the worst civ.
image
image

Also lacking two armor upgrades for their archers is their identity

2 Likes
10

if people pick the same civs every single teamgame (because position-picking turns aoe2 into a shallow scenario), the winrates will be 50% because of all the mirrors

if you want to use stats to inform power levels, check the pick rate / play rate

11

Stats are fun to look at, not much else. Especially given:

  1. the wide variety of maps that are being totally written out of the overall balance picture in favor of Arabia and Arena, which is going to favor very specific civs and compositions in terms of winrate.

  2. the more specific, play-around bonuses that require some preplanning to take advantage of will not be used maximally, meaning civs like Malay will always be underperforming in a general case.

as far as your winrate comparisons are concerned, I’d only consider lightly adjusting two civs in the entire list and neither of them are the Franks.

If it’s not a nerf you’re wrong. This civ is currently busted.

2 Likes
12

That’s 20 food and 16 gold… I’d say you don’t even notice that in Castle Age.
In another thread I suggested that they should have +25 of each resource at the start of the game. That would help them with their weak early game and strengthen their identity of a defensive civ.
What do you think about that?