Updated civ stats from reddit user

Your opinion doesnt matter because you exclusively play blahblahblah

Was joking. I love that civ.

A script would be better than the poll, of course. The only issue is that I don’t know to program a python or R code to do that. I can only use STATA.

Indeed, was planning on doing this at some point. Only issue that I see is that you need 100’s of games per each user to accurately classify them. Also I’m not really sure how to even classify people as I image there is a lot of variation. For example I would guess that I play roughly 60% Vietnamese then 30% random across Tatars, Incas, Italians & Britain’s and 10% pure random.

Any thoughts or suggestions on how to classify / analyses this would be appreciated :slight_smile:

This is great work, very well done and very well presented statistics, congratulations

1 Like

I love these 2 new graphics (1v1 Random Map, Any Map):


I was just about to post the win rate by game-time graph. In particular the Japanese win rate by game length is wild. Pretty much MAA rush or bust :laughing:

It also in a way supports my gut feeling that Vietnamese’s main issue is the lack of castle age / early imp power spike. They seem decent at both Feudal and Late/post Imp but struggle in the mid game.


Yeah, same thing with Mongols, Celts, Bulgarians, Lithuanians
The other way around with Burgundians, Chinese, Poles and Spanish

This data makes it much more difficult to do what we call Balance 11

What’s the difference of random map and any map? :open_mouth:

I would weight the winrates according to the pick rate per user, provided you achieve to gather 100 matches per user.

In your example, your ELO score should be explained by 0.6 * Vietnamese winrate+ 0.075 * Tatar WR+0.075 * inca WR+0.075 * Italian WR+0.075 * Britain WR +0.1 * pure random WR

The RM (Random Map games) data is split between Arabia, Arena and now Any maps

I think I was just confused by 2 graphs, I though they would be different modes, butthe first is elo and the second is time.

Interesting are poles, which seem to have a major dropoff in the transition to the midgame. Any possible explanation for that?

I’m not sure I understand how that would work as we don’t calculate wr for each player separately. I wonder if we need to weight the individual matches based upon the players closeness to random selection (apologies if this is what you were meaning) something like:

Each player gets a weight of:
1 - (max(g) / sum(g)) + (1/num_civs)

Where g is a vector of the number of games played that player has played with each civ. Then the match weight is the mean of the player weights. Idea being it penalises people based on how too heavy they are with their most played civ.

Having said all this, there must be some literature on this though surely (I’ve just been too lazy to look)

Oh, I see. So you want to make a score that assess how many civs a player use to pick. 0= Pure one trick pony, 1= full random.
What I was suggesting was to weigh the beta coefficients of each civ (which should be related to civ winrates) by the player’s pickrate of that civ. I was thinking in regression models. But your idea seems more rigth.

I think the new Supplies cost will make the Drush and MAA openings more robust than they were before

Those civilizations with a high WR in the first few minutes will be more viable and vice versa, those civilizations with a lower WR will be even worse

Supplies wouldn’t pay off in time if you’re just going to create a handful of men-at-arms in the feudal age (as an opener that transitions into something else), though if you’re committing to forward towers along the m@a you might keep training more where it could come in useful.


This is interesting because of 2 reasons:

  1. A developer has seen this thread! (we know you see everything but it feels better to have confirmation)
  2. supplies buff could be a cool buff to trush civs.

Okay, but according to the stats that @coolios9876 posted, those civs that have a go with militia opening have a win rate higher than 50% in the early stages of the game
I know the benefit is not specific to the Militia and THS, but it will encourage making that opening even more
If you manage (somehow) to keep your THS alive until the transition to Castle, it will be rewarded

Just to be clear (not contradicting you but making sure the numbers are well represented) it means if the game ends early for infantry civs it is very likely to be a victory. The distribution of game lengths imply most matches don’t end that early though.

1 Like

Hi All,

Just to say I up made some further updates, in particular:

  • Fixed a bug where you couldn’t select Poles or Bohemians from the Civ selection drop down
  • Added experimental output showing the distribution of pick rates for each players most picked civ
  • Added experimental output showing the similarities of civs based upon their individual civ v civ win rates
  • Added comparison plots comparing naïve win rates across different groups (i.e. open wr vs closed wr)

All stats can be found here: Age of Empires 2 Civilisation Performance Statistics
Source code can be found here: GitHub - gowerc/aoecps: AOE2 Civilisation Performance Statistics

I probably won’t update the data now for another 3-4 weeks to give enough time for the new patch to settle in.

As always please let me know if you have any feedback, questions or spot something that doesn’t look right.


Cool! Great work again!

Just had a look in the winning stats of poles: Poles perform the worst against Berbers, Magyars, Saracens and Huns on open maps… Seems like Poles weakness cav archers confirmed. Whilst Poles seem to perform best against infantry.
Archer civs seem not to be too strong against poles, but I also didn’t expected them to dominate, as Poles weakness against them is only the lategame so poles have enough time to beat them before.

Bohemians don’t seem to have clear weaknesses or strengths in open maps.

I think this Polish weakness against cav archers should be adressed. Poles should actually excel against cav archers, as they historically did. It makes no sense to reverse historical reality like this. I think the winged hussar + lechitic legacy would give nice opportunity to make a light cav line that could deal with cav archers very nicely. And the knight line could be less “mass > class” in the exchange.

I mean, literally 60 F 30 G trash cavaliers or 80 F winged hussars… what a decision! Make them more destinct, there is a reason we have gold and trash units ;).

Also very interesting. Some Civs seem to excel in TG and others mostly in 1v1. But it also looks like that cavalry civs dominate the 1v1 ladder currently and are therefore worse in TGs because there usually we have 50% cav and 50% archer civs, so cav civs have 50 % winrate in average and therefore lose winning record in team games…

Couldn’t find this. Where is it?

1 Like

Regarding Poles on Arena, on top of their strong boom with Folwark. Their army is extremely cost-efficient. Winged Hussar, Szlachta Privilege Knight, also Obuch is one of the most cost-efficient infantry UU. Also poles can access to arbalester, which make them unpredictable. So opponents cannot blindly go for Halb or Camels.

I doubt that data confirm their weakness against cav archer. Meanwhile, they have highest winrate against Tatars in Closed map, and also high winrate against Magyars and Huns. They perform evenly against Mongols and Turks.

I think Poles weakness against Magyars, Saracens, or Huns in open map are more likely their early game weakness. Their farm would be exposed when they utilize their bonus and weak against early aggression civ. Low winrate against berbers likely due to their weakness against camel especially before they get Sazlachta Privilege.

If opponents succeeded to get huge number of FU HCA, Poles likely dead. But HCA need tons of upgrade and good eco. Poles more likely punish the opponents before they get enough upgrade and number, which can be shown in the closed map statistics.

1 Like