Updated Statistics

Hey all,

Wanted to create a new thread so that I could edit the OP to provide updates / change log about my stats site.

As always:

  • the site can be found here
  • the source code can be found here

If you have any questions / comments / feedback please let me know !

Change log:


  • Updated data cut to 2021-10-12 - 2021-11-08
  • Added new plot of map play rates normalised by map availability (credit to u/Exa_Cognition )
  • Removed “Aftermath” from the “open map” class
  • Fixed bug that was including mirror matches in 1v1 leaderboards
  • Added play rate percentages text to the play rate plot

You should have removed aftermath from the “All maps” tab too since this map is way too imbalanced to be of any interest (besides as a reminder that dropping a scenario map in RM ranked without adjustments whatsoever is a bad idea)

So many data sets. Sometimes I see Koreans at top - empire war, sometimes ports in top 5 (closed maps), sometimes at the very bottom, 1v1 all maps Lithuanians at the top.

Its very divers. Hard to spot considers things that could indicate balance problems.

Mostly Frank’s I guess are never really bad, and also Indians(?)

Can we have a meta analysis of the different sets results, into one plot or matrix, e. G.
X Achse is civs, y Achse is data set (e. G. 1v1 closed 1200 elo) and at the x, y point the #ranking

Indians as the best camel civ is good in most elos as usually cav civs dominate there. Also Indians eco is quite strong. Maybe the buffs to infantry will affect indian win rates a bit.

Another question, Would, it be possible to have also the raw data of wintrates + matchups? probably even for different patches to see how the recent changes influenced winrates?
This would be very interesting, like how the last changes of sicilians changed their matchups. I’d like to see that and it could be even interesting for the devs if the changes they did lead to the intended results.
(Besides I sometimes question if devs have any intentions with their changes, I just hope they have… Often I also really like their changes, like how they changed Koreans or the Burgundian eco. Maybe I am also just a pleb that doesn’t sees the things Devs do…)

Nevertheless it would be very interesting to have a table with the raw numbers for each patch. I like to work with numbers, not graphs.

I have to disagree with this part. Indians should be the best camel civ, but they lost this title when their Plate Barding Armor was removed. Saracens have better camels, and if you balance for resource cost then Berbers and Byzantines also have better camels than Indians. In some situations even Malians have better camels than Indians.

It’s a little sad how far Indians have fallen, especially when you consider the Imperial Camel upgrade cost. The best I can say for Indians is that their economy is good and their camels are better than most in Castle Age. The early game carries their win rate, which plummets in any game over 40 mins. Imperial Age should not be the weakness for a civ that specializes in gunpowder and imperial camels.


Totally disagree. Indians are still a very good civ. And actually the early game is their weakest spot (except they have fish).

1 Like

I guess it really depends on specific scenarios. Like saracens would beat them 1v1 but tbh how often do you see camels fighting each other. Indians get the extra pierce armor in castle age and another one in imp so at that point it’s basically like last armor for free (you miss one melee armor though). Then you have the possibility to upgrade to imp camel. Yes it’s pretty expensive but the unit it significantly improves it’s general stats. Then you got that eco bonus which is extremely nice for booming while producing camels. And let’s not forget the extra attack vs buildings which lets them take out those super fast. So in all I think it’s still fair to say indians have the best camels. Not necessarily in each situation but overall I think they do.


Anyway Indians get halberdiers to laugh at the other camel civs.


Yes, a new thread was needed. Good initiative the change log.

Now lets hope they buff my poor bottom tier civs.

I agree that camel vs camel isn’t the most useful data. Saracen heavy camels perform better than Indian imperial camels against enemy cavalry, which is what I would consider their primary use. For example 18 Indian Imperial Camels are needed to beat 20 Frankish Paladins, and the fight can go either way. For the Saracens it only takes 16 Heavy Camels to get similar results (fight could go either way), and with 17 they never lose.

Indian camels aren’t the worst against archers, but making camels against archers is a terrible idea. Indians just lack the knight line so they do sometimes need to face arbs with 4 pierce armor camels, where most other civs would have the option of knights/cavaliers with 6 pierce armor.

Edit: Just remembered my favorite example to comment on Indian Camels vs heavy cavalry. An Imperial Camel loses 1v1 against a Malay Elephant, while a Saracen camel wins that fight.

I think the key is that indians camels are the hardest to counter, they are just generally the overall best. Not that camels are hard to counter, but specially the imp camel makes the indian camels somewhat a rounded unit - at the perfect timing.
All camels work fine vs cavalry but the imp camel can actually deal with low amount of counter units aswell, that makes it so powerful. (Also don’t forget the anti-building damage…)

It’s so sad to see the amount of civ pickers by these stats.
No hope for this game’s sportsmanship, especially team games.

I’m surprised no one’s mentioned poles on closed maps. Their win rate there seems nuts !


Well, I tried to adress that in the other poles threads.
Think it’s just their insane eco they can unpunishable go for on arena. The Folwark is OP if you aren’t punished for your greed. Also the Gold for Stone helps, especially as the poles want to place a castle anyways which is also a generally strong move in arena.

I think Devs definetely need to change this, make the poles eco less OP but also less vulnerable. The civ was appearently intended to be strong on open map types, not closed ones. And on open map types raiding is just so much more powerful that every bonus that needs to expose your vills even more to raids is actually more hurting than helping any civ there.

(Also from attention economics perspective, the folwark farm placement just needs too much attention for open map types. You just don’t have the time to perfectly place your farms there if at any time just one little inattention can cost you the game.)

Folwakr should get 5 garrison space, and the bonus nerfed slightly in turn. This makes them better in open and worse in closed safe maps.

Also gold stone bonus should be nerfed to 25%

Lastly Obuch are broken op, especially in imperial age. Need - 10 HP and +5 gold cost

And slatza cavaliers are more than compensating last armor upgrade beating FU paladins cost effectively easily. The tech should in the food cost of kniths to 75 as well.


8 is the absolute minimum, so 10 please. But yeah I like that Idea.

Also Reasonable

Here I disagree a bit, I don’t think obuch is OP. It’s strong, but not OP.

Also Agree, the gold cost reduction is one thing, but the total cost reduction is just too much in conjecture. Also the tech is too much and too expensive for a castle age tech. Tune it down, then it is fine. also 75 F / 30 G knight/cavalier are still wery strong. I made the proposal to make the tech very cheap but 90 F / 30 G. This would still make them a very strong (gold cost efficient) unit.

Just wanted to state @coolios9876 that if I would appreciate when you update the stats for the new patch please leave the stats of the current patch accessible (so we can also compare the influence of the changes).

Great work again, even if I recently couldn’t find time to have a deeper look into the stats, but I look forward to it and plan to make some deeper analysis once we have the next stats at your page:


I really like that page and appreciate all the work you put into this to make this accessible to us. Thank you a lot.


I’ve been wondering how to manage this. The current design of the website makes it difficult to save the existing stats. So yer it’s fairly trivial for me to update it to the latest stats but there would likely be quite a big delay if you want me to preserve the existing stats some how :frowning:

can’t you just upload a it under a different subpage?
If you used relative links this shouldn’t be a problem to make one subpage for every patch.

But tbh the last time I made something with webpages via ftp uploads and so on was like 15 years ago, so i’ve no idea how this is handled today.

Unfortunately based on how I’ve designed it it’s just not that simple :frowning: what I can do as an intermediate solution is just dump the current version to a zip file and host it on gdrive. As it’s a just a simple web app (no back end) you can then download it and view everything locally. Then I can spend some time looking for a better more long term solution.

1 Like