Was talking to the other dude but honestly stats unless really crazy in favour or against a civ dobt really say much. Vietnamese at 48% seems totallt fine to me in a vacuum and if bohemians are down there I just dont think we can get sny conclusions about this.
Honestly I dobt get why people are so obsesed with stats. Vietnamese have done well in tournsmeqnts too
that graph has the Vietnamese at 48.9%, quite near perfectly balanced, and itâs still going to be a very small sample size, not accounting for the variety of maps and civ matchups that put noise in the data, so forth.
any argument that the Vietnamese need a buff, based upon that data, needs this thread.
I feel you may have misunderstood me. There have been a lot of responses saying that Vietnamese are fine because the Pros say they are good and because they get picked in the drafts often. This graph was to show that in practice the pros perform average with them at best (giving benefit of the doubt to the confidence intervals) which doesnât really align with said comments (I am aware itâs more nuanced than this when it comes to drafting).
Personally I believe that Vietnamese need a buff because because statistically they are one of the worst civs on both open and closed, solo and team games. I am also more vocal for this civ because they are my most played civ (in contrast to say tatars who are in a similar position but whom I donât really play so I donât feel I can comment on).
I know this is contentious but I strongly believe in balancing for the whole player base and not just the pros / âused perfectlyâ (itâs why I created the stats on > 1200 Elo as I feel this provides the best balance between representing the playerbase whilst requiring a certain level of game knowledge to rule out the most egregious mistakes). Having said that even with the Pros there is potentially some evidence to say they are slightly under performing [47%, 50.5%], albeit not to an extent that requires changing; I mention this to highlight that itâs not a case like Chinese where they over perform with the Pros and thus we should be able to buff the Vietnamese without breaking the Pro level balance.
Stats only give the most macro level view though. My own experience + watching high level replyâs + the win rates vs game length stats + walking through various scenarios leads me to believe the issues are that they only have a mediocre eco bonus, lack a castle age power spike and (excluding very early feudal and late imp) arenât actually that great at their supposed âanti-archerâ role.
How to buff them without breaking them is very difficult and I honestly donât know. My favourite ideas atm (which I appreciate have flaws and need way more evaluation/tweaking) are:
That being said their biggest weakness in the stats appears to be against cav civs of which these changes do nothing to address. I guess a harder question is wether we want to stick to their anti-archer role, or give them a buff which helps against cav civs which is likely to make them a more generalist civ.
One possibility is reworking their eco bonus to âall eco techs cost 50% lessâ.
This seems more boresome thar the current one, because it is worse for archer rushes. But this way they would save a bit more resources overall, and some of those resources would be food (important for reaching castle age), and even market techs would be affected.
The discount for hsndcart and heavyplow would be greater, good for their cavalry.
So they will become more generalistic and less archer focused.
I am not totally convinced about this, though. I like their current bonus.
Why not economy, why not rattan. Why was 100hp for elephant :(( why ot not posible for they better
Because the rest is subjectiveâŠ
The elephant was an obvious short fall on a lack lustre tech.
Viet are good on closed maps, and knowing the enemyâs position is far more useful at higher than lower elos, same for the variance in hp on archery range units.
I think they are too weak on open maps (majority played) and are in a similar boat to other closed map civs.
The game should be balanced around the overwhelming majority of games.
Weâve made a ton of head way if we compare to the past when these same people were arguing that Turks are fine and that itâs ok if they only do well on closed maps and +1PA will make them OPâŠ
But here we are and theyâre not even that dominantâŠ
Tiny sample size, Arabia heavily skewing the stats⊠Bohemians arent that Amazing on open mapsâŠ
It doesnât help them at all where they are weak and helps them where they are already strongâŠI wouldnât fixate on that as it detracts from where they need a buffâŠ
Like donât argue port need a late game buff⊠because they (like Viet) need an early game buff
DudeâŠ
They have been patching elephants like for 4 patches in a row.
Malay elephants cost
Persian war elephants cost and time
Burmese elephant armor
And now vietnamese HO
I suspect they want to address the useless elephants in game making them more appealing.
So, it wouldnt be a surprise if thet buff elephant archers or ballista elephants next patch, even if khmer or indians are balanced.
This doesnt mean that vietnamese or burnese areng going to receive more buffs soon. But they need their elephants to be testes before those changes. For example, the recent infantry buff is very good for burmese.
I love Rattan Archers, so I would be nervous about any changes concerning them. Even changes that buff them. The better Longswords should impact their play a bit.
Feitorias are now available in the Dark Age 
Just to add that I donât think this is quite true sorry. At least that is the data doesnât seem to support this as it indicates that the Vietnamese are in the worst 3 civs for closed maps (though this data is predominantly arena and hideout)
Vietnamese dont have masonry and architecture.
Masonry is a great tech for arena.
This, together their lack of castle and imperial powerspike, and their lack of siege besides bombard cannon, may explaim the low winrates.
Their only advantage in arena is the ability of insta-3TC+monastery thanks to theie wood bonus. And also rattan archers if oppinent let you to mass them.
Hopefully the chattras buff will help in closed maps at least in team games.
Another idea I had been mulling over was giving them a small monk discount (say -25gold).
Pros:
Cons
(Disclaimer not done any maths or simulations to see how it plays out on arena nor other maps with high monk usage)
Hereâs an idea, donât buff vietnamese
What makes you feel that they are fine ? I laid out my argument as to why I think they need a buff as best as I could here:
But elephant war is not need, thing they need was frame delay shoot most importan. Other thing bonus early economic is better when bonus eco before not make they too diferent with edition 2016. If ele bonus only for test I hope next they can forgo this bonus and change to fixx rattan + bonus for economy
I think tournament has some maps that archer civ excels on, and in generally cav civs are still pretty uncountered at 1900- elo
Tho I now agree that they need a buff, but a generic buff is dangerous as it can make them OP at pro level (think about Chinese performance in 1200 elo). I think we should aim to make a civ more beginner-friendly instead of raw buffs.
Maybe something like spearline gets +1/+2/+3 pierce armor as well to strengthen the anti archer part? It can counter the cav strategy in low-mid elo and strength the anti archer part.
Edit: just realized itâs the weaker version of Malian bonus⊠maybe buffing their elephants are a good start then
Even if thatâs way above average players the majority of that data will come from 17-19 players which certainly arenât pro players.
As different people argued in countless threads win rates is only weakly correlated to how a good actually is. There is so many factors that these donât consider. For instance vietnamese have notoriously low playrate and thatâs has a huge impact. You canât compare winrates of a civ with another that has 5x playrate just like that.
And also if the sheets contradict the opinion of most people that play the game at good level for long time Iâd look for the error in the data. Like Chinese being not great on open maps, koreans and spanish being top tier on arena that all doesnât really makes sense. Data only becomes information when you interpret it carefully.
And why do are they popular for this map in touraments then and perform good there. Also my experience they are pretty good on arena. Btw a lot of people even on higher elo simply donât know how to play these maps.
Itâs a good tech but not the most important one. That doesnât decide if a civ is good or not.
Bbc and onagers with siege engineers is already pretty good. And in terms of powerspikes Vietnamese have great arb and bbc these are the 2 most important power spikes in early imp on arena. Also conscription for free is also a huge powerspike.
One of the best ecos for boom and monastry. Halbs, bbc, arb, rattans, imp skirm and decent light cav. Thatâs already a lot. I mean I wouldnât claim that Vietnamese is a top tier arena civ (as one particular pro player famously did) but they are a pretty good civ here.
Most good arena civs have these power spikes, but better, or with better eco, or woth better defenses. They just feel a bit bland compared to those. However, i agree woth you in the sentence below
I hope the new chattras buff will help thel in arena. But still, they may need a better early castle age power spike, which is where theynsuffer the most.
For arena, free fortified walls may be enough (and perhaps free hoarding?). But not for arabia. In this case, besides free elite skirm, i dont know what to give to them.
Which ones? Malay does and thatâs it. Ethiopians do but they have worse eco than Vietnamese. Britons do but they have no bbc and comparable eco. Italians and Portuguese also donât have better eco than Vietnamese and they usually play out somewhat different. In terms of arb bbc push in early imp Vietnamese is totally up there.
Portuguese and italian eco bonuses are good enough for arena and they hace permanent discounts after that. Sure vietnamese eco is smoother but those civs have time enough for making up the lac of eco bonuses.iralians lack siege engineer so we may leave them apart with byzantines.
Turks have no arbalester but his imperial power spike is no joke. Bohemians have argeably strong eco and, despite lacking thumbring, have strong units. And koreans also have BBC plus strong UU plus easily techable arbs.
Vietnamese just have their moment at the start of castle (3TC and monastery is quite good) and their arbs can hold an onager shot, and massed rattans are not a joke. But thats all. The other civs have stronger pushes because of better BBCs, UUs or military bonuses.
Maybe portuguese are worse, although the faster research speed is excelent for chemistry