Depends on your goals. Tatars are a very special civ that can reward you if you master it.
But it is different to many others.
Also important to note tatars are a agressive civ. You need to try to get map control and snowball that.
If you master this you may learn a lot also, but I also think Tatars aren’t a civ to begin with. Better start with huns and then go for tatars when you feel comfortable with hotkeys, macro and being agressive.
Both have similar strengths, but Tatars are for sure the harder to learn.
4 Likes
What civ would you recommend that has good cavalry and good archer? Huns? Magyars? And that is easy
Magyars are better (20 characters)
1 Like
I think magyars are the only with both lines fu. But magayars have no early eco bonus.
Magyars are also a very agressive civ usually played with a scout opening. But you can make all openers with them.
Maybe Magyars are also a very good civ as “main” cause you can do basically everything with them in the early game.
And they also only revard you if you played them well. Magyars don’t have any bonus that saves you if you play them bad.
3 Likes
I’ll main them! Thank you! They dont have a campaign right?
The problem with Mayans isn’t necessarily the civ. It’s that Mayans exploit the 3 things players aren’t in the habit of considering:
- Using the militia line
- Using moderate amounts of siege (i.e. more than 2-3 mangonels/scorpions).
- Stone walling to prevent raids
I mean think about the strategies people are willing to use without hesitation. Infantry and siege is not going to be on that list for many many people even very good players. At any level, and especially a high level, that kind of hesitation costs games on average.
I’m not saying Mayans shouldn’t be nerfed but it’s hard to tell if this is the case because of this issue.
Is there a way to get to the civ winrates for >2k ladder games?
These is one side which only goes down to >1650 ladder games, but that’s somewhat useless.
that kind of hesitation costs games on average
I still think that you need to prove that the hesitation alone costed the game. I think it can be, but it can as well not be (in particular I think micro plays a huge role in high level games as well)
There was one called Ageofanalytcz, which showed graphs of civ winrates at all ELO levels, even 2.5K.
For some reason no longer works
Well, tbf Aztecs are still the third strongest pick on arabia. They either get banned or sniped everytime.
When it comes to Vikings, he says they could be easily S tier
Because what he said it’s true: there are no really bad civ atm. The C tier ones are the weakest of the pack, but they are not as weak as Goths pre buff
Anyway, to me the most important thing is that at the start of the video he shits on the new arabia version 11
3 Likes
He should have split B-tier into 2 tiers and move C tier into D tier
It was funny seeing him not figure out it was in alphaphetical order for 20 min 
He did my Incas and Burmese dirty tho. I kinda agree with burmese that they aren’t great and they need to swap their playstyle drastically depending on the game, however incas are pretty good and have comparable eco bonus to aztecs and mayans. Only issue is that their UTs suck compared to other mesos… Kamayuks ROCK tho! Incas are definitely A tier, they just have this stupid tower rush identity.
I just don’t see how civs like Teutons (loses to all camel civs and is very weak against archer ones), turks (loses to all cavalry civs) and Indians (loses to all archer civs) are better than them. At least burmese (hussar, onager and eles are all good against archers) and incas have no glaring weaknesses.
2 Likes
I like the tier list, but I would have loved some more breakdown of Bohemians and Poles. Poles A tier feels a bit generous in my opinion, their eco bonus can struggle to kick in in some scenario since you don’t always need stone early and you can’t always place farms around the berries/deers folwark in the early game.
No. Incas eco is really bad compared to Aztecs and Mayans
4 Likes
Aztecs and Mayans still the most broken civs.
I don’t get why they can’t balance them to allow for fairer matchups.
1 Like
Nah Aztecs are fine.
Agree on Mayans being OP though
3 Likes
They should be both D tier. I would rather have literally any other civ (even Spanish or Goths) than Burmese or Incas. With both those civs, you’re basically playing with completely generic units and no useful eco bonuses as well as essentially missing an entire line of units.
you know a civ sucks when Viper rates Portuguese higher for Arabia lol
Inca’s are clearly worse than Aztecs and Mayans but to place alongside the likes of ½ trick ponies like Burmese and Spanish is going way overboard. They still have the meso privilege and have adequate early game eco bonuses. They were played competitively before the nerf, not always tower rushing so to place them bottom tier is to suggest all they were good for were tower rushing which is nonsense. This placement is IMO, more mental/emotional, I’m pretty sure neither Hera or Liereey’d place them bottom tier.
4 Likes
They had a solid feudal age. Even if you did not necessarily go full YOLO with a trush, the villagers and towers were certainly part of your strategy. Even if you did not outright win the game, you would be able to set your enemy back enough to offset the fact that besides the feudal age power spike, your civ has nothing going for it. The Llama bonus is cool, gives a nice and consistent early start, but does not help late-game, and the house thing is again, cool in early game, much less significant later on. So yeah, it’s a 0 trick pony, along with Burmese. Spanish at least have full FU trash going for them if they get to a super late game, and despite the nerfs, Conqs still have at least a very narrow window of opportunity.
A 0 trick civ that’s easily better than Burmese, Spanish and probably half of the tier above in arabia 1v1? Lol
1 Like