As in the title.
The list is for 1v1 Arabia, here: https://youtu.be/tIbpgNV5ssk
In his tierlist he says that the civs below average are Teutons, Goths, Persians, Italians, and Indians.
Tbh I am really surprised about Teutons and Persians.
Glad to see that Koreans, Portuguese, and Bulgarians are in a good spot now.
While I agree on Italians (even lower imo) and Indians, I have some doubts on Spanish/Goths, but maybe just because the do not work at higher levels while I feel them fine.
I think he was right to point out they overbuffed Tatars, because they did. I mean, thatās all Iāve been saying since long before the changes, that the Tatars were extremely solid and underrated because of a few very bad matchups.
Now heās asserting that people should get their games in with them because theyāre sure to get the nerf hammer and Iām just sitting here being disappointed at the fact that there are no rewards for foresight.
I would take it with a grain of salt.
Streamers/casters tend to overhype changes a bit, and the list might to be influenced by his recent games. It has become a trend to make tier lists to answer the ābest civā question, but we still have to see in top tournaments how buffed civs like Tatars and Turks perform.
Also note Hera is a 2400 player playing other 2k+ players in 1v1. For lower ratings, the list is not all that relevant. Skill is a much more deciding factor than civ choice.
Especially vs eagles, but I was feeling them ok. Tatars have very good cavalry. Meso civs have a huge pick rate, maybe this makes them to appear weakerā¦
Well, there are some exceptions but in general I agree. Still I am convinced that getting Indians (vs non-cav civs) or Italians (always) is a relevant disadvantage.
Other than that I feel the civ matters in a limited wayā¦
Did he made a new tier list? Or is this the tier list from months ago?
He made one for the anniversary patch
Here is the list https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIbpgNV5ssk
I like seeing some curious things, like turks and koreans in same tier as aztecs. Italians not botton tier.
Also, hera akowledged he was wrong regarding tatar buff, which gets him some humbledom points
Thatās curious. While I still have to see the video (though I agree on the Italians) the other day I watched a stream of the viper.
He played a team nomad with daut and tatoh, and he get Italians. Now, not considering the fact that the game was a disaster (he canceled the castle age at 98% 11š) they talked several times about Italians, and they all agreed that they are a fine civ, stating that they arenāt weak (now thatās donāt mean that they canāt get some changes).
They also said that they are a middle-high tier in maps like nomad.
Just to say that maybe out perception of the civ is that accurate.
As for Indians and goths I onestly donāt know what to say, maybe simply they can be balanced for arabiaā¦
Nomad has water, and discounted fishing ships are very handy there.
ı am suprizing with a tier turks 
. also d tier spanish and c tier persians are arguably for low elo i think.
But it is seemed that most civs accumulate average tiers and balance changes work !
Yes, but still they talked about Italians in general too, like that they are fine in maps like arabia too.
I think Heras list is very accurate for 2000+ Elo Players (which includes about 200people right know).
Different Civs are good at different Elo levels. Best example for this is the Chinese which are S Tier at Pro level but D Tier at below 1000eloā¦
I agree with this. The problem is that the civ has basically zero bonuses on the standard settings.
If you consider settings like cross, nomads, Baltic or similar, they are above average.
But in the remaining games (75% or more, on Arabia) they are so badā¦
Italians do not need a direct buffed only, they just need to be rebalanced imo (nerf of water discountin favor of a bonus working in all the maps), such that their strength in the hybrid maps remains constant, while in land maps they become decent.
Also teutons ate very low. Super farms, infantry, and cavalry. Also good siege. Why are in the same tier of Italians? 11
Agreed! Finally I can play turks 
What do they have beside a quite open tech tree? Honestly either they are completely broken in non-arabia maps (where they have 2 huge bonuses and the age up discount is more important) or they are lacking in Arabia. Pro players said several times that Vietnamese or khmer pre-DE were fine. I am sure they are right, they just mean a different thingā¦
Because they are way too slow for arabia. Have you ever tried to play against cav archers with Teutons?
Having super eco but slow units means that either they have a forward or that theyāll run around the map trying to chase you.
Even playing against xbows is a pain with Teutons since itās way harder to catch them in a bad position when you donāt have husbandry
Tbh I find new teutons quite solid. Very few civs have such a great boom. And CAs are not that great if you do not have a civ bonus for them. So it is a viable strategy for 3-4 civs overall.
Also teutons have very good matches vs cavalry civs and a good defense and monks.
Not saying they are top tier ofc, I get your point. But honestly I feel them at least average. Half of the forum was calling for a nerf some months ago (lucky it has not come)ā¦
Persians suck vs Archer civs and he is right, you canāt boom without idle TC and make military at the same time.
Spanish have nothing if you donāt have a Castle for Conqs. Even Franks or Celts can with that match-up since Skirmishers hard counter them and Elite Conqs are garbage.
Teutons are even more weak vs Archers than Persians, Iād just give them Bracer and balance Cranellations accordingly.
CAs are more than fine if you have them full upgraded and even xbows are a problem to deal with for teutons 11.
Because you are thinking only on arabia terms. Teutons were already a very strong arena civ before the buff, after they are incredible on that setting. This game is not only arabia
Indians donāt deserve D tier, they still have a really good eco bonus with cheap vills
Teutons C tier makes no sense when you put a civ like Koreans to A tierā¦
Overall, Iād say some of these categorizations are rather preliminary. Hera might be right that aztecs or khmer wonāt perform as well as they did but I think this is rather based on what it looks like on paper.
Both of these never were exactly great as an arabia civ. Some people considered persians very strong before the dark age tc nerf but they certainly werenāt op here (as they were on hybrid maps). Teutons are very hard to estimate. They can be very strong if they get their game rolling (i.e. castle age all-in with knights and siege) but they also have their downsides (no husbandry, no light cav, bad archers) which can put them into an awkward spot.
Spanish really fell off with DE. Not only did they receive an indirect nerf because a lot of civs on the weaker eco side (where spanish are) got eco buffs but their main strenghts (conqs) was nerfed so that skirms are the ultimate counter nowadays.
You still canāt know it happens for sure. Even top players arenāt always correct in foresaying what civs will perform well and which donāt. Imo it very much depends on the meta because in a prolonged feudal age I donāt see them sitting in one of the top spots but after trying them out I find them to be the single best civ for drush fc xbows in the game.
I think Hera is a bit overestimating the nerf for 1v1 but they were a bad arabia civ before so heās got a good argument for putting them at that spot. But it doesnāt sound like he actually played them a lot so letās see if the extra pa on light cav is gonna change something against their weakness vs archers.