I think he was right to point out they overbuffed Tatars, because they did. I mean, that’s all I’ve been saying since long before the changes, that the Tatars were extremely solid and underrated because of a few very bad matchups.
Now he’s asserting that people should get their games in with them because they’re sure to get the nerf hammer and I’m just sitting here being disappointed at the fact that there are no rewards for foresight.
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 “best civ” 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.
That’s 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% 11😂) they talked several times about Italians, and they all agreed that they are a fine civ, stating that they aren’t weak (now that’s don’t mean that they can’t 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 don’t know what to say, maybe simply they can be balanced for arabia…
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 bad…
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 thing…
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 they’ll run around the map trying to chase you.
Even playing against xbows is a pain with Teutons since it’s way harder to catch them in a bad position when you don’t have husbandry
Persians suck vs Archer civs and he is right, you can’t boom without idle TC and make military at the same time.
Spanish have nothing if you don’t 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, I’d just give them Bracer and balance Cranellations accordingly.
Overall, I’d say some of these categorizations are rather preliminary. Hera might be right that aztecs or khmer won’t 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 weren’t 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 can’t know it happens for sure. Even top players aren’t always correct in foresaying what civs will perform well and which don’t. Imo it very much depends on the meta because in a prolonged feudal age I don’t 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 he’s got a good argument for putting them at that spot. But it doesn’t sound like he actually played them a lot so let’s see if the extra pa on light cav is gonna change something against their weakness vs archers.