Hera said in reddit that he put koreans that high because they hardcounter archer civs now.
Maybe that is the reason he put teutons that low.
I pretty much agree with Hera (if my opinions matters at all 11). Specially on indians, spanish, italians, tatars and turks.
Tatars are probably OP. Other pros have told me that they are really imbalanced
1 Like
how can persians suck versus archer civ? they have eskirm onager and fu stable. also they have bonus on knights +2 vs archers
spanish have everything with fu. except xbow so?
i agree this didnt say anything about teutuons.
They lack an eco bonus
Conqs and Trush got nerfed
No Crossbows
Persians donāt get SE, Bracer and +2 vs Archers is almost useless.
In general i agree with him except for (Aztecs, Spanish, Tatars, Turks, Teutons, Portuguese).
He put Aztecs as A tier after the last nerf but actually i donāt agree with him, cause even with their nerf they still strong, so they are still S tier.
He put Tatars as S tier civ and this is so much for them even with the last buff, i think they are likely A/B civ.
He put Turks as A tier civ but although with their last buff they are B civ.
Teutons and it so clear that they are B tier not C at all.
Portuguese with their last buff is waaay better to be C civ, actually they are A civ for sure.
What surpried me the most that he put the Spanish as D civ, i think this is the most stupid decision i have ever seen in this list and in the whole game civs lists
Spanish though have basically pre-nerf walling with their bonus, so they are the only ones that can wall easily in dark age.
Then they can go for a drush, scouts or knights until they can train conqs.
The lack of an eco bonus hurt them, but the recent wall nerf actually make them above average.
A good eco bonus that doesnāt benefit in nothing when is a 1v1 arabia TBH, their only good unit in castle age is the camel which is by far worse at raiding.
Frankly I would use Persians over Indians in 1v1 every time in arabia.
This literally says all:
Honestly, it is his personal opinion.
Before the patch, he sees Tatars as a solid mid tier civ. But then, why I never see Hera playing with Tatars, especially in Tournaments?
Tatars receive a strong buff especially on Arena they are amazing now. But not on Arabia there you cannot sit back and boom. Letās wait for the next tournament.
If Hera is right, Tatars will be top pick but I doubt it.
Because there is no reason to pick a mid tier civ, as long as top tier civs are available. Therefore, tournaments are very bad indicators of the viability of a civ. They only answer the question: Which are the tops civs? A civ that is never picked in tournaments can still be perfectly viable. Or it could be completely unplayableā¦
I have to agree with others, i Think hera is vastly overrating Tatars now. I think they are a solid A/B tier civ, especially when you consider that two of their worst matchups are great civs.
iām glad he at least admits they are a harder civ to play.
I also question his Koreans position - yeah the extra armor helps against archers really nicely but there opponents can also negate that by just getting their own armor.
3 Likes
They also can negate it by going knightsā¦
True, korean pikes have wood discount but you dont save a lot per pikeā¦
Momentum. Koreans now have momentum. Padded armor comes in late feudal. Uo to that moment, koreans have the upper hand in any archer engagement.
1 Like
true but it doesnāt have a long term impact. and it doesnāt do much against cavalry civs. I think they are better, but to put them that high? doubtful. also just because something normally comes late feudal doesnāt mean you donāt adjust based on the matchup. my guess - against Koreans most archer civs mix in more skirms then normal to take more favorable trades.
Well it also affects war wagons, which means they start with 2/5 armour rather than 0/3 . Iāve read that arena players are experimenting with a WW rush to use this.
Also archer fights are positive considering that your archers are cheaper. I think that cheaper archers/skyrms with free armors is a solid combo that can carry the civ.
This can be a solid anti-archer option, despite not that useful for Arabia. But Arena and Black forest do benefit. Also in TGs, WWs are very pop efficient.
I think the best you can do is rushing them with cavalry (archer civs have often better eco). Xbow do not have any advantage vs knights with +2MA, donāt they? If so the matchups vs cavalry civs are unchanged
If you need to mix skirms, you are already loosing. Skirms cost food, you get later to caste age than the korean player. And thereās gonna be a window of time when he will have xbows with 2nd defense and you will have feudal archers.
1 Like
I was right that Lithuanians were very overrated at the last tournament.
1 Like
are they? iām not taking Heras word as law on that. they are performing well even in the 2v2 world cup.
12 and 9 so far, 21 maps played. yeah 9 civs got played more, but only 3 have comparable/better winrates.
2 Likes
not much food though, and youāre saving on gold, and trading better then the korean player is.
iām not saying they arenāt stronger. but all of a sudden an a tier civ? i donāt know. they were so bad before they were never picked. and now there on a tier with mongols, lithuanians, etc?
1 Like
Teutons makes sense for 2k+ elo since husbandry is such a big deal at that level. The amount of hit and run micro they can do on an open map really does put teutons on the defensive the whole game.
Persians is a weird one. The 5% bonus in dark age made them easily a top 10 civ and possibly even top 5 civ on arabia and then when that bonus got taken away, they are seen as below average. Pretty crazy.