The purpose of this post is to conduct a survey into what new civ is more popular around the first few days of their release.
Please state which of the two new civs–if you had to chose–that you prefer the most. And feel free to state your reasons why.[poll type=regular results=on_vote chartType=bar]
0 voters
I love the Sicilians, Signore.
They won me over when the villagers said “Inmediatamente” with a cute Italian accent.
I am looking forward until the AoE2 FANDOM updates with the voice lines for the Burgundians and the Sicilians.
Sicilians all the way!
I would play the Burgundians more then the Sicilians. Here why;
you get cavaliers in the Castle Age, Nice. Those unique units are super super Cool and have Super attacks.
The Burgundians might be OP right now but I like their design.
The revolution is an interesting concept and gives you access to a Unit that seems to be very versatile but I haven’t looked into the details yet. Seem to be a mix between Two-Handed Swordsman and Halberdier.
The other Unique Tech seems odd. Especially how much Gold do they produce?
The Food → Gold conversation is also an interesting decision to make. That could make them OP in a long game.
The Sicilians are a bit odd. Their Donjon just upgrades automatically every age. And their Serjeants more than double their attack on Elite. Them being available in Feudal makes them either OP there or useless in Castle. (Edit: The Serjeansts just get a lot stronger when entering Castle Age, boring solution) I think there should be an Castle Age upgrade for them. And Donjons should maybe require a University upgrade.
The half bonus damage might be OP especially against trash units because they are counter units by design. But they neither have strong cavalry nor archers so that might be ok.
All 4 new UTs require timing and give a one time effect (only the Burgundian ones also give a long term effect).
i love the burgundians more because they focus more on cavalery than the sicilians, and tbh i rarely use archers and infantry in which sicilians specialize in. i am also going to pick burgundians over sicilians on close maps and go fc 4 tc booming into coustillier and if i fail i research flemish revolution.
I think that UUs apart, burgundians are the better designed civ, since all their bonuses work very well in synergy, are balanced (not weak, not OP) and require a lot of carefully planning and good decision making to use them at the best, giving them several opportunities.
Sicialains on the other hand seems too much of a “one trick pony” civ, with their donjon rush be their viable option, but that will be nerfed in the future for sure. This is even more exacerbate by their team bonus, which leave them landings as their only option.
Their eco bonus is useful only in the late game, and while their scout rush take less damage from spears, in my opinion is still behind any scout rush backed by a early eco bonus. Maybe their halbs+siege can be good too, but that comes in the late game.
honestly, Sicilians will have a much stronger stable then most people are giving them credit for.
nothing says more “one trick pony” than a bonus that affects every unit
I think I said it several times already in other threads, but I’m surprised they actually bothered to weaken both the UT and the UB in feudal age so that they wouldn’t crush actual feudal units and towers. I still think we could have lived with both being castle age but this is more a design opinion.
Or their archer rush from skirms.
I think the transports can be used as “water rams” to distract enemy fire. And better this than extend their bonus to water units, since ships rely so much on bonus damage against each others Sicilian would have been obnoxious for sure.
The biggest problem in Sicilian balance is the first crusade UT, especially on boomy maps.
I don’t have the DLC yet, possibly will play with silicians a lot once I get it, for now the Saracens, Lithuanians (no bug abuse), Bulgarians, Persians and Tatars will be my main civs.
They are not a one trick pony at all. FU infantry + serjeant makes for amazing infantry, very good siege and excellent navy. They get arbs with bracer, which is good enough to justify going crossbow if there’s the chance and their stable is actually very solid, once you factor in the reduced bonus damage you take from anti-cav units. Also, they are only missing last archer armor in the blacksmith.
Exactly, what I said, sarjent+donjon and halbs+Siege are what you can do… maybe it’s not one trick, but it’s just 2 tricks…
Good navy, not excellent. Vikings, portos, italians have excellent navy. They may have a good dock tech tree, but it’s not backed by any eco bonus, farms with more food come in too late to have a real impact.
Their only good bonus is their ridiculous transport ships, which again push them towards a donjon rush.
I agree, their scout rush can be good since the take less damage from spears, and knight rush similarly can be good too. But it’s an average knight and scouts overall (which doesn’t need that it’s bad…).
Meh, they have basically aztecs archers, but unlike aztecs they don’t train faster or are backed by a super strong eco bonus…
Maybe it’s just my opinion, I prefer civs that requires that you take carefully decisions by balancing pros and cons, like the burgundians choice of researching earlier the cavalier upgrade, you can have stronger units in castle age, but at the cost of idling a stable for almost 2 minutes.
With the sicilians you don’t have that in my opinion. Their bonuses fell more passive, and less strong…
We will see ho they balance them out…
I think you should have a better look at their tech tree, they have tons of options. The only things in which they suck are monks and tower rushes (because they have only donjons, which are way too expensive to tower rush with in early feudal).
Good thing they have bad monks, if they had more than sanctity+fervour they would be a nightmare to deal with since your scouts would be less effective to snipe them.
I already looked at their tech, and even memorized it for the most, I just don’t think it’s that great. Arbs have bracer, but without TR fire slower, cavaliers are FU and take less damage from pikes, but are still counter by them. Infantry and siege are where they shine, but I forthcoming a nerf on their UU. They do have options, but both archers or cav aren’t that strong.
However I never said that they are trash, just that compared to the burgundians their bonus don’t synergies as well between them and the tech tree, making me prefer the burgundians (and I’m italian, so I was more exited for sicilians…).
I suppose it depends by what civ you are facing, we will see…
You cannot look at them only terms of late game perspective, you need to consider what they can do before getting there. Otherwise civs like malians wouldn’t be good either. They have almost all options open up to early imp, and that’s not a thing which can be said for many civs.
Sicilian arbs have the same techs than Aztec ones, but their bonus make them a straight upgrade, so I wouldn’t complain about this.
It’s kind of true their bonus don’t synergize, ie. you don’t have a streamlined plan like cav+gunpowder for Burgundian, but what did you expect from a civ that is a mix of Saracen and Italian 11
A Persian main is a shah of culture.
Same goes for normal Watch Towers, Guard Towers, and Keeps. Originally, when AoE2: Age of Kings was out, all buildings naturally received HP boosts per Age as a sort of “progression” that your civilization was improving and growing. But Towers remained mostly the same in terms of HP, which made tower rushes potent in defeating opponents that were still stuck in Feudal Age or even Dark Age. Upon Definite Edition coming out, towers got a nerf to their power, making their HP lower in Feudal Age to allow the chance for players being capable of resisting tower rushing. I suspect that the Dijon have a stratified HP per Age, stems from the same tower nerf that was made 2 years ago, since for the Sicilians the Dijon is their only tower defense building.