Why arabia is so bad

You guys could fix the new arabia map? isnt fair… there is no wood and if you have it it is far… and your enemy has the perfect map… leave a single map and that we can play it… but they change and change and they are not the ones who play ._.

1 Like

This is actually a pretty good Arabia script to be honest, you just have to not always play the same way. It’s certainly better then a few patches ago.


The anti waller rush players wanted it to be super open. I remember them saying the map is like arena somehow older versions. We have players who get really frustrated that they have to break down walls. Instead of using the opportunity to grab all the relics and potentially win the game through attrition. Since the turtle player is camping.

1 Like

Current Arabia is as good as Arabia can be. I like it.

The only flaw is those occasional maps with “lake forests” generation and you get 3 and opponent 1 and you have no wood income.

1 Like

The turtle player is camping and is quite ahead in eco because the rusher has invested into military and upgrades. In the initial arabia scripts, you could wall off your base even before drush hits you with enough space to stay inside the walls till late castle age.

True that the aggressor will have the relics but the waller could start producing any army at anytime and surprise you and cause a lot of damage if you’re playing open. The only way to avoid that is - you wall too inspite of having that initial army you produced. So ultimately it used to turn into an arena or other closed maps where fights happened only in late late castle age or imp.

Also not being able to break the walls isn’t the frustrating part - its how little villager idle time and resources the waller spends to get ahead. The reward was always hugely in favor of the waller.

I thik just having almost no complains about the map is a clear indicator that it’s a great generation.
Devs definetely listened to what people said and made a generation most can agree on.

Is the generation perfect? No.

Do we want perfection?

Better question, do we deserve it considering how much we complain about Arabia?


Imo the ara map script from titans league (resurgence was similar) is pretty cool. Usually less woodlines but way thicker ones. Makes scout opening much more viable.

1 Like

While i agree we’re possibly on one of the better iterations so far, still getting a fair number of complaints about placing TCs. Get super unlucky sometimes with the hills.

Punishes TCs but rewards castle drops.

On top of the usual open Vs closed complaints.

And I could be wrong but the current iteration supports archer aggression (due to small walling) which is what a lot of people complain about, and supports heavier cav play later on, due to inability to defend against raiding due to the massive open spaces.

Essentially still over rewarding the early aggression civs, compared to the slower civs not being able to play into their strengths (Italians, port, Turks, bohemians)

It disadvantages civilisations that need to boom and turtle. Not every civ is the Mayans. Some civs are poor early game but great late game. They need a solid defence to get their potential.

A green Arabia variation would be really nice.

1 Like

I’ve been thinking about it more. And maybe the current open version of Arabia doesn’t fit the balance of defensive units(counter units like pikes)

They’re already more expensive to tech into and pretty singular in their purpose and more punishing on the eco due to food costs.

Whereas potentially the game was better balanced as a whole, during slightly more closed iterations of Arabia making it more acceptable that defensive units were worse, when it was easier to actually defend.

Now the maps are so open that aggressive units are even more favoured, stacked with defensive units being worse, skews the balance even more towards aggressive civs.?

Not that many of the defensive/slower civs ever really had a great standing on Arabia anyway

True and those civs are going to be great in some generations of Arabia which are more wallable. And on generations which are very open, feudal aggressive civs are going to be great. So multiple strategies are feasible depending on the map generation. But if always map generations are wallable like it was two years ago, then there’s no possibility for any aggression till 30 mins and castle age civs dominate. The balance between walling and aggression was quite in favor of walling and fights mostly happened in late castle age or early imp.