They have been the best arabia civ in the game since the discovery of the drush-fc build during the AOC days.
Mostly lower seed player worse by a strong margin than their opponent and a couple of games where the player literally had his worst day.
You have your views on how this game works and we all know, but there’s a really good reason why pros pick aztecs on arabia, and some of them even dislikes the civ a lot
You looking at amateur level at best while I’m talking about tournaments 11
playrate before nerf 8%. now down to sub 3%. so there playrate has dropped over 50%. and that’s just ladder. tournaments is a whole new beast.
uhh Persians were nerfed well after all those civs were added. as in the nerf in the past year where their dark age production bonus was removed.
From what I can see allot of the ‘best civs’ is mainly a term for civs with an eco bonus of some kind.
yeah, it’s almost like those who have an eco bonus can get off to a better start then those without, and that allows them to start snowballing faster.
either way - as it stands the top civs in the game are the likes of Aztecs, Vikings, Mayans, Chinese, Franks, Lithuanians, and Khmer.
How would it look if all eco bonuses started in castle age if snowballing is the actual problem.
i think people would hate that because you’d slow the game down drastically. it would also make the dark and feudal age incredibly boring. because if it’s not fair to have eco bonuses before castle age, why is it fair to have military bonuses?
also how would you even implement that? Chinese extra villagers? Hun no houses?
So what you’re saying is you enjoy the civs with eco bonuses because it helps end the game quicker.
Chinese extra vills free in castle, huns a larger wood deficit, honestly they have their bonus paid for so I’m not certain it’s a good example
He’s saying that having a strong economy bonus helps you win games. Look at the Aztecs, they’ve got both an amazing eco bonus and an amazing military bonus
Maybe to balance it a civ should be left with an eco bonus or a military bonus of similar value.
Then you might as well start the game in castle age since all the civs would be the same till that moment
Then eco bonuses are fine and there is no best civ.
no, i enjoy faster paced games over slower drag your feet do nothing for the first 15 minutes games.
and what about the downside? how do you incorportate that?
so do Chinese - they start with less resources due to extra villagers. some civs who get an eco bonus only get a small one that means nothing if it starts in the castle age. look at lithuanians - 150 extra food means they can do a drush or scout rush faster, or go up to feudal faster, or nomad starts differently, but what is 150 food if it doesn’t happen until castle age?
except the game is mostly balanced as is. why would we fundamentally change the nature of the game?
he’s saying if we do your idea - if eco bonuses are erased until castle age, we might as well just start every game in castle age because its boring before then. it makes zero sense. you’re literally removing options from everyone.
Or you accept that there are civs that are simply better than other depending on different settings and maps. For example, Japanese are decent on arabia, kinda bad on arena and probably the best civ on map like cross simply due to their eco and military bonus.
Regardless of civ or lack of options in terms of military or eco bonuses, you can do pretty much anything you want in dark age onwards, aggression, defensive, etc
not really - because everyone will just wall in until castle age, no military bonuses or eco bonuses means you have nothing you can use to take advantages. it slows the game down and makes it boring.
This generally plays into people will play the civ they like that fits their play style on the maps they seem to do well on
no, they would still choose the strongest civs - as they do now, thy would just find out what the new meta civs are based on castle age starts for bonuses and choose those. just like when Persians got nerfed, they abandoned Persians.
How would the wall situation be if foundations were heavily nerfed further from walls to buildings to where they get demolished swiftly while in the building stages like in the age of kings opening video.
foundations already got nerfed to the ground in the last patch - people still wall. and if people have no military advantages to exploit, they will just fast castle and go for those military advantages.