Why nerf Sicilians when Poles exist?!?

The nerf on Sicilians will ruin the civ, it removes the identity of the civ, is like playing Britons with no extra range or Franks with no extra HP on their cav. Meanwhile you have Poles TRush/Castle drop you and still have eco to play with.


Bceause having a civ with all upgrades to cavalier, taking 50% less bonus damage, resist conversion, and on top of that get huskarl level of resistance vs archers is simply too much and broken vs certain civs.

And both civs need a nerf in both areas you named.

Poles indeed need a nerf, and thats to go for folwark eco, stone bonus, obuch and castle age UT.


The Obuch needs 1 base pierce armor instead of 2. And maybe, 5% food drop off from farms. Far less gold stone mines. Maybe something like 1 gold for every 5 stone mined.

Maybe give them Halbs to offset this nerf.

I’m fine witha Nerf to cavalier as long as It comes with a equal buff to serjeants and donjons or others aspetto of the civ, since atm sicilians are totally fine in winrates, average, and not in need of a Nerf. Just 1 thing that is broken but a Nerf with no compensation is a dumb idea

Not sure why we need to make a whole slew of these “why nerf X when Y exist?!” threads when the thesis could be contained in 1 post of the PUP balance discussion thread, where most of these issues have been discussed at length.


Heavy cav like Paladins and Halbs still cost effective and not that broken at all, if we are nerfing that why not nerve Cataphracts too?? The conversion resistance I agree is kinda random. And why nerf because they are broken vs certain civs and not buff the other civs? Should we nerf every civ because Vietnamese, Bengalis, Byzantines and Burmese are bad?

I agree there cavalry is very strong but this ruins more the infantry.

Cataphracts are very costly units. And archers do fairly decent against them.

and that’s why Byzantines are one of the worst civs!!

Obuch is tank and cheap to offset lack of Halbs and create new way of playing aoe2 which is for example Obuch+Skirmishers ( or Archers etc. ). Obuch with 2 pierce armor still dies to Archers because they are still as slow as Champs. Nerfing his stats will kill the units, it’s better to nerf their cost. And Obuch is only one the tankiest unit in Polish roster.

SOTLs video about Folwark.
Nerfing Folwark turns this bonus from “high risk high reward” to “high risk low reward” while Slavs work faster without paying attention to placing farms. This bonus still have many downsides.

1 gold pers 5 stone mined is death bonus. It could so small that it would be as well removed. Still stone mines have the slowest gather rate.

The point about Poles is to lack Halbs. Currently there are 32 civs with Halbs and Poles were first civ to lack that upgrade since African Kingdoms ( Tatars lack Halbs on release, but later they get them ).

Other nerf that people propose is to nerf Szlachta Priviliges which means instead of Poles just play Berbers or Portuguese. Berbers have free discount for both food and gold cost, no need for castle and have access to Camels.

I still would like to know why Poles need nerf. They are average on arabia and have great arena winrate, but even in recent tournaments Poles are rarely picked and used, even for closed maps.

I mean, I think “nerf Poles” thing become popular when Hera made this video about “nerfing civilizations” and Poles were on 5 spot. Which is weird because “OP” means overpowered so civilization should over perform right ? But that makes no sense since he ( and well, other aswell ) wasn’t even trying to pick Poles for closed maps when for example in T90 Titatns League there were arena.

The nerf Poles was from watching my friend with 2200 1v1 elo having 5 enemy towers in his base and the enemy advancing to the next age while he was not even close (in Hideout). The only nerf I would like to see on Poles is the stone mining, 1 every 3 stone I think is more fair.

1 Like

Well change like this should be in pup to test things. Kinda dislike how this pup project works. We could see in practise if 1 to 3 gold from stone is too much or it would just make perfect balance. I still believe Polish tower rush is way weaker than previous Inca trush.

And among these the bonus damage reduction should be the last one to be nerfed. This is what makes Sicilians unique.

Hauberk is already very expensive. Conversion resistance could completely be removed.


It is weaker but the problem it’s as Poles you don’t have to mine gold and can advance easier

Well if you are going for army you have to mine gold as Poles, because stone mining doesn’t provide as much gold mines, because it is still less and stone is mined slower than gold. I understand that you meant, - don’t mine gold and can advance easier in tower rush. And I have to agree ( without archer support later ), but the problem is, is this too strong or just works as intended ? Because they advance easier into what ? Poles have no militiary bonuses besides team bonus and UT ( where only one boosts stats of the scout line ). For example Britons have to mine gold but they advance even easier to next age with that sheep bonus, can boom much easier with cheap TC and can go Crossbows who are trained faster and have extra range which basically makes mangonels useless against them.

It’s worth noting that Poles perform well only on land maps. If you have islands polish dock sucks without any boni and your farms near Folwark require more wood since they are finish faster.

I understand what you are saying but even 2-3 knights while the other guy is in Feudal is very strong


The clownery that I’m reading go nuts lol:

Lol Sicilians cavaliers can take 7 hits from halbs (that’s alone higher than frankish and teutonic paladins), and in castle age your knights always won vs camels.

Because that’s power creep, and right now we need more nerfs than buffs.

Ultra LOL, Byzantines are a good example on how a civ without eco bonus is probably on one of the best place balance wise, they are a common pick on torunaments with some match up favoured towards Byzantines.

11 Obuch is a good example on why infantry units with such stats and cost doen’t exist, and LMAO nerfing the PA won’t kill the unit, just that they gain a counterplay (Hussar+arbalest), Poles don’t even suck vs archers.

Man is obvious that you are Polish and ofc are too biased to your civ, check this game:

That’s just a good example on how broken the UT is in reality on arena, those cavaliers are just too cheap to the point they even go cost effectively vs no more or less than ELITE LEITIS, unit that reigns in melee fights. No way, at least the UT cost has to be increased to 700f and 500g.

Hera, T90 and Arena stats for +1600 back up the fact Poles are too strong on closed maps. and by my own experience they are quite overtuned on arena.

@SouBotsito I know you always disagree here but go and explain why Poles are OP on closed maps.

Stop this, such unfair bonus had to be nerfed.

1 Like

Unfair to whom? Show stats?

Before Hauberk is introduced, this same bonus did not remotely make Sicilians OP. Even now, it sits at around 48% win rate across most Elo ranges.


I think the Sicilians nerf is for Red Bull. In RBW5, GL said Sicilians is OP and picked it in every match and won with it. The stats don’t show it probably because EW is a very uncommon mode.


yeah, the way to go was probably nerf hauberk to +1/+1 and make it cheaper, and then compensate in buffing serjeants and donjons which are both too expensive. the bonus reduction is a big nerf to a average civs, whit no compensation. it’s super silly, and also does hinder the identity of sicilians since that is their main bonus


Idc how unique you think it makes rthem, 50% is just ridiculous. With 50% camels dont beat their cavaliers cost effectively

Also Hauberk isnt nearly as expensive as Paladin

1 Like