Winrates since last patch

Some bro posted this on reddit, apparently the win rates since the last patch or whatevs. Either way something cool to think about.

And way some surprising and unsurprising stuff… cumans wtf?

be aware the civs with the larger spread have the least reliable results (eg korea falls anywhere on that line due to low play rate)


Another surprise in Burgundians. They are bottom tier even though people crying how OP Coustilliers are.


I like playing as vietnamese, koreans or portuguese.

I like pain


hahaha same, i literally play franks or mayans 1 in 100 games or so…

yeah and there’s a bunch of peeps that keep saying they arent that powerful, i think the people crying havent tried using them, like when people first saw the donjon and the serjeant, i used to get flamed a ton


The worst part about picking koreans is that 2 in 3 games i get matched against franks, and the rest ones against goths XD

1 Like

it just makes you stronger! i really like beating a meta civ… and i feel less proud when i inevitably win with a meta civ… beat turks using mayans(eagles, halbs + skirms), and i was like i really really dont deserve this win

i hardly ever see goths

Coustilliers needed a nerf, it was too op that normal coustilliers could one soy vills and the 2x vs cav archers was fun, but extremly OP

I’m a little surprised that they are so Bad in the stats, i know their early Game is not great and expending in the extra eco upgrades could be risky but the civ get a lot better very fast ir they defend well till castle age

1 Like

In the current meta early bonusses seem to be almost everything. Even though coustilier is still one of the best UUs it doesn’t matter because it is so snowbally - i both directions. If you are behind you can’t mass them in the numbers you need and still lose.

I think the sicilian winrate is mainly because of first crusade, I think they will fall of to burgundian rates soon.


The Burgundian military tech tree in the late game is actually quite poor too - they have literally just a single military unit that is fully upgraded, Halberdier. And their only military bonus is towards gunpowder units, none of which are fully upgraded. Their good parts seem to be mainly the Coustilier and a few power spikes.


Burgundians are low tier in 1v1
This man should make an analysis for team games, I am curious about burgundians in this regard. Flemish revolution is easier to achieve in team games.

I don’t think they have problems un late Game, they have an strong eco, and cheap upgrades.

By the tiene a civ has FU paladin, burgundians have already outclass your knight line for most of the Game and can easilly outgold You with their UT.

If their are weak is because of their early game

1 Like

oh look at that, i can’t wait to see how the people saying Burgundians are OP are going to respond to this.


even this is a misconception, the castle cavalier is really not that great, and even if it was, it still gets stomped by pikes in the right numbers, burg are simply hard lined into such a predictable play… n comparison: magyar knights are much cheaper to tech with better support, berber have millions of them and camels with much better support, lith are better with much better monks (yet another counter to cav) and MUCH better trash and the list goes on and on

you realise bulgarian cavaliers exist? or heavy camels? or farimba camels/cavaliers? and halberdiers? all with better ecos, meaning they can produce said units in better numbers

but thats the thing… they dont…


debatable. they have all the eco upgrades, and get them earlier, but that’s the extent of the eco bonus. its like vikings. they have a stronger mid game, but a weaker late game eco. meanwhile the cheap upgrades don’t hold up much when your paladins are inferior to most civs on a 1v1 level.

Do you know that burgundians also have FU halbers? camels should not be a big problem, and they can potencially outgold any civ with their UT and they have decent (not great) skirms to defend against halbs, you can complement your cavaliers very nicely depending on the match… monks are also kind of risky since they can be sniped with coustelliers

Also their eco bonus kicks in in castle age, is not a great bonus before but is a good one in middle to late game.

I am not saying the civ is OP (only the coustellier WAS OP) or unbeatable, but is pretty strong if they get to castle age, maybe just not so great for arabia since they don’t have a good early game

1 Like

they dont, why do you think they do? in arabia, unless you want to die, you take double bit axe during aging up, most likely the same for 2 man saw, none of the others you’ll ever take an age earlier because you have too few vils to benefit from… which means both these bonuses are negligible compared to every other civ… free wheel barro/hand cart, berries, farm upgrades, bloodlines… free lumber camp upgrades

because pikes dont exist? or archers? the coustilier is bottlenecked and the burg have minimal eco bonuses unlike every other civ…

because camels never catch you out of position? so any civ with pikes automatically counters pikes? leeel

because gold determines the result of a match? byz say hi… any civ with decent trash says hi… FU bulgarian hussars especially say hi, huszars say hi… and the list goes on and on

Instead the Burgundian buff requests will spawn everywhere.


rofl… seriously??

so i explained how they havent because there are hard counters to it on top of the weaker eco

you said you will snipe monks, how will you snipe monks if they are shielded by pikes/halbs

of course not, they are a deterrent though, you cant snipe someone if you cant reach them

omg they have skirms, my pikes are now 100% useless… rofl

you realise those skirms take 2 more ranged damage than almost every other skirm in the game? (this is huge) and this includes all their ranged units (no PT for their useless CA unlike bulgarians for example)

no siege engineers means you have to get BBC before you stand a chance in siege v siege

i dont know, im not an amazing arm chair general like yourself… maybe it has something to do with the existence of FU paladins… :open_mouth:

rofl, this forum and the word fine… stats say otherwise …

also well done for cherry picking and not actually answering the flaws i pointed out… clearly you must be right… :rofl: :rofl:

It must look like rather poor judgement to nerf an already poorly performing civilization like Saracens. I for one recognize the true power of the Saracens. Their consistently low win rates are a result of people randomly getting the civ and not knowing how to play it. If Saracens ever reach 50% win rate, they will be far too OP.

Extract from the original post : “EDIT: Forgot to add, why did I even bother doing this when you can just checkout ? Well the answer is simple, I wanted to add confidence intervals to give us an idea of how reliable those %'s were. People often say “the sample is too small” or “you can’t trust the stats” well simply put adding confidence intervals allows us to quantify how much trust we can put into these point estimates.”

No one to notice this?

According to this thing both civs have potentially the same “true winrate”