Winrates since last patch

@bubblymango3400 completely agree

I’ve actually calculated this: In Peak the feudal extra TC puts you 1400 ressoureces behind, 400 more than going up.

I think this should make it pretty clear why it’s so risky to try that strat in open maps like arabia.

1 Like

They’re probably best on something like Hideout. They profit from being the biggest in mid castle age, with protection before that point, but enough potential to do damage when they get to it. Theoretically they could have a power spike in late feudal age as well, when they can boom and make military instead of investing in going up, but with how much stronger castle age units usually feel compared to feudal age ones this doesn’t work that well in practice.

Since they also have no good lategame push, they can’t compete map control to get relics etc.
They have also a hard time in these maps.
I think in Theory it can work, but it needs to be figured out how many tcs they should boom in castle age. As they are ahead economically maybe the best way to continue only booming with 2 and try to pressure the oponent with all available ressources.
But I’m not an arena or hideout player. Maybe the clowns now better how to abuse the cuman boom there.

Thats a pretty round number. Although i can believe it’s an approximate value, you also have res lost due to Idle time which naturally scales with the number of vils used to build the tc.

But it makes sense you should be behind because if left alone you gain a huge eco advantage.

Yeah if xbow, knights or siege didn’t exist this might work. But they are simply too much of a power spike compared to feudal units. Snowballing is real…

The problem is you can’t even begin to mass fast enough the counters to units that are going to damage you the most,which imo is siege. Since scorps and mangos will counter pikes and skirms. Feudal archers simply won’t cut it. And scouts are much too expensive for that point of the game. And rams are terrible for defending with.

If they had some kind of anti siege bonus that would help them survive…

But not sure how that would be implemented.

What about something like rams are 15% faster? But their max speed is capped to the generic max value. So their imperial game isn’t upped. But rams are more useful for feudal aggression. And possibly defense…

Another option:

Rams can garrison 50% more units

So they go faster than other rams because they have more units inside!

Cumans dont have an awesome infantry, so this cannot be too broken.

1 Like

Yes, I included walking, idle time + the need to build additional farms. This is why the number is so high. I was actually surprised by the number, but it makes sense.

I didn’t iclude houses btw because it’s hard to predict exactly how many more you need and if.

And of course I made approximations, it’s just to show that it’s really dangerous to perform that strat in feudal.

1 Like

Isn’t it obvious Cuman seem weak because those stats are skewed toward Arabia? And it doesn’t mention TG, where teammates can defend the Cuman boom. They didn’t nerf imp camels, eles and arambai to start buffing one of the best pocket civ.

Also what even are those arguments. No good late game push? They have paladins, siege ram + halbs, on Arena not having relics doesn’t matter if you boom well enough to end your opponent before gold is exhausted. And their de facto free husbandry greatly helps if you fancy going for relics. If you feel like experimenting I suppose feudal ram + towers shenanigan work too.

Fully upgraded halbs is enough for rams.


Rams gain +10 attack bonus vs buildings and +0.05 moving rate for each infantry unit garrisoned.

So, with 3 extra halbs inside, a cuman siege ram with 6+3 extra units would move 0.15 faster but deals 10 less damage against buildings than a siege engineers siege ram. However, they would be better at “sniping siege”, mainly trebuchets and enemy rams, because siege engineers doesn’t increase damage against siege, and cumans rams would move faster.

Thus, it would be an interesting form of buffing their siege without giving them siege engineers. Although cumans already have kipchaks to kill enemy rams

In case cumans (or other civ) needs such a buff, I mean.

i guess it could work, and doesnt necessarily buff their late game(which is very good) because you rarely fully stack units in siege rams as it is… (or i hardly ever see anyone do it) so might help them earlier when you can actually bother doing something like that (putting 6 spears in a standard ram)

it does help more in maps like arena though, if you go flush with rams instead of booming (which isnt a bad thing imo, it means it allows them to do something else besides boom)

according to STOL, cumans get 700+ extra resouces to non-econ bonus civs at 25th min.
however, It should be much more at around 20mins, as Cumans finished the 2 TC boom while the other civs are in progress of 3/4 TC. So Cumans provide a different powerspike timing than normal civs.

Someone mentioned Incas is top due to Socrotra. They fell after the map pool changed
Teutons should be very good in lower elos as the eco bonus is strong and armies are good (husbandry isn’t that important at this level)

surprised Indians and Berbers are that good, tho.

Aztecs is only good for skilful players IMO…early push, monk, mango micro etc

I actually mentioned that so many people kept saying this… And what is ironic is its actually the other way around according to the stats. Teuton winrates go up with elo, and i would argue its possibly due to their siege halb combo.

There might be a point where there’s a hard switch between the upper most players suddenly over power Teutons but up until that point Teutons in the ladder are doing extremely well.

But admittedly these might all be flukes due to sample size

1 Like

Frankly when i was playing AOC, no one would upgrade husbandry (250f) early, unless vs conqs or camels. Castle age mangudai wasnt good to micro back then.

Well I made a test run with cumans where I had 83 vils at 22:20 and I even already stopped adding more tc because I already had 5 running. I think at this point I was already more than 1 k res + additional vils ahead.
The cuman boom is insane, but they have a really bad endgame, so it’s deceiving. And the opponent usually can catch up in vil numbers in 1 1/2 minutes or so.

Sotls comparison is actually deceiving because with proper market abuse you can get way earlier castle times with cumans. I got a 18:20 uptime in my testrun, more than 2 minutes earlier than sotls assumption. Plus I could add 2 tcs right when reaching castle, whilst sotl only added one. The extra TC is actually way more powerful than the sotl video shows, if used correctly. And my run wasn’t perfect, I made several mistakes in it. I think it’s possible to get up even 30 secs to a min earlier.

That’s why I propose in Changing the Cuman extra tcs (after the first) to instead spawn 4 vills instantly, but working at 50 % speed afterwards. I’ve actually calculated this, the boom with 4 insta vills but 50 % less production rate will be much less powerful (Instead of effectively 12 vils it would be 10 vils ahead when reaching castle). It would take about the same time to pay back the investment, but it wouldn’t put the cuman player so far behind as now: the peak would be at about 900 res, a bit less than going up.

As the cuman player would have an disadvantage in castle age booming because of the lower tc working rates, it would also make the cuman boom less abnoxious in closed maps, whilst in arabia the cuman Player could posssibly outboom the opponent in a prolonged feudal age. But this would be situational because the (all things considered) investment in the extra tc is still quite high.

But of course this wouldn’t change the cuman winrates much. As the cumans have actually nothing really going for them in military, they need something elso. Maybe cheaper SIege workshop + mangonel in feudal. So they could try to force a prolonged feudal age where they could possibly outboom the opponent? I think this could make them very interesting to play.

How many times do we need to prove this is false before you believe us?

They lose because they are too susceptible to getting nuked if they boom on non closed maps. And if they don’t boom they have very little going for them eco wise. Nothing to do with end game. That’s it.

Paladins, kipchak, siege, infantry, super spammy hussar are good enough end game

ya absolutely.
With 100% faster production hussar, fu halbs, Kipchak, their lategame hardly considered bad.
If anything celts and koreans are bad

1 Like

It’s ok, but they also miss important techs like siege engineers bombard cannons, their monastery is terrible (monk defense is very important on closed maps) and their additional TC doesnt help them in the late eco. Almost every other good civ in closed maps has a way better lategame eco than cumans.

The lack of defensive technologies on makes cumans also quite vulnerable in closed maps, too. You will see on many closed maps cumans are actually still one of the weaker civs and the highest winrates you can achieve with them right now is in the midgame. So they are indeed good in hideout, but not so good in arena or fortress because of these other factors.

It’s never that one-sided as you want to present it here. Cumans lategame isn’t that strong because of many factors. Having aggression potential isn’t everything in the lategame. You must also be able to defent your eco, too. And cumans suck in this regard. All in all, their lategame is below average, at least in closed maps.

Their siege is below average. Infantry has no specific bonus. The high mobility units would be useful in open maps, but there the lack of early eco hinders them to be proactive. Whilst their midgame is indeed insanely strong in closed maps, their lategame is actually quite bad, the only units which are featured are actually no good closed map units.
Of course cumans could be buffed here, but I don’t think it’s necessary. I’d like to have them balanced in most maps rather than op in closed and trash in arabia.

Coustiliers being OP doesnt change the fact that Burgs. are very useless generally.
So Burgundians should be buffed but Coustiliers MUST be nerfed.

You mean like a siege ram with FU infantry support?

Also i never said anything about closed or open maps. There are a number of civs with suboptimal late game armies for closed maps.

Arabia /open maps are the dominantly played maps. Cumans have a very good selection for the late game on the most dominantly played maps.

Its like saying Bulgarian late game sucks and then referring to islands as proof?

The point being cumans need a leg up. If their early game is buffed like it should be, their open map strength will stand a better chance. But the point is also, they do not need any late game buffs wrt their military… Because it is already good for the MOST DOMINANTLY PLAYED MAPS