Cumans are too one-dimensional and map-reliant. You need to go second tc or have no bonus at all and when you go you are inviting assassins into your bedroom. Cuman second tc is one of the most boring eco bonuses, yes not at first sight but after some time of experimentation it falls totally flat and doesnt work as eco bonus at all. In a sense that eco bonuses should increase your eco that much that you even can allow going for more niche strats with units that are generic for your civ. When your opponent knows what to do to stop your strat which on open maps isnt that difficult you rather dont wanna see them. Feudal rams is just a gimmick that is also too expensive and never really worth it since its only rams that can be killed by villagers if necessary.Anyone else surprised by the Lithuanians pick rate? It's one of highest picked civs but the win rate is not that impressive. I feel they're a bit overrated.
I'm surprised we don't see more Cumans, they're unique TC in feudal play can have so many applications that's not being explored. Or mixing in rams in feudal forwards, tower rushes.
Cumans are too one-dimensional and map-reliant. You need to go second tc or have no bonus at all and when you go you are inviting assassins into your bedroom. Cuman second tc is one of the most boring eco bonuses, yes not at first sight but after some time of experimentation it falls totally flat and doesnt work as eco bonus at all. In a sense that eco bonuses should increase your eco that much that you even can allow going for more niche strats with units that are generic for your civ. When your opponent knows what to do to stop your strat which on open maps isnt that difficult you rather dont wanna see them. Feudal rams is just a gimmick that is also too expensive and never really worth it since its only rams that can be killed by villagers if necessary.
Lithuanians on the other hand are just bonkers. They have everything you want and their bonuses one by one are really strong but in combination even stronger. You see them being top 5 civ in every setting except full water maybe, which is ridiculous and no other civ has that property.
But its so expensive. I think if you go army you can never do second tc but you priotize castle age then to get better units instead prolonging feudal for winning game 20 minutes later and giving opponent chance of coming back.Regarding Cumans I think everyone assumes that going 2nd TC right away is a must. But you can put a 2nd TC down in mid feudal after winning a big battle for example. Or on the way up to castle age. Or you can use it offensively. TC's aren't aren't just for the eco advantage, they also provide security and map control.
My point was that there are various strategies with the 2nd feudal TC that haven't been fully explored or tested yet in competitive or tournament play.
And I did also mention the feudal ram that can be mixed in with feudal units. I'm surprised someone like Hoang hasn't been drawn to feudal ram pushes yet. Anyway I'm a noob but I feel that Cumans have a lot more to offer than we've seen so far.
Viper surprised and destroyed Hera in an Arena matchthe feudal ram
So Portuguese have now a 100% win rate in this tournament.
Big slap in the face of all those guys claiming Portuguese are the worst civ.
Get rekt.
Noobs.
Viper picked a couple of civs that have unit discounts (Port & Byz) which does make sense on more aggressive maps.
Eco bonuses need to be played more defensively. Military bonuses need to be played more aggressively. That's why Vikings lost vs Portuguese. That map was nearly impossible to wall up and even Vikings eco couldn't make up for that.
The number 1 in the world picks Tatars and Portuguese before Magyars.So Portuguese have now a 100% win rate in this tournament.
Big slap in the face of all those guys claiming Portuguese are the worst civ.
So Portuguese have now a 100% win rate in this tournament.
Big slap in the face of all those guys claiming Portuguese are the worst civ.
Get rekt.
Noobs.
Inb4 Hera picks Portuguese just to waste the stats :PSorry, can't hear you over my 100% win rate.
Sorry, can't hear you over my 100% win rate.
U should post the link here again. 99% of users here just click on new posts and won't ever go back to the first page of the threadTable updated with week 3 stats!
Aztecs, according to the draft/ban ratio, still looks like the true kings of Arabia even tho we don't see them as much as Franks, Lithuanians and Khmer in actual matches
I dont like that reasoning. We change balance now after every tournament ? :D And Aztecs and Malians have same Winrate and played game number :DWas looking again through it as we had the discussion in the other thread. Right now, that are possible conclusions:
May be OP:
Aztecs - all the time banned, all the time picked, only civ with an actual great win-rate
May need a nerf:
A (often banned): Chinese, Mayans
B (not banned but always picked): Franks, Lithuanians, Khmer
Seem perfectly balanced:
A (often played, normal win-rate): Britons, Celts, Incas, Goths, Huns, Malians, Mongols, Slavs, Vikings
B (less often played, good win-rate): Berbers, Ethiopians
May need a buff:
A (rarely played, bad win-rate): Indians, Japanese, Spanish, Vietnamese
B (played only once or twice): Italians, Magyars, Persians, Portugese, Tatars, Teutons
C (not even played once): Bulgarians, Burmese
D (not even drafted once): Koreans, Malay, Turks
Out of the ordinary:
Cumans - 6 times banned (!), but only 7 times drafted, lost 4 out of 6 but were more of an underdog-pick
Byzantines - only 7 times drafted and 5 times played, but won 4/5, only loss though with a huge seed advantage. just hard to compare bc strong but weird.
Saracens - 5 times played, lost 3 times with very small seed difference, but may be figured out now by the Lord and are just very different
Remarkable that none of the 5 top civs behind the Aztecs have a significantly high win-rate. The early impression of the balance being very good stays up to this point.
Interesting. Really I'm not so sure how Malay is so bad. I guess they don't have a chance to use their +2 vills in Feudal (gotten during age advancement) due to the open map of kotd. Fast Castle is nerfed quite a bit in this map so fc civs like Malay (fc xbow is good for them) are nerfed. Doesn't help that knights from them suck and you need those guys versus meso civs and others.Was looking again through it as we had the discussion in the other thread. Right now, that are possible conclusions:
May be OP:
Aztecs - all the time banned, all the time picked, only civ with an actual great win-rate
May need a nerf:
A (often banned): Chinese, Mayans
B (not banned but always picked): Franks, Lithuanians, Khmer
Seem perfectly balanced:
A (often played, normal win-rate): Britons, Celts, Incas, Goths, Huns, Malians, Mongols, Slavs, Vikings
B (less often played, good win-rate): Berbers, Ethiopians
May need a buff:
A (rarely played, bad win-rate): Indians, Japanese, Spanish, Vietnamese
B (played only once or twice): Italians, Magyars, Persians, Portugese, Tatars, Teutons
C (not even played once): Bulgarians, Burmese
D (not even drafted once): Koreans, Malay, Turks
Out of the ordinary:
Cumans - 6 times banned (!), but only 7 times drafted, lost 4 out of 6 but were more of an underdog-pick
Byzantines - only 7 times drafted and 5 times played, but won 4/5, only loss though with a huge seed advantage. just hard to compare bc strong but weird.
Saracens - 5 times played, lost 3 times with very small seed difference, but may be figured out now by the Lord and are just very different
Remarkable that none of the 5 top civs behind the Aztecs have a significantly high win-rate. The early impression of the balance being very good stays up to this point.