good beginner civs are: +berbers +byzantines +ethiopian +franks +italian +korean +lithuanian +malian +poles +portuguese +saracen +vietnamese relatively open tech tress. you learn most build orders and counters. not much missing if at all.
Your average Briton main here I think one reason why the britons might be so low because people understand "archer" civ wrong. Because your Archers are actually generic in Feudal, and situationally worse in Castle. Briton Archers shine in the Late Castle age or Imp. And its there when they become so deadly...given you have not fallen behind too much whole game. Because Archers need to be massed. And 60 Longbows will still lose to 100 Paladins even with 12 range. From my exp they think of the Britons as the Archer Franks....but thats just not the case.
Yeah, makes sense. I agree a lot of newer players probably get pierce armor shock in imperial age when coming up against heavy cavalry. I think you could flip those numbers around and paladin would still ravage the archers in a straight up fight. Need those halbs in front...
@@Dawnrim You can win even without halbs, you just don't do yourself a favor and u'd win despite it, not because of it. Kiting is just super important. Wich i will suspect lower elos will have more trouble with. Kiting Cav backwards, dodging mangonels...stutter stepping skrim javelins early game. Archers Civs in generell are much harder to pull of than Cav civs imo.
Contrary to Hera i believe civs with crotches like the huns, timing conditionals like malay or gimmicks like gujaras are the worst part for a player to start, i beliebe that civs with small to no bonuses in the early stage help them get used to "standard play", berbers and spanish come to mind. As a mid elo player myself too i usualy have friends that come as new players to my playgroup, most if not all of them fall in love with a civ and depending on the civ they sometimes seriously struggle to move to other civs if the dtsrted with a weird one. Anyways great video and great voice for AOE content, I hope you stay as a regular creator since i believe there aren't enough and less even focused on the bigest part of our comunity, the low-mid to low elo players
Thanks you! Plan is to keep doing this as long as I can find the time and can come up with topics to cover :) Personally I agree with your take, though I believe him when Hera says the most straight forward path from complete beginner to pro is by hard grinding one civ and then branch out later. But it depends on how dedicated you are and what your goals as a player are I guess. For me playing just one civ simply sounds terribly boring.
Interesting picks! My list would be; Aztecs - Force Dropping Chinese - Loom and Vill Macro at Start - more of a disadvantage for beginners Gurjaras - Mill Start, Sheep Garrison, Unique Stable options Georgians - Mule Carts Armenians - Mule Carts but (very slightly) less exciting. I expect most new players would enjoy the interesting and powerful military of Georgians cav regen and Monaspa before they appreciate the more subtle effects of Armenian's eco bonuses and relics
I can go along with that list. I think your take on Armenians and Georgians is generally accurate, though I believe there is a layer somewhere on the ranking where infantry is favored and viable. I would imagine Armenians are popular among those players.
I would add the Aztecs, you really need to be really good and know what are you doing with the units that only the meso civs offer. Also the bonus fron the Aztecs are at first glance not really that impactful, until a pro plays it, in low elo this will never happen
Yup. Good point with the Aztec bonus. Unless you keep your production buildings running constantly to begin with (which require some real macro skills), you can't take full advantage of higher production rate.
I agree. It’s funny though is back when Conquerors dropped the Aztecs became my favorite. I Oddly enough, been hugely successful on ladder with them, and I’m pretty low ELO 🤷♂️. I think it’s because so many low ELO go Cavalry, and monks just work so well.
Good video! I just subbed. When I was around 1k I enjoyed the Burmese. I think I played them pretty standard (sometimes wanting to go Arambai too hard). Scouts into knights, or into pike/siege/monks. I loved showing up at enemy bases and converting as many production buildings as I could, lol.
Honestly I would swap Poles, Britons and Byzantines with Aztecs, Gurjaras and Malay for sure Poles in particular are a great civ at lower level imo, they tend to play very slowly and passively (Which works great at low level where timings and aggression are very random) and their easiest win condition is extremely powerful and easy to notice. Gurjaras and Malay have so many weird bonuses hard to use them properly (Malay especially) and they lack traditional power unit or easy gameplans. Aztecs I'm a bit torn on personally because they have hard bonuses to use properly at lower levels, but on the other hand spamming eagles/champions is easy to grasp and strong to do. But are significantly harder than the three civs mentioned
I would agree. I also think Aztecs are hard because they lack halberdiers. That means you're on a timer to make your attacks count that is not really there for the other meso civs, or civs with cavalry/camels of their own. If you haven't won by the time massed heavy cavalry kicks in, you're kinda screwed as Aztecs. One thing is spamming infantry in post imp like you're the goths- spamming infantry in castle age/early imp on limited eco to hit the timing window of aztecs is another thing entirely.
I agree. Gurjaras are tricky. In addition to the unconventional start, it’s easy to fall to pike play if you can’t get enough chakrams on the field in time. The stats agree too btw - Gurjaras are #38 out of 45 at the time of writing this.
You're welcome. Hope I'm not misinterpreting what you're saying here, but yeah you get none of that pro player talk here of "on lower levels, like 1800s and such..." As Real Time History would have said: 'the only AoE channel that defines intermediate by the median' (if that reference didn't land, it's worth checking them out - their history content is perhaps the best on youtube;e not much medieval history tbf, but still).
Byzantines is one of the top civs and totally beginner friendly. In fact it’s the fastest way to actually learn the fundamentals because you don’t have a eco bonus crutch. The byz vision and buildings grant error forgiveness. It’s honestly super easy to play and win with imo. You have great answers for everything and you counter every civ and no civ counters you. Even meso civs can be easily stopped by going 1 TC with defensive castle and relying on UU.
Nice video. Agree with your choices except for Byzantines. There is definitely a learning curve when it comes to understanding counters, but Byzantines is easily the most forgiving civ when it comes to learning counters and the game in general at lower levels. Free town watch and town patrol gives you scouting information, and the cheap trash allows for cost effective counters to just about anything a similarly lower level player is going to throw at you. If the game goes long you have all the tools and are not limited in really any way tech tree wise. Also I'd say not having an eco bonus is not a downside, as most lower level players tend to manage the TC and economy badly anyway. I'd also say that civs with awkward / non-standard starts are bad for beginners, like Gujaras or Huns, because like Chinese, the start of games with them is not easily transferrable to any other civ.
I completely agree with you that Byz a good place to start to learn the game, and I think the devs do as well, given they've put a focus on counter play in the handicap system: you don't get an attack bonus across the board when turning on the handicap system, but your bonus dmg in increased. It seems they're trying to 'teach' weaker players to play with counters, which makes sense. And then it would make sense to have Byz as your 'training civ' as well. Still, as you say there's a learning curve and you don't get anything for free economically, so I'm not necessarily surprised they're in the bottom 5 on the win rates (which is the basis for this video). Good for actually learning - not necessarily good for performing well on the ladder initially.
as a beginner myself a personal list of bad civs to start with (with reasons, in no particular order): 1.) Huns: bad habit of not building houses. Getting housed with all other civs (please do not repeat my mistake) + no Onager to defend vs those archer civs. 2.) Armenians/Georgians: do have mule cart instead of lumber/mining camps. you do not learn proper camp placement. 3.) Khmer: you do not learn how to place farms properly. you do not learn build orders which is even worse. 4.) American civs: Aztecs/Incas/Mayans - no cavalry 5.) Indian civs: Dravidians, Gurjaras, Hindutanis, Bengalis - no knights, siege elephants instead of rams. 6.) Burgundians: economy techs 1 Age earlier than all other civs. Confusing stuff. 7.) Armenians (again): barrack units 1 Age earlier than other civs. Confusing stuff. 8.) Turks: - no onager, no pikemen, no elite skirmishers. Lack of basic counter units.
I want to point that Italians can be quite misleading with condottiero and genoese crossbowmen, their much cheaper/simpler to upgrade and make but worse against most enemies. I haven´t really thought it till 2 of my newbie friends started playing italians and went straight for those 2 units not knowing their very simple counters. But contrarily to what I just said about them being a trap, it is still a good civ.
@@1Williams7 I’m a big Italians fan. They’re just never bad. And the discounted gunpowder units is a slept on bonus. I like hand cannoneers, but they’re expensive on the gold. A discount goes a long way.
im surprised malay wasnt here. its so hard to get a decent timing with the up timing. Even for 2k players sometimes struggle when getting so fast to next age
I am a little bit suprised not to see Sarazans on the list because they are pretty hard to get too. For new players it is hard to find out that your superior market is your eco bonus. Then there are also monks which, as you said, are hard to handle for new players. And the transition from knight to camels is also not that easy.
I agree. They are tough. I wonder though, if perhaps the market bonus is silently working in the background for a lot of people, even if they don’t think about it and base a strategy around it. It’s almost like Saracens become harder the harder you try with them. At higher levels you have to try hard because you’re up against other players who take advantage of their bonuses to a large degree and you’ll fall behind if you just play standard, but things like the wall breaking archers might carry a lot of people as Saracens even without some elaborate market abuse strat. Idk though, just thinking out loud. They’re weird for sure.
It’s at least hard to get to if you want to mass their best ranged option, scorpions. Maybe it will be a little easier with the scorp buffs coming in next patch.
Interesting. Given you approve of Hera’s take, I assume you’re questioning why Britons and Byz are on here (which surprised me as well tbh). I would be interested in hearing what else feels wrong to you.
@@Dawnrim Yep, Britons with the sheep bonus is easy to play, as sheep allows you to have a faster dark when you are at low elo, unlike mongols for example, that will require deer push or boar luring, wish can be more complex or get one of your vills killed.... IMO Britons are great for starting. Arches have lots of advantages, the main one is that to effectively counter your enemy needs to have a range, putting the pressure on him to be faster and have the knowledge to know how to react to pressure. Byz, the negative you mention is that it feels a defensive/reactive civ... and i was thinking, is this a joke? that's not a negative, is the strategy of the civ... it's what goes to the description, defensive civ. As a new player trying to beat that moderate and Hard AI one of the first things you learn is to turtle and hold while trying to develop a superior Economy. and Byz are great for that. Both Britons and Byz are civs that can make good use of overflow wood, unlike Franks or other cavalry Civs... as a new player you can be sure that 2 things will happen to you: Lots of Idle TC. Lots of wood. Both Byz and Briton will get army by making use of the wood. and Britons with the cheaper TC allow new player to make several once they get to CA and hopefully have a better boom. I do not agree sorry, and I don't think Hera's point is invalid for be the top player, considering he also give coaching I think he is in a great spot to know what he is talking about. Finally I start playing only in Jan of this year, so my perspective is the one of a new player
@@MacNewbieAoE2 its a half half for me byz can be difficult to play leading in the counter Units Play by scouting which is hard to impossible for newer players and their endgame unit is so expensive that without a good eco that maybe a new player lacks you never get to the numbers(chinese are dificult without question. But Britons is a questionmark for me aswell. Archers with pikes is easy to execute and hard to counter for casual players and its so easy get to there numbers as a player cause there cheap that its really beginner friendly. I would personally tag all meso civs in there to not play as new player, because you dont have the normal archer/Infatery/cavalry play with them and so players can get confused instead of cav to use eagles. I would also get in there most indian civs which instead of using knights/Crossbows often relay on elephants and other gimicks to be strong and its confusing aswell as a new player.
zero respect 11 but to be completely honest, while most of his analysis is solid, and he has tons of experience both from his own games and from coaching, I don't always agree with his takes on what goes on down on the lower levels. And I kinda have the numbers to back me up... the stats don't lie.. To be fair there might be a difference between 'best civ to win games on lower levels' which is what the stats portray and 'best civ to become a better player starting from lower levels' which might be what Hera is generally talking about when he picks out good beginner civs. Right now for instance, Sicilians are #3 for best performing civs from 850 - 1000 elo. I bet that's because they slap down their castles in people's faces and force resigns that way. Or maybe Donjon+Serjeants rushes. Hera probably don't want more Dauts and YouPuddings among the up and coming players, so he doesn't endorse that as a good choice, even if the stats say it is. Sorry for the article answer to your comparatively very short question - I think I need a follow up video here..
5 worst civs for a beginner: 5 - Vikings, the mix of no power units and bonuses that lead a beginner astray. 4 - Spain, as the supreme "lets try to win by only making my UU" and bonuses that promotes bad habits. 3 - Poles, either you understand that you suppose to make farms around the mill and not TCs, which is a bad habit to learn, or you playing a civ you don't understand. 2 - Saracens, the most useless civ in the game, no default bonuses at all, balanced around market use and that archers can hurt buildings. 1 - Khmer, as beginner friendly as farms being good no matter where they get built, this civ breaks more rules than any other by far. In the worst kind of ways as well, cheating on keeping villagers safe with the houses, and linear progression with no buildings needed for unlocks. The UU also dumb enough to try win with armies of them.
I guess you're focusing on civs that form bad habits for new players, and that's a fair enough criterium. Btw, I agree many of the ones you mention form worse habits than Huns, which is the OG bad habit forming civ that's often being pointed to.
Spanish is an interesting choice as they have a pretty full standard tech tree minus xbow so they are a good flexible civ for people to pay a wide variety of strategies especially if ppl come up with a good counter against conqs
@@Dawnrim Yes and also it not a very defined question, one person may answer it in the form of fast results, another one focuses on the civ bonuses, next one might think knight-play is so important they don't want a beginner to use eagles. Then there is the word beginner itself, some reserve it for being new to both the game and RTS in general, while some read it as just not being good at the game. For the former once, it might also have a time limit, like you only a beginner until you have played 20/50/100 games or for a month/months. So perhaps it good to have both what anyone think is the best and worst, so can read between the lines what they value and don't.
![Best Civ for Beginners? [AoE2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/y0BA7iX14Wo/mqdefault.jpg)
![Best Civ for Beginners? [AoE2]](/img/tr.png)
good beginner civs are:
+berbers
+byzantines
+ethiopian
+franks
+italian
+korean
+lithuanian
+malian
+poles
+portuguese
+saracen
+vietnamese
relatively open tech tress. you learn most build orders and counters. not much missing if at all.
Massive respect for pronouncing Szlachta Privilages almost flawlessly :) Cheers from a Pole ;)
Your average Briton main here
I think one reason why the britons might be so low because people understand "archer" civ wrong.
Because your Archers are actually generic in Feudal, and situationally worse in Castle. Briton Archers shine in the Late Castle age or Imp. And its there when they become so deadly...given you have not fallen behind too much whole game. Because Archers need to be massed. And 60 Longbows will still lose to 100 Paladins even with 12 range.
From my exp they think of the Britons as the Archer Franks....but thats just not the case.
Yeah, makes sense. I agree a lot of newer players probably get pierce armor shock in imperial age when coming up against heavy cavalry. I think you could flip those numbers around and paladin would still ravage the archers in a straight up fight. Need those halbs in front...
@@Dawnrim You can win even without halbs, you just don't do yourself a favor and u'd win despite it, not because of it. Kiting is just super important.
Wich i will suspect lower elos will have more trouble with. Kiting Cav backwards, dodging mangonels...stutter stepping skrim javelins early game.
Archers Civs in generell are much harder to pull of than Cav civs imo.
They were the Archer Franks... once upon a time.
Good video! Chinese was a given, but I was suprised not to see the Gujaras or the Mountain Royal civs on the list.
Contrary to Hera i believe civs with crotches like the huns, timing conditionals like malay or gimmicks like gujaras are the worst part for a player to start, i beliebe that civs with small to no bonuses in the early stage help them get used to "standard play", berbers and spanish come to mind. As a mid elo player myself too i usualy have friends that come as new players to my playgroup, most if not all of them fall in love with a civ and depending on the civ they sometimes seriously struggle to move to other civs if the dtsrted with a weird one. Anyways great video and great voice for AOE content, I hope you stay as a regular creator since i believe there aren't enough and less even focused on the bigest part of our comunity, the low-mid to low elo players
Thanks you! Plan is to keep doing this as long as I can find the time and can come up with topics to cover :) Personally I agree with your take, though I believe him when Hera says the most straight forward path from complete beginner to pro is by hard grinding one civ and then branch out later. But it depends on how dedicated you are and what your goals as a player are I guess. For me playing just one civ simply sounds terribly boring.
crutches. crotches are a little bit different 11
Interesting picks! My list would be;
Aztecs - Force Dropping
Chinese - Loom and Vill Macro at Start - more of a disadvantage for beginners
Gurjaras - Mill Start, Sheep Garrison, Unique Stable options
Georgians - Mule Carts
Armenians - Mule Carts but (very slightly) less exciting. I expect most new players would enjoy the interesting and powerful military of Georgians cav regen and Monaspa before they appreciate the more subtle effects of Armenian's eco bonuses and relics
I can go along with that list. I think your take on Armenians and Georgians is generally accurate, though I believe there is a layer somewhere on the ranking where infantry is favored and viable. I would imagine Armenians are popular among those players.
I would add the Aztecs, you really need to be really good and know what are you doing with the units that only the meso civs offer. Also the bonus fron the Aztecs are at first glance not really that impactful, until a pro plays it, in low elo this will never happen
Yup. Good point with the Aztec bonus. Unless you keep your production buildings running constantly to begin with (which require some real macro skills), you can't take full advantage of higher production rate.
I agree. It’s funny though is back when Conquerors dropped the Aztecs became my favorite. I
Oddly enough, been hugely successful on ladder with them, and I’m pretty low ELO 🤷♂️. I think it’s because so many low ELO go Cavalry, and monks just work so well.
@CrayZtwin1 hugely successful on ladder but still low elo? I don't get it.
@@italicpigeon I play very infrequently, and play other civs.
Good video! I just subbed. When I was around 1k I enjoyed the Burmese. I think I played them pretty standard (sometimes wanting to go Arambai too hard). Scouts into knights, or into pike/siege/monks. I loved showing up at enemy bases and converting as many production buildings as I could, lol.
Honestly I would swap Poles, Britons and Byzantines with Aztecs, Gurjaras and Malay for sure
Poles in particular are a great civ at lower level imo, they tend to play very slowly and passively (Which works great at low level where timings and aggression are very random) and their easiest win condition is extremely powerful and easy to notice.
Gurjaras and Malay have so many weird bonuses hard to use them properly (Malay especially) and they lack traditional power unit or easy gameplans.
Aztecs I'm a bit torn on personally because they have hard bonuses to use properly at lower levels, but on the other hand spamming eagles/champions is easy to grasp and strong to do.
But are significantly harder than the three civs mentioned
I would agree. I also think Aztecs are hard because they lack halberdiers. That means you're on a timer to make your attacks count that is not really there for the other meso civs, or civs with cavalry/camels of their own. If you haven't won by the time massed heavy cavalry kicks in, you're kinda screwed as Aztecs. One thing is spamming infantry in post imp like you're the goths- spamming infantry in castle age/early imp on limited eco to hit the timing window of aztecs is another thing entirely.
I would say Chinese then Gurjaras, new players think every sheep must go in the mill forever.
I agree. Gurjaras are tricky. In addition to the unconventional start, it’s easy to fall to pike play if you can’t get enough chakrams on the field in time. The stats agree too btw - Gurjaras are #38 out of 45 at the time of writing this.
Thank you so much, now I can show my elitism of being slightly above average and/or intermediate
You're welcome. Hope I'm not misinterpreting what you're saying here, but yeah you get none of that pro player talk here of "on lower levels, like 1800s and such..." As Real Time History would have said: 'the only AoE channel that defines intermediate by the median' (if that reference didn't land, it's worth checking them out - their history content is perhaps the best on youtube;e not much medieval history tbf, but still).
Byzantines is one of the top civs and totally beginner friendly. In fact it’s the fastest way to actually learn the fundamentals because you don’t have a eco bonus crutch. The byz vision and buildings grant error forgiveness. It’s honestly super easy to play and win with imo. You have great answers for everything and you counter every civ and no civ counters you. Even meso civs can be easily stopped by going 1 TC with defensive castle and relying on UU.
Nice video. Agree with your choices except for Byzantines. There is definitely a learning curve when it comes to understanding counters, but Byzantines is easily the most forgiving civ when it comes to learning counters and the game in general at lower levels. Free town watch and town patrol gives you scouting information, and the cheap trash allows for cost effective counters to just about anything a similarly lower level player is going to throw at you. If the game goes long you have all the tools and are not limited in really any way tech tree wise. Also I'd say not having an eco bonus is not a downside, as most lower level players tend to manage the TC and economy badly anyway.
I'd also say that civs with awkward / non-standard starts are bad for beginners, like Gujaras or Huns, because like Chinese, the start of games with them is not easily transferrable to any other civ.
I completely agree with you that Byz a good place to start to learn the game, and I think the devs do as well, given they've put a focus on counter play in the handicap system: you don't get an attack bonus across the board when turning on the handicap system, but your bonus dmg in increased. It seems they're trying to 'teach' weaker players to play with counters, which makes sense. And then it would make sense to have Byz as your 'training civ' as well. Still, as you say there's a learning curve and you don't get anything for free economically, so I'm not necessarily surprised they're in the bottom 5 on the win rates (which is the basis for this video). Good for actually learning - not necessarily good for performing well on the ladder initially.
as a beginner myself a personal list of bad civs to start with (with reasons, in no particular order):
1.) Huns: bad habit of not building houses. Getting housed with all other civs (please do not repeat my mistake) + no Onager to defend vs those archer civs.
2.) Armenians/Georgians: do have mule cart instead of lumber/mining camps. you do not learn proper camp placement.
3.) Khmer: you do not learn how to place farms properly. you do not learn build orders which is even worse.
4.) American civs: Aztecs/Incas/Mayans - no cavalry
5.) Indian civs: Dravidians, Gurjaras, Hindutanis, Bengalis - no knights, siege elephants instead of rams.
6.) Burgundians: economy techs 1 Age earlier than all other civs. Confusing stuff.
7.) Armenians (again): barrack units 1 Age earlier than other civs. Confusing stuff.
8.) Turks: - no onager, no pikemen, no elite skirmishers. Lack of basic counter units.
I want to point that Italians can be quite misleading with condottiero and genoese crossbowmen, their much cheaper/simpler to upgrade and make but worse against most enemies. I haven´t really thought it till 2 of my newbie friends started playing italians and went straight for those 2 units not knowing their very simple counters.
But contrarily to what I just said about them being a trap, it is still a good civ.
@@1Williams7 I’m a big Italians fan. They’re just never bad. And the discounted gunpowder units is a slept on bonus. I like hand cannoneers, but they’re expensive on the gold. A discount goes a long way.
Great video dude keep it up :) new subscriber
Glad you liked it :) Thanks for sub!
byz are not that bad because of high hp buildings which new players can make good use of
great video!
Appreciate it man :)
im surprised malay wasnt here.
its so hard to get a decent timing with the up timing. Even for 2k players sometimes struggle when getting so fast to next age
Now I know what not to pick, but Britons do seem appealing.
Hey man excellent video, keep going
I am a little bit suprised not to see Sarazans on the list because they are pretty hard to get too. For new players it is hard to find out that your superior market is your eco bonus. Then there are also monks which, as you said, are hard to handle for new players. And the transition from knight to camels is also not that easy.
I agree. They are tough. I wonder though, if perhaps the market bonus is silently working in the background for a lot of people, even if they don’t think about it and base a strategy around it. It’s almost like Saracens become harder the harder you try with them. At higher levels you have to try hard because you’re up against other players who take advantage of their bonuses to a large degree and you’ll fall behind if you just play standard, but things like the wall breaking archers might carry a lot of people as Saracens even without some elaborate market abuse strat. Idk though, just thinking out loud. They’re weird for sure.
That was a really nice and well edited video!
You said you were close to an average player.
So, what is your ELO?
Bouncing up and down around 1200 most days.
@@Dawnrim Okay, sounds good!
Thx!
For me playing as romans is so hard, they have no back line dps...
It’s at least hard to get to if you want to mass their best ranged option, scorpions. Maybe it will be a little easier with the scorp buffs coming in next patch.
Not a single cav archer civ?
I think you're overthinking this list.
Dont agree with this list at all, i think Hera makes sence. Chinese for sure needs to be in the list that i do agree
Interesting. Given you approve of Hera’s take, I assume you’re questioning why Britons and Byz are on here (which surprised me as well tbh). I would be interested in hearing what else feels wrong to you.
@@Dawnrim Yep, Britons with the sheep bonus is easy to play, as sheep allows you to have a faster dark when you are at low elo, unlike mongols for example, that will require deer push or boar luring, wish can be more complex or get one of your vills killed.... IMO Britons are great for starting. Arches have lots of advantages, the main one is that to effectively counter your enemy needs to have a range, putting the pressure on him to be faster and have the knowledge to know how to react to pressure.
Byz, the negative you mention is that it feels a defensive/reactive civ... and i was thinking, is this a joke? that's not a negative, is the strategy of the civ... it's what goes to the description, defensive civ. As a new player trying to beat that moderate and Hard AI one of the first things you learn is to turtle and hold while trying to develop a superior Economy. and Byz are great for that.
Both Britons and Byz are civs that can make good use of overflow wood, unlike Franks or other cavalry Civs... as a new player you can be sure that 2 things will happen to you:
Lots of Idle TC.
Lots of wood.
Both Byz and Briton will get army by making use of the wood. and Britons with the cheaper TC allow new player to make several once they get to CA and hopefully have a better boom.
I do not agree sorry, and I don't think Hera's point is invalid for be the top player, considering he also give coaching I think he is in a great spot to know what he is talking about. Finally I start playing only in Jan of this year, so my perspective is the one of a new player
@@MacNewbieAoE2 its a half half for me byz can be difficult to play leading in the counter Units Play by scouting which is hard to impossible for newer players and their endgame unit is so expensive that without a good eco that maybe a new player lacks you never get to the numbers(chinese are dificult without question. But Britons is a questionmark for me aswell. Archers with pikes is easy to execute and hard to counter for casual players and its so easy get to there numbers as a player cause there cheap that its really beginner friendly. I would personally tag all meso civs in there to not play as new player, because you dont have the normal archer/Infatery/cavalry play with them and so players can get confused instead of cav to use eagles. I would also get in there most indian civs which instead of using knights/Crossbows often relay on elephants and other gimicks to be strong and its confusing aswell as a new player.
good channel
thank you
Great video but not quite agree. I think gurjaras must be up there. Completely agree with chinese
mate u doubt hera??????
zero respect 11 but to be completely honest, while most of his analysis is solid, and he has tons of experience both from his own games and from coaching, I don't always agree with his takes on what goes on down on the lower levels. And I kinda have the numbers to back me up... the stats don't lie.. To be fair there might be a difference between 'best civ to win games on lower levels' which is what the stats portray and 'best civ to become a better player starting from lower levels' which might be what Hera is generally talking about when he picks out good beginner civs. Right now for instance, Sicilians are #3 for best performing civs from 850 - 1000 elo. I bet that's because they slap down their castles in people's faces and force resigns that way. Or maybe Donjon+Serjeants rushes. Hera probably don't want more Dauts and YouPuddings among the up and coming players, so he doesn't endorse that as a good choice, even if the stats say it is. Sorry for the article answer to your comparatively very short question - I think I need a follow up video here..
little more editing and faster talking, i like you, do the thing !
5 worst civs for a beginner: 5 - Vikings, the mix of no power units and bonuses that lead a beginner astray. 4 - Spain, as the supreme "lets try to win by only making my UU" and bonuses that promotes bad habits. 3 - Poles, either you understand that you suppose to make farms around the mill and not TCs, which is a bad habit to learn, or you playing a civ you don't understand. 2 - Saracens, the most useless civ in the game, no default bonuses at all, balanced around market use and that archers can hurt buildings. 1 - Khmer, as beginner friendly as farms being good no matter where they get built, this civ breaks more rules than any other by far. In the worst kind of ways as well, cheating on keeping villagers safe with the houses, and linear progression with no buildings needed for unlocks. The UU also dumb enough to try win with armies of them.
I guess you're focusing on civs that form bad habits for new players, and that's a fair enough criterium. Btw, I agree many of the ones you mention form worse habits than Huns, which is the OG bad habit forming civ that's often being pointed to.
Spanish is an interesting choice as they have a pretty full standard tech tree minus xbow so they are a good flexible civ for people to pay a wide variety of strategies especially if ppl come up with a good counter against conqs
@@Dawnrim Yes and also it not a very defined question, one person may answer it in the form of fast results, another one focuses on the civ bonuses, next one might think knight-play is so important they don't want a beginner to use eagles. Then there is the word beginner itself, some reserve it for being new to both the game and RTS in general, while some read it as just not being good at the game. For the former once, it might also have a time limit, like you only a beginner until you have played 20/50/100 games or for a month/months. So perhaps it good to have both what anyone think is the best and worst, so can read between the lines what they value and don't.
Wrong on Vikings
New player here what does UU stand for?