As a newer player, i have come to realize that i am learning allot more by just focusing on one civ. It was overwhelming to try and learn all the different civ bonuses. Half the time i didnt know, or even when i thought i knew, i was wrong, n the other half i wasn't fully sure how to utilize it OR support it. This showed in my win %. (I had 113 on farms/ 25 on wood thinking the farms were also producing gold, nope, it was those few lumberjacks/relics. yes this was a real match, 683 dead horses by the end) spam = light cav vs. Cavalier. This has given me a much deeper understanding of the game overall. Now when i play other civs, i am also more confidant. The biggest lesson for me was early aggression and how to balance an eco to that specific civ to support that aggression. I won 8 games yesterday/last night with no losses. And yes, i do play other civs, but i mainly am focusing on one. I just bought the expansion for the Georgians, going to play them for the first time right now!!! Time to learn my second civ!! YOUR FAULT HERA!!! thank you =D --->>Always: Great content, thank you for your time, insight, and wisdom. God bless you n yours
I really like Hera's more down to earth tier lists, with a limited number of S and A tier civs. The ability to prioritize properly really stands out in tournament drafts, and Hera almost never makes questionable drafts...
38:10 During the Forgotten DLC mayan farms were ~14% worse than generic without wheelbarow (compared to ~2.5% before). The resource bonus also used to be 20%.
I would disagree with your statement that the Bulgarian eco bonus that you save 50 stone on a TC is negligible: If your opponent forces you to a tower with archers, you still can make a TC staright away in Castle Age with the 75 stone that you still have. This has proven more than just a bit helpful to me, several times.
Hera if you are going to make a video about Bulgarians, you should talk more about how none of their "bonuses" are innate. Ie. you have to make an investment in order to see a small bit of power from playing them, whereas most other civs get innate bonus (ie Mongol hunt or Celt wood chopping, etc) So you have no eco bonus, and you have to invest into units and blacksmith upgrades (and UTs) to see the civ become strong, which isnt much of a bonus when both players are good at the game.
I would argue Mongol hunt is just as inherent as cavalry attacking 33% faster. With the hunt you have to choose to go hunt. As for cavalry, most people are making cav anyway. It's not like you're stepping away from the meta for them.
Hindustanis have HCA with every upgrade but Parthian Tactics, which should be sufficient to deal with Cataphract, although they obviously would have issues against cheap skirm/halb/camel composition.
Coming back from like a 3 year break and learned so much from this video. When I left CA was a meme, great to see my favorite civ(Mongols) and CA are S tier. So many changes over the past few years. Multiple civs I've never heard of and seen my first army of Savar the other day and had no idea what I was looking at.
CA is so expensive to upgrade. You have to open CA, you cannot go CA in imp, specially if you didn't open archers in castle age. And if you do, you die do cheap Byzantine skirms
Hera... Im really mad you keep putting civs right over Bulgarians..are you forgetting kreposts? Calvary attack 33%faster? Plus when konniks die???? HELLO WAKE UP... Also i have played tons of games against Franks with Bulgarians and have never lost against them with Bulgarians. MAKE ANOTHER VIDEO WITH BULGARIANS WITH MASS KREPOSTS AND KONNIKS YOU WILL SEE HOW OP THEY ARE..PLUS MILITIA RUSH WITH PIKES ARHCERS AND SKIRMS.
Great video, thanks for the content Wanted to listen while I work but found myself needing to check the screen a bit as you say “I’m putting it right here” but didn’t mention the actual tier. just some feedback. pce.
Thanks for that Hera! I am currently searching for a bunch of civs I can choose, to play ranked game. I am too scared yet but knowing the Meta helps to choose wisely :)
Could you make a follow up video where you talk about what adjustments you would make to the 3 best and 3 worst civs to make them more balanced (add/remove tech, adjust civ bonus/unique tech, maybe even add a civ bonus, etc)
As an Aztec main. I was dying when you guys were putting them in S or A tier, because I knew the nerfs were on the way. They have been pounded into the ground for a LONG time now. And as a 1400 Elo player I could feel them being too weak and yet they still got picked in tournaments. I’m glad you put them in C tier cause that’s where I believe they belong. I think they either need to revert some of the nerfs like bring back +5 carry or buff there archers slightly so you can use them in imp!
I think they are in a good spot currently; for me the issue is thst they got nerfed while the top 10/15 15 civs now have too strong of a power level through buffs/meta changes. If the best civs were around the power of like bottom of A tier civs I think the overall viability of most civs would improve drastically
@@Mattroid99 I find that Aztecs have a lot of counters (gunpowder) and are in a tricky spot. If you buff there main force (eagles and monks and also eco) they just become a one trick pony that’s unstoppable. I think they need a little bit more options. Like maybe a buff to the man at arms (every civ should have better man at arms tbh) or a small buff to archers (either the last armour upgrade or thumbring) i do agree with you in that other civs are now stronger and that the meta has changed. But as someone who watched and plays ALOT of Aztecs. I have seen a major shift I there power. I think another issue is that eagles have no real counter, since man at arms just suck. So maybe a major buff to them (I think they should cost -20 food) would help Aztecs give the them more options AND actually be a counter to eagles
@@Djturd64 100% agreed that the Militia line should be changed (I would propose a split personally, make a very cheap, throwable unit that is easy to mass and a versatile, more expensive one) but is an universal change that should be made and it could be troublesome for these three civs. As Meso civs you kinda always suffer against good Gunpowder, but personally I like much more how Aztecs are balance wise compared to Incas and Mayans that are too strong yet for different reasons (Stupid eco and one/two trick composition for Mayans, cheap counters unit for everything for Incas). That being said I wouldn't mind a small buff either, perhaps Thumb Ring (Although is kinda unique of a feature for a Meso civ) or even give them more starting Gold (Like 100 total?) to make the early Feudal Age a bit stronger
I honestly wouldnt mind the devs slightly buffing elite eagle to say 70 hp and nerfing El Dorado to 30 hp extra. Also maybe give aztecs last archer armor.
interesting idea, but i think it defeats the purpose/trade off of having exposed vills in exchange for pretty solid food bonus especially in early to early-mid game
You just need to know how to play it. Watched a game recently and this dude didn't play it right. He was wide open using multiple folwarks early. Gotta be super walled early and slowly build up the forward advantage. For the start just the 8 around the berry mill is fine. You need the wood for walls and defense. No point rushing the 2nd folwark and dying because you overinvested
Exactly what crossed my mind when he mentioned exposed villagers. I mean, the Khmer can garrison inside houses, why not the Poles inside a bigger building that provides housing?
Vikings being B tier is very surprising. Haven't they always been rated S tier or top A tier on Arabia for 1v1s? And they've not been nerfed as of late, so they should still be up there. Free wheelbarrow and handcart is very strong.
Theres been a period of time where they dropped off massively because thumb ring was taken away. Relatively recently they've received the imp tech which gives archers +1 att.
I think we need to see some really creative thinking to bring up infantry civs. It's sad to see them so low. At least Romans do OK statistically on win rate.
By the way, I am a statistics guy and when I see the difference between every guide I saw and the stats of what people are choosing as civs. Most of the time it's not matching at all, especially for lower ELO. I am not here to critic or what so ever, I just would like your point of view on that. For exemple, under 850 ELO, Sicilians have 56.88% win rate (wow), most pick are Franks (I can get that) and Georgians have just 9,524/437,413 pick which is one of the lowest. At 1900+ (which represent 1% of the players) picks and win rate are pretty balanced as I guess most of you are playing random at this level. Maybe my sources are bad our i miscalculated but I am pretty sure I am close to the reality. I am also not sure if other people would be interested by such a video. Please like if this sounds like a good idea :)
Wait, did you suggest a video idea in here somewhere? I'm confused. And if it's about the stats and numbers, then Spirit of the Law would be someone to go to for it.
I did not see your video about using civ bonuses until a day later, so I hope my question can be answered here. Why do people not seem to use hand cannoneers with civs that have bonuses?
i think Dravidians can be placed a couple of spots higher. They have solid military options, Wootz Steel Light cav is underrated in my opinion, with very strong elephant archers. Another one would be placing Hindustanis one place down, purely due to the lack of halbs if they run out of gold.
I think Poles are unquestionably the worst civ in Arabia right now and I believe there are a couple of reasons for it that you didn't mention. Comparing them to the other D tier civ we have, while Bulgarians fall very short in tech tree limitations and predictable options, the initiative and concrete potential to do damage from the get go is at least always there. Poles on the other hand have no initiative, need a very good map AND safe berries to even be playable, even if both conditions are met the civ starts to kick in at minute 25/30, and even there they have some very concrete long term issues vs CAs as they lack both the final Archer and Cavalry armor. They have much higher potential than almost any civ but no other civ in the game needs this much map luck, setup involved and time to function. Also this is a bit outside the scope but I think is much easier to fix something like Sicilians's (Like access to Thumb Ring and cheaper Hauberk) and Bulgarians's issues (Like making TCs not cost Stone and have Stirrups affect CAs) to make them decent than to fix Poles, which need a fundamental redesign to the Folwark gimmick on top of proper lategame tuning. Much like Britons is a civ that really feels stuck back in a time where timings were much less of a key priority and Arabia gens were way more wallable and not hilly wastelands like nowadays.
Not even close. Poles just need a different mindset to play instead of force feeding it into the fast feudal aggressive meta. Like burgundians you need to be defensive. It's actually very easy to full wall with defensive skirms while slowly pulling ahead with folwarks before exploding into the mass cavalier power spike. Or arbs/CA and hussar. But if you want to give it this negative press all the better for me if they buff it as a Poles main 11
@@youcanthandlethetruth5433Of course you need to open defensive, no one said the opposite. The civ will still make your life way harder though, Burgundians by comparision don't have to go for awkward walls and the initial defense pays itself very fast. With Poles though if the map is very open and berries are in the middle of nowhere is almost always gg on the spot, you cannot full wall and protect that and is the majority of Arabia gens nowadays. And the Knight spam comes in at min 30, not min 23 like the Burgundian Cavalier, so the opponent can still 1TC push you in castle for a while. Is pretty clear that the civ needs a heavy redesign honestly. Their lategame is completely unfair (And I would argue it should be nerfed quite a lot), but due to the Folwark gimmick the first parts of the game are often borderline unplayable in any map that you cannot full wall.
You made video were you told us Poles are the best civ. You said that all they need is nerf of stone mining and folwark. Next patch Poles were nerfed, both folwark and stone to gold ratio nerfed. And suddenly Poles civ was killed.
Arabia gens got way more open too, that I think was the real killer as Poles is one of the very few civs that absolutely need a very good map to even try to play the game. Buffing the Folwark back to the previous amount also risk to make their already absurd lategame (Which I would even argue should be nerfed for maps like Arena)
Poles is still the best civ. People just force it to be something it's not by being super open and aggressive. That's like using Malay and going knights then complaining why is Malay bad
For me personally, I would take Turks out of viable. While in theory they should be a viable civ in my opinion, they were the only civ to never even be drafted in the SAX Cup main event, meaning that none of the players in that event thought it was viable, even with 12 random bans opening up picks quite a bit more than usual.
How about instead of a tier list Hera does the complete partial ordered graph of civs? There are 990 different matchups so I guess the video would be around 20 hours long... Great content idea if I may say so myself
Slavs is quite good in maps like Arabia 1v1. Especially if you collect most the relics, you just have to focus on foods, woods, and stones for massing Boyars & placing cheap castles. The problem is, it's a boring civ to play with lack of bombard cannon, arbalest, and hand cannonneer
Wouldn't CA and stirrup hussar be a decent late game comp for Bulgarians? Only thing they miss is last archer armor. Or against camel/cav civ they could go halb instead of hussar.
Byzantines get crap cavalry. They are basically a glorofied archer civ with junk camels and anti-infantry cavalry (as if that will ever be useful). Just make archers and your own hussars and you win the game.
Major sadge that Bulgarians are alone at the bottom tier... Kreposts are so damn cool and the Konnik is resurrection mechanic is unique... I wish the devs do something to help them!
Emmm Aztecs defensive castle drop into atatl, one side defended by the castle, the other by the skirms, good luck CA outranged by 2 range levels. Then you boom and spam eagles into enemy economy
Anybody knows why aoe2 has been 5+ months without any patch? Aoe2 content creators that make tier list vids may run out of possibilities if game never updates lol.
You say Saracens virtue is they have nothing bad to say about them other than not having a top-tier bonus that gives them free wins, but isn't being weak to archer civs something bad to say about them?
"Mayans if played correctly can beat Hindustanis" isn't Hindustanis UU straight up a counter to Mayans? I dont see any unit they can do that counters Ghulam
I always hated those videos just because pros never told Japanese are trash, everybody just keeps arguing - wow you save 200 wood, it does not matter your cav is trash, close to no eco bonus, no bbc, trash uu, trash siege. Thank you very much edit: also, is spearmen skirm meta dead? I always love to play lith, koreans, byz and just spam in feudal
I think that old civs added values should be renovated at structure level. New cives have factors like hp regeneration, bonus from higher position, mule carts, etc etc etc. Franks and britons charts are pathetic nowadays, come on, it's not random that new civ like Georgians are the best (..Georgians..!?) And also details like britons not having halab make no sense, which European Civ should not have!?
Which is strange, because nothing's really changed wrt the civ. They always had pretty bad army options with a bonkers economy (wheelbarrow and hand cart free), and continue to have the best economy in the game.
@@skipper472 I think because firstly meta shifted a lot to cavalry mid game and gunpowder end game which they don't have. Also the xbow cost increase and lack of thumb ring affected their castle age imperial age power spikes. Their eco doesn't translate to power spikes anymore. Instead now they have rely on a castle to get a range on Archer. While Britons is getting those for free.
The only time I lost not making mistakes on my end my opponent went high eco and towers into svar tower, halb, cavalier, and hussar push. Those towers are nuts
Most of these tier lists look very similar😅Almost always the same civs at the top and at the bottom. Not a good look, meaning they are civs that are generally strong and weak...The people who just like to play, say, Bulgarians, who are at the bottom here, are likely not going to watch a tier list seriously though, or at all😂
Small request - Could you collab with TheViper for the next tier list video? I really liked the last time when you collab with Lierey and Hearttt.
If the above comment gets 500 likes i will ask viper to collab for next tierlist video
Can you do a tier list for arena?
@@HeraAgeofEmpires2 That would be really amazing!
A deal with the enemy.
And then when they get to letter D, they battle to death
"I don't know why I do so well with Turks?" I look at civ bonuses free hussar and +1 pierce armor for hussar, hmmm.
Turks are really underrated. Even in castle age having LC with 5 PA is huge.
Free LC by the way @@daarom3472
"They are quite solid" proceeds to place them 3rd to last
As a newer player, i have come to realize that i am learning allot more by just focusing on one civ. It was overwhelming to try and learn all the different civ bonuses. Half the time i didnt know, or even when i thought i knew, i was wrong, n the other half i wasn't fully sure how to utilize it OR support it. This showed in my win %. (I had 113 on farms/ 25 on wood thinking the farms were also producing gold, nope, it was those few lumberjacks/relics. yes this was a real match, 683 dead horses by the end) spam = light cav vs. Cavalier. This has given me a much deeper understanding of the game overall. Now when i play other civs, i am also more confidant. The biggest lesson for me was early aggression and how to balance an eco to that specific civ to support that aggression. I won 8 games yesterday/last night with no losses. And yes, i do play other civs, but i mainly am focusing on one. I just bought the expansion for the Georgians, going to play them for the first time right now!!! Time to learn my second civ!! YOUR FAULT HERA!!! thank you =D --->>Always: Great content, thank you for your time, insight, and wisdom. God bless you n yours
Hi, what's your Elo?
@@pajgaj1 650
Really appreciate having the civ bonus shown on screen :)
Minus the part where the team bonus got cut off haha
i'm a simple man
i see aoe tierlist, i click
Vietnamese CA is pretty damn good. Their smooth eco, free 20%hp from the start and access to bloodline on top are really strong for CA play.
“October 2024”. Bro is coming to us from the future
11
I really like Hera's more down to earth tier lists, with a limited number of S and A tier civs. The ability to prioritize properly really stands out in tournament drafts, and Hera almost never makes questionable drafts...
38:10 During the Forgotten DLC mayan farms were ~14% worse than generic without wheelbarow (compared to ~2.5% before). The resource bonus also used to be 20%.
Feedback: Instead of saying "I put this civ right here" be more vocal about the tier for the ones only listening. Thank you.
I would disagree with your statement that the Bulgarian eco bonus that you save 50 stone on a TC is negligible:
If your opponent forces you to a tower with archers, you still can make a TC staright away in Castle Age with the
75 stone that you still have.
This has proven more than just a bit helpful to me, several times.
I feel we have been waiting for a meaningful infatry buffs for ages.
We have infantry buffs at home
Infantry buffs are home: +1 pierce armor
@@Popcornio +1 pierce armor is huge though.
Hera if you are going to make a video about Bulgarians, you should talk more about how none of their "bonuses" are innate. Ie. you have to make an investment in order to see a small bit of power from playing them, whereas most other civs get innate bonus (ie Mongol hunt or Celt wood chopping, etc)
So you have no eco bonus, and you have to invest into units and blacksmith upgrades (and UTs) to see the civ become strong, which isnt much of a bonus when both players are good at the game.
I would argue Mongol hunt is just as inherent as cavalry attacking 33% faster. With the hunt you have to choose to go hunt. As for cavalry, most people are making cav anyway. It's not like you're stepping away from the meta for them.
as a fan of teuton, i will be upset
very slowly
Hindustanis have HCA with every upgrade but Parthian Tactics, which should be sufficient to deal with Cataphract, although they obviously would have issues against cheap skirm/halb/camel composition.
Coming back from like a 3 year break and learned so much from this video. When I left CA was a meme, great to see my favorite civ(Mongols) and CA are S tier. So many changes over the past few years. Multiple civs I've never heard of and seen my first army of Savar the other day and had no idea what I was looking at.
13:49 Thoughts on Hindustani Cav Archers for Cataphracts? Considering Cataphracts are harder to mass and much more expensive.
CA is so expensive to upgrade. You have to open CA, you cannot go CA in imp, specially if you didn't open archers in castle age. And if you do, you die do cheap Byzantine skirms
I'd probably use hussar/hand cannon combo. So long as you keep your hand cannons safe, it doesn't matter how many hussars you lose.
BULGARIANS TILL I DIE. I'VE NEVER EVEN HEARD OF CASTLE AGE
11
Hera... Im really mad you keep putting civs right over Bulgarians..are you forgetting kreposts? Calvary attack 33%faster? Plus when konniks die???? HELLO WAKE UP... Also i have played tons of games against Franks with Bulgarians and have never lost against them with Bulgarians. MAKE ANOTHER VIDEO WITH BULGARIANS WITH MASS KREPOSTS AND KONNIKS YOU WILL SEE HOW OP THEY ARE..PLUS MILITIA RUSH WITH PIKES ARHCERS AND SKIRMS.
@@rovsea-3761 lol, what’s your name on twitch
Great video, thanks for the content
Wanted to listen while I work but found myself needing to check the screen a bit as you say “I’m putting it right here” but didn’t mention the actual tier. just some feedback. pce.
Magyars in B tier, lets go!
I am in the hospital and feels a bit lonely but this is timely :) Thank you Hera
Thanks for that Hera! I am currently searching for a bunch of civs I can choose, to play ranked game. I am too scared yet but knowing the Meta helps to choose wisely :)
Make infantry slightly faster and have less attack lag (looking at you men-at-arms). Two easy buffs that will help balance them
It would be great. I think 0.95 speed for longswordman is very good, also more bonus damage to buildings especially against castles.
After all these years there is one civ that is permanently S tier Arabia.
Could you make a follow up video where you talk about what adjustments you would make to the 3 best and 3 worst civs to make them more balanced (add/remove tech, adjust civ bonus/unique tech, maybe even add a civ bonus, etc)
First? always fun to see a tier list Byz are best! (even when they arent)
almost!😁
As an Aztec main. I was dying when you guys were putting them in S or A tier, because I knew the nerfs were on the way. They have been pounded into the ground for a LONG time now. And as a 1400 Elo player I could feel them being too weak and yet they still got picked in tournaments. I’m glad you put them in C tier cause that’s where I believe they belong. I think they either need to revert some of the nerfs like bring back +5 carry or buff there archers slightly so you can use them in imp!
I think they are in a good spot currently; for me the issue is thst they got nerfed while the top 10/15 15 civs now have too strong of a power level through buffs/meta changes.
If the best civs were around the power of like bottom of A tier civs I think the overall viability of most civs would improve drastically
@@Mattroid99 I find that Aztecs have a lot of counters (gunpowder) and are in a tricky spot. If you buff there main force (eagles and monks and also eco) they just become a one trick pony that’s unstoppable. I think they need a little bit more options. Like maybe a buff to the man at arms (every civ should have better man at arms tbh) or a small buff to archers (either the last armour upgrade or thumbring) i do agree with you in that other civs are now stronger and that the meta has changed. But as someone who watched and plays ALOT of Aztecs. I have seen a major shift I there power. I think another issue is that eagles have no real counter, since man at arms just suck. So maybe a major buff to them (I think they should cost -20 food) would help Aztecs give the them more options AND actually be a counter to eagles
@@Djturd64 100% agreed that the Militia line should be changed (I would propose a split personally, make a very cheap, throwable unit that is easy to mass and a versatile, more expensive one) but is an universal change that should be made and it could be troublesome for these three civs.
As Meso civs you kinda always suffer against good Gunpowder, but personally I like much more how Aztecs are balance wise compared to Incas and Mayans that are too strong yet for different reasons (Stupid eco and one/two trick composition for Mayans, cheap counters unit for everything for Incas).
That being said I wouldn't mind a small buff either, perhaps Thumb Ring (Although is kinda unique of a feature for a Meso civ) or even give them more starting Gold (Like 100 total?) to make the early Feudal Age a bit stronger
I honestly wouldnt mind the devs slightly buffing elite eagle to say 70 hp and nerfing El Dorado to 30 hp extra.
Also maybe give aztecs last archer armor.
A bunch of tiny nerfs that have added up over time and power creep from newer civs leave Aztecs in a sub-par spot.
I guess Poles would need something like "villagers can garrison in folwarks" to help them use that folwark bonus more?
interesting idea, but i think it defeats the purpose/trade off of having exposed vills in exchange for pretty solid food bonus especially in early to early-mid game
You just need to know how to play it. Watched a game recently and this dude didn't play it right. He was wide open using multiple folwarks early. Gotta be super walled early and slowly build up the forward advantage. For the start just the 8 around the berry mill is fine. You need the wood for walls and defense. No point rushing the 2nd folwark and dying because you overinvested
Hold on… this is a great idea…
Exactly what crossed my mind when he mentioned exposed villagers. I mean, the Khmer can garrison inside houses, why not the Poles inside a bigger building that provides housing?
I love playing Turks on Arabia for some reason. Hearing hera talk specifically about vs Ethiopians was cathartic
Vikings being B tier is very surprising. Haven't they always been rated S tier or top A tier on Arabia for 1v1s? And they've not been nerfed as of late, so they should still be up there. Free wheelbarrow and handcart is very strong.
Theres been a period of time where they dropped off massively because thumb ring was taken away. Relatively recently they've received the imp tech which gives archers +1 att.
Archers are off meta atm and the swordline is still not good enough. That's the reason. Also why Aztecs have dropped so much, former S tier civ 4ever
Meta is CA or knight/skirm where archers civ suffer
Thanks for the video future Hera!
Hot take: give Celts squires.
Arena, next? ❤
Again, always fun to view your tier-lists. Could you do a 2v2 or other teamplay ranking as well?
I think we need to see some really creative thinking to bring up infantry civs. It's sad to see them so low. At least Romans do OK statistically on win rate.
By the way, I am a statistics guy and when I see the difference between every guide I saw and the stats of what people are choosing as civs. Most of the time it's not matching at all, especially for lower ELO. I am not here to critic or what so ever, I just would like your point of view on that.
For exemple, under 850 ELO, Sicilians have 56.88% win rate (wow), most pick are Franks (I can get that) and Georgians have just 9,524/437,413 pick which is one of the lowest. At 1900+ (which represent 1% of the players) picks and win rate are pretty balanced as I guess most of you are playing random at this level.
Maybe my sources are bad our i miscalculated but I am pretty sure I am close to the reality.
I am also not sure if other people would be interested by such a video.
Please like if this sounds like a good idea :)
Wait, did you suggest a video idea in here somewhere? I'm confused. And if it's about the stats and numbers, then Spirit of the Law would be someone to go to for it.
I did not see your video about using civ bonuses until a day later, so I hope my question can be answered here. Why do people not seem to use hand cannoneers with civs that have bonuses?
Get well soon Hera
i think Dravidians can be placed a couple of spots higher. They have solid military options, Wootz Steel Light cav is underrated in my opinion, with very strong elephant archers. Another one would be placing Hindustanis one place down, purely due to the lack of halbs if they run out of gold.
@Hera As always I skip to the end of your tier list video to see the whole list then watch individual civs. Does anyone else do this?
Bulgarians having -50% stone cost on Town Centers, almost looks like meme bonus
You gotta play Poles like Burgundians. Scouts into walls and defensive skirms. Into CA or knights. Or even arb obuch
goth also gets rekt by cataphract. the bane of my existence lol
42:44 Villavicencio Moment 😆
i would've been nice if you added the meta shift video like a note on the vid o in the description. i'll check it out anyway
I think Poles are unquestionably the worst civ in Arabia right now and I believe there are a couple of reasons for it that you didn't mention.
Comparing them to the other D tier civ we have, while Bulgarians fall very short in tech tree limitations and predictable options, the initiative and concrete potential to do damage from the get go is at least always there.
Poles on the other hand have no initiative, need a very good map AND safe berries to even be playable, even if both conditions are met the civ starts to kick in at minute 25/30, and even there they have some very concrete long term issues vs CAs as they lack both the final Archer and Cavalry armor.
They have much higher potential than almost any civ but no other civ in the game needs this much map luck, setup involved and time to function.
Also this is a bit outside the scope but I think is much easier to fix something like Sicilians's (Like access to Thumb Ring and cheaper Hauberk) and Bulgarians's issues (Like making TCs not cost Stone and have Stirrups affect CAs) to make them decent than to fix Poles, which need a fundamental redesign to the Folwark gimmick on top of proper lategame tuning.
Much like Britons is a civ that really feels stuck back in a time where timings were much less of a key priority and Arabia gens were way more wallable and not hilly wastelands like nowadays.
Not even close. Poles just need a different mindset to play instead of force feeding it into the fast feudal aggressive meta. Like burgundians you need to be defensive. It's actually very easy to full wall with defensive skirms while slowly pulling ahead with folwarks before exploding into the mass cavalier power spike. Or arbs/CA and
hussar. But if you want to give it this negative press all the better for me if they buff it as a Poles main 11
@@youcanthandlethetruth5433Of course you need to open defensive, no one said the opposite.
The civ will still make your life way harder though, Burgundians by comparision don't have to go for awkward walls and the initial defense pays itself very fast.
With Poles though if the map is very open and berries are in the middle of nowhere is almost always gg on the spot, you cannot full wall and protect that and is the majority of Arabia gens nowadays.
And the Knight spam comes in at min 30, not min 23 like the Burgundian Cavalier, so the opponent can still 1TC push you in castle for a while.
Is pretty clear that the civ needs a heavy redesign honestly. Their lategame is completely unfair (And I would argue it should be nerfed quite a lot), but due to the Folwark gimmick the first parts of the game are often borderline unplayable in any map that you cannot full wall.
@@Mattroid99 lets 1v1 I'll show you how to play Poles. Nobody has pushed me off berries as Poles in the last 50 games probably
@@youcanthandlethetruth5433 I don't believe that random 1v1s are the best way to prove so, but why not. What is your level?
@@Mattroid99 OK I can be on 13 hours from now. GN = 1v1 mattroid
Password = mattroid
Hera getting so fast he's already in October 11
You made video were you told us Poles are the best civ. You said that all they need is nerf of stone mining and folwark. Next patch Poles were nerfed, both folwark and stone to gold ratio nerfed. And suddenly Poles civ was killed.
Arabia gens got way more open too, that I think was the real killer as Poles is one of the very few civs that absolutely need a very good map to even try to play the game.
Buffing the Folwark back to the previous amount also risk to make their already absurd lategame (Which I would even argue should be nerfed for maps like Arena)
Poles is still the best civ. People just force it to be something it's not by being super open and aggressive. That's like using Malay and going knights then complaining why is Malay bad
Thanks! Please make another one for 4v4 on closed maps.
For me personally, I would take Turks out of viable. While in theory they should be a viable civ in my opinion, they were the only civ to never even be drafted in the SAX Cup main event, meaning that none of the players in that event thought it was viable, even with 12 random bans opening up picks quite a bit more than usual.
Hindustanis could go heavy ca vs catas. But then byz could go catas + skirms.
Maybe heavy ca + hussar could work.
How about instead of a tier list Hera does the complete partial ordered graph of civs?
There are 990 different matchups so I guess the video would be around 20 hours long...
Great content idea if I may say so myself
Slavs is quite good in maps like Arabia 1v1. Especially if you collect most the relics, you just have to focus on foods, woods, and stones for massing Boyars & placing cheap castles. The problem is, it's a boring civ to play with lack of bombard cannon, arbalest, and hand cannonneer
I think scout rushing vs hindustanis might be challenge if they know they can do their camels mass and win
Wouldn't CA and stirrup hussar be a decent late game comp for Bulgarians? Only thing they miss is last archer armor. Or against camel/cav civ they could go halb instead of hussar.
Given the CA meta switch, I'm surprised that berbers are not higher on the list.
Byzantine clearly the best civ. Best counter units (which means they beat everyone) and unique unit that can literally not be countered. Hello?????
Ranged units destroy cataphracts.
Byzantines get crap cavalry. They are basically a glorofied archer civ with junk camels and anti-infantry cavalry (as if that will ever be useful). Just make archers and your own hussars and you win the game.
Hey hera,
13:25 I might be wrong but Hindustani can CA cataphracts
Major sadge that Bulgarians are alone at the bottom tier... Kreposts are so damn cool and the Konnik is resurrection mechanic is unique... I wish the devs do something to help them!
Word of the day: anti meta
So how does grinding the ladder as georgians make you a better player but doing the same thing with non-meta strategies doesnt
Literally everytime pro pick Bulgarians:
INSTANT WORST CIV
GOOD GAME
You can sell early 100 stone for 90 gold with bulgarians.. thats a eco bonus😉😅
Me watching two of your videos at the same time....
Emmm Aztecs defensive castle drop into atatl, one side defended by the castle, the other by the skirms, good luck CA outranged by 2 range levels. Then you boom and spam eagles into enemy economy
It is only September
still hoping Burmese will be S tier one day :(
"They are quite solid" places them in the bottom of sub par, shhhh cant let them know.
I would put Armenians on C-D on Arabia, one of the worst possible civs for that map imho - no units to make, really
Anybody knows why aoe2 has been 5+ months without any patch?
Aoe2 content creators that make tier list vids may run out of possibilities if game never updates lol.
Maybe we can do that for Nomad as Well? :)
ive played britons for like 4 years straight and I started losing every game i return. I swapped to Ethiopians and won 5 in a row :D
Fake News! Bulgarians and Konniks are op!
Where is that byantine vs hindutani cataphract game?
Is the lack of any new patch since April worrying?
You say Saracens virtue is they have nothing bad to say about them other than not having a top-tier bonus that gives them free wins, but isn't being weak to archer civs something bad to say about them?
"Mayans if played correctly can beat Hindustanis" isn't Hindustanis UU straight up a counter to Mayans? I dont see any unit they can do that counters Ghulam
RIP Bulgars
I feel bad about vikings, cause is my favorite civ.
what about CA + hussars with hindustanis to counter byz?
Cumans 2tc + tower rush not scary on arabia?
Georgians
Based Georgia banned LGBT and trans propaganda 👑
Hera big question - why is Japanese so bad in a CA meta when their CA counters other CA??
I thought Gbetos are considered poor UU
The tierlist is slightly incorrect.
Goths are an S+ tier civilization.
Other than that, great video!
magyars being only viable with CA meta :( I wish they get a small mid game eco bonus to make them more smooth to play
Did you mean Bengalis are anti-meta or off-meta?
How can a Gurjara win against an Inca? It's a complete civ win
I always hated those videos just because pros never told Japanese are trash, everybody just keeps arguing - wow you save 200 wood, it does not matter your cav is trash, close to no eco bonus, no bbc, trash uu, trash siege. Thank you very much
edit: also, is spearmen skirm meta dead? I always love to play lith, koreans, byz and just spam in feudal
he said what about Bulgarians?
I think that old civs added values should be renovated at structure level. New cives have factors like hp regeneration, bonus from higher position, mule carts, etc etc etc. Franks and britons charts are pathetic nowadays, come on, it's not random that new civ like Georgians are the best (..Georgians..!?) And also details like britons not having halab make no sense, which European Civ should not have!?
Vikings fell off hard over the years.
Which is strange, because nothing's really changed wrt the civ. They always had pretty bad army options with a bonkers economy (wheelbarrow and hand cart free), and continue to have the best economy in the game.
@@skipper472 I think because firstly meta shifted a lot to cavalry mid game and gunpowder end game which they don't have. Also the xbow cost increase and lack of thumb ring affected their castle age imperial age power spikes. Their eco doesn't translate to power spikes anymore. Instead now they have rely on a castle to get a range on Archer. While Britons is getting those for free.
Bengalis are top tier in Arena
Really don’t know why not nerf to Chinese? OP for so long time
no way dravidians is better than bulgarians
Georgians are great, but they die to top tier CA.
As a 1600 exclusive Tatar player, I have a 65% win rate against them.
The only time I lost not making mistakes on my end my opponent went high eco and towers into svar tower, halb, cavalier, and hussar push. Those towers are nuts
Shoutout MattyP, that was a crazy solution to the fact Monaspa die hard to CA.
Most of these tier lists look very similar😅Almost always the same civs at the top and at the bottom. Not a good look, meaning they are civs that are generally strong and weak...The people who just like to play, say, Bulgarians, who are at the bottom here, are likely not going to watch a tier list seriously though, or at all😂
Tbf we dont get thatttt many changes. Still think the meta shifts quite a bit though
I thought the bulgarians got decent ca?
Well the tier list is not directed to you as a person. If your favorite civ is bad that shouldn't undermine your enjoyment while playing it!
Hah, this guy doesn't know cataphracts shred camels! I've known for decades... Thats why I'm not the reigning supreme #1 aoe2 player I guess 😅