Another approach you could take here would be to look at avg. time spent to gather required resources per age instead of actual cost of resources. Currently later age upgrades are disfavored both because units will already have a higher base of stats to begin with AND upgrades are usually more expensive, because you have a larger economy to play with. Just a thought. Thanks for your great videos!! ;)
The thing that makes the Hussar upgrade good is that it is a unit that can easily be massed, costing no gold. Many more units benefit from the upgrade, meaning you get (15 * number of Light Cavalry)hp from the upgrade. That's a lot of hp considering how many you tend to create in a long came.
I think you should start a Challenge series ; like a match when you fight opponents with militia only, or with crossbowman only etc. I think that would be extremely interesting and fun to watch
Love the analysis, but can't really agree with the methodology this time. You are trying to answer a question which is way too broad with too many simplifications and assumptions. -resources are not always worth the same the value: 100 food in feudal age is worth a lot more than 100 food in imperial age -Armor upgrades value is difficult to quantify: it depends what is fighting what. 1 more point of armor can be the difference between 1 and 2 damage, thus doubling the effective hp. -Bonus damage makes a world of difference depending what you are fighting. -Attack speed can make a lot of difference in the total DPS. TL;DR: like The_Viper would say...it depends. While there are for sure some overpriced technologies, saying what is better or worse without providing a context is just impossible. It just depends on the situation.
Do you have a better methodology to propose ? EVERY SINGLE QUESTION IN THE UNIVERSE can be answered with "it depends". That's why we make assumptions, and try to see tendencies and patterns that will suit usual cases, even though there are subtelties in the actual way things work. What he found is still far better than nothing, and seems to agree with what pros have observed empirically (eg Elite Chu Ko Nu being far worse than Elite Plume).
this isn't the first time sotl's methodology was so out of whack it basically made the results completely meaningless, just look back at the scorpion video saying that scorpions are bad against some units because they can't hold out against an endless unit spawn trigger spam is just dumb and the entire test is just entirely meaningless because these situations would never happen
@@SaiphxXx Yes, I have. As I said, provide a context. Is this Malians against Mayans on arabia in castle age? Is this Italians vs vikings on a water map in feudal age? When you set the context of the situation you can actually start to compare specific units match-ups and assess the worth of a technology. For example, is it worth to buy the elite plume archer upgrade when you are against malians champions? You can actually assess whether a technology has worth or not in a particular circumstance. Otherwise, it is simply impossible to say whether a technology is better or not than another.
@@Gauss4724 Yes, it is possible to say that one is better than another, IN THE GENERAL CASE. Your methodology basically consists in enumerating every possible situation, matchup, resource quantity, level of your opponent and this would be useless, because no one is going to remember that. What he says is that in most cases, if you have a choice between researching Elite Chukonus or Bracer, then you'd probably do better researching Bracer, and even though there are some cases where it's not true, it still makes for a simple rule that will give good results in practice. Maybe you learned nothing from this video, but I was surprised how poor hussar was of an upgrade.
@@SaiphxXx "Maybe you learned nothing from this video, but I was surprised how poor hussar was of an upgrade." This pretty much points out why the methodology in this video is misleading. When do you typically use hussars? 1) Raid (light cav are likely fine in that context; hussars just last a touch longer) 2) Trash war (one of the best upgrades in the game) 3) Rush down monks/siege (that extra 15 HP and attack speed is often huge here) Value is more than just resources spent. What does the cost give you beyond raw stats (how can you utilize the unit differently/more efficiently), what does it truly cost your civs economy to get the upgrade, and how vital is this upgrade for success? Look at the Imperial Camel upgrade. Sure it costs 1200 food, but only Indians get it, and they'll save at least 900 food while creating the minimum number of villagers every economy needs. Given the context, it's a much better upgrade than implied in the video, and they need this unit to succeed. Compare that to Elite Teutonic Knights (my favorite unit). They're top 10 with this methodology, but they're rarely used (for good reason). You're almost always much better off with the lower value unit, the paladin, than this niche unit.
One thing to keep in mind is that if you rely on certain types of units more than on others it may still be worth a less cost effective upgrade. Eg if you are running light cav strategy it might still be worth it to go for hussar upgrade. Generally, the nore units you have and the more you are building in future the more cost effective some upgrade becomes as you distribute a constant cost on a larger quantity of units. Its the same as in economics really.
About generic updates changing the appearance of units, it would be nice if they implement it the way it was done in AoM. Also, skins for generic units depending on the type civilization would be cool.
As you said, with this method it’s evident that late game techs are gonna come up. It would be interesting to compare each cost to the corresponding average resource production in the age in which the tech becomes available
I certainly intuitively agree with m@a being a great upgrade, value-wise. I often get it, just for the hell of it, even if I am not going militia line, because it's so cheap and so useful.
New Video Suggestion: An addendum to this video that both updates these values to the new balances and also an additional column that gives a rough number for how many of the given unit do you need to make to make getting the given upgrade to it worth the investment.
When comparing unit upgrade and general upgrade (e.g. melee armor +1), need to consider that general upgrade affects more units than 1. One unit upgrade only helps with that unit.
Not even factoring in the fact that Blacksmith upgrades work on ALL the type of unit you researched. So, if you are making Arbalests and research all the archer upgrades, if the game gets to the point where you can't afford more Arbalests and are forced to make Scrimishers instead (or have archer unique units, or mix both Arbalests and Scrimishers for whatever reason), you'll still have the bonuses without needing extra resources
I don't like how you use % to value upgrades. I get it that you use it to weed out stuff like the capped ram getting 10 pierce armor that doesnt help it at all, but upgrades can really make or break certain breaking points. As you stated in your franks videos, the franks maybe only get a couple of extra points ofhealth compared to bloodlines, but that can mean the difference between surviving another hit or not. So with upgrades you might pass some tipping point where suddenly some unit needs to do an extra attack, or you save 1 attack. Good example of this is the onager upgrades, which can be the difference between leaving units survive with 1 hp or them getting deleted (like turks with their improved HP on gunpowder). This can make the upgrade worth a lot more against certain civs or certain units. And of course if you have a situation where you have 4 piercing armor and the archer does 6 damage. Then the upgrade to piercing armor is valued less to go from 4 to 5 than from 1 to 2. But in this case it means the archer his damage goes from 2 to 1 (50%) instead of from 5 to 4. The problem is that if you take in account these kind of values and tipping points you have to go through all of the upgrades manually and even take in account civ bonuses. So certain upgrades become more or less valuable depending on your opponent. PS will you ever make a monk conversion rate overview?
The worst upgrade is the one that makes a unity dies after coverted by a monk (wololo). With the wololo you can achieve much more people in your civilization than the limit.
1:59 Did you really all put that by hand ? :o There is an error on the man at arms line, 100F + 40G = 140 total, but should give 160 in converted instead of 140.Doesn't change the ranking order though, so we're still good
Oh Age of Mythology. All of my efforts were to make the Colossus be made out of gold, silver looked really cool too. Bronze Colossus is a sad Colossus.
It would be better to make a comparison based on how many units can you buy with the money of the upgrade, and how many upgraded units you need to buy for it to be worth it. If you upgrade to champion and only make 3, you would've been better off making longswords, if you make over 20 champions, it probably is worth it. Finding that number would be a better point of comparison, I think. It would leave out the blacksmith upgrades, but since those apply to multiple units their value is difficult to quantity in comparison to single unit upgrades.
I was really hoping this video would make more contextualized comments; for instance the state a game is likely to be in at a given age where an upgrade comes available or is relevant and how much contextual impact on that game state the costs have at that time - things like whether or when to upgrade militia -> man-at-arms and beyond rather than training calavry or archers. Unfortunately, this is mostly just a display of numbers without the strategic context that gives them meaning. For reasons others have pointed out, the way you're confining and defining your points system here more or less highlights AoEII being a generally well balanced game - you need to pay more for every piece of additional advancement which you can better afford as you progress through the ages in a game. Infantry have a mobility disadvantage, but you can improve them more cost effectively. Cavalry are awesomely maneuverable but generally more expensive both individually and technologically. Archers never stop being comparatively fragile, but then they never stop being exceptionally useful for weakening oncoming melee troops before they close either. etc etc.
the light cavalry being so good on the list surprised me bc of the hussar being actually the worst. one extra upgrade just might not be worth it with the light cavalry line
1. Can I have your raw data? 2. A better measure imo is to have a unit lifetime damage output score: lifetime_damage = unit_attack * unit_hp / (some_baseline_attack * unit_res_modifier) therefore: value = (upgraded_lifetime_damage - lifetime_damage) / upgrade_cost
Sure the paladin upgrade might not give a lot but have you seen how beautiful they look? Would you rather burn your opponent's City down with people wearing a beautifully crafted and inlayed helmet or with people wearing a bucket on their head? IF YOU'RE NOT DESTROYING SOMEONE WITH STYLE, YOU'RE NOT DESTROYING THEM AT ALL!
me(getting raided by cavaliers): i should take care of them, this could be trouble. me(getting raided by paladins: this guy has achieved the pinnacle of human civilization, resistance is futile .
He just copied the numbers from the game and counted points. If you explain percentages to an 8 years old, he can do that. Just because it looks tedious to make doesn't mean it's work. Also, just because something looks easy and pleasant to do, doesn't mean it's not work. People should drop this archaic vision of "work" seen as something that is boring, repetitive, unpleasant and acknowledgeable. Sorry for the rant, AoE is fun, I don't mean to plummet the ambiance. It's just my abstract thoughts on work, no one should take it personally.
Nobody will probably ever read this comment but I find it interesting that the worst value upgrades are cavalry while the best value are infantry. Essentially, the game devs accounted for power projection when pricing the upgrades. It is more powerful to send an extra 2 meele damage across the map at cavalry speed than at infantry speed, therefore the cavalry upgrade should cost more even if the numbers are the same.
@@justinokraski3796 And still, infantry pretty much sucks in this game. The only infantry unit you see on a regular basis is the spearmen line. Many infantry unique units almost never get used in pro matches and champions are a pretty rare sight, too. It's all about knights and crossbows. The scorpion is another unit that is rarely used, because it counters infantry.
@@justinokraski3796 Well, the game is 20 years old and has been patch several times from the get to up to very recently, you can also get things right by trial and error. Halberdiers and hussars have not always been a thing for example, making trash significantly weaker and paloofs significantly stronger.
@@peterpeterson4800 well in AOK infatry used to be better. Thats why cav gained the bloodlines upgrade and hand cannoneers are unlocked with chemistry to counter champions, unlike AOK where you had to research another tech after chemistry to unlock the hand canoneer. I think the combination of people getting better at the game (and being able to exploit cav speed and archers kiting) and these buffs to other units making them poorer.
Wrong. Atheism still reduces the cost of spies by half. Even if you play conquest on all visible it prevents you from being able to waste as many resources on spies.
If I had money to buy spies on all visible, I would do it. It's basicaly like saying : "I have so much money I can waste it on throwing it into the sea"
@@공략 I feel like you misinterpreted his comment. He meant that Loom is orders of magnitude ahead because it's 75 resources for 15 HP, 1 hack and 2 pierce armor. Imma assume you interpreted it as "being ahead" as in being the worst upgrade because of the title of the original video?
I think something you are forgetting here is that blacksmith upgrades boost multiple different units, while the ones you mention here are for one unit only.
Yes, but they are the base-cost ^^ And I remind you that most of the video was talking about the worst upgrades who cost several time more than the blacksmith upgrade.... So, the fact that blacksmith impact more units than upgrades is a further decrease of the utility of these upgrades ^^ As for early units, early on you have rarely multiple unites of each type, from what I see, you have only scouts who benefits from bloodline and attack melee bonuses, maybe one or two spearmen if you losse battle of the scouts ^^
@@krankarvolund7771 To the contrary, it happens very frequently in Feudal battles to have multiple units of each type. Some common combinations are: - Archers and Skirmishers. If both you and your opponent go Archers, you will mix in Skirmishers quickly, as you already have the Archery Ranges to produce them, as well as Blacksmith upgrades. - Scouts and Spearmen. If both you and your opponent go Scouts, you will mix in Spearmen, as you will have a Barracks anyway. Both units benefit from Forging.
@@martijnbouman8874 A lot of players who Drush (which is an extremely common tactic in pro games) will also grab man at arms for their militia if they still have a good number in fuedal. The damage two or three men-at-arms can do to a woodline vs. what militia can do is crazy, and the upgrade is fairly cheap. I'm thinking of getting back into AOE, and one strat I want to try is an all in feudal rush of spears and skirms with Byzantines, assuming they get the discount then. I think they do. Imho, it would counter most classic fuedal army comps, and at dirt-cheap prices. And sure they may not be the best at getting vill picks, but in combination, especially with the discount, they're not exactly something your enemy can just ignore or fight off with vills either. Maybe crazy. No idea. Still, I want to try it.
@@thehermeticgamer3736 Byzantines indeed get the discount. They indeed make counterunits like Spearmen and Skirmishers a lot. I do think your opponent could counter your composition with Skirmishers + Scouts, though, provided his micro is decent enough to not get his Scouts hit by your Spearmen too often.
I felt this. I never really intended to start playing this game seriously ( I played against AIs as a kid) but T90 and SOTL really made me want to try my hand at this complex fascinating game.
Hey SOTL, I’m a huge fan of your work. But , I would like to point out something worth the time that is : As you said the man-at-arms upgrades are one of the most cost effective and the paladins the other way , I would like to bring your attention to the point that as you said that the economies and armies tend to grow as game progress on and which means that the man-at-arms are most likely not going to the part of your late game army whereas the paladins are a common sight , which means you should also take into account the overall usability of the upgraded unit over the course of the game....... Anyways, LOVE your vids thought Keep up the good work.
Maybe more important than that is the fact that your income is a lot less in the early game, so the Man-at-arms upgrade could be a bigger % of your total income at the time and there's certainly a balance when it comes on how much of your income you are investing into growing your economy vs growing your military. I think a more interesting analysis would be to see how the upgrade compares to creating more of the non-upgraded version, and testing them against each other, and against a gold-normalized army of archers, one of infantry, and one of cavalry. Maybe some of the upgrades are better when you are against a specific composition.
he might also wanna take into account that you can't farm many resources at the beginning, thus making every resource you collect early on more valuable than in the late game.
@@DannieRay23 Yeah, I deffinetely agree, but analyzing that objectively sounds kinda hard. Maybe he can add that to the comparation making a "resource/income estimate at given time/age", made taking into account many games. So he can compare how much of the (or some kind of "game period", like early feudal, feudal, early castle, post imp, etc...). But then he would need to know in which period said techs are researched more frecuently, so he can give us a "percentage of total resources of the (game period) you have to expend to research this tech". As every game is different, with different uptimes, build orders, resources and gameplans... he would need to analyze a LOT of games to reduce bias. Almost impossible to do, sadly.
@@josueromerotorrico4453 "he would need to analyze a LOT of games to reduce bias" and that would, in the end, only give us an average of what people do. I think the current format of the comparison in the video gives us a better perspective to apply to any situation we encounter, and the final takeaway of the video (upgrade for multiple units > upgrade for single unit) is very agreeable upon.
1. I don't think you can measure attack as a % upgrade. Say if the enemy has 3 armor and you have 4 attack. a +1 to attack is a 100% increase, not 25%. HP is fine, though. 2. I don't think you can compare costs of techs across the board to each other. 100 food in feudal age is a LOT more than 100 food in imperial.
Completely agree, this game doesn't handle armor like most RTS out there. Also, for ranged units, he didn't pay any attention to accuracy, which usually increases. This is specially important for units such as the conquistador, arambai, or civilizations like britons and aztecs that lack thumbring.
@@UM96lol But % increase is just flat out wrong. It's almost never applicable. You'd be better off just finding some kind of value to assign to every increase in damage based on the original value or something like that. If % increase was remotely accurate then blacksmith upgrades would kinda suck in comparison to the real value quite often.
Ridgwaycer I actually think herbal medicine is not as bad as people always claim. That does not mean I research it every game, or prioritize it, for that matter. But I believe it is more useful than people say, even though it should be reduced in cost. I recently had a very long 1v1 match that I narrowly won. And I believe I won, in part, because I was able to cycle my Mamelukes through castles during the early Imperial, so that by the time gold ran out I could still field 40 Mamelukes in the trash wars. It was the difference. Now, you could say I might’ve done the same with priests, or left the Mamelukes in the castles for 4 times longer. However, the Mamelukes were basically my only real defense army at times, and being able to heal so many, so fast, meant my opponent was pressed to either stop the attack or destroy his economy in an attempt to overwhelm me. He instead pulled back after 4 pushes against the same 40 or so Mamelukes, buying me time to recover and build trash.
@@iiiiiifggffggffgfgfg Just press L two times instead of clicking. It makes the video go 20s forward. Great to skip all those pesky intros (press J to go backward if you miss the mark)
As much value as elite Teutonic Knights and Tarkan provide, would you be making enough units to justify spending it? Similarly, as you admitted in your paladin video, the upgrade becomes justified once you have over 50 knights on the map. For chukonus, it’s very easy to reach critical mass, and does the upgrade pay off for extra arrows and lower fire rate?
regarding the "best practice" of getting elite cho ku nu upgrade late: The upgrade reduces their creation speed notably, so if one is not lacking res, but castles prioritysing it can make sense.
@@netrolancer1061 This is only true for 1v1. In team games, Italians get a bonus because they have the ability to switch to the opposite team when theirs starts losing.
Hey Spirit, you should do a video on the top 5 Trash civilizations. Japanese for the faster attacking Halbs? Goths for their cheaper and faster created infantry? Slavs for the Halbs with area damage? Berbers for their Genitours? Vietnamese for their Imperial Skirmishers? The Magyars for their Huszar? Malay for their Two-Handed Trashmen and infinite Fish Traps?
Byzantines for 25% cheaper halbs and skirms with all blacksmith upgrades. Also the +40% hp castle is indestructible if enemy is low on gold Edit: no blast furnace but still top tier trash civ
Basically every trash civ aside from Turks, civ without halberdiers are all good in the late game, depends on how you utilize your resources especially when the gold starts to run out. From my opinion : -Aztecs : kinda depends on what army you would face. pikes still great due to their garland wars, and skirmishers have more attack and attack range (at the cost of halberdier, thumb ring and the last archer armor upgrade) -Byzantines : so far they are the strongest in the trash wars since their trash are cheaper, but no blast furnace so you will have to use the numbers advantage. -Spanish and Chinese : no bonus towards skirms or halbs but their upgrades are much cheaper than the other civs. For the spanish case they can have extra gold to stall their gold-costing unit with their trade bonus so it doesn't matter much when they run out of gold mines. -Magyars : halbs have all attack upgrades for free and much earlier, don't forget to mention their UU. -Berbers : no halberdiers, but they have genitours that can be a special complement unit for certain civs (Turks, Aztecs, Incas) -Malay : Forced Levy>>one of the most OP unique tech in the game. no explanation needed. Above-average halberdiers : -Goths -Slavs -Japanese -Byzantines Special case on pikes : -Aztecs -Vikings Above-average Skirmishers : -Vietnamese -Incas -Berbers -Mayans -Byzantines
You should have multiplied your points by the age, this way you could counter the naturally higher efficiency of early techs. I think the result would be interesting.
I would suggest to add some penalty cost for technologies depending on the age they are researched at. Like for example, 100 food in Feudal counting as 200 (100% extra), 100 food in Castle counting as 150 and 100 food in Imperial counting as 100. This is an approximate baremo, but with this simple adjustment you would get a bit better results.
While that makes sense, I think you're missing the point; Comparing upgrades between themselves. If faced with the option of, let's say, blacksmith upgrades or elite unit upgrades, which is better? I believe that the methodology used in this video is only good for such comparisons. You can't really know what the impact of +1 attack will be, since it depends on the armour of the unit you're attacking. You can, however, know if it's better to get Blast Furnace or Elite TTK. And if you want to decide which one to get, you're presumably comparing them in the same timeframe, and in the same age.
@@UM96lol The idea that I had to even out different parts of the game is using villager count. just divide the resource cost by the average villager count of it's age , maybe divide the score by it, shjouldn't make too much difference. Another idea might be calculating average Villager work rate (because upgrades) but that seems like overkill.
@@UM96lol While you are right, my point goes a little bit beyond. And in this video we are not only comparing technologies of the same age. Furthermore, with my approach you will get the same result for your example comparing blast furnace and Elite TTK as they are both researched at the same age.
Since its ' worst upgrades' not 'worst technology' I can't argue with your deduction. Otherwise Herbal Medicine should be up top. In my mind thats the most useless technology in the game.
Subjective? Definitely. But I appreciate that you broke down why you scored as you did and repeatedly reminded us "based on the methodology used here" or however the quote went.
If a theoretical civ has an economy bonus that reduces the cost of literally every unit you make, every structure you build, and every technology you research (basically a discount on nearly everything that uses resources), how small would that discount have to be to appear balanced? Would such a trait be good even at 1% for example?
could you make more history vs campaign alaric dracula prithviraj sforza barbarossa yodit sundjata el cid tariq ibn ziyad battle of forgotten or conquerors battles rise of rajas gajah mada suryavarman william wallace how it should look saladin genghis khan bari el dorado bayinnaug le loi these are just suggestions i know its a hard but i think these are must have respond to me your opinion is important and is there someone who also does this
Been a fan of your videos for a long time. Just had an idea for a video: in a game where players aren't allowed to advance past the feudal age, which civ is the strongest, and which is the weakest?
this is some incredible research, i would love to see more mathematical analysis like this into the greater effects of technologies in general and the relative value they have for each age and such. their is a lot of interesting balance to see here!
Not a huge fan of the base assumption made for the analysis. Resources are much more common in the late game as gathering capacity and length of collection time have compounded by the time late game upgrades are available. I think comparing upgrade costs to the average amount of resources available at a particular time in the game would be more revealing to the value of an upgrade. Additionally, true value gained from upgrades like Paladin are directly tied to numbers of Paladins you have deployed. Upgrading 50+ Cavalier means much more than upgrading 10 (like he mentioned at the end).
I'm sorry but I heavily disagree with this. I think the flaw of this method is that it doesn't take into account which units are actually viable in what situations. Practically the hussar upgrade is quite valuable in 1v1 because it's a long term investment, in late imp you run out of gold at some point and want to switch to hussars. In this context, hussar upgrade is good but e.g. elite battle elephant is not. In TG, it's the other way around, paladin and imperial camel is a must have, but hussar/skirms/champ is generally a bad investment because of trade.
I think you might be expecting too much out of this sort of analysis, or reading into it a different way than I intended. The point is not so much about getting them or not, but in which order. I think it's useful knowledge to have that Hussar/Paladin etc should be picked up after EVERY other relevant stat boost from the blacksmith and bloodlines. Likewise, man-at-arms gives a greater value than blacksmith techs at that point. It seems like you're taking the question in a different direction, which fine.
Why do top players usually prioritize unit upgrades over blacksmith upgrades? (Specially concerning melee attack upgrades, usually they reach Imp Age without even researching Forging, but an Indian player wants to get Imp Camel as soon as they reach Imp). Maybe they can't explain it, but the psycological effect on the enemy of seeing that new upgraded unit could also make a difference, how many times have you seen players typing GG when they are behind as soon as they see Paladin researched? It could be interesting to hear their opinion too, o maybe math here doesn't really apply to the practice
I think it would be great to have some ressources like the spreadsheet generally available and crowd-sourced, so important things can be reused. For example it would be helpful to know, how many units you need to make an upgrade worth more than its cost invested in more of those units.
Since you already made the suggestion, you could spend some of your freetime on exactly that. screenshotting parts of SOTLs Videos and putting together a collection of the information (while correctly citing and giving credit). Though it'd be easier for SOTL to throw his diagrams and verdicts on reddit or somewhere. maybe a week after upload so his viewcount isn't affected.
@@PrimordialNightmare I have to admit that was just a general suggestion, that SOTL might want to consider for his own reasons. I am not really an active member of the community and did not want to imply that I demand anything like that or would myself put considerable effort into. I started to collect some of this stuff in AoE III and quickly felt overwhelmed. Mad props to SOTL for actually putting together the whole spreadsheet. But maybe that is all the more reason to share it with others?
@@nilsp9426 Yeah, I feel you. I'm currently working on gathering some data on an old Shooter for the gamecube, it's not even that much to work with, but it's surprisingly hard work. I kinda plan on putting the results of the work onto a blog and maybe do a video. If I find a fitting subreddit, I might post it there as well.
Slightly off topic, but I wanted to hear from some fellow civilization analyzers on this sort of homebrew style game I'm going to be playing with friends. If Spirit Of The Law could comment, that'd be amazing. But I welcome anyone to posit some ideas. I made a post about it on the AOE2 reddit page, so you can read it here. I only add the link because it takes a couple paragraphs to explain the game itself. www.reddit.com/r/AgeOfEmpires2/comments/c7nl2d/homebrew_1v1_scenario_what_would_be_the_best_civs/ Whether you respond here or on reddit doesn't matter, I just want to hear what people think! So far I'm really leaning on Celts, Teutons, Aztecs, Britons, and Franks as the best options.
Love your work SoTL! Probably the best ratio of like buttons/videos watched of all my subscribed channels, your creations are truly remarkable and creative. A commentary on 2 bias that your analysis have (wich you addressed on the discussion side of the video, but not on your spreadsheet) First - this analysis has a tendency to maybe overvalue the upgrades of relatively weak units, due to their base stats sucking (maybe you could make an overall power score for a unit, like PER for performance of NBA athletes) and than compare the change that the upgrade makes to the unit PER (like PER_after upgrade / PER_before upgrade -1 * 100) Second - in the same spirit that made you arbitrarily derterminea correction factor for range and pierce armor, maybe you should apply a correction factor to the value of resources depending on the game phase (for instance Dark Age x5 multiplier, and Feudal x4, Castle x3, Imperial x2) because , like you said, 500 food and 300 wood have entirely different impacts on your economy in the Dark Age vs Imperial Age. Hope these suggestions help you think of some fun new videos for the channel and Age2 fans Peace!
AoE 3 is far more intuitive in this aspect - the increase in both hit points and attack is ALWAYS either +20%, +30% and +50% ("regular" units) or +20%, +40% and +50% (if your civ has a special version of the unit). It's therefore more effective with stronger and more expensive units. Armor, range, speed and multipliers are exclusive to arsenal upgrades and Home City cards.
It feels like you missing on big part in you calculation what will change your outcome i guess. If i get an Upgrade say for +1 Attack than this goes on all my units. For better understanding say an upgrade cost 100 Food for 1 Attack. This ist true for 2 units. Unit 1 Cost 50 Food to build the other is 100 Food to build. Inf you calculation the value is the same for both. But you can get 2 units for the first one becouse they cost less. So now you get basicly 2 dmg more. And i guess that is the resson why husar are the worst upgrade of all of them. If you compare it with unit cost it should change a lot.
![Let's build the most over-powered civs possible! [AoE2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yd-MEP2p5iY/mqdefault.jpg)
We all know you take the hussars upgrade to get the wings.
Damn it! You got me.
This is so true
Totally true!
They also have better LOS & speed, no?
That should be worth like 50 points
Another approach you could take here would be to look at avg. time spent to gather required resources per age instead of actual cost of resources.
Currently later age upgrades are disfavored both because units will already have a higher base of stats to begin with AND upgrades are usually more expensive, because you have a larger economy to play with. Just a thought.
Thanks for your great videos!! ;)
The thing that makes the Hussar upgrade good is that it is a unit that can easily be massed, costing no gold. Many more units benefit from the upgrade, meaning you get (15 * number of Light Cavalry)hp from the upgrade. That's a lot of hp considering how many you tend to create in a long came.
you could also buy more light cavs for the food and esp gold cost (23 gold per 100 food to buy?)
Love your work - appreciate the effort :)
I think you should start a Challenge series ; like a match when you fight opponents with militia only, or with crossbowman only etc. I think that would be extremely interesting and fun to watch
Love the analysis, but can't really agree with the methodology this time. You are trying to answer a question which is way too broad with too many simplifications and assumptions.
-resources are not always worth the same the value: 100 food in feudal age is worth a lot more than 100 food in imperial age
-Armor upgrades value is difficult to quantify: it depends what is fighting what. 1 more point of armor can be the difference between 1 and 2 damage, thus doubling the effective hp.
-Bonus damage makes a world of difference depending what you are fighting.
-Attack speed can make a lot of difference in the total DPS.
TL;DR: like The_Viper would say...it depends. While there are for sure some overpriced technologies, saying what is better or worse without providing a context is just impossible. It just depends on the situation.
Do you have a better methodology to propose ? EVERY SINGLE QUESTION IN THE UNIVERSE can be answered with "it depends". That's why we make assumptions, and try to see tendencies and patterns that will suit usual cases, even though there are subtelties in the actual way things work.
What he found is still far better than nothing, and seems to agree with what pros have observed empirically (eg Elite Chu Ko Nu being far worse than Elite Plume).
this isn't the first time sotl's methodology was so out of whack it basically made the results completely meaningless, just look back at the scorpion video
saying that scorpions are bad against some units because they can't hold out against an endless unit spawn trigger spam is just dumb and the entire test is just entirely meaningless because these situations would never happen
@@SaiphxXx Yes, I have. As I said, provide a context. Is this Malians against Mayans on arabia in castle age? Is this Italians vs vikings on a water map in feudal age?
When you set the context of the situation you can actually start to compare specific units match-ups and assess the worth of a technology. For example, is it worth to buy the elite plume archer upgrade when you are against malians champions? You can actually assess whether a technology has worth or not in a particular circumstance. Otherwise, it is simply impossible to say whether a technology is better or not than another.
@@Gauss4724 Yes, it is possible to say that one is better than another, IN THE GENERAL CASE. Your methodology basically consists in enumerating every possible situation, matchup, resource quantity, level of your opponent and this would be useless, because no one is going to remember that. What he says is that in most cases, if you have a choice between researching Elite Chukonus or Bracer, then you'd probably do better researching Bracer, and even though there are some cases where it's not true, it still makes for a simple rule that will give good results in practice. Maybe you learned nothing from this video, but I was surprised how poor hussar was of an upgrade.
@@SaiphxXx "Maybe you learned nothing from this video, but I was surprised how poor hussar was of an upgrade."
This pretty much points out why the methodology in this video is misleading. When do you typically use hussars?
1) Raid (light cav are likely fine in that context; hussars just last a touch longer)
2) Trash war (one of the best upgrades in the game)
3) Rush down monks/siege (that extra 15 HP and attack speed is often huge here)
Value is more than just resources spent. What does the cost give you beyond raw stats (how can you utilize the unit differently/more efficiently), what does it truly cost your civs economy to get the upgrade, and how vital is this upgrade for success?
Look at the Imperial Camel upgrade. Sure it costs 1200 food, but only Indians get it, and they'll save at least 900 food while creating the minimum number of villagers every economy needs. Given the context, it's a much better upgrade than implied in the video, and they need this unit to succeed.
Compare that to Elite Teutonic Knights (my favorite unit). They're top 10 with this methodology, but they're rarely used (for good reason). You're almost always much better off with the lower value unit, the paladin, than this niche unit.
great video, you could do it again updated, and mention the hidden bonus attack of each one, this should change the value of some... thanks again
One thing to keep in mind is that if you rely on certain types of units more than on others it may still be worth a less cost effective upgrade. Eg if you are running light cav strategy it might still be worth it to go for hussar upgrade. Generally, the nore units you have and the more you are building in future the more cost effective some upgrade becomes as you distribute a constant cost on a larger quantity of units. Its the same as in economics really.
About generic updates changing the appearance of units, it would be nice if they implement it the way it was done in AoM. Also, skins for generic units depending on the type civilization would be cool.
As you said, with this method it’s evident that late game techs are gonna come up. It would be interesting to compare each cost to the corresponding average resource production in the age in which the tech becomes available
I certainly intuitively agree with m@a being a great upgrade, value-wise. I often get it, just for the hell of it, even if I am not going militia line, because it's so cheap and so useful.
I don't know which update it was but I played a version where bombard towers used to do massive damage to rams. I miss that sometimes..
New Video Suggestion: An addendum to this video that both updates these values to the new balances and also an additional column that gives a rough number for how many of the given unit do you need to make to make getting the given upgrade to it worth the investment.
played a game yesterday, lost about 50 hussars to french cavaliers before I remembered to do blacksmith upgrades
When comparing unit upgrade and general upgrade (e.g. melee armor +1), need to consider that general upgrade affects more units than 1. One unit upgrade only helps with that unit.
Hmm, I was thinking Elite Conq would be the worst. Great vid as always SotL!
Not even factoring in the fact that Blacksmith upgrades work on ALL the type of unit you researched. So, if you are making Arbalests and research all the archer upgrades, if the game gets to the point where you can't afford more Arbalests and are forced to make Scrimishers instead (or have archer unique units, or mix both Arbalests and Scrimishers for whatever reason), you'll still have the bonuses without needing extra resources
I don't like how you use % to value upgrades. I get it that you use it to weed out stuff like the capped ram getting 10 pierce armor that doesnt help it at all, but upgrades can really make or break certain breaking points. As you stated in your franks videos, the franks maybe only get a couple of extra points ofhealth compared to bloodlines, but that can mean the difference between surviving another hit or not. So with upgrades you might pass some tipping point where suddenly some unit needs to do an extra attack, or you save 1 attack. Good example of this is the onager upgrades, which can be the difference between leaving units survive with 1 hp or them getting deleted (like turks with their improved HP on gunpowder). This can make the upgrade worth a lot more against certain civs or certain units.
And of course if you have a situation where you have 4 piercing armor and the archer does 6 damage. Then the upgrade to piercing armor is valued less to go from 4 to 5 than from 1 to 2. But in this case it means the archer his damage goes from 2 to 1 (50%) instead of from 5 to 4. The problem is that if you take in account these kind of values and tipping points you have to go through all of the upgrades manually and even take in account civ bonuses. So certain upgrades become more or less valuable depending on your opponent.
PS will you ever make a monk conversion rate overview?
The worst upgrade is the one that makes a unity dies after coverted by a monk (wololo). With the wololo you can achieve much more people in your civilization than the limit.
The new intro is SO HIGH
1:59 Did you really all put that by hand ? :o
There is an error on the man at arms line, 100F + 40G = 140 total, but should give 160 in converted instead of 140.Doesn't change the ranking order though, so we're still good
The worst upgrade is an upgrade you never use, such as a docks in a 90% land map.
I like to build dock on black forest as Japanese even when it's so small it's great for fishing 🎣🏯
Or most of the monastery ones.
Or one which claims you mock others' puny achievements.
Oh Age of Mythology.
All of my efforts were to make the Colossus be made out of gold, silver looked really cool too. Bronze Colossus is a sad Colossus.
Amazing video!
This must be a seminar on methodology of measurement. Soooo complex.
It would be better to make a comparison based on how many units can you buy with the money of the upgrade, and how many upgraded units you need to buy for it to be worth it. If you upgrade to champion and only make 3, you would've been better off making longswords, if you make over 20 champions, it probably is worth it. Finding that number would be a better point of comparison, I think. It would leave out the blacksmith upgrades, but since those apply to multiple units their value is difficult to quantity in comparison to single unit upgrades.
I think you need to adjust values for expected size of economy when the tech becomes available. Aka 600 food is s lot more in feudal than imperial.
I truly wonder if they ever change those hidden that buff, hidden this weakness, hidden my hidden buff on my hidden Unit.
I was really hoping this video would make more contextualized comments; for instance the state a game is likely to be in at a given age where an upgrade comes available or is relevant and how much contextual impact on that game state the costs have at that time - things like whether or when to upgrade militia -> man-at-arms and beyond rather than training calavry or archers. Unfortunately, this is mostly just a display of numbers without the strategic context that gives them meaning.
For reasons others have pointed out, the way you're confining and defining your points system here more or less highlights AoEII being a generally well balanced game - you need to pay more for every piece of additional advancement which you can better afford as you progress through the ages in a game. Infantry have a mobility disadvantage, but you can improve them more cost effectively. Cavalry are awesomely maneuverable but generally more expensive both individually and technologically. Archers never stop being comparatively fragile, but then they never stop being exceptionally useful for weakening oncoming melee troops before they close either. etc etc.
the light cavalry being so good on the list surprised me bc of the hussar being actually the worst. one extra upgrade just might not be worth it with the light cavalry line
1. Can I have your raw data?
2. A better measure imo is to have a unit lifetime damage output score:
lifetime_damage = unit_attack * unit_hp / (some_baseline_attack * unit_res_modifier)
therefore: value = (upgraded_lifetime_damage - lifetime_damage) / upgrade_cost
Upgrading chemistry when going for siege onagers as Celts
That spreadsheet though 🤯🤯🤯
Sure the paladin upgrade might not give a lot but have you seen how beautiful they look? Would you rather burn your opponent's City down with people wearing a beautifully crafted and inlayed helmet or with people wearing a bucket on their head? IF YOU'RE NOT DESTROYING SOMEONE WITH STYLE, YOU'RE NOT DESTROYING THEM AT ALL!
I preffer Knight looks over both Paladin and Cavalier
me(getting raided by cavaliers): i should take care of them, this could be trouble.
me(getting raided by paladins: this guy has achieved the pinnacle of human civilization, resistance is futile .
Don't besmirch the name of thy Lord Buckethead!
Man you are so right.
Paladins have pigtails for goodness sakes! Cavaliers have six packs!
Compile all these and publish them for doctorate in aoe
everyone here would support him
Lol 😂😂😂
Nature issue 221, Science of AoE 1& 2
He knows more AoE than I do my subject lmao
Thats actually not a bad idea
True, Paladins and Hussars don't gain much, but what about those sick skins?
King gotta look boom when raidin' a town!
Back in the day when you had to pay IN-GAME MONEY to get sick skins.
Easily an extra plus 30 pts of cool factor haha
So that's where the money goes... Shiny stuff and brand banners lol. Not actual training or better gear to fight with lol.
You can't put a price on style. Winged Hussars and Paladin helmet banners are worth every resource and then some.
@@LiquidAnus So much so that I'd be willing to pay actual stone for those upgrades. Expensive bling is priceless!
"Hussar is worst upgrade" *sound of Turkish player laughing*
Who said they have no trash units?!
Or Malians. Farimba costs similar but way better than Hussar upgrade.
I don't think thats how it works.
At least Turks don't need to pay to get an unit that looks like their worst nightmare.
That's some grade A irony if you know your history.
"TH-camrs are just people who don't want to actually work"
Spirit of the law: "Hold my excel file" (2:08)
He just copied the numbers from the game and counted points. If you explain percentages to an 8 years old, he can do that. Just because it looks tedious to make doesn't mean it's work. Also, just because something looks easy and pleasant to do, doesn't mean it's not work. People should drop this archaic vision of "work" seen as something that is boring, repetitive, unpleasant and acknowledgeable.
Sorry for the rant, AoE is fun, I don't mean to plummet the ambiance. It's just my abstract thoughts on work, no one should take it personally.
Nobody will probably ever read this comment but I find it interesting that the worst value upgrades are cavalry while the best value are infantry. Essentially, the game devs accounted for power projection when pricing the upgrades. It is more powerful to send an extra 2 meele damage across the map at cavalry speed than at infantry speed, therefore the cavalry upgrade should cost more even if the numbers are the same.
sometimes I can't believe how much thought went into making this game balanced
@@justinokraski3796 And still, infantry pretty much sucks in this game. The only infantry unit you see on a regular basis is the spearmen line. Many infantry unique units almost never get used in pro matches and champions are a pretty rare sight, too. It's all about knights and crossbows. The scorpion is another unit that is rarely used, because it counters infantry.
@@justinokraski3796 Well, the game is 20 years old and has been patch several times from the get to up to very recently, you can also get things right by trial and error. Halberdiers and hussars have not always been a thing for example, making trash significantly weaker and paloofs significantly stronger.
@@peterpeterson4800 well in AOK infatry used to be better. Thats why cav gained the bloodlines upgrade and hand cannoneers are unlocked with chemistry to counter champions, unlike AOK where you had to research another tech after chemistry to unlock the hand canoneer. I think the combination of people getting better at the game (and being able to exploit cav speed and archers kiting) and these buffs to other units making them poorer.
yes. The whole quantification of this does not really work.
Hey guys, Spirit of the Law here.
Best thing I've heard all day
if it really means that much to you, you could have write the whole name down...
@@dwightsmith3815 done
That’s a feel only a mass murderer would understand.
I totally feel that.
@@dwightsmith3815 written*
Did you really shorten his name before the edit?! :O
As long as Hussar keep those wings, it's always the best upgrade.
I assume the Spanish Elite Villager upgrade would rank pretty high with this point system.
The worst tech upgrade:
-Spies on all visible maps
-Atheism on conquer scenario
@Halberdier ah, nice one
Wrong. Atheism still reduces the cost of spies by half. Even if you play conquest on all visible it prevents you from being able to waste as many resources on spies.
*Spies in every situation
If I had money to buy spies on all visible, I would do it. It's basicaly like saying : "I have so much money I can waste it on throwing it into the sea"
This is a video about upgrades, not techs in general.
given the way you computed the value of each upgrade, loom would be orders of magnitude ahead of anything else
Wdym? Loom is still better than hussar upgrade lol its cheaper, gives more stats, you can get it as soon as game start if you wish, takes less time
@@공략 I feel like you misinterpreted his comment. He meant that Loom is orders of magnitude ahead because it's 75 resources for 15 HP, 1 hack and 2 pierce armor.
Imma assume you interpreted it as "being ahead" as in being the worst upgrade because of the title of the original video?
I think something you are forgetting here is that blacksmith upgrades boost multiple different units, while the ones you mention here are for one unit only.
That’s the point. He’s talking about upgrades for individual units.
Yes, but they are the base-cost ^^
And I remind you that most of the video was talking about the worst upgrades who cost several time more than the blacksmith upgrade.... So, the fact that blacksmith impact more units than upgrades is a further decrease of the utility of these upgrades ^^
As for early units, early on you have rarely multiple unites of each type, from what I see, you have only scouts who benefits from bloodline and attack melee bonuses, maybe one or two spearmen if you losse battle of the scouts ^^
@@krankarvolund7771 To the contrary, it happens very frequently in Feudal battles to have multiple units of each type. Some common combinations are:
- Archers and Skirmishers. If both you and your opponent go Archers, you will mix in Skirmishers quickly, as you already have the Archery Ranges to produce them, as well as Blacksmith upgrades.
- Scouts and Spearmen. If both you and your opponent go Scouts, you will mix in Spearmen, as you will have a Barracks anyway. Both units benefit from Forging.
@@martijnbouman8874 A lot of players who Drush (which is an extremely common tactic in pro games) will also grab man at arms for their militia if they still have a good number in fuedal. The damage two or three men-at-arms can do to a woodline vs. what militia can do is crazy, and the upgrade is fairly cheap.
I'm thinking of getting back into AOE, and one strat I want to try is an all in feudal rush of spears and skirms with Byzantines, assuming they get the discount then. I think they do. Imho, it would counter most classic fuedal army comps, and at dirt-cheap prices. And sure they may not be the best at getting vill picks, but in combination, especially with the discount, they're not exactly something your enemy can just ignore or fight off with vills either. Maybe crazy. No idea. Still, I want to try it.
@@thehermeticgamer3736 Byzantines indeed get the discount. They indeed make counterunits like Spearmen and Skirmishers a lot. I do think your opponent could counter your composition with Skirmishers + Scouts, though, provided his micro is decent enough to not get his Scouts hit by your Spearmen too often.
I dont even play AoE2, i just come here because the quality of your videos and the attention to detail here is actually pretty inspiring!
Me neither, however I think most of us will start playing it with the new Aoe 2 definitive edition
I felt this. I never really intended to start playing this game seriously ( I played against AIs as a kid) but T90 and SOTL really made me want to try my hand at this complex fascinating game.
Last time I was this early, Korean siege onagers had more range.
bouteille d'eau 1 Damn I miss that..
Hey SOTL, I’m a huge fan of your work.
But , I would like to point out something worth the time that is :
As you said the man-at-arms upgrades are one of the most cost effective and the paladins the other way , I would like to bring your attention to the point that as you said that the economies and armies tend to grow as game progress on and which means that the man-at-arms are most likely not going to the part of your late game army whereas the paladins are a common sight , which means you should also take into account the overall usability of the upgraded unit over the course of the game.......
Anyways, LOVE your vids thought
Keep up the good work.
Maybe more important than that is the fact that your income is a lot less in the early game, so the Man-at-arms upgrade could be a bigger % of your total income at the time and there's certainly a balance when it comes on how much of your income you are investing into growing your economy vs growing your military.
I think a more interesting analysis would be to see how the upgrade compares to creating more of the non-upgraded version, and testing them against each other, and against a gold-normalized army of archers, one of infantry, and one of cavalry. Maybe some of the upgrades are better when you are against a specific composition.
he might also wanna take into account that you can't farm many resources at the beginning, thus making every resource you collect early on more valuable than in the late game.
@@DannieRay23 Yeah, I deffinetely agree, but analyzing that objectively sounds kinda hard. Maybe he can add that to the comparation making a "resource/income estimate at given time/age", made taking into account many games. So he can compare how much of the (or some kind of "game period", like early feudal, feudal, early castle, post imp, etc...). But then he would need to know in which period said techs are researched more frecuently, so he can give us a "percentage of total resources of the (game period) you have to expend to research this tech".
As every game is different, with different uptimes, build orders, resources and gameplans... he would need to analyze a LOT of games to reduce bias. Almost impossible to do, sadly.
@@josueromerotorrico4453 "he would need to analyze a LOT of games to reduce bias" and that would, in the end, only give us an average of what people do. I think the current format of the comparison in the video gives us a better perspective to apply to any situation we encounter, and the final takeaway of the video (upgrade for multiple units > upgrade for single unit) is very agreeable upon.
Creation time is also impacted by a lot of these upgrades, which is invaluable for massing with limited castles in the Cho Ko Nu's case for example
Don't forget the genoese crossbow. Its attack rate goes from 3 to 2. Also its creation time drops.
1. I don't think you can measure attack as a % upgrade. Say if the enemy has 3 armor and you have 4 attack. a +1 to attack is a 100% increase, not 25%. HP is fine, though.
2. I don't think you can compare costs of techs across the board to each other. 100 food in feudal age is a LOT more than 100 food in imperial.
Completely agree, this game doesn't handle armor like most RTS out there. Also, for ranged units, he didn't pay any attention to accuracy, which usually increases. This is specially important for units such as the conquistador, arambai, or civilizations like britons and aztecs that lack thumbring.
While that certainly is true, any way besides % based would be extremely clunky to show.
@@UM96lol But % increase is just flat out wrong. It's almost never applicable. You'd be better off just finding some kind of value to assign to every increase in damage based on the original value or something like that. If % increase was remotely accurate then blacksmith upgrades would kinda suck in comparison to the real value quite often.
Except that most of the units don't have 4 attack. 4 attack is for militiamen (and their upgrade is the best ^^) and villagers ^^
@@krankarvolund7771 there are units with 10 armor though.
I am a simple man, I see Spirit Of The Law video, I click video, I thumbs up video.
Herbal Medicine didn't show up, 0/10.
Ridgwaycer I actually think herbal medicine is not as bad as people always claim. That does not mean I research it every game, or prioritize it, for that matter. But I believe it is more useful than people say, even though it should be reduced in cost.
I recently had a very long 1v1 match that I narrowly won. And I believe I won, in part, because I was able to cycle my Mamelukes through castles during the early Imperial, so that by the time gold ran out I could still field 40 Mamelukes in the trash wars. It was the difference.
Now, you could say I might’ve done the same with priests, or left the Mamelukes in the castles for 4 times longer. However, the Mamelukes were basically my only real defense army at times, and being able to heal so many, so fast, meant my opponent was pressed to either stop the attack or destroy his economy in an attempt to overwhelm me. He instead pulled back after 4 pushes against the same 40 or so Mamelukes, buying me time to recover and build trash.
Didn't herbal medicine flat out not function for over a decade though?
Max Russell You’re thinking of Fervor.
It is a tech not an upgrade.
@@Bestsuk It upgrades the units healing rate, doesn't that count?
i hope this man is making a great living for himself with his data analysis skills.
But all those Blacksmith updates don't cost any gold? ~laughs in Spanish~
I disagree with some of those things you said but more importantly
What happened to the intro? THAT'S the worst upgrade ever
Not having to click the youtube timeline to skip past it is an awesome upgrade.
@@iiiiiifggffggffgfgfg Skipping past... the intro?
Sounds to me like a user upgrade is required :^)
Skipping SotL's intros is a step towards an inflatable girlfriend.
@@iiiiiifggffggffgfgfg Just press L two times instead of clicking. It makes the video go 20s forward. Great to skip all those pesky intros (press J to go backward if you miss the mark)
the new one isnt bad, but the old one was just pure gold
Hey Spirit! can you upload the .xls you used for to make this video, please? We want to see all the results!
.xls is so early 2000s.
.xlsx is where it be
"You do have blacksmith, don't you?"
8:26 the deer eating the remains of dead units...
😳
*Insert comment about Saracens in team games*
Also nice use of Majora's Mask's scene transition.
As much value as elite Teutonic Knights and Tarkan provide, would you be making enough units to justify spending it?
Similarly, as you admitted in your paladin video, the upgrade becomes justified once you have over 50 knights on the map.
For chukonus, it’s very easy to reach critical mass, and does the upgrade pay off for extra arrows and lower fire rate?
the worst upgrade in age of empires 2 was age of empires 3
straight fire
I haven't even started this video yet, but I'm gonna say herbal medicine.
Carto for the viewers, most underrated upgrade in AOE2 history
Literally the best tech
regarding the "best practice" of getting elite cho ku nu upgrade late:
The upgrade reduces their creation speed notably, so if one is not lacking res, but castles prioritysing it can make sense.
Conscription first though
@@kunstderfugue both at the same time
Hey, can you make a top 5 defensive civs video?
1. Teutons
2. Byzantines
3. Koreans
4. Italians
5. Magyars
@@netrolancer1061 This is only true for 1v1. In team games, Italians get a bonus because they have the ability to switch to the opposite team when theirs starts losing.
This must have taken forever to make.... thanks for all your work!
Hey Spirit, you should do a video on the top 5 Trash civilizations.
Japanese for the faster attacking Halbs?
Goths for their cheaper and faster created infantry?
Slavs for the Halbs with area damage?
Berbers for their Genitours?
Vietnamese for their Imperial Skirmishers?
The Magyars for their Huszar?
Malay for their Two-Handed Trashmen and infinite Fish Traps?
Byzantines for 25% cheaper halbs and skirms with all blacksmith upgrades. Also the +40% hp castle is indestructible if enemy is low on gold
Edit: no blast furnace but still top tier trash civ
Basically every trash civ aside from Turks, civ without halberdiers are all good in the late game, depends on how you utilize your resources especially when the gold starts to run out.
From my opinion :
-Aztecs : kinda depends on what army you would face. pikes still great due to their garland wars, and skirmishers have more attack and attack range (at the cost of halberdier, thumb ring and the last archer armor upgrade)
-Byzantines : so far they are the strongest in the trash wars since their trash are cheaper, but no blast furnace so you will have to use the numbers advantage.
-Spanish and Chinese : no bonus towards skirms or halbs but their upgrades are much cheaper than the other civs. For the spanish case they can have extra gold to stall their gold-costing unit with their trade bonus so it doesn't matter much when they run out of gold mines.
-Magyars : halbs have all attack upgrades for free and much earlier, don't forget to mention their UU.
-Berbers : no halberdiers, but they have genitours that can be a special complement unit for certain civs (Turks, Aztecs, Incas)
-Malay : Forced Levy>>one of the most OP unique tech in the game. no explanation needed.
Above-average halberdiers :
-Goths
-Slavs
-Japanese
-Byzantines
Special case on pikes :
-Aztecs
-Vikings
Above-average Skirmishers :
-Vietnamese
-Incas
-Berbers
-Mayans
-Byzantines
1:58 .. missed the perfect spongebob narration moment..
You should have multiplied your points by the age, this way you could counter the naturally higher efficiency of early techs. I think the result would be interesting.
I would suggest to add some penalty cost for technologies depending on the age they are researched at. Like for example, 100 food in Feudal counting as 200 (100% extra), 100 food in Castle counting as 150 and 100 food in Imperial counting as 100. This is an approximate baremo, but with this simple adjustment you would get a bit better results.
While that makes sense, I think you're missing the point; Comparing upgrades between themselves. If faced with the option of, let's say, blacksmith upgrades or elite unit upgrades, which is better?
I believe that the methodology used in this video is only good for such comparisons. You can't really know what the impact of +1 attack will be, since it depends on the armour of the unit you're attacking. You can, however, know if it's better to get Blast Furnace or Elite TTK. And if you want to decide which one to get, you're presumably comparing them in the same timeframe, and in the same age.
@@UM96lol The idea that I had to even out different parts of the game is using villager count. just divide the resource cost by the average villager count of it's age , maybe divide the score by it, shjouldn't make too much difference.
Another idea might be calculating average Villager work rate (because upgrades) but that seems like overkill.
@@UM96lol While you are right, my point goes a little bit beyond. And in this video we are not only comparing technologies of the same age. Furthermore, with my approach you will get the same result for your example comparing blast furnace and Elite TTK as they are both researched at the same age.
Watching Spirit since the beginning has been such a treat. The production value on this episode was great! keep it up dude!
5 minutes old, already almost 700 views, wp!
5 hours old, 26k views
7 hours old, 40k views! :)
You have created some of the highest quality content on TH-cam, sir.
Since its ' worst upgrades' not 'worst technology' I can't argue with your deduction.
Otherwise Herbal Medicine should be up top. In my mind thats the most useless technology in the game.
@CommandoDude did that stop working on camels?
Subjective? Definitely. But I appreciate that you broke down why you scored as you did and repeatedly reminded us "based on the methodology used here" or however the quote went.
You should do a follow up to this discussing all the elite unit upgrades and their value.
The worst upgrade in the AoE II imo is the - Paper Money - change my mind.
Stone shaft mining
I wouldn't call paper money an 'upgrade' in the strictest sense of the word
Really SOTL, you think Hussar upgrade is the worst?? You forgot about the beautiful wings those puny cavalries get!
If a theoretical civ has an economy bonus that reduces the cost of literally every unit you make, every structure you build, and every technology you research (basically a discount on nearly everything that uses resources), how small would that discount have to be to appear balanced? Would such a trait be good even at 1% for example?
could you make more history vs campaign
alaric
dracula
prithviraj
sforza
barbarossa
yodit
sundjata
el cid
tariq ibn ziyad
battle of forgotten
or conquerors battles
rise of rajas
gajah mada
suryavarman
william wallace how it should look
saladin
genghis khan
bari
el dorado
bayinnaug
le loi
these are just suggestions i know its a hard but i think these are must have
respond to me your opinion is important and is there someone who also does this
With all this information from SoTL, If a person still can't play AoE,... that person better be downloading Fortnite or PUBG!
Been a fan of your videos for a long time. Just had an idea for a video: in a game where players aren't allowed to advance past the feudal age, which civ is the strongest, and which is the weakest?
Please consider joining spirit's patreon so he can upgrade his crt monitor!n
yeomen
the effect on towers is negligible and thus it only gives 1 range to longbows and arbalests
pretty overpriced for what you get
this is some incredible research, i would love to see more mathematical analysis like this into the greater effects of technologies in general and the relative value they have for each age and such. their is a lot of interesting balance to see here!
Not a huge fan of the base assumption made for the analysis.
Resources are much more common in the late game as gathering capacity and length of collection time have compounded by the time late game upgrades are available. I think comparing upgrade costs to the average amount of resources available at a particular time in the game would be more revealing to the value of an upgrade.
Additionally, true value gained from upgrades like Paladin are directly tied to numbers of Paladins you have deployed. Upgrading 50+ Cavalier means much more than upgrading 10 (like he mentioned at the end).
Yup, he's making too many assumptions
Could you put a download link for the spreadsheet?
drive.google.com/open?id=1VzFbCE4d0NaoklUw9i_oakw8K_Q3buhH
@@SpiritOfTheLaw Don't know if someone's mentioned this already, but I don't think the Heavy Scorpion upgrade costs any gold
I'm sorry but I heavily disagree with this. I think the flaw of this method is that it doesn't take into account which units are actually viable in what situations.
Practically the hussar upgrade is quite valuable in 1v1 because it's a long term investment, in late imp you run out of gold at some point and want to switch to hussars.
In this context, hussar upgrade is good but e.g. elite battle elephant is not.
In TG, it's the other way around, paladin and imperial camel is a must have, but hussar/skirms/champ is generally a bad investment because of trade.
I think you might be expecting too much out of this sort of analysis, or reading into it a different way than I intended. The point is not so much about getting them or not, but in which order. I think it's useful knowledge to have that Hussar/Paladin etc should be picked up after EVERY other relevant stat boost from the blacksmith and bloodlines. Likewise, man-at-arms gives a greater value than blacksmith techs at that point. It seems like you're taking the question in a different direction, which fine.
Why do top players usually prioritize unit upgrades over blacksmith upgrades? (Specially concerning melee attack upgrades, usually they reach Imp Age without even researching Forging, but an Indian player wants to get Imp Camel as soon as they reach Imp).
Maybe they can't explain it, but the psycological effect on the enemy of seeing that new upgraded unit could also make a difference, how many times have you seen players typing GG when they are behind as soon as they see Paladin researched?
It could be interesting to hear their opinion too, o maybe math here doesn't really apply to the practice
wow, I'm early. And I'm not even on the notification squad.
I think it would be great to have some ressources like the spreadsheet generally available and crowd-sourced, so important things can be reused. For example it would be helpful to know, how many units you need to make an upgrade worth more than its cost invested in more of those units.
Since you already made the suggestion, you could spend some of your freetime on exactly that. screenshotting parts of SOTLs Videos and putting together a collection of the information (while correctly citing and giving credit).
Though it'd be easier for SOTL to throw his diagrams and verdicts on reddit or somewhere. maybe a week after upload so his viewcount isn't affected.
@@PrimordialNightmare I have to admit that was just a general suggestion, that SOTL might want to consider for his own reasons. I am not really an active member of the community and did not want to imply that I demand anything like that or would myself put considerable effort into. I started to collect some of this stuff in AoE III and quickly felt overwhelmed. Mad props to SOTL for actually putting together the whole spreadsheet. But maybe that is all the more reason to share it with others?
@@nilsp9426 Yeah, I feel you. I'm currently working on gathering some data on an old Shooter for the gamecube, it's not even that much to work with, but it's surprisingly hard work.
I kinda plan on putting the results of the work onto a blog and maybe do a video.
If I find a fitting subreddit, I might post it there as well.
"Time to list every stat"
Why do you do this to yourself....
SOTL is a genius LOL, cannot imagine how he sat down tomake that TABLE, insane table it was
master of all laws and physics, please bring the intro back.
Slightly off topic, but I wanted to hear from some fellow civilization analyzers on this sort of homebrew style game I'm going to be playing with friends.
If Spirit Of The Law could comment, that'd be amazing. But I welcome anyone to posit some ideas. I made a post about it on the AOE2 reddit page, so you can read it here. I only add the link because it takes a couple paragraphs to explain the game itself. www.reddit.com/r/AgeOfEmpires2/comments/c7nl2d/homebrew_1v1_scenario_what_would_be_the_best_civs/
Whether you respond here or on reddit doesn't matter, I just want to hear what people think! So far I'm really leaning on Celts, Teutons, Aztecs, Britons, and Franks as the best options.
Love your work SoTL! Probably the best ratio of like buttons/videos watched of all my subscribed channels, your creations are truly remarkable and creative.
A commentary on 2 bias that your analysis have (wich you addressed on the discussion side of the video, but not on your spreadsheet)
First - this analysis has a tendency to maybe overvalue the upgrades of relatively weak units, due to their base stats sucking (maybe you could make an overall power score for a unit, like PER for performance of NBA athletes) and than compare the change that the upgrade makes to the unit PER (like PER_after upgrade / PER_before upgrade -1 * 100)
Second - in the same spirit that made you arbitrarily derterminea correction factor for range and pierce armor, maybe you should apply a correction factor to the value of resources depending on the game phase (for instance Dark Age x5 multiplier, and Feudal x4, Castle x3, Imperial x2) because , like you said, 500 food and 300 wood have entirely different impacts on your economy in the Dark Age vs Imperial Age.
Hope these suggestions help you think of some fun new videos for the channel and Age2 fans
Peace!
AoE 3 is far more intuitive in this aspect - the increase in both hit points and attack is ALWAYS either +20%, +30% and +50% ("regular" units) or +20%, +40% and +50% (if your civ has a special version of the unit). It's therefore more effective with stronger and more expensive units. Armor, range, speed and multipliers are exclusive to arsenal upgrades and Home City cards.
It feels like you missing on big part in you calculation what will change your outcome i guess. If i get an Upgrade say for +1 Attack than this goes on all my units.
For better understanding say an upgrade cost 100 Food for 1 Attack. This ist true for 2 units. Unit 1 Cost 50 Food to build the other is 100 Food to build. Inf you calculation the value is the same for both. But you can get 2 units for the first one becouse they cost less. So now you get basicly 2 dmg more.
And i guess that is the resson why husar are the worst upgrade of all of them. If you compare it with unit cost it should change a lot.
Damn aoe devs knew that we won't upgrade cavalery too much so they gave the cavalery some skins that look really good
I don't care if it's the worst upgrade.....
I NEED THE WINGED HUSSARS TO ARRIVE .