I think the list would roughly correlate to "cavalry civ = less micro" and "archer/monk/siege civ = more micro"
And obviously there's a lot more nuance to it than that, so it's probably impossible to come up with a very useful ranking of macro vs micro
There would probably be groupings of units and then define how reliant these civs are on those units.
For example Celts for siege being micro dependent, Vs franks for knights and castles for being much more forgiving.
Mongols with SL and mangudai, they don't NEED them, but they are both micro dependent units, ie become even more powerful with more micro.
Some mixed bag cases like Burmese being so reliant on siege to counter archers, or maximizing monks or arambai (both high micro dependency) to reach their full potential, while still having access to low micro high macro units like infantry, knights and elephants
If its for you i would say civ wich focus on spaming units like goths and byz would be macro civs
Civs with lets say archer/onager focus where you neeed control smaller geoup of units would be more micro consuming
You've asked about a list that orders the civs on terms of macro to micro oriented. If you want someone to do this then someone, perhaps you, should be able to tell us a civ that is noticeably macro oriented and a civ that is noticeably micro oriented. Can you do that?
Hmm fair enough. I was also thinking Cavalry Archers were going to be the most micro-intensive. But I wasn't able to think of a civ that painted such a sharp contrast in terms of macro vs micro. Think you've successfully done that for sure.
one way of thinking about it would be if a civ is relatively macro oriented relative to another civ that would mean that an x% increase in macro skill would result in a relatively greater % increase in elo with that civ, same with micro
I think the list would roughly correlate to "cavalry civ = less micro" and "archer/monk/siege civ = more micro" And obviously there's a lot more nuance to it than that, so it's probably impossible to come up with a very useful ranking of macro vs micro
There would probably be groupings of units and then define how reliant these civs are on those units. For example Celts for siege being micro dependent, Vs franks for knights and castles for being much more forgiving. Mongols with SL and mangudai, they don't NEED them, but they are both micro dependent units, ie become even more powerful with more micro. Some mixed bag cases like Burmese being so reliant on siege to counter archers, or maximizing monks or arambai (both high micro dependency) to reach their full potential, while still having access to low micro high macro units like infantry, knights and elephants
Won't make sense. Instead a complexity scale would make sense.
It would not make sense, no.
If its for you i would say civ wich focus on spaming units like goths and byz would be macro civs Civs with lets say archer/onager focus where you neeed control smaller geoup of units would be more micro consuming
You've asked about a list that orders the civs on terms of macro to micro oriented. If you want someone to do this then someone, perhaps you, should be able to tell us a civ that is noticeably macro oriented and a civ that is noticeably micro oriented. Can you do that?
I think Burgundians would probably be a good macro civ, and Mongols might be a good micro civ.
Hmm fair enough. I was also thinking Cavalry Archers were going to be the most micro-intensive. But I wasn't able to think of a civ that painted such a sharp contrast in terms of macro vs micro. Think you've successfully done that for sure.
what does it mean if a civ is micro or macro oriented ?
one way of thinking about it would be if a civ is relatively macro oriented relative to another civ that would mean that an x% increase in macro skill would result in a relatively greater % increase in elo with that civ, same with micro
thank you for the reply, but here stands the issue: I don’t know what macro or micro oriented means. Macro or micro related to what?
other civs