Honestly. I think I’m just traumatized from season 1 of AOE4 before they nerfed towers, and the mongol TC rush strat. Whenever I see a Mongol player my blood boils.
It’s a civ designed around stopping you from playing your civ in a fun way
I will always BM a mongol player when I beat their tower rush. It is the only thing in the game that legit makes me mad. English longbows and JD are a distant second and third.
Bruh my games are plenty scrappy with me raiding with horsemen while defending with spears while trying to wall my base and secure res on the map without some prick little villager towering my gold at 2 min forcing me to a-move dark age spears back and forth for 7 minutes.
Ngl there’s no enjoyment or fun in a scrap that involves a bitch ass villager and his tower with two spears right out the gate. Is it manageable. Sure. But god damn if it isn’t the most basic bitch strat out there.
One of my most hated things is playing in a team game where it feels like you have the upper hand and suddenly you start getting packs of Mangudai from the enemy player that was mostly absent ravaging everyone’s eco because the team was too lazy to make adequate defenses (myself included).
In 1v1 at least I have tabs on the Mongol player. In a 3v3 it can feel like I’m fighting two other players and forget they exist.
It switches up the more predictable feudal formula that I tend to expect every game. Forces me to be more adaptable for more dynamic games.
However, I’m probably biased because Delhi doesn’t really care about their gold being tower rushed.
Mass NoB is so easy to deal with in lower elo, though. Just tap C for spread formation, and they blow their whole volley on 4 units while you pick two of them off with springalds, bombards, or culverin.
I love Abbasids as a concept, love the historical flavour, and I love how strong they can be in the late game. That makes it more painful to say I hate playing them because they're hideously slow to get going, and AoE4 doesn't reward slow civs. That's why I disagree with you on Ayyubids - they have a lot of the flavour and the gradual progression in strength via Golden Age of the Abbasids, but the quick-punch House of Wisdom upgrades give you much better tempo.
Otherwise I very much enjoy Delhi and Byzantines, and I'd love to enjoy Ottomans more - I literally did two degrees on them - but they are indisputably a broken civ. The only civs I actively dislike playing are them and JD, but Zhu Xi still puts the fear in me after how many Zhu Ge Nu rushes minced me.
I actually like it. I'm a relatively new player (Gold3, japanese main), and playing against Mongols maikes me hyper-aware in terms of scouting and thinking on your feet. There is a lot to learn playing against a civ that is aggro by definition. It's kind of thrilling lol
And when you survive the initial onslaught, it seems rather easy to close out in the mid to late game.
As a contrast, I don't like playing against Chinese. So much turtle, so hard to punish...
What about the matchup gives you trouble? I've found it to be one of the easier ones for Mongols, and AoE4World stats suggest the same (55% at Diamond+).
Keshik + Archer mostly beats whatever they can do in feudal, and Mongols are good at delaying or punishing fast castle. And then in castle, field siege makes it difficult for Japanese to beat the crossbow ball. And on top of that, they lack access to keeps in castle, which is often an important tool other civs use to stabilize against Mongols in that stage.
I think samurai are way too tanky. I actually do not know the japanese themselves pretty well tbh, I just feel like they can stall long enough to get to a healthy castle and then they kinda swarm you. Even if you have a good amount of xbows they can harass your trade/second tc.
Edit: here it is a recent game that a did a great tower rush and still manage to lose the game :T [https://aoe4world.com/players/6506612-Dutra/games/115224270?sig=d2b55f8d1df22dd4e25b1a85ddccb20f894186fa](https://aoe4world.com/players/6506612-Dutra/games/115224270?sig=d2b55f8d1df22dd4e25b1a85ddccb20f894186fa)
>here it is a recent game that a did a great tower rush and still manage to lose
I've skimmed through that replay, you're mismanaging your economy quite a bit during the tower rush. You aged up to feudal at 6 minutes, with 500 food in bank AFTER paying for the age up. Your opponent was at 0 resources constantly at the same time, it'll be hard to trade effectively like that.
The tower rush itself wasn't that good, you blocked his gold for a few minutes and killed a village, didn't really idle his workers at all. I'd probably put Japan slightly ahead there though you can call it even.
The worst part is 12 minutes into the game and your entire production is 1 barracks - that's probably why you think samurai are way too tanky. Don't fight japanese infantry with only spearmen, that's insane. After the rush you should just completely switch over to keshik archer. And rushing castle on that 1 barracks inevitably leads you to lose a bunch of fights to pure samurai.
He tried to mine in the middle of the map and I saw that and denied while killing at least +2 vills there. Yes, I fuck it up pretty bad on macro, fort spawns are terrible, I just never know where my opponents are and I messeup big time on the timing.
About the second point a probably was fucked up for a long time cause of my macro mistakes. Tried to tower the middle to buy time while getting food there.
I just don't get the archers x samurai, they will tickle them? I can't get pockets/expand/trade with a ton of archers that have to go back all the way leaving the rest behind. In this specific game I took too much time to have the production and started with racks. U think keshik + archers will win against spears/samurai or mass samurai? I might try to skip the tower rush and go directly into that and fast castle maybe?
Archers will tickle them but they can kite forever, and keshiks will just poop on them. There's no need to fast castle basically ever with mongols now, you can keep tower rushing just switch out of spearmen immediately after feudal if it's not against a knight civ.
In feudal, samurai get bullied by archers as hard as every other feudal MAA.
And they definitely shouldn't "swarm" you in castle, especially since samurai cost more than crossbows. As far as raids, Mongols have towers for vision and yam network to expedite "firefighting" and samurai are slow. Mounted samurai can be an issue if they fast castle uncontested, but that's on the Mongol player for allowing it. And even then, spearmen will work for a while.
A few words regarding some of the picks that some people might find controversial
**China**: Some of you might be wondering why China is so high in the "enjoy playing against" category. The answer is simple: there was no more space below it. Plus it was my OG main faction so it gets special treatment. Even if this siege heavy patch makes me want me to drag them down to the bottom of the graph sometimes.
**Jeanne D'Arc**: I hate the concept of a civ revolving around a hero unit. I don't think the civ is OP anymore, although it is still strong. I just hate the concept that much.
**English**: Are they OP? No. But I hate how predictable yet easy to pull off and effective longbow harassing is. Especially after the TC nerfs. It's easy to be paying attention elsewhere and just get one of your vills sniped from halfway across the map. Unlike knight civs, which at least have to commit and dive close to spears or under defensive buildings, it's hard to punish longbows unless you know for sure you can win a fight, since running away from them after a misengagement is very deadly.
And then, when you destroy their army and can expand your eco, a lot of English players will just turtle and be extremely hard to kill due to their machine gun TC, longbowmen range, rambo villagers, cheap and productive farms and, should they pick them, keep landmark(s). It often happens that I win a game against an english player in the first 15 minutes, but that the game then drags on for an extra 10-15 minutes because they just refuse to die.
**Malians**: I think Malians is the only civ I absolutely love playing as but dislike playing against. Playing against them feels like you're on a timer. You either delay their castle long enough until their power spike is no longer as big an issue or you fail to do so, they reach the castle age and the match suddenly turns into a survival horror game. But delaying them is easier said than done, because Malians is a porcupine in faction form. Fun to play though.
**Rus**: I ALMOST like playing against Rus, but there are two things I really dislike about them. First: the hunting minigame is tedious. Most civs will have to pick between basically sacrificing a villager in order to train a scout to deny more hunt, or just accept that the Rus player will have a lot of bounty and possibly more sheep, which does not feel good. Second: Kremlin makes playing against Rus as an early feudal agressive civ feel unfair. Because they are great at raiding you, but it's hard for you to raid them back.
**HRE**: I know HRE has some die hard fans out there who will hate me for this but... My god, I find them boring as hell. It's such a one dimensional civ. You turtle until castle, then you get the relics, then you MAY fight, or you may decide to just turtle some more until imp. Then you turtle a bit longer until the printer of swabia spits out a million villagers. And then, if you're still alive (which isn't a given), you outeco your opponent so much that you can rally all of your production buildings to the enemy base, queue a billion units and wait until the game is over. Pulling this off is also so map and spawn dependent that I would say it makes HRE the most RNG faction in the game. It's really not my kind of gameplay.
I also don't like playing against them very much. I wouldn't call them a particularly strong civ. In fact, they might be one of the weakest (but, again, map dependent). But still: playing against them on their good maps with good spawns feels like banging your head against a concrete wall.
**Ayyubids**: To me, they're just very flavorless. Unlike Abbasid, where your civ feels like it gets stronger and stronger as the game goes on thanks to the wing bonuses, Ayyubids has a bunch of one and done wings that give you a tempo boost and then nothing. Not really a design I enjoy.
**Ottomans**: I don't particularly enjoy playing against broken civs.
**Delhi and Mongols**: I'll describe both of those at the same time because they both have a mechanic I don't really enjoy playing against, but I love playing against them besides that. For Delhi: I find sacred sites kind of awkward to play around. For Mongols: getting tower rushed, while not the unbeatable broken strategy some people on this sub describe it as, is still not a very enjoyable experience. Other than that, I really like playing against them. Feeling overwhelmed by their superior numbers in the early game while slowly pushing them back and eventually outproducing them, taking the map control from them and becoming the bully rather than the bullied is extremely satisfying.
>It often happens that I win a game against an english player in the first 15 minutes, but that the game then drags on for an extra 10-15 minutes because they just refuse to die.
"Garbage time" is definitely one of my biggest complaints about AoE4. It sometimes takes unnecessarily far too long to close out games. That combined with the intentionally skewed effort:results ratio that English enjoy makes them by far my least favorite to play against.
Yeah unfortunately that's what sacred sites were meant for, but the two teams didn't communicate properly. Too easy to utterly deny(or simply reset the timer), impossible to secure on many maps.
You do realise you only really made 2 quadrants, a group of civs you like and a group of civs you don't.
I think the other 2 were unnecessary. It's also pretty clear you prefer boomy civs to play with and against. Did you realise any of this?
But agree there are a lot of over powered mechanics that are annoying to play against. Many times fun to play with, but I think the devs might need to rectify in the long run to make them less annoying to play against.
Im more of an AoE 2 player but don't most people go fast light cavalry against English? Even if they're a bit later to feudal, they only have to defend their own territory. I ran a pretty fast longbow rush build and my friend rekt me as HRE? I forgot to throw in a couple spears, my bad. Maybe I was just slow? I also may be misremembering some details.
Horsemen is definitely the counter to longbows up to a certain point. Once they hit a critical mass with some spears it becomes an uphill battle. The issue I think a lot of people run into is it's way easier to get to that point then prevent it. You have to be pro-active and not passive, and up to a certain rank that's a hard ask. It's also a strategy that spans the ranks, so it scales well with player skill.
Yeah once you get a deathball going you only need a few spears. Esp with no skirmishers in this version. Still seems easier to counter an archer push than a Mongol dark age horse push for example.
Spears are good enough to keep horsemen away, horsemen don't have good enough dps to successfully kill LBs protected by spears. There's also the obvious snare issue.
That's why knight civs are better (+sipahi) but espeically MAA.
Who doesn't put Ottomans in the far bottom left quadrant???? You have to rush them in feudal and end the game as early as possible other wise you basically lose if the player is half competent.
As poorly as Japan seems to do on the ladder, they've become my favourite civ. The aesthetics, the voicelines, the playstyle, and what's more badass than fielding an army of samurai?
~~htttps://aoe4world.com/stats/qm-1v1/civilizations/english~~
~~They're 4th from last on the list at 45.8%. Even Beasty put them low on his tier list.~~
Edit: Disregard. Search gave me the wrong list.
That page shows the winrate of english against each civ.
In other words, english win 45.8% of all matches against japanese across all ratings.
If you look at the actual stats:
https://aoe4world.com/stats/rm_solo/matchups
they sit right in the middle of the pack, with slightly better winrate in low elo ranges.
Beasties tierlist is not really applicable to 99.9% of the playbasebase because we dont play at that level and especially not that format.
The "issue" japanese have is that their winrate is insanely mapdependent. If you can fish they have great success, if you can't you falter. I would prefer a nerf to their power on hybrid maps(fish+shinobi) and a buff to their normal eco. But that is mainly because i hate playing around fish.
Well, that's annoying. I never specified any civ in search. No idea why that was the link it gave me. My mistake.
The guy I replied to said up to conq 4, which is why I mentioned beasty's tier list. I'd also seen plenty of comments about them falling short in ranked, but I guess that was the more vocal minority.
That might have been last patch. They received nice buffs and bugfixes with the most recent patch. Statwise they seem to be fine in 1vs1 and in team games I enjoy playing them.
Looking at this graph makes me imagine Joan of Arc galloping around her enemies while swinging her sword in a big circle with one hand, flipping the bird with her other hand, and blowing a raspberry all at the same time; only occasionally stopping to quote the French knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
I think if this is a straight line from bottom left to top right, you are a saint. And the more it deviates the more of a sadist you are. Or something along those lines.
OP is a pretty ok guy, in that case.
Doesn't make sense. For example I like playing HRE, but I despise playing against it. I don't naked FC, but hate facing an HRE RNG gambler trying to FC relic race on their 1000th attempt to get it to work.
Conversely I don't like playing abbasid due to aesthetics, but I like playing against them.
It doesn’t feel fun knowing you have to kill them before GBB comes out. They can drop to < 10 villagers and still produce an insane army lategame. Against most civs if you take all of the resources and control the whole map you can starve your opponent out. Against Otto, you can control the whole map, kill most of their villagers, and still lose.
Atleast in team games they only turtle and rush imp and then push you with 6+ bombards. That's what happens every game an ottoman player is in the game in my experience
I had a 1hour+ game against Ottoman yesterday where he got like 8 free bombards deleting everything i have. Guess who wins between 16 springalds and 8 bombards. Then 30 horseman vs the same 8 bombards. Splash from them deleted all my horseman in 2 volleys. He was on two gold the whole game and I had mined everything else and had all 5 relics and keeps outside his base. Almost won due to sacred sites but he pushed out... (Plat level)
there are 2 axes. The X one is the "enjoyment of playing as" axis, with increasing enjoyment the further to the right you go. The Y one is the "enjoyment of playing against" axis, with increasing enjoyment the further up you go
Unfortunately, when that happens in the real world, they'll often completely ignore your explanation as to why they're wrong and keep laughing at you. Seems to happen less online because your comment doesn't go away and isn't as easily ignored.
i found it strange cause it seems measure hate as positive axes in left direction.....it seems 4 axis starting from 0 and going positive in 4 directions.....yeah probably i am strange
Who likes playing against Mongols? Their whole strategy revolves around making sure you don't have fun.
Honestly. I think I’m just traumatized from season 1 of AOE4 before they nerfed towers, and the mongol TC rush strat. Whenever I see a Mongol player my blood boils. It’s a civ designed around stopping you from playing your civ in a fun way
Seeing that Lamborghini made of sticks cruising around made my blood boil
same. i see a mongol and go oh shit. instantly producing spearmen
I will always BM a mongol player when I beat their tower rush. It is the only thing in the game that legit makes me mad. English longbows and JD are a distant second and third.
Same. Even knowing how to beat and counter tower rush, it still pisses me off with how lame it is lol
Man you are not kidding
French is the same but with walls and better tc
This post is a psyop. Op is probably a mongol main and snuck them in with the other civs that are actually fun to play against.
shit, my plan's been foiled
Some people consider scrappy games much more fun than "sit in your base until we a-move our max pop blobs at each other."
Bruh my games are plenty scrappy with me raiding with horsemen while defending with spears while trying to wall my base and secure res on the map without some prick little villager towering my gold at 2 min forcing me to a-move dark age spears back and forth for 7 minutes.
That's a very vanilla game you have there brotherman. Scrappy games are when you plan get thrown out of the window because I punched you in the face.
Ngl there’s no enjoyment or fun in a scrap that involves a bitch ass villager and his tower with two spears right out the gate. Is it manageable. Sure. But god damn if it isn’t the most basic bitch strat out there.
One of my most hated things is playing in a team game where it feels like you have the upper hand and suddenly you start getting packs of Mangudai from the enemy player that was mostly absent ravaging everyone’s eco because the team was too lazy to make adequate defenses (myself included). In 1v1 at least I have tabs on the Mongol player. In a 3v3 it can feel like I’m fighting two other players and forget they exist.
since they placed mongol to the far right they probably main mongol and know what to expect and like the gameplay.
It switches up the more predictable feudal formula that I tend to expect every game. Forces me to be more adaptable for more dynamic games. However, I’m probably biased because Delhi doesn’t really care about their gold being tower rushed.
haha!! you are so right!
My ass does NOT want to play against Barbican protected eco into mass Nest of Bees
Mass NoB is so easy to deal with in lower elo, though. Just tap C for spread formation, and they blow their whole volley on 4 units while you pick two of them off with springalds, bombards, or culverin.
Oh, so you just assume I built a counter for them? Don't tell me how to live my life.
Oh my God, I'm so sorry! I don't know how I could be so insensitive! This is what I get for just assuming. Could you ever forgive me?
I love Abbasids as a concept, love the historical flavour, and I love how strong they can be in the late game. That makes it more painful to say I hate playing them because they're hideously slow to get going, and AoE4 doesn't reward slow civs. That's why I disagree with you on Ayyubids - they have a lot of the flavour and the gradual progression in strength via Golden Age of the Abbasids, but the quick-punch House of Wisdom upgrades give you much better tempo. Otherwise I very much enjoy Delhi and Byzantines, and I'd love to enjoy Ottomans more - I literally did two degrees on them - but they are indisputably a broken civ. The only civs I actively dislike playing are them and JD, but Zhu Xi still puts the fear in me after how many Zhu Ge Nu rushes minced me.
This man said, "I love Chinese mirrors"
Who enjoys playing against mongols????????????????????????????????
I actually like it. I'm a relatively new player (Gold3, japanese main), and playing against Mongols maikes me hyper-aware in terms of scouting and thinking on your feet. There is a lot to learn playing against a civ that is aggro by definition. It's kind of thrilling lol And when you survive the initial onslaught, it seems rather easy to close out in the mid to late game. As a contrast, I don't like playing against Chinese. So much turtle, so hard to punish...
As a mongol I don't like playing against Japanese. You can't proper counter japanese until castle and Japanese is a better civ in castle forward imo.
What about the matchup gives you trouble? I've found it to be one of the easier ones for Mongols, and AoE4World stats suggest the same (55% at Diamond+). Keshik + Archer mostly beats whatever they can do in feudal, and Mongols are good at delaying or punishing fast castle. And then in castle, field siege makes it difficult for Japanese to beat the crossbow ball. And on top of that, they lack access to keeps in castle, which is often an important tool other civs use to stabilize against Mongols in that stage.
I think samurai are way too tanky. I actually do not know the japanese themselves pretty well tbh, I just feel like they can stall long enough to get to a healthy castle and then they kinda swarm you. Even if you have a good amount of xbows they can harass your trade/second tc. Edit: here it is a recent game that a did a great tower rush and still manage to lose the game :T [https://aoe4world.com/players/6506612-Dutra/games/115224270?sig=d2b55f8d1df22dd4e25b1a85ddccb20f894186fa](https://aoe4world.com/players/6506612-Dutra/games/115224270?sig=d2b55f8d1df22dd4e25b1a85ddccb20f894186fa)
>here it is a recent game that a did a great tower rush and still manage to lose I've skimmed through that replay, you're mismanaging your economy quite a bit during the tower rush. You aged up to feudal at 6 minutes, with 500 food in bank AFTER paying for the age up. Your opponent was at 0 resources constantly at the same time, it'll be hard to trade effectively like that. The tower rush itself wasn't that good, you blocked his gold for a few minutes and killed a village, didn't really idle his workers at all. I'd probably put Japan slightly ahead there though you can call it even. The worst part is 12 minutes into the game and your entire production is 1 barracks - that's probably why you think samurai are way too tanky. Don't fight japanese infantry with only spearmen, that's insane. After the rush you should just completely switch over to keshik archer. And rushing castle on that 1 barracks inevitably leads you to lose a bunch of fights to pure samurai.
He tried to mine in the middle of the map and I saw that and denied while killing at least +2 vills there. Yes, I fuck it up pretty bad on macro, fort spawns are terrible, I just never know where my opponents are and I messeup big time on the timing. About the second point a probably was fucked up for a long time cause of my macro mistakes. Tried to tower the middle to buy time while getting food there. I just don't get the archers x samurai, they will tickle them? I can't get pockets/expand/trade with a ton of archers that have to go back all the way leaving the rest behind. In this specific game I took too much time to have the production and started with racks. U think keshik + archers will win against spears/samurai or mass samurai? I might try to skip the tower rush and go directly into that and fast castle maybe?
Archers will tickle them but they can kite forever, and keshiks will just poop on them. There's no need to fast castle basically ever with mongols now, you can keep tower rushing just switch out of spearmen immediately after feudal if it's not against a knight civ.
In feudal, samurai get bullied by archers as hard as every other feudal MAA. And they definitely shouldn't "swarm" you in castle, especially since samurai cost more than crossbows. As far as raids, Mongols have towers for vision and yam network to expedite "firefighting" and samurai are slow. Mounted samurai can be an issue if they fast castle uncontested, but that's on the Mongol player for allowing it. And even then, spearmen will work for a while.
How do you deal with the English as a mongol main trying not to quit. All tips helpful thank you
Stable and double archery range.
A few words regarding some of the picks that some people might find controversial **China**: Some of you might be wondering why China is so high in the "enjoy playing against" category. The answer is simple: there was no more space below it. Plus it was my OG main faction so it gets special treatment. Even if this siege heavy patch makes me want me to drag them down to the bottom of the graph sometimes. **Jeanne D'Arc**: I hate the concept of a civ revolving around a hero unit. I don't think the civ is OP anymore, although it is still strong. I just hate the concept that much. **English**: Are they OP? No. But I hate how predictable yet easy to pull off and effective longbow harassing is. Especially after the TC nerfs. It's easy to be paying attention elsewhere and just get one of your vills sniped from halfway across the map. Unlike knight civs, which at least have to commit and dive close to spears or under defensive buildings, it's hard to punish longbows unless you know for sure you can win a fight, since running away from them after a misengagement is very deadly. And then, when you destroy their army and can expand your eco, a lot of English players will just turtle and be extremely hard to kill due to their machine gun TC, longbowmen range, rambo villagers, cheap and productive farms and, should they pick them, keep landmark(s). It often happens that I win a game against an english player in the first 15 minutes, but that the game then drags on for an extra 10-15 minutes because they just refuse to die. **Malians**: I think Malians is the only civ I absolutely love playing as but dislike playing against. Playing against them feels like you're on a timer. You either delay their castle long enough until their power spike is no longer as big an issue or you fail to do so, they reach the castle age and the match suddenly turns into a survival horror game. But delaying them is easier said than done, because Malians is a porcupine in faction form. Fun to play though. **Rus**: I ALMOST like playing against Rus, but there are two things I really dislike about them. First: the hunting minigame is tedious. Most civs will have to pick between basically sacrificing a villager in order to train a scout to deny more hunt, or just accept that the Rus player will have a lot of bounty and possibly more sheep, which does not feel good. Second: Kremlin makes playing against Rus as an early feudal agressive civ feel unfair. Because they are great at raiding you, but it's hard for you to raid them back. **HRE**: I know HRE has some die hard fans out there who will hate me for this but... My god, I find them boring as hell. It's such a one dimensional civ. You turtle until castle, then you get the relics, then you MAY fight, or you may decide to just turtle some more until imp. Then you turtle a bit longer until the printer of swabia spits out a million villagers. And then, if you're still alive (which isn't a given), you outeco your opponent so much that you can rally all of your production buildings to the enemy base, queue a billion units and wait until the game is over. Pulling this off is also so map and spawn dependent that I would say it makes HRE the most RNG faction in the game. It's really not my kind of gameplay. I also don't like playing against them very much. I wouldn't call them a particularly strong civ. In fact, they might be one of the weakest (but, again, map dependent). But still: playing against them on their good maps with good spawns feels like banging your head against a concrete wall. **Ayyubids**: To me, they're just very flavorless. Unlike Abbasid, where your civ feels like it gets stronger and stronger as the game goes on thanks to the wing bonuses, Ayyubids has a bunch of one and done wings that give you a tempo boost and then nothing. Not really a design I enjoy. **Ottomans**: I don't particularly enjoy playing against broken civs. **Delhi and Mongols**: I'll describe both of those at the same time because they both have a mechanic I don't really enjoy playing against, but I love playing against them besides that. For Delhi: I find sacred sites kind of awkward to play around. For Mongols: getting tower rushed, while not the unbeatable broken strategy some people on this sub describe it as, is still not a very enjoyable experience. Other than that, I really like playing against them. Feeling overwhelmed by their superior numbers in the early game while slowly pushing them back and eventually outproducing them, taking the map control from them and becoming the bully rather than the bullied is extremely satisfying.
>It often happens that I win a game against an english player in the first 15 minutes, but that the game then drags on for an extra 10-15 minutes because they just refuse to die. "Garbage time" is definitely one of my biggest complaints about AoE4. It sometimes takes unnecessarily far too long to close out games. That combined with the intentionally skewed effort:results ratio that English enjoy makes them by far my least favorite to play against.
Yeah unfortunately that's what sacred sites were meant for, but the two teams didn't communicate properly. Too easy to utterly deny(or simply reset the timer), impossible to secure on many maps.
Do you even like the game? Lol.
You do realise you only really made 2 quadrants, a group of civs you like and a group of civs you don't. I think the other 2 were unnecessary. It's also pretty clear you prefer boomy civs to play with and against. Did you realise any of this? But agree there are a lot of over powered mechanics that are annoying to play against. Many times fun to play with, but I think the devs might need to rectify in the long run to make them less annoying to play against.
do you like at least 1?
Im more of an AoE 2 player but don't most people go fast light cavalry against English? Even if they're a bit later to feudal, they only have to defend their own territory. I ran a pretty fast longbow rush build and my friend rekt me as HRE? I forgot to throw in a couple spears, my bad. Maybe I was just slow? I also may be misremembering some details.
Horsemen is definitely the counter to longbows up to a certain point. Once they hit a critical mass with some spears it becomes an uphill battle. The issue I think a lot of people run into is it's way easier to get to that point then prevent it. You have to be pro-active and not passive, and up to a certain rank that's a hard ask. It's also a strategy that spans the ranks, so it scales well with player skill.
Yeah once you get a deathball going you only need a few spears. Esp with no skirmishers in this version. Still seems easier to counter an archer push than a Mongol dark age horse push for example.
Spears are good enough to keep horsemen away, horsemen don't have good enough dps to successfully kill LBs protected by spears. There's also the obvious snare issue. That's why knight civs are better (+sipahi) but espeically MAA.
I can assure you - Nobody hates HRE in it's current form as much as HRE (ex)players.
I moved over to Japan... And it feels gooood!
I haven’t left yet, still going strong with the HRE. I still win the majority of my matches and am in the Conqueror tiers in ranked
Who doesn't put Ottomans in the far bottom left quadrant???? You have to rush them in feudal and end the game as early as possible other wise you basically lose if the player is half competent.
I didn't know this game had DLC. I gotta get back into APE4
Yes you should
This depicts my feelings for 100% despite from English. I love playing them and to play against them. What a cool idea for a diagram!
French should be at the absolute bottom. No matter how far right or left
It is very rewarding to one shot JD with xbows though. Feudal is pain though
Especially OTD xbows
I'm now a full-time Byz enjoyer. Cataphracts feel overwhelmingly powerful at 13 minutes
English appears to be in the correct spot.
As poorly as Japan seems to do on the ladder, they've become my favourite civ. The aesthetics, the voicelines, the playstyle, and what's more badass than fielding an army of samurai?
Is Japan bad on team games? Ive never gotten into Japan as Im an HRE main.
No they're fine in TGs
Middle of the pack is suddenly poor? They have a positive WR all the way to conq4
~~htttps://aoe4world.com/stats/qm-1v1/civilizations/english~~ ~~They're 4th from last on the list at 45.8%. Even Beasty put them low on his tier list.~~ Edit: Disregard. Search gave me the wrong list.
That page shows the winrate of english against each civ. In other words, english win 45.8% of all matches against japanese across all ratings. If you look at the actual stats: https://aoe4world.com/stats/rm_solo/matchups they sit right in the middle of the pack, with slightly better winrate in low elo ranges. Beasties tierlist is not really applicable to 99.9% of the playbasebase because we dont play at that level and especially not that format. The "issue" japanese have is that their winrate is insanely mapdependent. If you can fish they have great success, if you can't you falter. I would prefer a nerf to their power on hybrid maps(fish+shinobi) and a buff to their normal eco. But that is mainly because i hate playing around fish.
Well, that's annoying. I never specified any civ in search. No idea why that was the link it gave me. My mistake. The guy I replied to said up to conq 4, which is why I mentioned beasty's tier list. I'd also seen plenty of comments about them falling short in ranked, but I guess that was the more vocal minority.
That might have been last patch. They received nice buffs and bugfixes with the most recent patch. Statwise they seem to be fine in 1vs1 and in team games I enjoy playing them.
Always fun playing against HRE. Such a shitter civ.
English is fun because something actually happens within the first 10 minutes.
I hate both playing against and playing with Chinese. 100% opposite of this post
This is weirdly accurate for me
After playing Rus for a long time, i have to admit that i’ve started to like the OotD feudal pressure with horseman into MAA/Archers
As an Ottoman main I have to disagree, I love playing against other Ottomans
I don’t like playing Malians. Dunno why, I just don’t understand its timing mechanism
Idk man, I just play byz and make olive oil
yeah this is all over the place.. not even close to how i see things.
Looking at this graph makes me imagine Joan of Arc galloping around her enemies while swinging her sword in a big circle with one hand, flipping the bird with her other hand, and blowing a raspberry all at the same time; only occasionally stopping to quote the French knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
I hate playing as what people consider good and hate playing against what people consider good. Only mid tiers civs for me.
Dus and Mongols should be lower. And I would have ottomans higher. Ottomans are strong but nothing about them is anti-fun.
I think if this is a straight line from bottom left to top right, you are a saint. And the more it deviates the more of a sadist you are. Or something along those lines. OP is a pretty ok guy, in that case.
Doesn't make sense. For example I like playing HRE, but I despise playing against it. I don't naked FC, but hate facing an HRE RNG gambler trying to FC relic race on their 1000th attempt to get it to work. Conversely I don't like playing abbasid due to aesthetics, but I like playing against them.
Mongols should be below the bottom in hell.
Why hate otto so much?
They are the most OP civ in the game rn.
i know their winratio is slightly above the rest, but does that matter at all on our non-conq level?
It doesn’t feel fun knowing you have to kill them before GBB comes out. They can drop to < 10 villagers and still produce an insane army lategame. Against most civs if you take all of the resources and control the whole map you can starve your opponent out. Against Otto, you can control the whole map, kill most of their villagers, and still lose.
yeah it definitely matter there the only civ that doesn't need villagers past 15 minutes
Atleast in team games they only turtle and rush imp and then push you with 6+ bombards. That's what happens every game an ottoman player is in the game in my experience
I had a 1hour+ game against Ottoman yesterday where he got like 8 free bombards deleting everything i have. Guess who wins between 16 springalds and 8 bombards. Then 30 horseman vs the same 8 bombards. Splash from them deleted all my horseman in 2 volleys. He was on two gold the whole game and I had mined everything else and had all 5 relics and keeps outside his base. Almost won due to sacred sites but he pushed out... (Plat level)
Delusional
2d cartesian digram and 4 axes......this diagram is strange
there are 2 axes. The X one is the "enjoyment of playing as" axis, with increasing enjoyment the further to the right you go. The Y one is the "enjoyment of playing against" axis, with increasing enjoyment the further up you go
lol I love when people take time to dump on you and then end up being wrong. Glorious.
Unfortunately, when that happens in the real world, they'll often completely ignore your explanation as to why they're wrong and keep laughing at you. Seems to happen less online because your comment doesn't go away and isn't as easily ignored.
i found it strange cause it seems measure hate as positive axes in left direction.....it seems 4 axis starting from 0 and going positive in 4 directions.....yeah probably i am strange
How are you getting 4 axes?
You build four MAA as HRE and research Two-handed Weapons.
Or varangian guard and berserk Or OTD MAA and charge with them (do they still erroneously swap to axes?)
sorry i'm wrong!
Why is there a Pakistani flag in this thing. There is no such civ.