I actually love Malay and they are my favorite civ. They have great early game bonuses and can fare well on water and on land, with bonuses for both. Lategame they are also quite good in trash wars and the elephants trade pretty well for their cheap cost. I also love the different approach for their eco, relying on fishing traps, if there is any lake or ocean to build them, rather than farms.
Something I dont get it. Teutons were a primitive barbaric group, right? But the ones in age of empires 2 represent more the holy roman empire with teutonic knights. The only thing in common they have is that they are germanic
@@guilhermebraga9773 AoE2 is all over the place with the timeline, the Spanish castle age couldn't be any earlier than the discorvery of america by the europeans, which means they have access to an arquebus in the castle age before most have access to the hand cannon
@@guilhermebraga9773 Teutons is simply a misnomer, they should probably be called something different But they aren't really the HRE either, so it's complicated
I care not how I would rate them - I only care about the sea of Halberdiers and Huskarls I pump out muhahahahahaha *evil laugh for half an hour straight*
@@Volcano4981 even ai goth use huskarl+ pikemen still crazy. There is a newcoop camp when berber+ sacarens vs 4 goth ai. It stop at castle age, i use berber and god mad with goth spam. I have to use longsword to vs them. Yes i can defend but cant kill them
This could be the difference of why maylay and chinese are so bad. If your not use to their unique build orders then your thrown off. Indians are good because the cheaper villagers will leave you always feeling richer then you should. But Malay and Chinese will always make your pockets feel super empty and like you should have just a bit more then you should. This isn't the case in reality, but human perception is a hell of a drug.
I have always played Indians for two reasons : 1. they counter Franks who are everywhere; 2. Always loved their architecture, music theme and villagers' voices
Unless the Franks player has a brain and just rolls out pikemen or even better, plays M@A into Indians. That said brain and Franks don't go together well
Saracens - all their bonuses are ‘active’ rather than passive. Archers are strong vs walls but you have to plan to use it to be effective, market is powerful eco bonus but you have to understand and use it in game. Mamelukes and camels are easily misused. Compare to franks where all their bonuses happen by default random players get more value more often.
Great point. I also think players may pick saracens in TGs to just help allies with the strong and fun team bonus. My teammate sometimes ask me to pick sara when he wants to rush with Ethiopians.
Man... you know a civ is in need of some kind of buff when it's the second-least-played civilization in multiplayer, and the statistics *still* say it's getting played more than it should for how often it wins...
They for some reason just keep nerfing Malay even though they were never that good to begin with. Fish trap, harbor, karambit, age advance faster, forced levy...iirc all of them have been nerfed at least once at one point, right?
@@zeroyuki92 Karambit's been rebuffed (melee this time and not pierce), elephants been buffed, forced levy been buffed (universal +1 armor). Malay might be slightly worse than release version but not that much of difference. They're still top tier in Arena and other closed maps so they're fine overall.
@@Bambabah I don't think Karambit ever got melee armor buff, I checked (attack has been rebuffed but cost still more expensive compared to launch). 2HSW +1 melee armor buff is nice, yes, but it's still only indirect buff and it still was nerfed by changing gold cost into food. My point still stands, all things I have mentoned has been nerfed at one point, and no it's also below average (48% WR) civ at Arena. The only actual buff it receives is Elephant discount, yes, but even then it still doesn't help Malay WR to plummet every single patch.
I just realized that I say "hey guys spirit of the law here" with him out loud. Update: Because of that now I have to explain to my dad who SOTL is and why I watch videos about the math of a game released 20 years ago...
@@endless2239 Well there is always the illusion of some day coming back to the game. Take me for example, haven't played in more than 10 years but watch all of SotL content (and some T90), and just last week started playing again with some friends and now I can apply their content (or try to).
Oh no I’ve played it off and on for many years…. Just haven’t played it since DE came out, played some in HD. 2 kids really seems to drain most of my AoE2 time away! But even though I don’t actively play I continue to soak up SOTL videos!
Saracens are just my favorite civ, it is so fun to just enter the base of someone who thought was safe behind palisades, and then completely ruin your own economy to have a faster castle time
I'm a researcher in reinforcement learning and it would be fantastic if someone like you is on my team... you are just so insanely good at these scientific investigations with all the math and data XD Love your content so much!
Coming from an older Aoe2 player. When i first got the game box, it came with a manual with all the civs and their tech bonuses lined up in a bar chart to see which techs they have unlocked. The civ that stood out the most to me was Saracens as their tech tree was virtually 90% filled compared to other civs. I think older players affiliate this diversity as an advantage, but it makes it harder to focus on which strat to go with because everything is available to you.
Back in the day they were my favorite by a long shot, but now I’m very excited about Berbers, I don’t necessarily think they’re better or worse, it’s just that Berbers are more fun to play for me
Heyyyy SOTL I really liked this video. I'm a math major with a specialisation in data analysis. Your approach to this question is really great. There are no objective proves. In statistics its not just about calculating something and that's your problem solved. You need to look at the wider context and see the faults of methodology. And you did that great. You could have just calculated the most over and underrated civs and left it to that. But there are many pitfalls you tackled. For example the least popular ones having a low sample size. Something like this can't be mathematically proven. Since there is quite a lot of nuance to it. Again great video.
The problem with underrated civs is that, if a civ is picked less often it has a less chance of being picked by less skilled players and players who pick them are probably the ones who seriously know what they are doing so the % of the wins is larger as it is quantitatively picked less often. But then again, it still goes back to them being underrated.
Alternative hypothesis: the civs that are picked less are "not the ones cool kids play", so those who do pick them, are proficient with them. This pushes win rate up. Popular civs get flooded with newcomers who want to play the strongest civ. Therefore, as popularity grows, proficiency, ergo win rate, decreases. Also, depending on player preferences, the main player base could be oriented on winning or having fun by screwing around. You got an interesting point that players tend to over-estimate flexibility and under-estimate slow and steady civs, although it might just be that the dichotomy lies between risky and exciting and reliable and boring. Also, you might want to branch out into statistics tutorials youtube. Spirit of the Law and limited-variable regressions!
Hey, good video! Was wondering if you could make a short video comparing the different monk units in aoe4. There is no wiki, so really hard to get a good idea :(
@ 1:31 Because my PC is so shite, I have never played any updated version of the game, only the original Age of Empires II: Age of Kings version. 😧 But I REALLY enjoy SoTL's videos very much - he's a great analyst and presenter of his findings. THANK YOU, Spirit of The Law. Great video! 🙏👍 M 🦘🏏😎
Feels like bringing sand to the beach when I compliment SOTLs math, but props for a diligent calculation. Even I sometimes underappreciate SOTLs ability to back up easily digestible topics with solid relevant data. Here is yet another example
Gonna see a lot more Indians I bet now. Very ridiculous that Malay are genuinely this bad of a civ rn and the devs still failed to in any way buff Karambits in the infantry buff patch.
Karambit were already buffed before that, they got +1 melee armor already, buffing them again would make them too good. The infantry UU that didn't get buffed were either Obuch, Huskarl, or already got adjusted beforehand.
@@CrnaStrela If it were true they're already good enough, I'd expect to see Malay not have an awful win percentage and play rate. It's not like buffing a war elephant- the unit has the same hp as a vil in imp! Remember that the rest of the buffs were only castle age.
My most hated question by a new player is "What is the best Civ in the game" young one, if that Civ is the best it would be nerfed, you should just ask what is "what civ is good for [this basic strategy]", and then the community can help you find the specific of that basic strategy.
Sadly that question has an answer and the answer is "Franks". They're even "underrated" by this video's standard despite being most popular, for not being picked enough.
I think the reason for some of these is simple. Those that are picked a lot but have a low rate just have a lot of people playing them that may not have a good grasp of what they're doing, while those that don't get picked as much have a more experienced player base that win more often with them. Just a thought, and it clearly doesn't apply to every civ.
But the Low Elo player also play against players of their elo and the higher elo players as well. So still that can have an influence as the civ win rate is elo dependent, but "they have a higher elo, so they win more often" is not the reason.
It's really about which civ bonuses lend themselves to simple play styles, I think. With Franks, everybody knows what you want to do with them, and you try to boom and make Paladins. So yes, lots of noobs play Franks, but they're pretty successful. With Aztecs, it's like, great, they're top tier on paper, but their best Castle Age comp is probably Eagle, Monk, and Siege, and that's hard to do at lower levels.
They are monstrous in the final Sicilian scenario. Stronger infantry, stronger cavalry, stronger siege and GUNS although I am not sure if they train those. Giving them that +1/+2 melee armour to generic infantry and cavalry unit certainly made them a lot more enticing.
For me the Huns, Spanish and Aztecs have a lot of nostalgia- I was so psyched when Conquerors came out. Love the Incas and Magyars, too. Of the originals, the campaigns got me really into the Mongols, Franks and Saracens. Of the original HD DLC, I definitely gravitate towards the African civs, especially Mali and the Berbers. I'm sure I'd love Indians/Hindustanis if I just got used to the playstyle. I just don't love them like I do in AoE3 Chinese are fun because I'm very indecisive. Malays are one I'm still having trouble figuring a strategy out.
Everyone else's favourite : 1.Because the civilization can pack a punch. 2. Because the early economic boost 3. Because of counter units and unique unit. 4. Because their early raid or tower rush. 5. Because it's my main. Some people : 1. I love their music and unit speech. 2. Love their architecture and Wonders. Then there's me : I love both Malay and Chinese because I am an Indonesian Chinese. 😅
Highly chances Malay is lowest win rank because its hard in general online match-up, since its between "Go fast raid or go home" or "Survive long enough until it become trash unit game" especially on map without water and navy battle With missing 2 cavalry armor upgrade and limited unit choice. its hard to counter or defense once enemy reach castle age Their total strength is water farming, and practically immortal if the game become trash unit fight thanks to Forced Levy
It is nice to see the Saracens getting the respect they deserve. They need their cavalry archer bonus back though, it is a travesty that it was removed.
If the Teutons, the beginner’s friend with strong defences and coolest possible unique unit is underplayed compared to its strength... Yeah, they’re extremely underrated
An teutons were given millions of buffs... U can't rule them out just for husbandry. The are the only civ that doesn't need many lumberjack to support farming eco
Nooooo. Now that you've brought attention to Indians, people are gonna start playing them more and I won't feel special for them being my favourite civ D:
My theory on this: - Since Franks and other similar cav civs are by far the most picked, each civs win rate really tends to be how well do they do against Cavalry, thus why Indians are a ridiculous outlier for top. The civ forces you to go Camels since you lack Knights, therefore beating a Frankish knight attack very often. As opposed to other cav civs which go Knights vs Knights but Franks just tend to do it slightly better than most. - Saracens however are low because people tend to play them as an Archer Civ first in my experience. They hyper-focus on the team bonus but the reality is their archers arent that special beyond that so can easily be wrecked by actual Archer civs or other archer counter civs, AND Cavalry civs if they neglect the camels. Plus market use/abuse not being used enough I'd wager, their entire eco bonus is reliant on using that mechanic which is very active as opposed to passive like Franks or Mayans. Also explains why Teutons are so good. +1 armour on their Knights for free is now making them win those fights vs equivalent Knight rushes, and the siege bonus and natural slow style of them pushes them towards early SW which can crush an archer player.
@@jefffinkbonner9551 it certainly is though I don't know how much better it is than free farming upgrades and the berry bonus on Franks. I think it would definitely be better overall but maybe not much difference by the Castle age. Unsure, would have to rewatch one of the many many of Spirit's farming comparison videos hahah
I pick Saracens pretty often and I always think this time I'll make it work but I mostly lose with them. They are a fun civ to try they just aren't so good, with an eco bonus that only works if your eco is not good, aka the market which is always not optimal. I hope they get some kind of eco buff soon
The main issue here is that not all civs compete in the same environment. Indians's average opponent and Franks's average opponent are completely different statistically, so their performance really can't be directly compared. You are overlooking that more popular civs play a larger share of their games against other popular civs, where less popular civs play a larger share of their games in a random civ context. Indians and Incas high win rates are coming in an environment where almost every civ is equally played, whereas Mayans and Franks are facing top 10 civs much more often. Furthermore, the more popular a civ, the more its win rates is going be dragged to 50% due to mirrors. No civ is played enough for that to be a large effect, but if you consider the Popular civ family and the unpopular civ family, the popular civs are going to be pushing their family's win rates down to 50% to a far greater degree than the unpopular civs will.
Surprisingly the Chinese doesn't pick Chinese because they are Chinese. Some do, but most just pick strong civs or easy to play civs (like Franks, Mongols, or Britons).
I don't think that's the case, I'm central Mexican but pick aztecs as much as I pick any other civ in the game. Mayans I like a lot but because I love their eagle warriors not because it is a civ from my country xd. My favorite civs overall are probably incas, burmese and malians.
I'm going out on a limb here and saying that Teutons are just perceived as a *boring* civ. To me at least they come of as one of the most generic in AoE2 (maybe with the Celts, who are also btw here, curious). A unique unit that is pretty unfun gameplay wise (slow guy with lots of armour woop-de-do), even though I know they have their fans, compared to more unique ones like Gbeto, Throwing Axemen or Mamelukes, a tech-tree that is like lukewarm water (the only standout is no light cav line) and a playstyle that is slow and defensive.
I don't know how far these stats go back, but my guess is just that they have gotten a lot of buffs, both directly to them and also through generic buffs. So what we could be seeing is the community's perception of them lagging behind their actual performance. People aren't picking them often because they have been considered a low-ish tier civ for quite a long time, but those who are playing them in recent times are finding success with them through all the various buffs.
A trend I notice is that Underrated civs have a more limited tech tree but good econ bonus while overrated civs have a open tech tree but no real econ bonus. Shows the weight of Econ advantage vs. Tech advantage.
About something completly different but are you working on a "classic" Bohemia and Poland Civ overview ? I am just missing them and want to know everything :D
Malay really sucks but if you manage to pull ahead and spam infantry(200 pop karambit warriors or trash 2 handed swordsman) and cheap elephants its just so much fun. fish boom into 40 fish traps and 0 farms is such a meme but it never gets old.
so now even castle age teutonic knights resist the mamlukes but not upgraded mamlukes vs normal not upgraded teutonic knights. Affects the saladin #4 campaign. Chinese not picked much? they are best for turtlers who would like to tech up before going on the offensive and are strong in towers.
I'm kind of surprised that the Poles and Bohemians weren't overrated. You'd think they would be since they're not super strong but are also new and therefore interesting. That could be due to the fact that not everyone got the DLC though.
Yeah, I think you're right in saying that "fun to play" isn't necessarily directly linked to "will win 10% more often". Sometimes the unique ways a civ works just feel good even if the statistical match-up isn't as great.
I always prefer playing Indian civilization for +2 Armour for all units & 10% faster gold mining, good to compensate both unique units elephant archer and imperial camel rider. +1 range for hand cannoners can also join the party.
The reason Indians aren't picked is that they are bad, and not exciting. The reason they have a high win rate, is that they are only picked on maps with lots of shore fish. On African clearing they are great.
When I used to play League (I don't anymore), there were a few characters that hard-won some particular matchups, but were ONLY played in those matchups. Quinn and Yorick both absolutely stomp standard top-lane matchups and are only picked there, easily having over 60% winrates with tiny pickrates by comparison. It wasn't because they were strong, but because one-trick ponies picked and played them exclusively in winning matchups. Unlike popular champions, who were picked in winning and losing matchups. That may be why Indians have such a massive winrate, it could simply be inflated by one-trick ponies.
For me the real game is played always random and then slow your match to see tech tree and how to make them work, I lose almost always but have a lot of fun with different styles.
In the Saracens case, I would say esoteric is the most apt word. They are really powerful in the right hands, but not so great in the hands of the average player. Although similar to the Chinese in that top level players tend to utilize their flexibility better, I think it extends to even the top level due to how different the civ plays compared to the rest of the civs. They have a very aggressive playstyle, that lends itself better for specific players like Tatoh, Lyx, or Lierrey as opposed to those who like to defend and boom while under pressure. Viper used to hate the Saracens until he started playing them more often, and figured out how to use the market, yet there have always been a very small minority of players who had been vocalizing how great the Saracen market abuse was going as far back as Age of Kings. It wasn't until Tatoh made them popular on high profile tournaments that people started to finally take notice and now there is a fairly large niche of players who play Saracens because of their weird playstyle. Most of these players DO have a ton of success playing them. I win most of of my games with the Saracens, but the overall win rate is brought down by the fact that half the people who play them don't know how to take advantage of the market. Another thing to note is that compared to the Indians, the Saracens camel is extremely different. Saracen camel can beat and perform better against knights and other camels, at least until Imperial Age, but are far less useful in raiding and against archers. Indian Camels are in a lot of ways more knights than camel. They completely destroy TC's for example, even better than Knights do, whereas a regular camel barely scratches a TC, both because of the pierce armor bonus but also because of the building attack bonus. You can raid and push with Indian Camels but regular camels need a lot of support from another unit for those things, such as knights or siege. This makes them a lot more useful than other camels.
I feel Italians are like Chinese Jr imo. Their tech tree is so sick, just no eco bonus. But with the age up discount I feel like it's fantastic in 1200-1400mmr. (My mmr range this year)
My most chosen civs: Franks Mongols Slavs Britons Vikings Malay Spanish I was saddened that the Viking archers were nerfed, and I think the Malay are due for a buff. I’ve never been good with the New World civs. Same with Indians. The lack of knights kills me!
Everyone is here for the statistics... And I am just surprised that Age of Empires 2 Definitive has *39* civilizations to play as, the highest amount out of every Age of Empires games!
funnily enough i play all of the underrated civs here well, but not trying to sound like a contrarian to the meta or whatever, i just play whoever feels good, and it turns out infantry and siege are a part of that haha
I with you; I gravitate towards infantry and siege as well. However, I ended up in the Goth's camp to counter my family's tendency to over rely on archers.
Malay are one of my favorite Civs to play. I just really like spamming Karambit Warriors, and having a higher number of units than my population cap. I hope they get buffed into relevancy soon.
Most spam-friendly civ in the game, yet somehow still unpopular, probably due to lack of good knights. It's kind of a shame they're considered good on Arena at the high level, so now we can't get a buff for other maps and other levels.
I think the Slavs should get a minor buff to their castle UT, make the Orthodoxy to also affect Villager. Slavs Halbs are already good with all upgrade + druzhina, so they already got decent knight counter in castle and even better in imperial. This makes Slavs gold better spend on knight/boyar/siege unit than monks especially when fighting paladin/elephant civs.
I think for the indians, the 5 PA lcav in castle age does a lot of heavy lifting. Its not really expected, but together with their strong boom and the fact you cant really go kts vs them its surprsingly hard to counter. Go archers and get killed, go pike/siege and get raided to death.
Hey Spirit, not sure if I’m too late to the party here but this video got me wondering if you’re going to update your “Best Civ For You” quiz to include the newer DE Civs? Just curious if that’s on the radar.
Honestly, Incas are probably the #1 underrated civ considering they are what I call a "counter-everything" civ. Infantry or calvary coming at you? Make Kamayuks. Archers or seige? Make eagles. The only things I could see Incas struggling with would be CAs or War Wagons.
Byzantines are also my most played civ, I'm surprised they get such a low pick rate since everybody seems to be fond of them (demanding for them to be included in ageIV, for example)
ive always had an issue with the terms "over-rated" and "under-rated". people often misuse them for hyperbole or just because they cant think of the proper terms to describe their point. i get that though, since i also couldn't find the words to explain why those terms annoyed me when others misused them until i watched a totalbiscuit (RIP) video where he ranted about it. i think you did a good job of explaining the rationality for these picks anyway.
Yeeeah... saracens are my favorite but I do agree they aren't necessarily amazing. It's one of those "if I just play well enough I'll always have a chance" kinda civs
An alternative interpretation would be that some DLC- for example The Forgotten Empires- isn't being purchased and played as often as others. I'm guessing the data wasn't able to answer that question though.
Man... you know a civ is in need of some kind of buff when it's the second-least-played civilization in multiplayer, and the statistics still say it's getting played more than it should for how often it wins...
As this is for 1v1 Arabia, I think it's important to note the changes to the Arabia gen in the last few patches probably affected some civs like Malay, Saracens etc in 1v1
It feels to me most of the Civs picked are just to play the meta of Crossbows and Knights; it's why I avoid playing online at all and just play my way against the AIs with friends.
When I saw the title of the video, my immediate thought was Indians. I love that they are a hard counter to the Calvary Civs. Frank’s and Huns are such popular choices, and everyone likes to knight rush. So I like a civ that you can’t do that too.
Sometimes I don't even listen to what SOTL is saying. I just like hearing him talk
The only kind of ASMR I'm fine with
I feel that, he's got a soothing voice
He really does have a nice voice
It's very soothing indeed
Especially with this one. Dragging out stats, analysis and conclusions by combining performance to >pick rate
And as under picked as they are, statistically most people who pick Malay meant to pick Magyard.
So you are that legendary liar?
lemme just pause to check my tech tree
I actually love Malay and they are my favorite civ. They have great early game bonuses and can fare well on water and on land, with bonuses for both. Lategame they are also quite good in trash wars and the elephants trade pretty well for their cheap cost. I also love the different approach for their eco, relying on fishing traps, if there is any lake or ocean to build them, rather than farms.
1111
Nice 11
Hmm Teutons being underrated and Saracens being overrated? There's a crusades joke in there somewhere
SOTL is clearly an agent of the pope.
Something I dont get it. Teutons were a primitive barbaric group, right? But the ones in age of empires 2 represent more the holy roman empire with teutonic knights. The only thing in common they have is that they are germanic
@@guilhermebraga9773 AoE2 is all over the place with the timeline, the Spanish castle age couldn't be any earlier than the discorvery of america by the europeans, which means they have access to an arquebus in the castle age before most have access to the hand cannon
@@guilhermebraga9773 Teutons is simply a misnomer, they should probably be called something different
But they aren't really the HRE either, so it's complicated
@@otwk but isn't their campaign all about Charlemagne?
Goths, they're either underrated or overrated based on who you ask.
Goths are neither underrated nor overrated they reject societal norms and rati... AHAAHAHAH WHERE ARE ALL THOSE HUSKARLS COMING FROM AHAHAHAHAHAH
fun fact, back when goths had free loom, this bonus was actually strictly better than the Mayan one
I care not how I would rate them - I only care about the sea of Halberdiers and Huskarls I pump out muhahahahahaha *evil laugh for half an hour straight*
This is fore open maps so no arena spam i guess that's why you don't see them on this lists
@@Volcano4981 even ai goth use huskarl+ pikemen still crazy. There is a newcoop camp when berber+ sacarens vs 4 goth ai. It stop at castle age, i use berber and god mad with goth spam. I have to use longsword to vs them. Yes i can defend but cant kill them
I wonder how "Win rate when picked" and "Win rate when got as random" compares. I could imagine that the first one is better for most civs.
This could be the difference of why maylay and chinese are so bad. If your not use to their unique build orders then your thrown off. Indians are good because the cheaper villagers will leave you always feeling richer then you should. But Malay and Chinese will always make your pockets feel super empty and like you should have just a bit more then you should. This isn't the case in reality, but human perception is a hell of a drug.
"Crossbows and knights being the sexy units" -SotL
Well crossbows are pretty sexy
how bout them pointy boys tho? i am right fellas?
Where's the Scout love yo
Nah... Cataphracts is where it's at.
Your hideous crossbows and knights pale in comparison to Amazon Archers and Xolotl Warriors!
I have always played Indians for two reasons :
1. they counter Franks who are everywhere;
2. Always loved their architecture, music theme and villagers' voices
And don't forget that villager discount
I love the smell of Frank knight spammer salt in the air
KaMeL RydAs
the dominance/prevalence of franks definitely has an impact on Indian win rate
Unless the Franks player has a brain and just rolls out pikemen or even better, plays M@A into Indians.
That said brain and Franks don't go together well
I love playing saracens because the voice actors nail their work!
I like the lithuanian villager actors, especially the female vils lol
I like playing saracens because mameluke projectiles don't clatter incessantly like all other cavalry.
@@FrankBocker Ah, a nice, quiet cavalry charge- how quaint and serene. As it’s meant to be.
@@jefffinkbonner9551
*hears literally nothing*
"ALARM!! THEYRE CHARGING!!!"
Al huchoom!
How much of that Celt winrate is just Hoang?
95%
He's not 1500. Isn't he much better?
@@HolyKhaaaaan yes but SoTL was checking games that were 1500 and above so he is included.
Celts eat TC!
@@sr71silver he said 1200 and above ending on mostly 1200 to 1500 elo
Saracens - all their bonuses are ‘active’ rather than passive. Archers are strong vs walls but you have to plan to use it to be effective, market is powerful eco bonus but you have to understand and use it in game. Mamelukes and camels are easily misused.
Compare to franks where all their bonuses happen by default random players get more value more often.
Great point. I also think players may pick saracens in TGs to just help allies with the strong and fun team bonus. My teammate sometimes ask me to pick sara when he wants to rush with Ethiopians.
@@jundrix3675 Longbows work great. Adds to their threat.
Man... you know a civ is in need of some kind of buff when it's the second-least-played civilization in multiplayer, and the statistics *still* say it's getting played more than it should for how often it wins...
They for some reason just keep nerfing Malay even though they were never that good to begin with. Fish trap, harbor, karambit, age advance faster, forced levy...iirc all of them have been nerfed at least once at one point, right?
@@zeroyuki92 Karambit's been rebuffed (melee this time and not pierce), elephants been buffed, forced levy been buffed (universal +1 armor). Malay might be slightly worse than release version but not that much of difference. They're still top tier in Arena and other closed maps so they're fine overall.
@@Bambabah I don't think Karambit ever got melee armor buff, I checked (attack has been rebuffed but cost still more expensive compared to launch). 2HSW +1 melee armor buff is nice, yes, but it's still only indirect buff and it still was nerfed by changing gold cost into food. My point still stands, all things I have mentoned has been nerfed at one point, and no it's also below average (48% WR) civ at Arena. The only actual buff it receives is Elephant discount, yes, but even then it still doesn't help Malay WR to plummet every single patch.
@@Bambabah Forced levy was also made considerably cheaper in DE so it's mcuh easier to afford compared to HD
@@zeroyuki92 Then why are the best players agreeing that Malay are a top tier arabia civ
I just realized that I say "hey guys spirit of the law here" with him out loud.
Update: Because of that now I have to explain to my dad who SOTL is and why I watch videos about the math of a game released 20 years ago...
at least you play the game?
thankfully I don't have to explain to anyone why I watch math analysis of games I don't play XD
@@endless2239 Well there is always the illusion of some day coming back to the game.
Take me for example, haven't played in more than 10 years but watch all of SotL content (and some T90), and just last week started playing again with some friends and now I can apply their content (or try to).
For someone who never actually plays AoE2 I sure watch a LOT of SOTL videos!
I started playing it 20 years ago. You have no idea what you are missing
Oh no I’ve played it off and on for many years…. Just haven’t played it since DE came out, played some in HD. 2 kids really seems to drain most of my AoE2 time away! But even though I don’t actively play I continue to soak up SOTL videos!
@@sgettys Hahaha i feel you. Stopped playing a few years back, but still watch SotL.
@@sgettys Give the new AOEIV a try, it's a lot of fun
Saracens are just my favorite civ, it is so fun to just enter the base of someone who thought was safe behind palisades, and then completely ruin your own economy to have a faster castle time
I'm a researcher in reinforcement learning and it would be fantastic if someone like you is on my team... you are just so insanely good at these scientific investigations with all the math and data XD Love your content so much!
Coming from an older Aoe2 player. When i first got the game box, it came with a manual with all the civs and their tech bonuses lined up in a bar chart to see which techs they have unlocked. The civ that stood out the most to me was Saracens as their tech tree was virtually 90% filled compared to other civs. I think older players affiliate this diversity as an advantage, but it makes it harder to focus on which strat to go with because everything is available to you.
Good point, it could be too many choices.
Back in the day they were my favorite by a long shot, but now I’m very excited about Berbers, I don’t necessarily think they’re better or worse, it’s just that Berbers are more fun to play for me
Heyyyy SOTL I really liked this video. I'm a math major with a specialisation in data analysis.
Your approach to this question is really great. There are no objective proves. In statistics its not just about calculating something and that's your problem solved.
You need to look at the wider context and see the faults of methodology. And you did that great.
You could have just calculated the most over and underrated civs and left it to that. But there are many pitfalls you tackled. For example the least popular ones having a low sample size.
Something like this can't be mathematically proven. Since there is quite a lot of nuance to it.
Again great video.
The problem with underrated civs is that, if a civ is picked less often it has a less chance of being picked by less skilled players and players who pick them are probably the ones who seriously know what they are doing so the % of the wins is larger as it is quantitatively picked less often. But then again, it still goes back to them being underrated.
after playing this game for decades already, you inevitably become a random civ enjoyer ^^
Alternative hypothesis: the civs that are picked less are "not the ones cool kids play", so those who do pick them, are proficient with them. This pushes win rate up.
Popular civs get flooded with newcomers who want to play the strongest civ. Therefore, as popularity grows, proficiency, ergo win rate, decreases.
Also, depending on player preferences, the main player base could be oriented on winning or having fun by screwing around. You got an interesting point that players tend to over-estimate flexibility and under-estimate slow and steady civs, although it might just be that the dichotomy lies between risky and exciting and reliable and boring.
Also, you might want to branch out into statistics tutorials youtube. Spirit of the Law and limited-variable regressions!
Ergo, the Architect is always right!
If Spirit would teach me statistics I'd easily (and for the first time, happily) aprove all my statistics courses hahaha please do
Yet that's why they choose 1200+ ELO and basically eliminates new players entirely from the data.
With that hypothesis it would mean that Franks are even stronger than their winrate suggests
Ah, yes, deliberately playing as THE VERY WORST CIV so that way, you'll be unpredictable enough to not be beat.
“Celt eat TC” -Hoang, with over 4,000 town centers eaten
Hoang. Because Huong is wrong and it is a girl name.
@@nguyenhuyduc9151 Thanks. I always misspell it.
Fatslob: i only play one civ
Glad you are continuing to make aoe2 content!
Hey, good video!
Was wondering if you could make a short video comparing the different monk units in aoe4. There is no wiki, so really hard to get a good idea :(
@ 1:31 Because my PC is so shite, I have never played any updated version of the game, only the original Age of Empires II: Age of Kings version. 😧
But I REALLY enjoy SoTL's videos very much - he's a great analyst and presenter of his findings.
THANK YOU, Spirit of The Law. Great video! 🙏👍
M 🦘🏏😎
Feels like bringing sand to the beach when I compliment SOTLs math, but props for a diligent calculation. Even I sometimes underappreciate SOTLs ability to back up easily digestible topics with solid relevant data. Here is yet another example
7:20 rare occurrence of an emotional Spirit of the Law
He might just be laughing.
Y'know, it's unfair to use Arabia as a metric on Portuguese, Koreans and Malay. They're all water civs. And damn good ones at that.
Gonna see a lot more Indians I bet now.
Very ridiculous that Malay are genuinely this bad of a civ rn and the devs still failed to in any way buff Karambits in the infantry buff patch.
I think karambit are even more of a meme UU than elephant archers
Karambit were already buffed before that, they got +1 melee armor already, buffing them again would make them too good. The infantry UU that didn't get buffed were either Obuch, Huskarl, or already got adjusted beforehand.
@@CrnaStrela If it were true they're already good enough, I'd expect to see Malay not have an awful win percentage and play rate.
It's not like buffing a war elephant- the unit has the same hp as a vil in imp! Remember that the rest of the buffs were only castle age.
My most hated question by a new player is "What is the best Civ in the game"
young one, if that Civ is the best it would be nerfed, you should just ask what is "what civ is good for [this basic strategy]", and then the community can help you find the specific of that basic strategy.
no, the answer is Franks if your elo is below like 2000
God i hate that question. Applies to any game LoL, "Who is the best hero" WoW "What is the best class/race" etc
Sadly that question has an answer and the answer is "Franks". They're even "underrated" by this video's standard despite being most popular, for not being picked enough.
Franks?
I think the reason for some of these is simple. Those that are picked a lot but have a low rate just have a lot of people playing them that may not have a good grasp of what they're doing, while those that don't get picked as much have a more experienced player base that win more often with them. Just a thought, and it clearly doesn't apply to every civ.
Good point
Which begs the question: Which civ is the Kirby of AoE II?
But the Low Elo player also play against players of their elo and the higher elo players as well. So still that can have an influence as the civ win rate is elo dependent, but "they have a higher elo, so they win more often" is not the reason.
@@brianabraham8726 Counterpoint: Players with Higher ELO can better exploit some mechanics and bonuses that low ELO players cannot.
It's really about which civ bonuses lend themselves to simple play styles, I think. With Franks, everybody knows what you want to do with them, and you try to boom and make Paladins. So yes, lots of noobs play Franks, but they're pretty successful. With Aztecs, it's like, great, they're top tier on paper, but their best Castle Age comp is probably Eagle, Monk, and Siege, and that's hard to do at lower levels.
The reason I pick and lose as Saracens are the same. Mamelukes are cool and I'm going to go Mamelukes.
Same here. I know my Mamelukes will be shredded by mass skirms and pikes, but I just couldn't resist making more of them.
I always loved the Teutons. They're slow but imo unstoppable once they get going. I always considered them to be the "steamroller" civ.
They are monstrous in the final Sicilian scenario. Stronger infantry, stronger cavalry, stronger siege and GUNS although I am not sure if they train those.
Giving them that +1/+2 melee armour to generic infantry and cavalry unit certainly made them a lot more enticing.
For me the Huns, Spanish and Aztecs have a lot of nostalgia- I was so psyched when Conquerors came out. Love the Incas and Magyars, too. Of the originals, the campaigns got me really into the Mongols, Franks and Saracens. Of the original HD DLC, I definitely gravitate towards the African civs, especially Mali and the Berbers. I'm sure I'd love Indians/Hindustanis if I just got used to the playstyle. I just don't love them like I do in AoE3
Chinese are fun because I'm very indecisive. Malays are one I'm still having trouble figuring a strategy out.
Unless you've faced mamluke death ball (30-40 or more units) you'd never know the appeal of saracen
Everyone else's favourite :
1.Because the civilization can pack a punch.
2. Because the early economic boost
3. Because of counter units and unique unit.
4. Because their early raid or tower rush.
5. Because it's my main.
Some people :
1. I love their music and unit speech.
2. Love their architecture and Wonders.
Then there's me :
I love both Malay and Chinese because I am an Indonesian Chinese. 😅
Highly chances Malay is lowest win rank because its hard in general online match-up, since its between "Go fast raid or go home" or "Survive long enough until it become trash unit game" especially on map without water and navy battle
With missing 2 cavalry armor upgrade and limited unit choice. its hard to counter or defense once enemy reach castle age
Their total strength is water farming, and practically immortal if the game become trash unit fight thanks to Forced Levy
It is nice to see the Saracens getting the respect they deserve. They need their cavalry archer bonus back though, it is a travesty that it was removed.
If the Teutons, the beginner’s friend with strong defences and coolest possible unique unit is underplayed compared to its strength...
Yeah, they’re extremely underrated
An teutons were given millions of buffs... U can't rule them out just for husbandry. The are the only civ that doesn't need many lumberjack to support farming eco
The problem is that knights are crossbows are still the meta
@@kankantona9070 well their paladins can still kill most anything.
Teutons learnt their biggest weakness, that is slow speed
They compensated it with Blitzkrieg in 20th century
Nooooo. Now that you've brought attention to Indians, people are gonna start playing them more and I won't feel special for them being my favourite civ D:
I really love when the pumping #1 song kicks in! And you are my favourite youtube guy by far. You can always hang around at my place if you want.
~~accoustic guitar riffs, scary onagers, strong spanish vills. Those were the days boyz
My theory on this:
- Since Franks and other similar cav civs are by far the most picked, each civs win rate really tends to be how well do they do against Cavalry, thus why Indians are a ridiculous outlier for top. The civ forces you to go Camels since you lack Knights, therefore beating a Frankish knight attack very often. As opposed to other cav civs which go Knights vs Knights but Franks just tend to do it slightly better than most.
- Saracens however are low because people tend to play them as an Archer Civ first in my experience. They hyper-focus on the team bonus but the reality is their archers arent that special beyond that so can easily be wrecked by actual Archer civs or other archer counter civs, AND Cavalry civs if they neglect the camels. Plus market use/abuse not being used enough I'd wager, their entire eco bonus is reliant on using that mechanic which is very active as opposed to passive like Franks or Mayans.
Also explains why Teutons are so good. +1 armour on their Knights for free is now making them win those fights vs equivalent Knight rushes, and the siege bonus and natural slow style of them pushes them towards early SW which can crush an archer player.
Don’t count out that cheap farm bonus tho! Really helps spam farms and get that food eco rolling a lot sooner
@@jefffinkbonner9551 it certainly is though I don't know how much better it is than free farming upgrades and the berry bonus on Franks. I think it would definitely be better overall but maybe not much difference by the Castle age. Unsure, would have to rewatch one of the many many of Spirit's farming comparison videos hahah
almost a year later and still work thank you u explained it perfect
I pick Saracens pretty often and I always think this time I'll make it work but I mostly lose with them. They are a fun civ to try they just aren't so good, with an eco bonus that only works if your eco is not good, aka the market which is always not optimal. I hope they get some kind of eco buff soon
The main issue here is that not all civs compete in the same environment. Indians's average opponent and Franks's average opponent are completely different statistically, so their performance really can't be directly compared.
You are overlooking that more popular civs play a larger share of their games against other popular civs, where less popular civs play a larger share of their games in a random civ context. Indians and Incas high win rates are coming in an environment where almost every civ is equally played, whereas Mayans and Franks are facing top 10 civs much more often. Furthermore, the more popular a civ, the more its win rates is going be dragged to 50% due to mirrors. No civ is played enough for that to be a large effect, but if you consider the Popular civ family and the unpopular civ family, the popular civs are going to be pushing their family's win rates down to 50% to a far greater degree than the unpopular civs will.
This has to have the highest caveat-to-sentences ratio of any SotL video I've watched.
Would you mind creating a "What civ should you choose quiz" for AoE2 DE? I would really like an updated version :D
What percent of folks picking Chines are Chines nationals? Picking your nation might have something to do with why some of the picks seem off
Surprisingly the Chinese doesn't pick Chinese because they are Chinese. Some do, but most just pick strong civs or easy to play civs (like Franks, Mongols, or Britons).
I'm Indian and yes I hate picking Indians. Bulgarians are my favorite.
I don't think that's the case, I'm central Mexican but pick aztecs as much as I pick any other civ in the game. Mayans I like a lot but because I love their eagle warriors not because it is a civ from my country xd. My favorite civs overall are probably incas, burmese and malians.
I'm Swedish. So I mostly pick Vikings, or sometimes Goths. I would assume people picking their own country would be a common thing too.
7:22 my heart broke
I'm going out on a limb here and saying that Teutons are just perceived as a *boring* civ. To me at least they come of as one of the most generic in AoE2 (maybe with the Celts, who are also btw here, curious). A unique unit that is pretty unfun gameplay wise (slow guy with lots of armour woop-de-do), even though I know they have their fans, compared to more unique ones like Gbeto, Throwing Axemen or Mamelukes, a tech-tree that is like lukewarm water (the only standout is no light cav line) and a playstyle that is slow and defensive.
A slow guy that SLAUGHTERS everyone in melee
I don't know how far these stats go back, but my guess is just that they have gotten a lot of buffs, both directly to them and also through generic buffs. So what we could be seeing is the community's perception of them lagging behind their actual performance. People aren't picking them often because they have been considered a low-ish tier civ for quite a long time, but those who are playing them in recent times are finding success with them through all the various buffs.
A trend I notice is that Underrated civs have a more limited tech tree but good econ bonus while overrated civs have a open tech tree but no real econ bonus. Shows the weight of Econ advantage vs. Tech advantage.
About something completly different but are you working on a "classic" Bohemia and Poland Civ overview ? I am just missing them and want to know everything :D
The Indians case is understandable. No knights, meme UU turns people off straight away. Imperial camel + hand cannon is the way forward for them.
I want sotl to give my eulogy where he gives a slightly fun and informative overview of my life/stats lol
Malay really sucks but if you manage to pull ahead and spam infantry(200 pop karambit warriors or trash 2 handed swordsman) and cheap elephants its just so much fun. fish boom into 40 fish traps and 0 farms is such a meme but it never gets old.
so now even castle age teutonic knights resist the mamlukes but not upgraded mamlukes vs normal not upgraded teutonic knights. Affects the saladin #4 campaign.
Chinese not picked much? they are best for turtlers who would like to tech up before going on the offensive and are strong in towers.
I'm kind of surprised that the Poles and Bohemians weren't overrated. You'd think they would be since they're not super strong but are also new and therefore interesting. That could be due to the fact that not everyone got the DLC though.
Yeah, I think you're right in saying that "fun to play" isn't necessarily directly linked to "will win 10% more often". Sometimes the unique ways a civ works just feel good even if the statistical match-up isn't as great.
I always prefer playing Indian civilization for +2 Armour for all units & 10% faster gold mining, good to compensate both unique units elephant archer and imperial camel rider. +1 range for hand cannoners can also join the party.
Hey Law, Spirit of the guys here
Does your data recognize random as a civ pick? Or do people going random show up in your data as if they picked the civ they were allocated?
The reason Indians aren't picked is that they are bad, and not exciting. The reason they have a high win rate, is that they are only picked on maps with lots of shore fish. On African clearing they are great.
*Franks being over-picked*
*Byzantines having OP Halberds and anti-spear Cataphracts being underpicked*
When I used to play League (I don't anymore), there were a few characters that hard-won some particular matchups, but were ONLY played in those matchups. Quinn and Yorick both absolutely stomp standard top-lane matchups and are only picked there, easily having over 60% winrates with tiny pickrates by comparison.
It wasn't because they were strong, but because one-trick ponies picked and played them exclusively in winning matchups. Unlike popular champions, who were picked in winning and losing matchups. That may be why Indians have such a massive winrate, it could simply be inflated by one-trick ponies.
And the Saracens are the most overrated
*uplifting "you are the number one!"-music starts playing
For me the real game is played always random and then slow your match to see tech tree and how to make them work, I lose almost always but have a lot of fun with different styles.
Day 4859
Still, RIP Karambit Warrior
Good video !! Best AoE2 DE Info. of Internet.
Who else miss the intro video?
I'm glad the Byzantines weren't I this video. Love playing them!
I was half-expecting them to be on the overrated side of the video, turns out they're barely picked and stand at a little below 50% win rate lol
In the Saracens case, I would say esoteric is the most apt word. They are really powerful in the right hands, but not so great in the hands of the average player. Although similar to the Chinese in that top level players tend to utilize their flexibility better, I think it extends to even the top level due to how different the civ plays compared to the rest of the civs. They have a very aggressive playstyle, that lends itself better for specific players like Tatoh, Lyx, or Lierrey as opposed to those who like to defend and boom while under pressure. Viper used to hate the Saracens until he started playing them more often, and figured out how to use the market, yet there have always been a very small minority of players who had been vocalizing how great the Saracen market abuse was going as far back as Age of Kings. It wasn't until Tatoh made them popular on high profile tournaments that people started to finally take notice and now there is a fairly large niche of players who play Saracens because of their weird playstyle. Most of these players DO have a ton of success playing them. I win most of of my games with the Saracens, but the overall win rate is brought down by the fact that half the people who play them don't know how to take advantage of the market.
Another thing to note is that compared to the Indians, the Saracens camel is extremely different. Saracen camel can beat and perform better against knights and other camels, at least until Imperial Age, but are far less useful in raiding and against archers. Indian Camels are in a lot of ways more knights than camel. They completely destroy TC's for example, even better than Knights do, whereas a regular camel barely scratches a TC, both because of the pierce armor bonus but also because of the building attack bonus. You can raid and push with Indian Camels but regular camels need a lot of support from another unit for those things, such as knights or siege. This makes them a lot more useful than other camels.
I feel Italians are like Chinese Jr imo. Their tech tree is so sick, just no eco bonus. But with the age up discount I feel like it's fantastic in 1200-1400mmr. (My mmr range this year)
10:37 - New World's Castle death animation makes it look like it's completely hollow. Weird.
My most chosen civs:
Franks
Mongols
Slavs
Britons
Vikings
Malay
Spanish
I was saddened that the Viking archers were nerfed, and I think the Malay are due for a buff.
I’ve never been good with the New World civs. Same with Indians. The lack of knights kills me!
That castle not being dead in the end there blew my mind a little
Everyone is here for the statistics... And I am just surprised that Age of Empires 2 Definitive has *39* civilizations to play as, the highest amount out of every Age of Empires games!
funnily enough i play all of the underrated civs here well, but not trying to sound like a contrarian to the meta or whatever, i just play whoever feels good, and it turns out infantry and siege are a part of that haha
I with you; I gravitate towards infantry and siege as well. However, I ended up in the Goth's camp to counter my family's tendency to over rely on archers.
Oh, so they really went through with not showing dislikes... Doesn't change anything here, this deserves only likes anyway.
I fcking hate the fact that they removed the infinite fish trap.
Ruined the civ
Malay are one of my favorite Civs to play. I just really like spamming Karambit Warriors, and having a higher number of units than my population cap. I hope they get buffed into relevancy soon.
Most spam-friendly civ in the game, yet somehow still unpopular, probably due to lack of good knights. It's kind of a shame they're considered good on Arena at the high level, so now we can't get a buff for other maps and other levels.
I think the Slavs should get a minor buff to their castle UT, make the Orthodoxy to also affect Villager. Slavs Halbs are already good with all upgrade + druzhina, so they already got decent knight counter in castle and even better in imperial. This makes Slavs gold better spend on knight/boyar/siege unit than monks especially when fighting paladin/elephant civs.
I think for the indians, the 5 PA lcav in castle age does a lot of heavy lifting. Its not really expected, but together with their strong boom and the fact you cant really go kts vs them its surprsingly hard to counter. Go archers and get killed, go pike/siege and get raided to death.
Hey Spirit, not sure if I’m too late to the party here but this video got me wondering if you’re going to update your “Best Civ For You” quiz to include the newer DE Civs?
Just curious if that’s on the radar.
Why you playing the franks music over the saracens civ?
This one was very fun to watch.
Honestly, Incas are probably the #1 underrated civ considering they are what I call a "counter-everything" civ. Infantry or calvary coming at you? Make Kamayuks. Archers or seige? Make eagles. The only things I could see Incas struggling with would be CAs or War Wagons.
Not really the topic but my most played civs are
Byzantines
Spanish
Teutons
Celts
Magyars
Byzantines are also my most played civ, I'm surprised they get such a low pick rate since everybody seems to be fond of them (demanding for them to be included in ageIV, for example)
ive always had an issue with the terms "over-rated" and "under-rated". people often misuse them for hyperbole or just because they cant think of the proper terms to describe their point. i get that though, since i also couldn't find the words to explain why those terms annoyed me when others misused them until i watched a totalbiscuit (RIP) video where he ranted about it. i think you did a good job of explaining the rationality for these picks anyway.
I would say that when it comes to picking a camel civ, its about mam-looks mostly
Yeeeah... saracens are my favorite but I do agree they aren't necessarily amazing. It's one of those "if I just play well enough I'll always have a chance" kinda civs
An alternative interpretation would be that some DLC- for example The Forgotten Empires- isn't being purchased and played as often as others. I'm guessing the data wasn't able to answer that question though.
I read "overrated" but didn't find Mongols.
Man... you know a civ is in need of some kind of buff when it's the second-least-played civilization in multiplayer, and the statistics still say it's getting played more than it should for how often it wins...
As this is for 1v1 Arabia, I think it's important to note the changes to the Arabia gen in the last few patches probably affected some civs like Malay, Saracens etc in 1v1
It feels to me most of the Civs picked are just to play the meta of Crossbows and Knights; it's why I avoid playing online at all and just play my way against the AIs with friends.
When I saw the title of the video, my immediate thought was Indians. I love that they are a hard counter to the Calvary Civs. Frank’s and Huns are such popular choices, and everyone likes to knight rush. So I like a civ that you can’t do that too.
I used to play Saracens solely because of Mamelukes cuz they feel the most different and fun thing to play
I was waiting for a joke of Franks being overrated xD
Nerf the knightline already