There is one little thing to look out for: All the graphs are scaled differently, so a vast gap for one of the earlier civs (like Delhi) in winrate may be a 20% difference while for something like the Rus it's more like 6%.
Naw. Its before the British Empire. The french actually had slightly better ships. But then again, during that time, there wasntvrealy ship to ship combat. Just boarding
AoE game designer: I would have an OP French civ AoE community: How original AoE game designer: And a top tier Mongol civ AoE community: Daring today aren't we
AOE Game Designer: I’m thinking about doing something to make 2nd worst civ even more handicapped instead of nerfing the obvious advantages of the top two civs AOE community: sounds about right
Lets face it. Strategy gamers in general came to this game. Command & conquer, starcraft. They're all vastly different to aoe. Avg game length of the former is 10 mins and there's only 5 civs out of 15 that are viable
@@frozenfeet4534 allied, soviet, yuri. Yuri is standalone the earlier you go. Allied and soviet have 5 countries which only change is the civ unique unit
So one thing to consider when looking at "win rate based on length of game" is that the relative volume of games that end in that timeframe is also significant, particularly with very early games. For example if a civilization has no tools for rushing an opponent but have very good early-game defensive options, just looking at the win rate might suggest they are "bad" at early game because they are never looking to end games early. But if there are very few games that in this length range because they almost always survive the early game, then calling them bad can be deceptive. And in general why WOULD you be picking a non-rushing civ in order to win a game in under 10 minutes? So player behavior also comes into play. I'm not claiming that any AoE4 civs fit into that category; just pointing it out as a factor.
Yeah agreed, if a civ never attacks before 5 minutes, it will never win before 5 minutes. But if it loses once that would appear as 100% loss rate before 5 minutes, which is highly misleading.
Pick and win-rate statistics are so interesting, I love hearing people like the Prismata devs explain their process of interpreting them. You can even get reinforcing feedback loops if you share the data with the player-base at large who is like ''Ohh that's good huh?'', forming a meta by suggestion. It can even get stagnant, mostly among players who wanna use good strats but don't want the headache of truly figuring out the how and why, which I figure tends to cover a large gradient on the ELO scale, I'm guessing with a spike in the low mids.
honestly I see some racism here. OF COURSE the Eurocentric pieces of shit will make Abbasids, Saraceans and Delhi Sultanate powerless. Also why only the Abbasids when Ummayad Spain existed at the same time. Meanwhile Europeans get French, English, Holy Roman Empire and Rus. AND there are no African or Native American civs at all the game. And the single player game has campaigns for 3 of the 4 European civs, the only non-European civ to get one is Mongols which mostly concentrates on the Mongols in Europe instead of the damage they did to the Delhi Sultanate and Abbasids.
@@jhonshephard921 You're trolling right??? I hope. Wait you're serious lmfao . Theres a reason why Africa doesnt have a civ. Cause it would be huts and them throwing spears and bows it wouldn't work. Africa got all its tech from Europe. You see some racism here lmfao grow up. It's called the game is broken . You're one of those weirdos.
I just want camels to be good.. I main Abbasids, but having to pay 180 food for Camel meele cav is not funny, considering the French have to pay "only" 140 with a WAY stronger heavy cav unit..
@@BluePieNinjaTV yeah and that’s what will probably happen, there will be a DLC or expansion which will probably have a major update to the game and will probably include about four new civs. That’s not to say there won’t be smaller dlcs in the meantime, maybe one adding campaigns for the four civs that don’t have one.
Historically accurate? Then how come they collapsed as quickly as they rose to power? At least the English, French, HRE and different Chinese dynasties had longevity.
@@CuivTheLazyGeek Mongolian ruled China isn't the same as Mongolia, we make a distinction between Rome and the Eastern Roman Empire too because it was culturally distinct from its predecessor.
@@Zwijger I guess they suffered less from rebellion and more from corruption. We still say that Napoleonic France or Nazi Germany were superpowers, and they got taken down decently fast. Mongolia is in a similar boat, as it fell due to infighting and distrust between Ghengis Khan’s grandchildren
I'm a pure Abbasid after going through the civs and learning them, and I have a winrate I'm very happy with. The "trick" is go heavy spears early on, fast castle, and squeeze out a mangonal. At that point you are really uncontested in matchups. I try not to get greedy with a second town center until I have some map control, and being that spearmen can run across the map then build siege, it's pretty simple. I haven't played a game yet where camel archers even were remotely a good idea, but I do get some camels out to buff infantry. I love them and for the first time ever in an Age game I feel really competitive :) Btw I LOVE YOUR VIDS!
Just keep in mind that with the HRE the reason they do so poorly early on is because most players are just trying to go fast imp instead of using the massive eco bonus to fight
Because you show data so often it would be interesting to make a math video about statistics and data evaluation. I think it would fit very well to your channel and probably a lot of people would learn something(me included).
That evens itself out with the elo system though. Higher skilled players that pick a mobile civ will then play against equally or even higher skilled players of other civs.
HRE is definitely hurt by the prelate not autocasting at times. So if you get unlucky, you spent 100 gold in the first few minutes and you're down a vil that you could have had otherwise.
@@singularityraptor4022 Well they were technically only attacked by the chagatai khanate not the whole empire and fought mostly through defending small skirmishes and raids. The later invasion from Timur utterly devastated the delhi sultanate and his descendant Babur created the mughal (literally meaning "mongol") empire.
I haven't had any issues when facing the Mongols as HRE. I would recommend building an early wooden wall that is far enough to prevent the Khan from picking off your villagers. Next, I would recommend your army to be comprised of only Spearmen and Crossbowmen, Man of Arms will not have an extra attack bonus as compared to Spearmen to Mongols cav also make a few scouts and a small group of knights to see where the Mongol player will move his base and send the knights to destroy his base when it's moving. Goodluck!
@@petersifuentez6420 Thanks for the insight. I only play HRE. I have played 150 games and have a 60% win rate using a 13 minute rush with only archers....and battering rams. The mongols are always the hardest for me.
As someone who plays as the Mongols, here's my personal experience. Easist civ to counter = Abbasids, Hardest = Delhi/Mongols . Most succesful maps = Boulder Bay/Confluence, least succesful map = King of the Hill. Note: Delhi only become hard once they get their Elephants going.
Mongols amazing at first then falling off over time fits so perfectly. They dominated then fell apart as time went by. Still, one of the most fun civs in the game probbaly for ever.
Very awesome, that you are doing AOE4 videos SOTL. I was afraid you would only stick with AOE2 and we would miss out on all the insights into the game mechanics of the new game. There are so many things, we don't know about the new aoe yet. :)
HRE and Delhi have too many bugs... I main HRE and the lack of bracing for spearman really hurts vs early game cav civs. HRE also has prelate bug and relics boosting enemy ships attack speed 😂
I just LOVE that your vids are about mechanics and stats. I am really sick of the dozens of vids that are just yet another 1v1 match that was "cool and/or slightly different for some minor reason." Give us more!
Thank you SPOTL! Your videos are always informative and enjoyable. In low elo 4v4 multiplayer games The Chinese are practically unstoppable. Due to the casual nature of the games and the massive size of the 4v4 maps (a deterrent to aggro play style), most players turtle until imperial age and by then the Chinese have the most unstoppable units in the Nest of Bees and Fire Lancers. They just mow down armies and buildings with absolute ease. I have yet to discover a late game counter this low elo juggernaut.
Interesting that English have the best match up against Mongols. Since they get a unique mechanic to ward off aggro on a micro level. Maybe AoE4 should make micro heavy defense options for defensive nations more often.
English can't be tower rushed, unless they're really not paying attention, as their villagers can easily mow down both the Mongols own villager and their spearman guards, using their ranged attack. Combine this with the strength of longbows in Feudal, with Council Hall churning them out, and the Mongols are very quickly on the back foot as their usual tricks simply don't work. Also they have to spend time upgrading their horsemen if they want to try and counter Longbows with those, further delaying their defense at the most crucial time.
0:45 Al'usrat aleabaasiat hi al'aswa'a. 2:45 दिल्ली सल्तनत खराब है। 4:05 Das Heilige Römische Reich ist schlecht. 5:02 中國人很壞。 5:55 The English are good. 7:00 Русы хорошие. 8:05 Les Français sont bons. 9:18 Монголчууд хамгийн шилдэг нь.
@@junkyardemperor7030 Sure, but they also have their own traditional straight-written Mongolian alphabets, which used in Chinese occupied Mongolia and later the Mongolia's gonna replace Cyrillic alphabets with it.
Besides perhaps you prefer to use 中國人不太好？ Because 中國人很壞 means not "Chinese are bad", but more like "Chinese are mean". If you're just talking about the civs in game
HRE late game stronkness is from its relics.. honestly its so strong if you can get 3 relics for a hefty amount of gold, you can stop mining it entirely until you decide to make large amounts of siege units, especially bombards. And with so many villagers not having to mine gold you can get super far ahead economically in age 3 that you can produce twice the amount of men in arms as they have army supply (which counter everything save for crossbows) as your opponent whilst still advancing to the imperial only 2 minutes after you advanced to age 3.
are you planning on doing civ overviews for AOE IV? ive been playing it on gamepass and i actually really like it so far. i feel like they actually managed to make most of the civs feel more historically accurate. longbowman replacing archers for the english outright, french having strong crossbowman and a unique knight unit etc
I think there is a data point missing when looking at the winrate over short and long games which is the amount of games with that duration. I would expect a defensive civilization to have a low winrate in short games, but because they should have a tendency for longer games. In other words, if a game with a defensive civilization ends early, it's likely the more aggressive civilization won. If a defensive civilization's game plan is to survive to the late game and win then, a successful early game for them would then be surviving the early game instead of straight up winning it. Meaning, to measure a defensive civilization's success, one would need to look at the number of games that end quickly and not at the winrate for those games.
Great vid! would be cool to see error bars on the data points on the graphs and the percentages since you explicitly made the point about significance.
Nice video, but the main problem with these statistics is that it's hard to know just how much of them are affected by the players choosing the civs, and the build they use, rather than the civs themselves. For example, a player who's all about early aggression is more likely to choose english or mongol, which in turn would make english or mongol have a better win rate at the beginning of the game, with a steady dropoff as the game goes on for longer, because that's just how an aggressive strategy performs in general. It also makes sense that abasid and delhi don't have a good winrate early game, simply because the players who like to play aggressive builds aren't really attracted to those civs. I think however that those stats are a pretty good indicator of when to prepare for a push depending on what civ your opponent has chosen.
Well considering they are a rush faction, you need spearmen or archers to make rams which are essential. Also I find Mongol cav to be underwhelming. Against an English rush, light cav won't survive against the archers and are too expensive. It's easier and cheaper to out mass them in archers. And they don't get any great cavalry bonuses, so French and Abbasid out perform them in that regard. Mangudai are only useful as a villager killer, and for harassing.
where are you getting this information? I just checked the aoe2 and aoe4 steam active player charts. aoe4 all time high is larger than aoe2, but the current 24 hour average is larger for aoe2.
I suspect at least half of these Civs suffer from meta-syndrome, where HRE MUST fast imperial and Rus MUST fast castle and build horse archers and French MUST build knights even when they know the opponents is Abbasid. Still, very interesting breakdown
I simply love playing mongols as they are a civ that allows you to play so many styles. Going infantry, going cavalry, going horsearchers, or even siege. Mongols are so flexible compared to your bog standard French and English. Would love to see more abbasids and dehli though.
I have to say, I was a mongols guy, and lately I've been absolutely loving Rus. They just feel so right. And I'm not even tapping into as much as I should with their hunting micro in the early game. They just feel so balanced but I love throwing a ton of warrior monks into the mix with knights. So fun. Mongols felt too tricky at times
I think it would be very cool to see re-balanced nations that win on their respective bioms and historical records, like mongol bits Rus on their biom, or Chinese great as walls, or English having strongest naval on late games.
I think it could be interesting, yet complex, to look at the amount of wins over minutes played. As you tend to see the more defensive civs have a very bad track record at winning early game. However, I would not be surprised if the amount it's also very rare for them to loose early game, due to their defensive bonuses. However, since they lack an early game win condition it's possibly even more rare for them to actually secure a win early game. I could be completely wrong on this, but it does make me curious.
I think the other question is how many games for each civ end in a given amount of time. If a civ doesn't win in games that end quickly that could be a huge deal if most games end quickly, but it could be kind of irrelevant if they reliably win but take a bit longer.
Im really looking forward to when map choice is allowed. I havent played since November since it wasn't implemented. I do not ever want to play on water maps.
Yeah I noticed that too, that and the 15% farm bonus by mills. They are the best civ for farming in the late game, which is a pretty substantial gold and food income.
I always love playing the Mongols, right from the start of the game. I am just a noob lol. If i see this i also notice i play really differently. I use different landmarks (the trading one as a starter and then the healer as 2nd and free units as 3rd). I also play pretty passive, while indeed if you think about it you can rush in pretty well as you get a raid bounty. What i always struggle with is the stone tho, the Oovoo is handy but is soooooo slow. And doesnt helps a lot. I like the monastery as oovoo as well.
Mongol is broken up to castle age. They don’t need to build house, that’s 150 wood saved in first 5 min. They can produce enough stone from oovoo to double produce units for age 1 aggression, that no one else can do. Equivalent to have a military building for free in age 1, and get 2 buildings for the cost of 1. They are oppressive in the first 5-7 min. And they can also match English and French for their age 2 pressures. Then at age 3 they can also make advanced siege units on the field like Abbasid. They can put tons of pressure for very little cost through out the entire game. Mongol is pretty much broken at this point.
I started with Abbasid because it looked the most interesting to me, but in lower ELO games it's really difficult to know when you're in the goldilocks zone to attack. I always either wait too long or lose my units too quickly in an attack.
The reason Delhi lose on black forest is because they have no eco bonus'. When the map is SO closed off that both people can boom safely the Delhi just get destroyed. 'free techs' isn't even a bonus when your opponent is also not getting many because they are also booming up. The lack of sacred sites is less about not getting that small amount of gold, and more about not being able to force the opponent out of a boom. Compare HRE that are also defensive, but one of the best booming civs with the prelate, relic, and imperial landmarks.
250k 1v1 games over the last 3 weeks!? I was on the fence if I should get the game or not, since I wasn't sure if anyone plays it at all, but I guess there's not much reason not to get it!
I bought the game on release fully aware that i wasn't going to play it. I'm waiting for my favorite civs to get added as DLC but still want the game to be financially successful hence the paying full price for it.
Team games are also interesting to see how civs compare. HRE with China is a horrifying combo late game, mix them with Mongols, French or English, you can't lose
Still think that French have way too many bonuses and units compared to for example, the English who have literally nothing.. Abbasids need a buff to Camels with Delhi needs to be fixed in research times
When i play rus vs french i just go heavy on Wood build Walls Kremlin in choke point and watch the knights melt away, some watch towers and such just call the Villagers to get in them. Done deal. When i go rus vs english i just go super heavy on gold rush knights asap and deal damage as quikly as possible
Looking forward to your next aoe2 vid. Hopefully it will be a full in dept version of poles and when to go on stone and how their stone mechanic works with hold and stone resource gathering in the meta
No civilization can get over 50% win rate on all maps.
Unless you are, of course, the Mongols
We're the exception!
It would also be unreasonable to have a positive winrate against every civilization. Has to be weaknesses.
Unless you are, of course, the Mongols.
Cue the Mongol-tage.
Mr. Green! Mr. Green!!
@@Boom12 no interrupting the Thought Bubble, Me From the Past!
"It's Genghis Khan, we must flee!"
- Aoe4 players when they get tower rushed by Mongols
Tower rush is easy to counter unless u are noob
@@VisualDesigner86 yes and what's why a ton of professionals have said that tower rush needs to be nerfed.. Cuz its so easy to counter lmao
Probably because they counter your counter?
Beware khara khitai they are without honor
There is one little thing to look out for: All the graphs are scaled differently, so a vast gap for one of the earlier civs (like Delhi) in winrate may be a 20% difference while for something like the Rus it's more like 6%.
BIG THING. That's bad data presentation and should be prioritized when making comparisons.
The graph scales were very disappointing from SotL, who knows better!
Plus no final comparison graph with them all together on the same scale.
oof, fix that up SOTL
Unfortunetly those graphs are created by the website he's got his data from and are auto scaled, though an annotation wouldn't have hurt I guess
@@ingoseiler Yeah maybe, but they also have the raw data and I've never known SotL to be lazy with data.
If we weren't entertained by maths and stats, we wouldn't be subscribed to the channel, lol
French winning against English on water? What is this, Napoleon's wet dream?
In medieval times that's actually what happened iirc
@@devidbaguetta4803 after all there was a good reason why the english *Developed* to become the rulers of the sea XD
Naw.
Its before the British Empire.
The french actually had slightly better ships.
But then again, during that time, there wasntvrealy ship to ship combat.
Just boarding
@@TheWarriorofHonor thar happened later than the setting of the game. That would have been Age if Empires 3 time period
@@arynasabalenka3173 i am aware yes, usually things tend to happen *before* an entity *reacts* to said thing
AoE game designer: I would have an OP French civ
AoE community: How original
AoE game designer: And a top tier Mongol civ
AoE community: Daring today aren't we
AOE Game Designer: I’m thinking about doing something to make 2nd worst civ even more handicapped instead of nerfing the obvious advantages of the top two civs
AOE community: sounds about right
Lets face it. Strategy gamers in general came to this game. Command & conquer, starcraft. They're all vastly different to aoe. Avg game length of the former is 10 mins and there's only 5 civs out of 15 that are viable
@@212mochaman 15? doesn't every cnc game have 3 races?
@@frozenfeet4534 allied, soviet, yuri. Yuri is standalone the earlier you go. Allied and soviet have 5 countries which only change is the civ unique unit
@@frozenfeet4534 but yeah red alert 2 and yuri's revenge have 11 civs. Iraq, USA, Yuri, and occasionally france are the only ones that can be picked
So one thing to consider when looking at "win rate based on length of game" is that the relative volume of games that end in that timeframe is also significant, particularly with very early games. For example if a civilization has no tools for rushing an opponent but have very good early-game defensive options, just looking at the win rate might suggest they are "bad" at early game because they are never looking to end games early. But if there are very few games that in this length range because they almost always survive the early game, then calling them bad can be deceptive. And in general why WOULD you be picking a non-rushing civ in order to win a game in under 10 minutes? So player behavior also comes into play.
I'm not claiming that any AoE4 civs fit into that category; just pointing it out as a factor.
Yeah agreed, if a civ never attacks before 5 minutes, it will never win before 5 minutes. But if it loses once that would appear as 100% loss rate before 5 minutes, which is highly misleading.
Pick and win-rate statistics are so interesting, I love hearing people like the Prismata devs explain their process of interpreting them.
You can even get reinforcing feedback loops if you share the data with the player-base at large who is like ''Ohh that's good huh?'', forming a meta by suggestion. It can even get stagnant, mostly among players who wanna use good strats but don't want the headache of truly figuring out the how and why, which I figure tends to cover a large gradient on the ELO scale, I'm guessing with a spike in the low mids.
And if an early defensive civ does finish a game early it's probably because they got attacked before they could get ready
You really have to appreciate the historical accuracy of the Rus having their worst match up be the Mongols.
But beating everyone else, heh
Ah Abbasid, nice to see nothing has changed since AoE2 Saracens
lives in arabia
is the worst 1v1 arabia civ
@@miks301 Yeah they are. Wish they were better. They've been my main civ here lately. HRE , Delhi , I play and like the worst civs the most .
honestly I see some racism here. OF COURSE the Eurocentric pieces of shit will make Abbasids, Saraceans and Delhi Sultanate powerless. Also why only the Abbasids when Ummayad Spain existed at the same time. Meanwhile Europeans get French, English, Holy Roman Empire and Rus. AND there are no African or Native American civs at all the game. And the single player game has campaigns for 3 of the 4 European civs, the only non-European civ to get one is Mongols which mostly concentrates on the Mongols in Europe instead of the damage they did to the Delhi Sultanate and Abbasids.
@@jhonshephard921 You're trolling right??? I hope. Wait you're serious lmfao . Theres a reason why Africa doesnt have a civ. Cause it would be huts and them throwing spears and bows it wouldn't work. Africa got all its tech from Europe. You see some racism here lmfao grow up. It's called the game is broken . You're one of those weirdos.
@@jhonshephard921 dont worry little one I looked in your closet, the racism isnt there you can go back to sleep
French losing on French pass sound like the most French thing ever.
This apply to united state as well.
8 Abbasid dynasty 0:45
7 Delhi Sultanate 2:47
6 Holy roman empire 4:10
5 Chinese 5:04
4 English 5:58
3 Rus 7:00
2 French 8:10
1 Mongols 9:24
Where are the Malians?
It somehow feels very fitting for the French to have a bad winrate on French Pass
They should call the map "Belgium Pass" instead....to reference German success in WW1 and WW2 (in getting to France)
It's a little interesting that the 4 worst civs were the ones that didn't have their own single-player campaigns.
Man , i hope they won't be added later....as a paid DLC....
I just want camels to be good.. I main Abbasids, but having to pay 180 food for Camel meele cav is not funny, considering the French have to pay "only" 140 with a WAY stronger heavy cav unit..
@@kampfer91 i think thats a given, had pay for the expansion packs back in the day for the previous three games
@@matis9118 but they also added new civs too
@@BluePieNinjaTV yeah and that’s what will probably happen, there will be a DLC or expansion which will probably have a major update to the game and will probably include about four new civs. That’s not to say there won’t be smaller dlcs in the meantime, maybe one adding campaigns for the four civs that don’t have one.
No civilization can get over 50% win rate on all maps
Mongols - *we are the exception*
Mongols are the best civ? That's just historical accuracy.
We need them to introduce the Hungarians and the Vietnamese
Historically accurate? Then how come they collapsed as quickly as they rose to power? At least the English, French, HRE and different Chinese dynasties had longevity.
@@Zwijger Yuan and Northern Yuan Dynasties?
@@CuivTheLazyGeek Mongolian ruled China isn't the same as Mongolia, we make a distinction between Rome and the Eastern Roman Empire too because it was culturally distinct from its predecessor.
@@Zwijger I guess they suffered less from rebellion and more from corruption. We still say that Napoleonic France or Nazi Germany were superpowers, and they got taken down decently fast. Mongolia is in a similar boat, as it fell due to infighting and distrust between Ghengis Khan’s grandchildren
Mongols: are winning severely.
*throat-singing intensifies*
I'm a pure Abbasid after going through the civs and learning them, and I have a winrate I'm very happy with. The "trick" is go heavy spears early on, fast castle, and squeeze out a mangonal. At that point you are really uncontested in matchups. I try not to get greedy with a second town center until I have some map control, and being that spearmen can run across the map then build siege, it's pretty simple. I haven't played a game yet where camel archers even were remotely a good idea, but I do get some camels out to buff infantry. I love them and for the first time ever in an Age game I feel really competitive :) Btw I LOVE YOUR VIDS!
Inshallah we get better camels.
Inshallah @@Darksky1001able
Just keep in mind that with the HRE the reason they do so poorly early on is because most players are just trying to go fast imp instead of using the massive eco bonus to fight
Yep, just deff, boom and wait till the relic exodia kicks in. :)
I wish there was a channel like yours for every esport (especially fighting games) focusing on statistical analysis
I wish it so badly for age 3
Of course French and Mongols are at the top xD
They were in AOE2. And so they are here xD
Because you show data so often it would be interesting to make a math video about statistics and data evaluation. I think it would fit very well to your channel and probably a lot of people would learn something(me included).
I would absolutely love this ^^ or even if Spirit could recommend courses / materials on math / stats / data analysis
Worst Civ: Whichever one I'm playing lol
same
you cant play bad with the english
@@VincentWillemvanGogh3406are you calling me dogshit
Hey spirit, thanks for helping me become a better player, your insights have made the game more enjoyable. Both aoe2 and now 4.
There's probably a skill factor too. Highly mobile civs are harder for beginners, so more advanced are probably more likely to pick them.
That evens itself out with the elo system though. Higher skilled players that pick a mobile civ will then play against equally or even higher skilled players of other civs.
HRE is definitely hurt by the prelate not autocasting at times.
So if you get unlucky, you spent 100 gold in the first few minutes and you're down a vil that you could have had otherwise.
Prelet is annoying on wood. But I still like them better then tax collectors
Mongols as the strongest civ seems kinda historical accurate to me.
Mongols Beings Rus's worst match up also seems about right
Well Delhi Sultanate defeated Mongols irl so idk man
@@singularityraptor4022 more like protected themselves. And later on they were eventually conquered by the Great Mogols.
@@singularityraptor4022 Well they were technically only attacked by the chagatai khanate not the whole empire and fought mostly through defending small skirmishes and raids. The later invasion from Timur utterly devastated the delhi sultanate and his descendant Babur created the mughal (literally meaning "mongol") empire.
Worth mentioning that adding to HREs weakness to cav civs is that their spears can't brace
Is this a bug?
@@TheSometimeAfter Yes. Delhi suffers from the same bug.
I haven't had any issues when facing the Mongols as HRE. I would recommend building an early wooden wall that is far enough to prevent the Khan from picking off your villagers. Next, I would recommend your army to be comprised of only Spearmen and Crossbowmen, Man of Arms will not have an extra attack bonus as compared to Spearmen to Mongols cav also make a few scouts and a small group of knights to see where the Mongol player will move his base and send the knights to destroy his base when it's moving. Goodluck!
@@petersifuentez6420 Thanks for the insight. I only play HRE. I have played 150 games and have a 60% win rate using a 13 minute rush with only archers....and battering rams. The mongols are always the hardest for me.
As someone who plays as the Mongols, here's my personal experience. Easist civ to counter = Abbasids, Hardest = Delhi/Mongols . Most succesful maps = Boulder Bay/Confluence, least succesful map = King of the Hill. Note: Delhi only become hard once they get their Elephants going.
Yeah, I hate those massed elephant attacks. At least for now I wasn't able to beat the Delhi
That's historically very accurate.
This is my first time catching a video this early. Thanks for the content!
your videos has such nostalgic music, its awesome ty
Mongols amazing at first then falling off over time fits so perfectly. They dominated then fell apart as time went by. Still, one of the most fun civs in the game probbaly for ever.
Very awesome, that you are doing AOE4 videos SOTL.
I was afraid you would only stick with AOE2 and we would miss out on all the insights into the game mechanics of the new game.
There are so many things, we don't know about the new aoe yet. :)
HRE and Delhi have too many bugs... I main HRE and the lack of bracing for spearman really hurts vs early game cav civs. HRE also has prelate bug and relics boosting enemy ships attack speed 😂
I mained These at First, but the Bugs are annoying. Now im playing everything and hunt for masteries at the meantime. Still Love them though
@@teuton_ yeah I’m just waiting for the updates so I don’t lose every game that French or Rus knight spam 😭
HRE and Delhi are 👌 now
I just LOVE that your vids are about mechanics and stats. I am really sick of the dozens of vids that are just yet another 1v1 match that was "cool and/or slightly different for some minor reason." Give us more!
I aint even playing this game, but something about your voice just makes me want to watch you videos anyway as background noise xD
More like aBADssid amirite ladies
LOL
They will be alright when camels get a small buff in armor. Throw in horsemen too. Delhi needs bugs fixes but HRE is plain bad. Kaiser is sad. :(
What lol
@@PurpleWarlock Camels need a big buff.
One of the best vids on this game I have seen on RUclips. I accidentally learned more about the game
Thank you SPOTL! Your videos are always informative and enjoyable. In low elo 4v4 multiplayer games The Chinese are practically unstoppable. Due to the casual nature of the games and the massive size of the 4v4 maps (a deterrent to aggro play style), most players turtle until imperial age and by then the Chinese have the most unstoppable units in the Nest of Bees and Fire Lancers. They just mow down armies and buildings with absolute ease. I have yet to discover a late game counter this low elo juggernaut.
Damn spirit - those were some juicy audio transitions
Interesting that English have the best match up against Mongols. Since they get a unique mechanic to ward off aggro on a micro level. Maybe AoE4 should make micro heavy defense options for defensive nations more often.
English can't be tower rushed, unless they're really not paying attention, as their villagers can easily mow down both the Mongols own villager and their spearman guards, using their ranged attack. Combine this with the strength of longbows in Feudal, with Council Hall churning them out, and the Mongols are very quickly on the back foot as their usual tricks simply don't work. Also they have to spend time upgrading their horsemen if they want to try and counter Longbows with those, further delaying their defense at the most crucial time.
@@mcponcho7242 This.
0:45 Al'usrat aleabaasiat hi al'aswa'a.
2:45 दिल्ली सल्तनत खराब है।
4:05 Das Heilige Römische Reich ist schlecht.
5:02 中國人很壞。
5:55 The English are good.
7:00 Русы хорошие.
8:05 Les Français sont bons.
9:18 Монголчууд хамгийн шилдэг нь.
nice
Wait, mongols use cyrilic alphabet?
@@junkyardemperor7030 Sure, but they also have their own traditional straight-written Mongolian alphabets, which used in Chinese occupied Mongolia and later the Mongolia's gonna replace Cyrillic alphabets with it.
Besides perhaps you prefer to use 中國人不太好？
Because 中國人很壞 means not "Chinese are bad", but more like "Chinese are mean". If you're just talking about the civs in game
@@ansettwise0005 Ah, I see. Interesting
As a researcher and senior analyst, I can say that's a great analysis. Good job :)
Love all your video! Miss the old intro, though :D
HRE late game stronkness is from its relics.. honestly its so strong if you can get 3 relics for a hefty amount of gold, you can stop mining it entirely until you decide to make large amounts of siege units, especially bombards.
And with so many villagers not having to mine gold you can get super far ahead economically in age 3 that you can produce twice the amount of men in arms as they have army supply (which counter everything save for crossbows) as your opponent whilst still advancing to the imperial only 2 minutes after you advanced to age 3.
are you planning on doing civ overviews for AOE IV? ive been playing it on gamepass and i actually really like it so far. i feel like they actually managed to make most of the civs feel more historically accurate. longbowman replacing archers for the english outright, french having strong crossbowman and a unique knight unit etc
Uploaded 3s ago... I AM SPEED!
I think there is a data point missing when looking at the winrate over short and long games which is the amount of games with that duration. I would expect a defensive civilization to have a low winrate in short games, but because they should have a tendency for longer games. In other words, if a game with a defensive civilization ends early, it's likely the more aggressive civilization won.
If a defensive civilization's game plan is to survive to the late game and win then, a successful early game for them would then be surviving the early game instead of straight up winning it. Meaning, to measure a defensive civilization's success, one would need to look at the number of games that end quickly and not at the winrate for those games.
This is a good point, though it is somewhat reflected in their overall win rates and their win rates per map.
Nono it's not ironically named, it's named after the fact that if that map is selected "the french pass"
Great vid! would be cool to see error bars on the data points on the graphs and the percentages since you explicitly made the point about significance.
4:09 _Holy music stops_
Nice video, but the main problem with these statistics is that it's hard to know just how much of them are affected by the players choosing the civs, and the build they use, rather than the civs themselves. For example, a player who's all about early aggression is more likely to choose english or mongol, which in turn would make english or mongol have a better win rate at the beginning of the game, with a steady dropoff as the game goes on for longer, because that's just how an aggressive strategy performs in general. It also makes sense that abasid and delhi don't have a good winrate early game, simply because the players who like to play aggressive builds aren't really attracted to those civs.
I think however that those stats are a pretty good indicator of when to prepare for a push depending on what civ your opponent has chosen.
As usual an amazing video, ty SOTL XD
However 1 sad thing is that we rarely see cavalry units being heavily utilized in most Mongol games.
Well considering they are a rush faction, you need spearmen or archers to make rams which are essential. Also I find Mongol cav to be underwhelming. Against an English rush, light cav won't survive against the archers and are too expensive. It's easier and cheaper to out mass them in archers. And they don't get any great cavalry bonuses, so French and Abbasid out perform them in that regard. Mangudai are only useful as a villager killer, and for harassing.
@@flaminsouljah thats why i think they need some nerf on other stuff while buff on cavalry specific units or techs.
@@marcomongke3116 Honestly I would prefer a tech. As much as I love Mongols, I wouldn't want to make them stronger than they already are.
i had no idea aoe4 has a larger playerbase than aoe2 def edition until i saw steam rankings. aoe4 is doing pretty decently :O
where are you getting this information? I just checked the aoe2 and aoe4 steam active player charts. aoe4 all time high is larger than aoe2, but the current 24 hour average is larger for aoe2.
@@HaloGrndr Makes sense. AoE4 is broken as hell and needs major work.
AoE 2 DE managed to overtake AoE 4 on Steam recently
Why wouldn't it have? It's the only "new" RTS game there is there is just no competition. I'm never going back to aoe2 after this
@@irou95 11
Good stuff! Thanks Spirit :)
I suspect at least half of these Civs suffer from meta-syndrome, where HRE MUST fast imperial and Rus MUST fast castle and build horse archers and French MUST build knights even when they know the opponents is Abbasid.
Still, very interesting breakdown
In the real world, the Abbasids defeated many civilizations, but in the Age of Empires game, the exact opposite. Very funny, silly and despicable
I simply love playing mongols as they are a civ that allows you to play so many styles.
Going infantry, going cavalry, going horsearchers, or even siege. Mongols are so flexible compared to your bog standard French and English.
Would love to see more abbasids and dehli though.
Most of the civs are within a normal expected-range of power. But the mongols, as always, are an exception. _cue Crash Course Mongoltage_
I have to say, I was a mongols guy, and lately I've been absolutely loving Rus. They just feel so right. And I'm not even tapping into as much as I should with their hunting micro in the early game. They just feel so balanced but I love throwing a ton of warrior monks into the mix with knights. So fun. Mongols felt too tricky at times
more aoe 4 content too! Great work!
Wow! Worst best for 8 civs! Truly clash of clans 4 is a fascinating and complex game!
Thanks SOTL
I think it would be very cool to see re-balanced nations that win on their respective bioms and historical records, like mongol bits Rus on their biom, or Chinese great as walls, or English having strongest naval on late games.
I think it could be interesting, yet complex, to look at the amount of wins over minutes played.
As you tend to see the more defensive civs have a very bad track record at winning early game.
However, I would not be surprised if the amount it's also very rare for them to loose early game, due to their defensive bonuses. However, since they lack an early game win condition it's possibly even more rare for them to actually secure a win early game.
I could be completely wrong on this, but it does make me curious.
I think the other question is how many games for each civ end in a given amount of time. If a civ doesn't win in games that end quickly that could be a huge deal if most games end quickly, but it could be kind of irrelevant if they reliably win but take a bit longer.
Im really looking forward to when map choice is allowed. I havent played since November since it wasn't implemented. I do not ever want to play on water maps.
Actually Abbasids are great but you need to reach the end game
More AOE4 content please! :)
If you look at the english graph, they perform very well again very late game - it's most likely because of the gold they get from the farms.
And the Delhi sultanate is the best counter against Mongolian
Yeah I noticed that too, that and the 15% farm bonus by mills. They are the best civ for farming in the late game, which is a pretty substantial gold and food income.
They suck in late tho. No specific bonus or unit to play with
I always love playing the Mongols, right from the start of the game. I am just a noob lol. If i see this i also notice i play really differently.
I use different landmarks (the trading one as a starter and then the healer as 2nd and free units as 3rd). I also play pretty passive, while indeed if you think about it you can rush in pretty well as you get a raid bounty.
What i always struggle with is the stone tho, the Oovoo is handy but is soooooo slow. And doesnt helps a lot. I like the monastery as oovoo as well.
Mongol is broken up to castle age. They don’t need to build house, that’s 150 wood saved in first 5 min. They can produce enough stone from oovoo to double produce units for age 1 aggression, that no one else can do. Equivalent to have a military building for free in age 1, and get 2 buildings for the cost of 1. They are oppressive in the first 5-7 min. And they can also match English and French for their age 2 pressures. Then at age 3 they can also make advanced siege units on the field like Abbasid. They can put tons of pressure for very little cost through out the entire game. Mongol is pretty much broken at this point.
Wait for it!
OMG I this video and I was hoping for it
Hi law, spirit of the guys here.
Wow, Abbasids are my fave and I thought they were actually kind of OP
Not a bad shake at the current meta. Mongols feel really strong, if you can get them to work. I'd swap Rus and French, but that's about it.
He did say that above 1200 elo, Rus and French are swapped ^^
Good, when will we have a civ overview series for AoE4?
Cool vid, but it seems more like worst to best early game. A lot of the "worst civs" are above average in late game.
you should really do a video on the siege weapons of AoE4 and when to use them, see way to many people using trebs when they should be using cannons.
I started with Abbasid because it looked the most interesting to me, but in lower ELO games it's really difficult to know when you're in the goldilocks zone to attack. I always either wait too long or lose my units too quickly in an attack.
If I play I'm going to be an HRE main I like stout walls
The reason Delhi lose on black forest is because they have no eco bonus'. When the map is SO closed off that both people can boom safely the Delhi just get destroyed. 'free techs' isn't even a bonus when your opponent is also not getting many because they are also booming up.
The lack of sacred sites is less about not getting that small amount of gold, and more about not being able to force the opponent out of a boom.
Compare HRE that are also defensive, but one of the best booming civs with the prelate, relic, and imperial landmarks.
2:15 wait, isn't it a quote from LotR?
we should probably nerf delhi again to be safe
250k 1v1 games over the last 3 weeks!? I was on the fence if I should get the game or not, since I wasn't sure if anyone plays it at all, but I guess there's not much reason not to get it!
The 1v1 quick match qeue is about 1 minute or 1 thirty, if that gives you enough information.
Get it! It's been a lot of fun
I played it for about a month. I find myself coming back to aoe2 more nowadays.
How can you trust stats when there are all the bugs?
The English being bad on water is ironic
If Japan gets introduced, then the Mongols might actually lose on the water maps.
I bought the game on release fully aware that i wasn't going to play it. I'm waiting for my favorite civs to get added as DLC but still want the game to be financially successful hence the paying full price for it.
There´s only one thing sure... mongols nerf... and rus
Abassid Buff
HRE bugs fixed
Delhi fixes
I don't play age 4 but still it looks fun
Can you do this for age of empires 3 too?
I would appreciate to use the same axis scale when presenting stats like this.
Team games are also interesting to see how civs compare. HRE with China is a horrifying combo late game, mix them with Mongols, French or English, you can't lose
Just Prot Chinese mass Nest of Bees lol
Still think that French have way too many bonuses and units compared to for example, the English who have literally nothing.. Abbasids need a buff to Camels with Delhi needs to be fixed in research times
You should make civ overview videos for aoe 4
When i play rus vs french i just go heavy on Wood build Walls Kremlin in choke point and watch the knights melt away, some watch towers and such just call the Villagers to get in them. Done deal. When i go rus vs english i just go super heavy on gold rush knights asap and deal damage as quikly as possible
Looking forward to your next aoe2 vid. Hopefully it will be a full in dept version of poles and when to go on stone and how their stone mechanic works with hold and stone resource gathering in the meta
guess nobody play this anymore eh
Can't believe the HRE is ranked like that! They need changes I think.
Alot of bugs and landsknechte need a buff
As a new player i understand why holy romans are lower I play English but switched to holy Roman but it was very weak before castle age
New patch dropped, Delhi jumping, this is an update of the video