Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Worst 5 (1v1 Full Random) AoE2 Civilizations
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 авг 2024
- NEW Best Civilizations 2019: learnaoe.com/a...
Follow me on Facebook: / zeroempires
Follow me on TwitchTV: / zeroempires Original AoC & Expert Games played on : voobly.com
AoEHD Re-Release & New Expansions can be found on Steam: store.steampowe...
This video was created under Microsoft's "Game Content Usage Rules" using assets from Age of Empires II: The Conquerors, © Microsoft Corporation.
Game Content Usage Rules: www.xbox.com/en...
Wow, when I was a kid I just picked which one I thought had the coolest looking walls and unique unit.
Thats how I played for six years
Abelhawk yea i liked the huskarls the most cuz of their cool armour and hated throwingaxemen because it seemed illogical to have infinite axes :(
When I couldn't even read I played Age of Empires 2. Once I found a civilization I liked, I remembered it's theme, then I'd just listen to the theme. Smart child :D
I think we all did that... For me, no looks were better than those of a Teutonic Knight. Instant mayhem, for only 40 pieces of gold.
I liked Japan the best because of the samurai.
Here's a poem:
Roses are red
Wooloolooloo
Roses are blue
+Daniel Lee mememe
+Daniel Lee Clever
Daniel Lee lol
Brilliant....
Utterly....
Brilliant
YES I LOVED THIS
the discussion in the comments just shows how well balanced and great AoE2 is
I couldn't agree more!
ZeroEmpires - Age of Empires 2 100%
I love AoE 2 as much as the next guy, but surely its well balanced is because 90% of the units of every civ are the same, minus two or three bonuses for each?
oh man the only great comment. But it's even more crazy on facebook, age of empires page just posted this video and people are getting mad.. fffffff.. just play and have fun
Antagonist121 nah i dont think it is that easy. look at the advantage huns have for not having to build houses. it really is a huge advantage especially in the early game. there is more to the game than just the different units
Sooo it's not a worst civ video ?
It's worst civ on 1v1 video ?
+Zhang Lio Such is the nature of AoK-pro bias.
+Zhang Lio Yes. There is no such thing as a bad civilization in AoE 2. Except the forgotten civilizations.
+Young Savage the forgotten civs are great this video was very accurate except the goths are
In it
+Young Savage In FE, the Incas are the worst civilization. The llama should at least not be capture-able, making it a useful scout for the early game. That'd be nice.
Yeah this is definitely from a 1v1 perspective almost all civs have a use in team games
Goths bad? what?
*****
Maybe in top tier online battles, but against your average player (like myself) they are awesome.
*****
No idea as i was a casual age of empires player anyway :D
*****
In which situations are they good in high tier games then?
Simón Salgueiro theyre soooooo goood
Simón Salgueiro They do have an average knight rush and once they get to late game they are unstoppable. They aren't top tier but also not bad.
On team games, turks are perhaps the most destructive nation.
Simply they are slow to get on the scene but once when they are on your walls, it's almost like game over, cos they completely erase you from the map, not stopping your economy for a while or slowing you down for a bit.
The 12+2 cannons they have are just incredible to crash anything quickly and it's really so hard to get your knights next to those cannons cos of the Jannisaries.
I actually liked the Turks and Franks a lot, the first three listed here not so much...
Goths can easily take out 3 enemies themselves just with huskarls and pikes in castle. While their water abilities are terrible, I've seen plenty of players end up winning the match for the team by simply sneaking into the enemy landsandraiding their economy before they stand a chance to recover. Civilizations on land maps that don't have cannoneers automatically lose, as huskarls can defeat archers of any kind, and even scorpians, without issue, and this comes from personal experience. They are the easiest military to mass, and have all eco upgrades aside from the final gold mine upgrade. I've even crushed two gunpowder civs single handively as them, Turks and Spanish, by destroying their bases before they could even respond. As spirit of the law stated, they are the best infantry civilization. Rarely do I see them losing on either side of the fight, if used properly.
Turks are great to play in arena where you can do a fast imp and have safe access to gold
How come no one plays Forgotten Empires? It actually balanced out many of the civs, and added a bunch of cool new techs and such. It's quite sad to see such a good expansion go unused. Even in these cast videos, from Zero and BBQ, both rarely cast any FE games. :[
It's because top level players don't play it much.
the competitive scene isnt there because multiplayer isnt as smooth as voobly. it basically comes down to the fack that voobly is better for multpiplayer. given time i think forgotten will get there. they just need some good tournys
Zarok Aleon Yeah Voobly really pulled their heads out of their asses once HD was announced.
AoFE is balanced, seriously? I don´t remember which new civ it was (think it was Slavs?) They get free Infantry/Cavalry Attack research from Blacksmith, on top of that they have a unique research that makes Infantry damage collateral, that means that their infantry makes full damage to everyone around them. There is no counter to that.
GulfstreamingEpicly
The free blacksmith upgrades are like the Turks free Chem. And the Slavs splash damage is just like Elite Cataphracts logistics, or Elite War Elephants innate splash damage. Plus, infantry is pretty underpowered when fighting against a mass of archers, seige, and special cavalry.
Can we have top 5s for Defensive offensive and such aswell?
That's an excellent suggestion I fully agree with.
defensive
1. byz (they are in their own league in defensive tech really .. they WILL counter everything you throw at them, impossible to really corner and pin them down and harass them)
2. teutons
3. koreans
4. turks
5. spanish & chinese
offensive
1. huns
2. mongols
3. persians
4. celts
5. mayans & chinese (esp late game)
I can tell you the most defensive by far. BYZANTINES, like the own game say, they have advantage on structures hp and defense.
For ofensive, i like two. Huns - Fast, strong, rentable. Espain - Strongest late game, not cause unique, but all entire onfesive barracks are good.
@@mintoo2cool I would like to add Inca as an offensive civilization and for fast rush game
@@marcusviniciusebele5671 In defensive you can't ignore Teutons. You can also choose them for offensive games because the combination of paladian and Teutonic knight is awesome.
People seem a little but hurt about some of these civs and I think it's because this is more about top level play. You'll NEVER see turks or saracens picked on land maps in pro tournament games. Sure they're great in noob pockets, but when you're dealing with early aggression on your gold line, these civs are boned. Yes Turks, Koreans and Saracens have a great death ball in imperial, but few high level games get to the point where that's possible.
In my opinion, there is no bad civs, just bad players
this video was about 1v1 so the dark,feudel age rush civ like aztect or persian is much bêtter
However, bad players choose bad civs
And then 5 years later, franks best civ according to statz
Was surprised that Vikings weren't on this list.
Free wheelbarrow and hand cart are amazing eco bonuses
+Justro Ling Even if they have a great eco, their land army is below average. In the late game, their lack of anything really powerful (berserks can be a substitute for champions but that's it) kills the fun. Arbalests and siege rams seems the way to go, if you're not slinging in the first place.
be advised that half of the random maps are water maps, where vikings dominate
be advised that half of the random maps are water maps, where vikings dominate
Late post imperial is the only time where Vikings are a bad civ
I agree with the Koreans and Turks, never really knew what to do when I ended up playing them. That Franks lost their huge cavalry bonus with The Conquerors (for those who don't remember: Bloodlines wasn't existent in AoK, rendering Frank knights very powerful) is also quite a reason to consider them for this list. The decision to put Goths in there, though, I cannot understand.
+RimaNari Well,if you're Goth and your enemy defends well from Feudal harrasment...You're screwed.
Captain Argentina Depends on the game you play. If all players play rather slow and don't harass quickly, maybe also on maps with pre-built walls, it's something different...
RimaNari AKA if you're playing against 7 ZeroEmpires xD
Captain Argentina Meh, don't know much about him :P
I guess it's a play style that is not common with higher skill levels, but I like my booming behind walls :P
+Captain Argentina
I dunno man, any civ dependent upon archers is absolutely boned vs Goths once they hit castle. Most ranged units are shit vs Huskarls. There are of course counters that some civs have to the Huskarls -- Cataphracts and Samurai come to mind -- but other civs like Britons or Chinese have their UU rendered useless. Goths also have bombard cannons when they get to IMP, and their rax produce faster than anyone else. If you're a post-imp Goth player and you have a good economy there's no way you lose to certain civs.
I do agree with the guy in the video that Goths are weak in feudal.
I play very well with my civilization (Turks). Not Bad
Turks are very, very strong if you can get into imperial.
Something that doesn't happen often in 1v1.
kop4321 this guy is stupid i dont think like him. Turks must be with in Best 3 Civ.
the camel at 5:05 getting hit by the cannonball was priceless. It looked as though he was trying to rally his men with an inspiring speech, then BLAM cannonball to the face right out of left field
Turks and Koreans are the best if your a noob and play no rush 45
Maybe it could be fun to do a video on which civilizations make the best team?
The Goths might make a great team with the Byzantines who have a good navy and strong walls.
Willem Verheij goth+teuton reks becouse they are infantry civs, so they both benefit from the goth bonus
patricio torre Makes sense yes, Teutons seem to be quite defensive too. Maybe not as good with navy and archers but plenty of other good things to offer.
Willem Verheij the thing is that you are going to counter everything with some type of infantry, you have to take the epic teuton siege into account and they both have decent skirms
+Willem Verheij good idea, I always wanted to try Saracens + Britons, since the saracens can give the longbowmen +1 damage to buildings
+Willem Verheij I played a great game yesterday with my team mate being the Mayans and myself as the goths (Map: Highlands). He walled me up nice and safely and with some good communication we were able to make a very effective team, him providing ranged support and good home defense while I maintained a steady stream of offensive infantry constantly harrying the enemy never really allowing them to build a proper economy. Any combo is good in AoE its about knowing the strengths and weaknesses of each civ and playing to them.
ive always hated the franks since the first day i played in the joan of arc campaign
+enticingmuffin hahahaha
+Eddie "JaggSauce" Gluskin 1-dimensional. Only knights are worth anything....
I would've put the Goths in the top 5, because there is no stopping hundreds of huskarls streaming into your base at a rate of 2 per second, unable to be easily killed by any arrows. Playing the Goths effectively comes down to allowing your team to protect you early and mid game, while you get your economy booming so you can be the strongest military when you've fielded a huge amount of huskarls in a very short time. Essentially, there's a critical point the Goths have to get to in order for their strengths to shine, and that's how they're balanced because once they're there, there is no stopping them. Sheer numbers trump everything, as well as the fact that huskarls are very strong.
This is in 1v1. So there's no team to protect you
i really really need to debunk this myth about the "unstoppable" Goths' Huskarls spam. is not that difficult actually: ok, they create very very fast, but cannoneers and champions smash them easily. you could argue that no trash can stop them, and it's true... but with no gold you can't create huskarls either, so it all comes to be a better player in the end, and not run out of gold before your opponent (btw champions are cheaper than huskarls). SAVE YOUR MONEY!
JosephSDodd I think that basing entire lists of "best" and "worst" civs entirely on a single situation that honestly doesn't happen all that often (all of my several hundred hours of AOE have been with teams) is silly. AOE is meant to be played in teams, and these lists should reflect that, IMO. The Spanish are just alright on their own but the team bonus is absolutely crucial to everyone else.
ciante90 _ok, they create very very fast_
Precisely. They're already a strong unit, but they win by sheer numbers as well.
_but cannoneers and champions smash them easily_
You sure about that? ageofempires.wikia.com/wiki/Hand_Cannoneer
Weaknesses: huskarls. They're an archer unit, and that's what huskarls are good at killing. With champions, you have to remember that Goths are going to be producing barracks units 120% faster than anyone else with their unique tech and bonus. That's over twice the units in the same amount of time. Huskarls are going to beat champions because of this.
The real weakness of the huskarls is actually cavalry, but I rarely see a force big enough to counter the swarm of huskarls charging at them. Cataphracts are very good against them, but they're expensive and slow to make, which limits their numbers.
You also forget that the Goths can spam _any_ barracks unit, including the champion. A lot of champions>a couple champions. They've also got serviceable hand cannoneers as well, which means they can fall back on that if they need to do so.
_but with no gold you can't create huskarls either_
Running out of gold shouldn't be a problem, and hasn't been a problem. Trade. That's the solution.
_so it all comes to be a better player in the end_
But really, isn't this true of almost any civ? AOE2 is very well-balanced.
letsgoiowa ok this is getting intresting. let's talk about weaknesses: gunpowder can't really be considered archery (if it is than abstinence is a sex position), cannoneers have huge attack and they can kill even those beefy huskarls with their huge pierced armor. of course they will resist more compared to champions or halbs, but still, saying that huskarls are a counter to hand cannoneers seems strange to me.
on all the gold mumbo jumbo what i tried to say is just that arguing that no trash unit can counter husks is true, but if your opponent is spamming gold unit and you're not, you are supposed to loose anyway, against any civ. and of course goths create infantry faster, but being champions cheaper (a lot: 20 gold vs 40 if i remember well) you should be able to create them from more barracks at the same time, de facto canceling the speed bonus.
then of course huskarls+hand cannoneer it's a fucking scary combo, but it's virtually impossible to sustain the production of two gold intensive units (plus maybe some siege) in the long run, even with trade, even with spanish on your team, even using the market, even using cheats, even if you are a Lannister.
I'm glad this time you made it clear what you based worst off of. And for 1vs1 I will agree with your civ choices this time. Frank heavy cavalry, Turk gunpowder, Korean Deathball and Goth Infantry spam are pretty good in team games where these things are much more likely, so teammates are usually required to protect them until that point.
After listening through the list, it should have been obvious to me with the restrictions you set in. When you're talking a 1v1 slinging, pocket positions, trade, and other team tactics aren't available, which can make these civs quite good if not even excellent depending on the specific setup. But yeah, when you have a slow-growing, late-imperial civ it's pretty obvious you're going to suffer in a 1v1 against someone who can practically raid you from the word go and still keep an economy going.
Like the Franks, they're a one trick pony and you can set up to intercept the inevitable knights and castles, but when you're being harassed by their teammate's archers or cavalry archers the whole game and then a line of fully upgraded frankish paladins show up on your doorstep it's a whole different story.
Great video, it really made me reflect on the differences between 1v1s and team games. Maybe as a followup you should try to think up a top & bottom 5 civs in a team setting, or civ combos on a team?
Edit:I didn't realize you are talking about Age of Conquerors, I am talking about Age of Forgotten.
I gotta disagree with Goths. I am not a pro or anything like that but I think Goths have some of the greatest bonuses in game. +15 food capacity for hunters, +5 damage to boars, 20% barracks speed, huskarl can be created at barracks in almost 1 second with full upgrades. Elite Huskarls have 8 armor to arrows(+2 with blacksmith), making them perfect for rushing and destroying castles and town centers. And put some halberdiers next to them, you're good to go, because huskarls have 0 melee armor, you're gonna need protection from cavaliers, paladins.
Goths are actually the only civilization that I am comfortable with defeating Hardest on the new crazy insane AI.
This review should be named: "Worst civs for a pro 1v1". For instance I have definitely had some good experiences with the Turks and I doubt the use of Castle Rush for the Franks in a 4x4 should be underestimated.
It should also be noted the Saracens have an awesome market, very good Mameluks and other things... The Goths and their ability to mass and their Huskarls and etc. This list really is very limited to 1x1 small maps. Maybe making a much longer video reviewing in dept balancing for different player amounts and maps?
I do love to see anyone play serious matches in Ludickris or make a review of how to act when distances are so huge.
For me, Franks should have bloodlines aviable and also some kind of artillery advantage due to the fact that France was the Western European country which best developed cannons during the XV century (that is the reason they won the Hundred Years's War).
+Esteban David López Murillo "the" reason?
+Esteban David López Murillo The artillery was not very usefull at that time : it caused more fear than anything. We, the French, had victories when we changed our (archaic) strategy against the English longbowmen. In fact, this kind of situations can sum up a great part of the France's military history, ahah...
But I agree, Franks are ridiculous in Age of Empires II regarding to the France's history. The French heavy cavalry was the best of all Europe... and this fact is not even exploited in the game. è_é (the HP bonus on cavalry is a joke...)
+Vidar Burström Joan of Arc used some cannons during her campaign. Also, cannons were widely used by the French at the battle of Castillon, which contributed a lot to defeat the Englisj
+Ergeroth Rarax but friend, remember that cannons were used as effective weapons at the Battle of Castillon, tje French used almost 300 cannons. Those pieces fired a lot of stone cannonballs, which killed a lot of English soldiers (their commander included)
Yes, true ! But the artillery was not the only reason of the France's victory
In case you guys want a quick list...
5. Saracens
4. Goths
3. Koreans
2. Franks
1. Turks
Turks saracens are not worst they are really good civilizations ... Against any civilization.... The worst civilization in my opinion is aztecs and mayans because they don't have cavalry or gun powders... They are weak in defence and also weak offence with not having arblasts upgrades ...
@@dannymunna5815 thats true
spoiler alert !!!!
@@dannymunna5815 Have you ever seen a competetive game? Games rarely go to Imperial age in a 1v1, so not having gunpowder is never an issue. Aztecs and Mayans both have great economy bonuses and unstopable Infantry or Archers.
@@Tudsamfa i know competetive games rarely goes to imp but sir if you notice and see aztecs don't have cavalry and with bonus gold with turks and cavalry one an beat them easily... mayans have same problem.. i have seen many games of turks against mayan and aztecs the lose pretty easily..
Koreans in pocket position is OP. Gotta love the mangonel/war wagon/halberdier combo
Turks were one of my favorite civs as a kid because of all the cool gunpowder units available later on. Of course, I was mostly playing against computers that made it easy to turtle and advance, so there was that.
Unique Technologies: Artillery (increased range for Bombard Towers, Bombard Cannons and Cannon Galleons), Turks not bad
good luck surviving till you research it
Title is wrong. It can be the worst civs in Feudal Age for 1v1.
aynn ole
Ok, now we have to do a 5v5 game, with 5 legends playing as the 5 worst civilizations, and 5 well-experienced players, playing as the best 5 civilizations.
I think this list just goes to show how well balanced the civilisations in this game actually are.
At the top level of play, especially in a 1v1, I guess it's fair to say these civs are a bit lacking - but only really because the people playing are so good and every second starts to count a lot more. There are definitely times when you could pick any of these civs quite comfortably and still have a great game. Plus some of their civ bonuses actually help the game a lot more at lower levels.
Weird, I would've said that a fully powered Saracen or Turk player is damn near unbeatable.
+DealerCamel They are.
+Speedyblupi especially mayans.
+DealerCamel once you hit a certain threshold, games never reach that point. There's so little down time, that most games are "ended" in the feudal age, even if they last into the castle age.
+DealerCamel Yep, just had a great BF game with the Saracens. Great Market, Spammed Hussars, backed by Mamelukes, Siege Rams, and Bombards. Huge fun!
Deep Fried Jesus Yep. Dark age rushes feel mandatory at the top level lol.
The Turks were the first civ I fell in love with, and did decent with lol
Bu listenin amk
Turks are amazing in team games and i think a lot of people agree but for open map 1v1s they are shit
The Korean tower rush is great fun and really effective. They're also amazing against archer civs, with their wicked good onagers. The best civ to take on a Briton army.
saracens and turks are actually decent in 1v1. Their bonuses are just well hidden. turks can use the gold mining boost to sell the gold for food for a decent scout rush, and the saracen market bonus is the same idea, instead you maybe want to mine stone to sell at the market.
Alright, so, here's my issue with this list: almost all 1v1s are played mirrored. This is especially true among pro level players. Thus, rating civs on the basis of 1v1 seems kind of pointless as it is never actually played that way.
In addition, I don't remember the last time I saw a full random match played at all. Almost all matches at all levels are played on specified maps. There is rarely a "surprise water!" game.
I just don't understand the point of this list, at least in the context of the limitations.
I think you (and the community at large) might be better served by something more along the lines of best and worst pocket / flank civs, and things along those lines.
Cassidy Banks
I think that the Persians is the worst civilization. The war elephants are slow as molasses and are super expensive. They lack a ton of key upgrades and do pretty poorly against most archer civilizations
they have the best cavalry in the game and have a great economy with a faster TC.
War elephants are only for the late game
the elephants consume quite loads of gold!
actually, thats false. they cost the same amount of gold as a paladin, but they cost about 3 times the food as a paladin. Since you need more paladins then elephants to make an impact, elephants cost less gold then the other main Persian option.
Blame Alexandrer the worst! It's not there fault he betrayed Persia!
micah lamarche They have very good Paladins
The franks? The have the best win ratio in the game XD
Yes, but this is Conquerors. The new expansions really helped them.
Here's a tip, use the Koreans on water maps. The turtle ships are like tanks when you get a ton of them.
Am I the only one that loves the Saracens? Their camels can obliterate any cavalry like no tomorrow. Plus their Mamelukes are hell strong. Think of them as cavalry archers with higher health, damage and they do heaps of damage to siege, buildings and cavalry. I think that's a small price to pay for a bit of missing range.
EristonTube
Saracens start to be "ok" during Castle (still quite weak) but they are so slow to get there...
I love this civ, but if you can't reach imperial they are quite subpar.
+EristonTube
Yeah Mamelukes are really strong. U rape any ennemy cavalry and can kite melee infantry so easily.
+In Dakk it's a pity all strong civs are archer civs ;)
+EristonTube The problem with Camels (and Mamelukes) is that they are too specific for killing Cavalry. Apart from countering cavalry, there's isn't much else you can do with them. They are not really good-all-around units.
And considering that Saracens are a camels civilization, that ends up counting against them.
JG
for once i agree with you.
Folks he's only looking at it from high level meta game play. relax in normal circumstances all these civs are fine.
Based off of how you ranked year civs, Aztecs would be the worst because they don't have galleon. Should revise both top 5 worst and best.
They are very good for dark age rushes, which can sometimes be fatal
I love how butthurt people got from watching this video. Guys he even said this was based on 1 vs 1 and he consulted top players in AoE. Don't write stupid comments about how "insert team" is good lategame or team based.
+NoEnglishSorry The problem is that that's not what his video title was. And judging from the comments section, and what I've seen of people playing AoE2, 1v1 full random was not a good metric for determining best and worst for most players, who seem to play more ffa, teams, or not play on water maps. 4 of the 5 civs got dumpstered for 'no water bonus' and all five got marked down for being lategame civs.
lets just say something . there isn't a bad nor good civ. all of them is good on certain conditions
Good stuff! (Or perhaps I should say bad stuff considering these are the worst civs) oh my I'm so witty. Sorry anyone who reads this
Back in 2004 a popular strategy used to be the Turkish sling. The Turk's allies would wall up and tribute him to a 18:xx or so imperial, where he'd pop out some HCs and BCs.
Saracens are so underrated.
Their market bonus is IMBA and its their real economic bonus (and a lot better than a lot of other civs eco bonus).
Saracens have a good late game and a fast castle age (if you play it right using the most of you market bonus, you can do it in 12 to 13 min with a good eco). I dunno how it makes them a bad civ.
There's no such thing as "worst" civilization; it all depends on the player, maybe these civilizations you mentioned are not suitable to some players, but could be to another group of people.
+Hugo Escalona I think that's a too "eco happy" opinion. You might not feel good when the opponent beat you with the most "suitable" civ to you. Unless, your most 'suitable' civ is coincidentally the one they call the best one on these top civ ranks!
There are the bad civs, and the good civs.
I presume we were not counting the FE civs in this list? I'd like to see where you'd rank the Magyars and the Italians.
Sam Rodrigues Italians are pretty good actually...
Drew Armstrong, The Grand Lobster King I didn't say they weren't? I didn't mean to imply the Italians OR the Magyars to be in the WORST categories (or the best), I just wondered if they were included.
Sam Rodrigues
Ohhhh well you did put it on the worst civilization video, so I thought that was what you meant, here, I will try and rank them...From worst to best...
5. Magyars
4. Incas
3. Slavs
2. Italians
1. Indians
This might contain some bias, but it is my opinion.
*****
Yes, that is true. But the Magyars really don't have much going for them. Compared to the Slavs.
*****
I suppose, I have been playing the Magyars quite a bit, they were the first Forgotten race I chose, then gave up on them in favour of the Spanish and Italians. But I have returned and found that yes, they are good....
the Turks actually work great, in gold rush, when there is so much gold to be collected, and the goths work fine in Black Forest when you cover the passageways.
That was a surprise indeed...having turks on the top. Seeing as the Janissary is basically like an imperial age unit that is gotten in the castle age. Seen good players dominate so easily with just the Janissary + bombard + Hussars combo..all the time.
The worst civilization has to be the teutons they build up so slow and their unique units are staggeringly slow.
BurnRoddy Last time i checked they had one of the most efficient booms in the game due to farms costing only 40 wood. this gives them arguably the best economy. And anyone who is actually good with teutons knows that just about the only time you should use the teutonic knights is against an infantry spammer or trash. And if this is just a trol then you got me.
Joe Smith
That's exactly my point and that's why I said: _-AND their unique units..._
They suck gold like motherf*ckers and by the time the Teutonic knights are available they become unnecessary because nobody is gonna attack you with trash and they are very good against castles but they are slow as f*ck so if the asshole player stacks stone you're screwed.
Not to mention the gold you spend improving your city with the bare necessities you must acquire to keep the industry running.
The best way to save gold or at least what the game leads you to believe is making Skirmishers to keep enemies at bay or destroy underdeveloped enemies until you have enough, which isn't different to any other civilization in the game. The other unit that doesn't cost you gold are Pikemen and they are shit because even though they ain't the slowest on foot their attack speed is staggering.
their economy builds up very fast due to cheaper farms. what don't u understand about that? My second point was that it doesn't matter that their unique unit is slow because their better economy allows them to outproduce their opponent with paladins, hand cannoneers, skirms, halbs, siege onagers, bombard cannons, and heavy scorpians. They dont need a unique unit since they already have such good selection of units, all blacksmith upgrades besides the last +1 range and attack one, and their strong economy due to cheap farms.
Joe Smith
Their cheap farms mean precisely dick because they depend almost entirely on GOLD and HUGE CHUNKS OF IT TOO.
where did you get that from? their halbs are fully upgraded, their skirms as well besides the bracer upgrade and thumb ring. and just so you know villagers cost food. farms get food. less expensive farms means more farms. more farms means more food. more food means more villagers. more villagers mean you are able to support a bigger military. bigger military means u win. wow logic is amazing like that.
Byzantines are my personal favorite. Although they lack economic bonuses, cheap trash makes up for it as they can field cheap trash in the Feudal Age. Also increased HP on everything buys you more time to protect your economy in the early game. In the late game, the Byzantines are by far the best civilization (my opinion) as Cataphracts can easily crush halberdiers and most non-cavalry civilizations. The Byzantines are also extremely versatile in the late game as they get every late game barracks, stable, and archery range unit upgrades, giving them a counter to practically every unit. Their only two downfalls are that they are an extremely expensive civilization, as cataphract upgrades (Elite Cataphract, Logistica) are extremely expensive, and that they lack Blast Furnace, but do you really need that extra attack when you have Arbalests, Heavy Cavalry Archers, Heavy Camels, backing your heavy melee force?
The common theme that I'm seeing here is that all of the top 5 worst civs in a 1v1 are only strong when they get to Post-Imperial. But when they get there, all of them can pretty much steamroll the opposition.
Hey! There's an idea! How about the best/worst post-Imperial civs next?
I was thinking to myself "If I see the Saracens or the Goths on this list... " and you didn't disappoint.
+Shoes, Saracens are more justifiable than Goths.
+JG No, civs with little potential for early-game aggression should not automatically be considered bad. Let's also not forget about the famous Saracen Monk Rush.
+Shoes,
Considering that Camels are pretty much the worst unit in the game, and that Saracens are a camel-based civ; I would not consider them to be one of the best (not even in late games).
And I never consider early-game potential as the main factor (I'm one of the few to do so), otherwise I wouldn't rank Byzantines as the top civ in the game (which I do).
i do not agree with the franks . Their main army is knights but tech-wise they have most of the upgrades for siege and archery (crossbow to hand canooners) and the farm bonus helps the economy and +20% training speed at stable helps a lot, id change it with the teutons to be honest . The teotons can only be really played defensively which is a huge "-" their uniq unit isnt that great (similar to a rather slow elephant with no aoe dmg if you ask me) and all they have is defensive tech (+garrison number and infantry shoot arrows from tower - not actually good overall if you ask me)
" +20% training speed at stable helps a lot "
these are the huns ;)
Jonas Keil There's the forgotten expansion where the Franks get Chivalry- which increases Stable Production rate
Franks' archers are not, they are NOT an option.
coolblade23 you people gotta stop obsessing over how slow teutonic knights are. only noobs get teutonic knight unless there is a good reason (such as your opponent is doing an infantry spam, or spamming trash). The farms only costing 40 wood is the biggest bonus in the game! and teutons can be very offensive due to their farm bonus. feudal rushes and knight rushes. franks on the other hand are the ones that cant be offensive (unless you are doing a castle drop) no relevant eco bonus. the only time frank cav is superior is in the imp age since in castle they are on equal terms with any knights with bloodlines. and their crossbowmen are good? HA! the only ones that are worse are spanish (since they dont get crossbow) and celts due to their lack of archer upgrade in the blacksmith in imperial. but both of those civs have a compensation: spanish 15% faster hand cannoneer fire, celts good siege. when you reach 1500 elo let me know...you dont even know the best thing about them is their castles!
Turks are the strongest Civ in Imperial Age, together with Spain...
+Kijnn Not really, these two are so predictable you'll have counters ready by Imp
+Kijnn Turks get beaten heavily by any decent archers/skirms.... Which by imp you should mass produce....
+yiwei wu an imperial turkish army is practically unbeatable
Vidar Burström Not really, they can't last long without gold and they are too predictable
Vidar Burström
Chinese/Mayans/Byzantines/Britons/Japanese/Koreans/Mongols/Huns say "Hi !"
I was soooo afread before you mentionned the worst civilisation for my beloved japanese... very situationnal, but I like their samurai so much
If you like them, and can play them, then it doesn't matter what they're ranked :D
2:45 I had to rewind here like three times to catch what you were saying because I was distracted by waiting for that one treb to finally go down. :P
I really like the Turks. It is my default civilization of choice. I thought the Janissary was quite strong...
Turks and goths should not be on worst 5... They are regularly used in higher tier games, even if they're not top 5 they certainly aren't bottom 5... I kind of agree with Franks, they're supposed to have a mean Krush but I never have much luck with them... Don't know about Koreans and Saracens I haven't given them a chance.
other people might disagree but I love the franks. they lend themselves very well to my play style... building castles everywhere and spamming paladins
Castles for daaayyyyz
frank is too eazy to pridict their move , fast castle , fast knight ~~ ,other civ like japan , teuton/... on the other hand have more open tech tree to inprovide , and well-played players like dont always use their Civ bonus .
this video was about 1v1 so " higher tier games " doesnt always come around
*Sac is a liltel tricky because they may have an open tec tree but they don't good at a Specifically unit ( maybe except camel ) so you have to upgrate a lot of unit to make an affective mix army
The worst civilization is actually whichever one I control. Guaranteed finish 2nd place in a 1v1.
According to 5 main playstyles,
1) Spanish - For an overall good Standing.
2) Mayans - For a Good Archer rush and seige gameplay.
3) Celts - For an awesome infantry gameplay and rush.
4) Tuetons - For the best late game defensive gameplay.
5) Huns - For the fastest gameplay.
Honourable mentions for Teutons and Byzantines?
Both are pretty good tech-tree wise and bonus wise. But their unique units do have their poor sides (speed for the Teutonic Knights and "squishiness" for the Cataphract as I do recall that Zero had pitted the Cat vs a knight and the Cat lost). I think with most of the civs it depends a lot on how you play them. I would be interested to see where the rest (Persians, Tuets, Byz, Britons, Celts, etc?) land on the spectrum.
Teuton's i'd agree with, and I'm honestly surprised that it didn't make the list.
Byzantines on the other hand; while yes they're a jack of all trades and are outclassed by at least one civ in any one field.
They are unpredictable as they have access to all standard techs (except blast furnace) and their building durability/town watch bonuses are always nice to have which makes holding off your opponent that much easier.
They're also the best trash spammers and are quite good at countering the civs that rely heavily on their calvary such as the franks.
Admittedly, their fire ship bonus doesn't do shit for them on water maps.
Teutons have a pretty expansive tech tree as well, I was expecting them to be on the list due to their tanky knights (they go faster when in a ram wha-why?!) but they have the Paladin, moderately good siege, chem units, bombard towers. However if you're on a water map Teutons are pretty well useless as they don't get the Transport ship upgrades, which is huge!
I guess I didn't look in to the Byzantines as being outclassed on all levels, that's an interesting point and I'll look in to it :)
What are the two civ's bonuses? Teutons get Crenelation and free muderholes, but what about Byz? I've not played them enough
noob...
mintoo2cool *fires an arrow into your eye*
Best: Aztecs, Spanish, Frankish, Byzantines, Teutons
Worst: Celts, Vikings, Mayans, Japanese, Turks
EDIT (these were my thoughts a long time ago):
Best: Huns, Vietnamese, Goths, Slavs, Magyars
Worst: Malay, Franks, Chinese, Koreans (on land), Malians
My thoughts!
Huns are pretty cool, don't you think?
I have to disagree with the Mayans, Vikings and Celts. Why? The Mayans have Better Ships then the Aztecs. PLUMED ARCHERS 4 LIFE. Vikings depends really, if you are on water maps, you can beast it. But they fall behind in land maps.
Celts, Keeps, Woad Raiders, Siege Onagers and a balanced out Navy.
Cassidy Banks
MAYANS HAVE THE BEST ECO BONUS
this list shows how people can sometimes have absolutely no idea what they are talking about
This list is for 1v1 Full random AoC - which part do you disagree with?
:D this video was created in 2014 and there obviously have been changes.
@@ZeroEmpires Funny i just looked throgh my old gmail while searching for something else and tbh i dont know but since this is from 2 years ago i think u mustve attacked a civ i liked alot as a noob or something ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In HD, the Sipahi tech gives them a great advantage. The Hussar + HCA combo is more affordable due to cheaper cavalry archers and also significantly stronger
Mongols can do that too and have a better overall tech tree.
"The worst 5 age of of empires II Civilizations" would be a better name...
everyone should know that this was an aoe2 channel
ɷ Heey Frienddssss I Have Found W0rikingg Online Hacck visitt : - t.co/fdjeuzwFSG
mig5l no
no
Franks are a one trick pony LOLOLOL.
Someone got the joke ;)
ZeroEmpires - Age of Empires 2 more of it please!
may i ask what is a one trick pony means ? :)
Linh T They use a lot of cavalry... That is all.
now they best civ
I guess turks could have pikeman and elite skirmisher. I really dont know why lack these units for them.
I usually pick the Japanese, they have a bonus for fishing (bad if the map has no lake though), and the samurais have no damage penalty against anything. Sure enough a siege weapon is better against buildings but nevertheless it's a good boost.
There are no worst civilizations in general, only in specific situations.
For example the Koreans are the strongest late imperial civ on land maps, but as already said, yes they kinda suck before imp.
Oh and a btw, Turks are even worse on water than Saracens? Saracens are the strongest imp civ on water (atleast in teamgames, on 1vs1 they can surely keep up with Vikings).
Selias best imp civ on water is those OP spanish cannon galleons. But saracens are better on water than they get credit for
imo it is useless to rank civs in any age of empires games, seeming that although they have different attributes, if you're not doing that well with a particular civ then you're either bad at playing them or they are just not for you. The whole idea of a strategy game after all is to find your strengths as a strategy and a civ and fight the enemies strats until one of you wins/both tie. It wouldn't be a very fun or realistic strategy game if you were the first to pick 'the best civ' and then utterly crush the enemy because 'their civ is naturally shit'
I disagree. It is useful knowing the overall advantages of all civs. No one chooses vikings on a land map, you know they're a water civ. The same way, you won't play turks vs huns in Arabia 1v1. You can rank them as to the purposes they serve.
it's not like he said that at the beginning or anything lol
+Tiel yet, he still made this ranking video and spoke with top players (who could still be wrong, just because they are more comfortable with a certain type of civ)
+Gonzalo Salomon by that logic, the Vikings are shit at everything else other than a navy, and therefore you shouldn't even bother creating human units, which is absolute shit.
there STRENGTH is naval, yet they wouldn't be shit if you used their infantry/cavalry etc. They would have at least one civ bonus not related to the navy anyway...
They aren't even the best infantry civilization. Japanese, Aztecs, and Goths are all better, and unlike Vikings the Japanese and Goths can actually hold off the imbalanced Byzantine Cataphracts in the imperial age.
You should have added "(on 1v1)" to the title of the video. The current title confused a lot of people.
Also the Byzantines even have an extremely powerful navy, getting nearly every upgrade AND a fire ship attack bonus, making them formidable on all fronts.
no wait, the Franks are one of the best civilizations in the game like the Koreans and Saracens, returning to the Franks have the best paladins of the game (192 hp), have very cheap castles and mills improvements free . then you're wrong.
An army of halbs would wipe the floor with the Franks.
+Lopt The Treacherous Army of throwing axe men = gg
AmPenguin andTurtleHybrid You mean the least used UU in the entire game?
+Lopt The Treacherous ya, what other unit?
AmPenguin andTurtleHybrid They're very easily counterable; almost any unit that isn't trash.
what re you talking about dude ? Turks is the best in the game!
+Emir Khan
Countering Infantry (A)
15% Gold Mining = More Archer,Cav archer,Hand Cannon,and Jannis
Countering Cavalry (Z)
only Spearman,and handcannon is lying,they're bad vs Cav
Countering Archer (B+)
Faster Early Gold
Countering Siege (B)
they has normal hussars
Countering Spanish Villagers (B-)
only if you has those jans out,but archers=nah they got rekt by Spanish Vills
+Karina Katsuyaga I don't agree, heavy camels or lots of janisaries rekt even big cavalry groups.
Agrs how much is the heavy camel cost?
Some food and some gold
how much is the Jannisaries cost?
some food and some gold
how much is the spearman cost?
a little wood and food
SPEARMAN IS MORE COST EFFECTIVE AND ARE BETTER IN LONGRUN GAMES
Agree or Disagree this should have always been a thumbs up. Your methodology was excellent in creating the list. A lot of thumbs down because of specific disagreements, but it is an opinion list. Of course, people will disagree on this or that. Ugh. Thumbs up thanks. :)
I personally love playing as the Goths, as they are able to pump out powerful units at lightning speed after the castle age.
I cant belive vikings and incas made it to the top 5 but Turks and Franks made it to the worst 5. I would definitely swap them
"Any experienced player should be able to deal with a tower rush fairly easily"
2018 tournament meta is calling, will you accept the charges?
Goths may not get much of an early eco bonus, but in the current meta game, stone walls are not necessary, as most people wall in with buildings, anyway.
Goths also have a possibility for rushing with men at arms that no one else has, due to their m@as being 35% cheaper starting Feudal and producing 20% faster off the bat. Considering it takes seven archers to one-shot a m@a, and archers move as slowly as they do, a Goth m@a rush is actually viable. Coupled with a trush, a controlled mrush can dominate an opponent. Goth infantry can also be cheap defenders, not requiring another building to be built.
And, once they reach Castle Age, they can defend themselves with castles, so they're certainly viable.
Franks may be weak on or before Feudal, but great on castle. Also, throwing axeman isn't weak as you through. It can help you clear the pikeman and building faster (even faster Paladin).
And for some expert, Saracens did very well with trading bous (5% to sell stone is very great adv).
This kid is noob. Goths got hunter bonuses which is huge advantage in 1 vs 1 all random standard game and feudal. Fast infantry production for castle age and rest all you need is pikeman and huskarl. Against the goths you need very hard counter for infantry or else you are done. Frank is great free farm research 480 stone castle etc. Comparing it with teutons is ridiculous. Teutonic knight really ? he claims that frank elite troop is useless and saying teuton is better. (though love free murder holes). He got a point about koreans. They are the worst in 1 vs 1 but if you are in prolonged game there is no single unit that counters korean siege Onager. That is why some races were banned(such as koreans, turks) during version B of conquerors back in days. About Turks, this is the where ignorance of this guy shines. Full blacksmith research tree (most of the races don't have) is a hidden bonus that most of the people overlooked. Just try vs korean halberdier vs turkish spearmen of course there is a difference but for a fodder unit it is nor marginal even for that case above they are almost same. Turks have 20-25 percent hit point and +2 range for gunpowder units INCLUDING naval units. They are the only force that in static naval fight(which is tend to be in large engagements) can handle Spanish. About gold dependancy, you will win this game with gold, saying spamming fodder is good(halb and skirmisher) is so noobish that you (hypothetical)almost like just discover how to do some macro and fascinated by it.
There bad if they can't defend.
Goths that is
Jim Taylor Tk got 2 pierce armor and they are so slow if you put them in battering ram they move faster. So they are beaten by every ranged unit. Paladin and elite skirmisher(which is cheapest military unit in the game) deal same damage to Tk. Thus any decent ranged unit would chew up Tk. Btw although Tk wins 1 vs 1 against samurai and jaguar warrior, those units are way more cost effective and considered counter(and more useful).
Jim Taylor That is absolutely not true. Without any micro 4TKs vs 12 Arbs ends terribly for TKs, they only manage to kill single arb before vanishing from the map, you can try that in editor. End game is not an excuse for managing your army. With few mouse click you can kill all TKs without any loose in 40 vs 40 engagements and it is not a micro you dont have to select your troops one by one. If you compare with any siege unit, elite archers or hand cannoneer result would be even worse. You clearly doesn't know how pierce armor and melee armor works check it out. Pro players should be able to do give or take 150 apm, so in most cases TK is coolest but one of the worst unit in the game. For melee units vs ranged units movement speed is very crucial to apply damage during army collisions you may check it out in some star craft development videos and see for yourself. I only found TK useful when i m doing castle rush because trying to do building 18 min castle next to enemy towncenter may diminish your resource and castle age tk is good unit to defend your castle from any battering ram and melee units. I was 300 something in global ranking before it was reset after initial steam release. I don't play much nowadays only if i see +2000 elo match in lobby. And right now it is around 1880 with 25 match played with %78 win ratio.
you may forgot to set the age to post imperial it is common mistake try it again or i can upload a video
turks have more range unit
Okay, guys, it is pretty hard to pick the five weakest civs from this (more or less) well balanced game, but Zero outlined in the begining, this is based on 1v1 and full random map. I think his arguments are fair but of course each game-style can result different experiences.
Anyways, my personal bottom five are:
Aztecs
Japanese
Teutons
Franks
Incas
Great video! I have to disagree on the Goths though.
Why?
Poi Goths: SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM
And now with the data compiled, only the Saracens are still in the bottom 5, since the other civs (especially the Franks) have buffs that really helped them. Koreans and Turks still tend to suffer, but it's not as bad as in Conquerors.
If you'd counted the Forgotten civs, then the Italians, Incas, Indians and Slavs would have dominated the worst 5 spots.
I've never lost a match playing as the Italians.
absolutely agree about the turks. if you get rushed in castle you're pretty much screwed because you don't have the resources to counterattack, nor the trash to defend with. at best you'd be lucky if you've managed to wall up and build castles/towers
Saracens at No.5 ? C'mon man, Sarcs can counter almost any other nation.
I would place sarcerens as the worst civ in game, he was being too nice
They are only strong post imp, a stage you most often doesn't get to in a 1v1.
In the later game sure :D
Remember this is the top 5 worst on 1v1.(random map)
Kevin Thorne
wait wtf u made a video where us ayd that TUrks are the best civilization now thye are the worst ? wtf :D
this video has been made before that video. Also that video was clearly joke...how you didn't get it...
Tempires hmm can u tell me how u get that it was a joke ? ....
video style,mocking huns, "don't be attacked for 40 minutes", "archers are thing in past" "literally unbeatable" . watch video again, also comment section agrees that it's troll video
İlke Akova Isnt that Hungarian cl
aim themselves descendant of Huns?
Turks are descendant of
Turuk（Tujue，突厥） at the north of China
İlke Akova İlke Akova Ok....Thats Interesting.
As far as my concern that Turks are the Western Tujue (突厥，Forgot about the Turuk),which is splited from the eastern horde.They decided go west and leave from the north of China, due to droven out by Sui or Tang Dynasty's China in 657. Eastern horde of Tujue who stay at northern Asia, became the Mongol's ancestors.
What you mention about ten arrows, probably you're right cuz western Tujue named themselves as the United Ten Arrows.
So some of them may turned Turks, and another turned Magyars.
Seems Hungarian easily accepted that the name of descendant of Huns(Cuz its cool), but actually they are from Tujue.
Of course Somebody thinks Tujue=Xiongnu=Huns, but there still may doubting points at between Xiongnu and Huns, but probably these Civilization were sharing a same origin, Afterall, Xiongnu→Tujue→Mongols.
if you let a goth boom, you are dead... a goth player in the pocket position can save his flank teammates in the imperial age easily due to the infantry spam
As a Blackforest 4v4 team game player, these are some of the best civs lol. Late game is all that matters to me cuz of my play style.
Yeah well good luck playing 1v1 and getting Black Forest map out of 10 open maps
uh... Vikings are DEFINITELY among the worst, and goths are among the best. Really don't agree with this list.
Water maps didn't seem to take much consideration into this list, as Saracens made the bottom 5 despite being one of the best water civs. Also, a goth rush is far from all they have. Late game they crush as well. It's pretty hard to match them hand to hand with their extremely cheap infantry, and you can't really throw archers at a swarm of huskarls...
Porglit You really have no defense as a goth other than ofense,if you can't damage your enemy enough early on to be able to get to mid castle and start rekting with huskarls,you're fucked.
Not been my experience in the least. Getting to mid castle isn't THAT hard...
Same
Fr33c0r3 - Gaming & Stuff half of random maps are not water based so goths can kill vikings
Turks - my favorite civilization.
yes my too
"All the franks have are knights which makes them bad" as the video he is showing is a mass of knights overrunning a town XD
Franks are the worst, hands down, they are a joke. They were better in Age of Kings when there was no bloodlines tech, but in the conquerors expansion, their knight hp bonus means nothing at all.