Hello everyone, SpiritoftheMath here,
It's been discussed a lot since Wololokingdoms came out that DLC civs tend to be strong, stronger than most AoC civs. There are many reasons for that (strong bonuses, strong UU, battle elephants) but I want to look into UT prices.
While looking at the Farimba tech (+5 attack for cavalry) I noticed how cheap it is compared to Garland wars (+4 attack for infantry) : 650F 400G vs 450F 750G. Farimba costs 150 less reasources, and nearly half the gold, and it has a greater effect than Garland wars, with +5 against +4.
After crunching some number I noticed a trend that seems to favor DLC civs over AoC.
Total cost of UT on average per civ :
AoC : 1687
DLC : 1658
Gold and stone cost of UT pe civ :
AoC : 712
DLC : 573
DLC civs pay 19% less gold on their UT
Gold cost for Imp UT per civ :
AoC : 486, from 250 for Spanish to 800 for Saracens
DLC : 381, from 200 for incas to 600 for Malay
That's 21% less gold for DLC civs over AoC civs, about 100g on average.
Gold and stone cost for castle age UT per civ :
AoC : 226
DLC : 192
Again a 15% reduced gold and stone price for new civs, but amounts are fairly low this time.
Total Food and Wood cost per civ :
AoC : 977
DLC : 1069
This time new civs pay 10% more food and wood for their UT
Food and wood for imp UT per civ :
AoC : 614, from 300 for Persians to 1000 for Byzantine
DLC : 723, from 400 for incas to 1200 for Slavs
+17% for new civs
Food and wood cost for castle age UT per civ :
AoC : 361
DLC : 246
5% cheaper for new civs, but low number anyway.
Food and wood/Gold ratio for imperial UT :
AoC : 1.4 going as low as 0.6 for Aztecs and as high as high as 2.1 for Vikings
DLC : 2 going as low as 1.5 for Magyars and as high as 4 for Vietnamese, Slavs second with 2.4
My takeaway:
While castle age UT seem to be fairly evenly priced between AoC and DLC civs, imperial age UT are significantly different : while they cost on average the same amount of resources on average (1100 for AoC and 1104 for DLC), the food and wood/gold ratio heavily favors the new civs. The civ with the lowest F&W/G ratio in the DLC is still higher than the average of the AoC civs, and only Vikings get a higher ratio than the average DLC civ, only because berserkergang was heavily discounted (it has a 0.58 ratio in AoC).
I'm not saying that this is why new civs seem to be stronger than AoC civs, but there is a bias in their imperial age UT prices that favor wood and food over gold compared to AoC, making them more affordable specially in 1v1.
It's been discussed a lot since Wololokingdoms came out that DLC civs tend to be strong, stronger than most AoC civs. There are many reasons for that (strong bonuses, strong UU, battle elephants) but I want to look into UT prices.
While looking at the Farimba tech (+5 attack for cavalry) I noticed how cheap it is compared to Garland wars (+4 attack for infantry) : 650F 400G vs 450F 750G. Farimba costs 150 less reasources, and nearly half the gold, and it has a greater effect than Garland wars, with +5 against +4.
After crunching some number I noticed a trend that seems to favor DLC civs over AoC.
Total cost of UT on average per civ :
AoC : 1687
DLC : 1658
Gold and stone cost of UT pe civ :
AoC : 712
DLC : 573
DLC civs pay 19% less gold on their UT
Gold cost for Imp UT per civ :
AoC : 486, from 250 for Spanish to 800 for Saracens
DLC : 381, from 200 for incas to 600 for Malay
That's 21% less gold for DLC civs over AoC civs, about 100g on average.
Gold and stone cost for castle age UT per civ :
AoC : 226
DLC : 192
Again a 15% reduced gold and stone price for new civs, but amounts are fairly low this time.
Total Food and Wood cost per civ :
AoC : 977
DLC : 1069
This time new civs pay 10% more food and wood for their UT
Food and wood for imp UT per civ :
AoC : 614, from 300 for Persians to 1000 for Byzantine
DLC : 723, from 400 for incas to 1200 for Slavs
+17% for new civs
Food and wood cost for castle age UT per civ :
AoC : 361
DLC : 246
5% cheaper for new civs, but low number anyway.
Food and wood/Gold ratio for imperial UT :
AoC : 1.4 going as low as 0.6 for Aztecs and as high as high as 2.1 for Vikings
DLC : 2 going as low as 1.5 for Magyars and as high as 4 for Vietnamese, Slavs second with 2.4
My takeaway:
While castle age UT seem to be fairly evenly priced between AoC and DLC civs, imperial age UT are significantly different : while they cost on average the same amount of resources on average (1100 for AoC and 1104 for DLC), the food and wood/gold ratio heavily favors the new civs. The civ with the lowest F&W/G ratio in the DLC is still higher than the average of the AoC civs, and only Vikings get a higher ratio than the average DLC civ, only because berserkergang was heavily discounted (it has a 0.58 ratio in AoC).
I'm not saying that this is why new civs seem to be stronger than AoC civs, but there is a bias in their imperial age UT prices that favor wood and food over gold compared to AoC, making them more affordable specially in 1v1.