Do you want any Civs removed from the Game? #Sicilians

[Faultier321]

Yeah Britons are strong. But please dont nerf their extra range, its what makes them unique!
i woulndt change anything about them, but if you do, nerf their eco or take away blast furnance or something like that

Their late game is not that OP, they die hard to Siege rams. A few weeks ago I got a win in late game against Brits with Japanese who dont get siege ram or BBC or Hussars. I had some halbs, a ton of skirms, was pushing with Yasama towers and killing warwolf trebs with kataparuto trebs. Who complains about Britons late game beeing OP just doesnt understand how to deal with it. They are very strong throughout the whole game leading up to that point, maybe beeing only average in dark age and late castle age

 

[Tocaraca]

Yeah Britons are strong. But please dont nerf their extra range, its what makes them unique!
i woulndt change anything about them, but if you do, nerf their eco or take away blast furnance or something like that

Their late game is not that OP, they die hard to Siege rams. A few weeks ago I got a win in late game against Brits with Japanese who dont get siege ram or BBC or Hussars. I had some halbs, a ton of skirms, was pushing with Yasama towers and killing warwolf trebs with kataparuto trebs. Who complains about Britons late game beeing OP just doesnt understand how to deal with it. They are very strong throughout the whole game leading up to that point, maybe beeing only average in dark age and late castle age

Briton trebs vs Japanese trebs is an interesting battle. Briton trebs should win without micro, but since Japanese trebs can almost instantly pack up and dodge, I guess they have the advantage. However, vs Britons I don't think Japanese have much in early imp before they get Kataparuto and Yasama

 

[SuperskinnyBLS]

I would like to see Briton range nerfed by 1 ( only an imp bonus).

 

[akku]

Sicilians - 1v1 Random Map | ALL - aoestats

Age of Empires II DE Sicilians civilization statistics. 1v1 Random Map ladder at ALL rating. Current win rate: 49.70%

aoestats.io

52.6% at 40+ minutes

Britons - 1v1 Random Map | ALL - aoestats

Age of Empires II DE Britons civilization statistics. 1v1 Random Map ladder at ALL rating. Current win rate: 47.26%

aoestats.io

51.1% at 40+ minutes

If you guys were right, their win rates at 40+ minutes would be way higher.
When they get to their imp strengths. While it's true that their win rate is higher at late game, it's not that high. There are civs with overall winrate higher than the "peaks" of Britons and Siclians.

Their overall win rates are 46.6% and 49.6%, both below 50%
There are many more civs stronger than Britons and Sicilians. Maybe it's just you guys dying to them.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

I would like to see Briton range nerfed by 1 ( only an imp bonus).

Maybe it just should not apply to xbow or arbalests. That is the only reason it is overpowered and really why anyone complains about Britons so much. Having the ability to both amass xbow numbers more quickly and trade with a range advantage is just too much to be fair when doing damage in the Castle Age with xbow is such a dominant component of the meta. It doesn't make sense they can launch a xbow projectile farther anyway since the distance it travels has very little to do with physical strength or archery skills.

 

[Faultier321]

Sicilians - 1v1 Random Map | ALL - aoestats

Age of Empires II DE Sicilians civilization statistics. 1v1 Random Map ladder at ALL rating. Current win rate: 49.70%

aoestats.io

52.6% at 40+ minutes

Britons - 1v1 Random Map | ALL - aoestats

Age of Empires II DE Britons civilization statistics. 1v1 Random Map ladder at ALL rating. Current win rate: 47.26%

aoestats.io

51.1% at 40+ minutes

If you guys were right, their win rates at 40+ minutes would be way higher.
When they get to their imp strengths. While it's true that their win rate is higher at late game, it's not that high. There are civs with overall winrate higher than the "peaks" of Britons and Siclians.

Their overall win rates are 46.6% and 49.6%, both below 50%
There are many more civs stronger than Britons and Sicilians. Maybe it's just you guys dying to them.

I never complained about Britons at all, i only complained about the uncreative and bad design of a civilisation, which was the sicilians. I never said they would be too strong, their eco relly sucks until mid castle age. They only have Bonuses, Techs and Units that are either bad in desgin (Serjeants, Donjons, the Unique tech), dont fit to the game IMO (Bonus damage reduction), very uncreative (Hauberk Tech) or just bullocks (building castles 100% faster, also a rip off from spanish)

 

[Faultier321]

Maybe it just should not apply to xbow or arbalests. That is the only reason it is overpowered and really why anyone complains about Britons so much. Having the ability to both amass xbow numbers more quickly and trade with a range advantage is just too much to be fair when doing damage in the Castle Age with xbow is such a dominant component of the meta. It doesn't make sense they can launch a xbow projectile farther anyway since the distance it travels has very little to do with physical strength or archery skills.

The +1 range is still only overpowered in Team games as a Flank i would say, in a 1v1 you can always find a way to play around the crossbow meta.
I dont want to see Britons nerfed, at least not on the extra range, because that is whats making them unique and like i said, in a 1v1 there are for almost every civ ways to deal with them. Also, if you are up against Knights or Eagles, missing thumb ring is a bigger deal then extra range. Every civ that has crossbows with thumb ring does better vs knights in Castle age then Britons. Its really only the xbow vs xbow war that you should not get into.

A part of my brain likes the Idea though, because it would make Longbows more unique and therefore maybe more viable.

Briton trebs vs Japanese trebs is an interesting battle. Briton trebs should win without micro, but since Japanese trebs can almost instantly pack up and dodge, I guess they have the advantage. However, vs Britons I don't think Japanese have much in early imp before they get Kataparuto and Yasama

A Briton treb wins in a 1v1, but if you have like 4-5 trebs on each side, you dont even need to pack and unpack with Japanese. Stray shots hit the other Trebs and you have way more damage output, because they fire so much faster. The Warwolf trebs dont stand a chance.

 

[Influenza]

Sicilians - 1v1 Random Map | ALL - aoestats

Age of Empires II DE Sicilians civilization statistics. 1v1 Random Map ladder at ALL rating. Current win rate: 49.70%

aoestats.io

52.6% at 40+ minutes

Britons - 1v1 Random Map | ALL - aoestats

Age of Empires II DE Britons civilization statistics. 1v1 Random Map ladder at ALL rating. Current win rate: 47.26%

aoestats.io

51.1% at 40+ minutes

If you guys were right, their win rates at 40+ minutes would be way higher.
When they get to their imp strengths. While it's true that their win rate is higher at late game, it's not that high. There are civs with overall winrate higher than the "peaks" of Britons and Siclians.

Their overall win rates are 46.6% and 49.6%, both below 50%
There are many more civs stronger than Britons and Sicilians. Maybe it's just you guys dying to them.

the win rate of sicilians among decent level players (1650+) after 40 minutes is 77% which is the second highest by far, with the only exception being goths' 82%. The civ balance for lower elo players hardly matters as they are largely incapable of using civs to their strengths.

 

[akku]

I never complained about Britons at all, i only complained about the uncreative and bad design of a civilisation, which was the sicilians. I never said they would be too strong, their eco relly sucks until mid castle age. They only have Bonuses, Techs and Units that are either bad in desgin (Serjeants, Donjons, the Unique tech), dont fit to the game IMO (Bonus damage reduction), very uncreative (Hauberk Tech) or just bullocks (building castles 100% faster, also a rip off from spanish)

I didn't say you complained though.
There were others were complaining about Britons in this thread.

Thanks for agreeing that their eco is **** until mid castle age! Some here won't even concede that.

If their eco is **** until mid castle age, it does make sense that their late game is strong, right?

I completely agree that their UU needs some major rework. Sergeant, as of now, is a **** unit. Too costly for what it gives, low attack, no particular utility other than donjon rush in niche situations.

AS for castle building speed, I somewhat agree as well. Reduce it to 66% in castle age, 100% in imp. While TC buildrate remains at 100%

Regarding bonus damage reduction and Hauberk, personal preference I suppose. I don't mind them at all. And I don't even play Sicilians, so not coming from me personally using that to win games.
I'm more of a Burgundian/Teuton/Briton arena clown.

the win rate of sicilians among decent level players (1650+) after 40 minutes is 77% which is the second highest by far, with the only exception being goths' 82%. The civ balance for lower elo players hardly matters as they are largely incapable of using civs to their strengths.

Interesting. I didn't check that initially.
But then again, the stats also show that their winrate is even more abysmal amongst 1650+. Sitting at 42.5%

The thing about 1650+ elos is that, with such starting, the opponent usually finish you off before you reach late game.

If you allow Sicilians to reach late game, it's kinda suggesting some fault/miscalculation in your gameplay IMO.

 

[LeoMontero]

To me, the debate of remove a civ is useless. No civ will be removed, it might change some thing, some bonus, the tech tree, but being removed? I dont think so.
Brits in 1-1 are not OP. I watched a lot of AoE, and a lot of pro AoE, with skirms you stop push, and with rams you finish it. dont be scared of archers.

 

[KolyaKrasotkin]

The civ balance for lower elo players hardly matters as they are largely incapable of using civs to their strengths.

For many civs (Berbers, Britons, Celts, Ethiopians, Franks, Goths, Huns, Indians, Lithuanians, Magyars, Mayans, Mongols, Persians, Slavs, Spanish, Teutons, Vikings) their strengths are so obvious that it really doesn't require 1650+ ELO to play into it.

 

[oozkan]

More than bonuses etc., I am still having trouble to count Sicilians as a civilization to be honest, don't get me wrong, I have same feelings for Turkic civs also.

 

[Influenza]

For many civs (Berbers, Britons, Celts, Ethiopians, Franks, Goths, Huns, Indians, Lithuanians, Magyars, Mayans, Mongols, Persians, Slavs, Spanish, Teutons, Vikings) their strengths are so obvious that it really doesn't require 1650+ ELO to play into it.

Definitely agree with this to an extent, but you are going too far with that list. In terms of ease of use and tech trees, grouping civs like Spanish and celts with Britons is just silly. But even with a civ as easy to use and straightforward as the Britons, there exists a significant disparity in win rates between lower level players and competent players. You just can't expect bad players to wall their bases and micro their archers well enough to make any balance decisions based on their win rates.

 

[Tocaraca]

The +1 range is still only overpowered in Team games as a Flank i would say, in a 1v1 you can always find a way to play around the crossbow meta.

I don't agree with this. In team games, there is almost always a knight + crossbow mix, in which case the Britons' extra range only matters half the time, since it does nothing when the knights and xbows actually fight head-to-head. In that situation, Ethiopians and Mayans would be better as they have bonuses that lead to higher DPS, and also access to Thumb Ring. Not to say that the extra range isn't still important, but I think it's more busted for 1v1s than for team games.

in a 1v1 there are for almost every civ ways to deal with them. Also, if you are up against Knights or Eagles, missing thumb ring is a bigger deal then extra range. Every civ that has crossbows with thumb ring does better vs knights in Castle age then Britons. Its really only the xbow vs xbow war that you should not get into.

Also not true. It's not common that you get to go for pure knights against pure xbow. Cavalry civs usually have to either make skirms first, which are worse at defending vs Briton xbows than other xbows because they get outranged, or forced to add mangonels/scorpions early, which also get outranged by the Briton xbows. Knight + eskirm is a great combo against Britons (my personal favorite), but it also is a big investment and since Britons have cheap TCs they are gonna have a better economy, which combined with xbows not costing food leads to a faster imperial age time. There is a window of opportunity to push a Britons player with knight + eskirm + forward siege, but it's much harder than it is vs most civs because Briton xbows can chip away at mangonels for free. Even if you're a cavalry civ with a good eco like Slavs, Persians, Malians, Franks, Bulgarians etc, it feels like a really difficult matchup. Knight + mangonel is much worse vs Britons than it is vs most archer civs because again the mangos get outranged.
And if you're vs eagles instead of knights, guess what? Just add longswords. Briton xbows can snipe opposing xbows or plumes or slingers with ease. Britons are the ONLY civ where longsword+xbow decisively beats eagle+(insert ranged unit here). The extra range is extremely oppressive. And again, Briton cheap TCs lead to an amazing eco where they can afford literally everything. Some people claim that Mayans beat Britons because they have eagles but I don't buy this at all, I would take Britons against Mayans 100% of the time.

Brits in 1-1 are not OP. I watched a lot of AoE, and a lot of pro AoE, with skirms you stop push, and with rams you finish it. dont be scared of archers.

Britons don't have to push in castle age, they can extremely easily sit back and boom. They have options vs any civ in castle age. Most of them time they get to imp faster. Struggling vs siege ram isn't relevant in early imp since the Siege Ram upgrade costs 1000 food, and in post-imp the only civs siege ram civs that actually beat them are Byzantines, Mayans, Mongols, Sicilians, Slavs, Tatars, and Turks, and the only non-SR civs that beat them are Bohemians, Goths, Indians, Koreans, Magyars, and Vietnamese. So that's 14/39 civs that beat Britons in post-imp, most of which are weaker than Britons in the early and mid games anyway (and some people would likely disagree about some of them anyway; I'm not 100% sure if Mayans, Slavs, Goths, or Koreans are counters; there is also an argument that fully boomed Persians will stomp Britons with elite war elephant + elite skirmisher, but I haven't seen this in practice).

I don't think Britons are unbalanced in most cases. They are strong, but being strong doesn't automatically destroy the balance of the game. However, certain civs are almost unplayable against Britons. Portuguese, Burmese, Italians, Japanese, probably a couple others I can't think of...

 

[Faultier321]

I don't agree with this. In team games, there is almost always a knight + crossbow mix, in which case the Britons' extra range only matters half the time, since it does nothing when the knights and xbows actually fight head-to-head. In that situation, Ethiopians and Mayans would be better as they have bonuses that lead to higher DPS, and also access to Thumb Ring. Not to say that the extra range isn't still important, but I think it's more busted for 1v1s than for team games.

This is true for 4v4s, which is probably more common then 3v3. i play a lot of 3v3 with my friends, where sometimes it can be 1v1 on a flank very often when pockets are focused on the other side or killing each other. But 3v3 and 4v4 are different things.

Another thing that makes them super scary as a flank civ is their team bonus of faster production. a mayan teammate can make archers cheaper + faster which combined is pretty OP for standard flank meta play.

Also not true. It's not common that you get to go for pure knights against pure xbow. Cavalry civs usually have to either make skirms first, which are worse at defending vs Briton xbows than other xbows because they get outranged, or forced to add mangonels/scorpions early, which also get outranged by the Briton xbows. Knight + eskirm is a great combo against Britons (my personal favorite), but it also is a big investment and since Britons have cheap TCs they are gonna have a better economy, which combined with xbows not costing food leads to a faster imperial age time. There is a window of opportunity to push a Britons player with knight + eskirm + forward siege, but it's much harder than it is vs most civs because Briton xbows can chip away at mangonels for free. Even if you're a cavalry civ with a good eco like Slavs, Persians, Malians, Franks, Bulgarians etc, it feels like a really difficult matchup. Knight + mangonel is much worse vs Britons than it is vs most archer civs because again the mangos get outranged.
And if you're vs eagles instead of knights, guess what? Just add longswords. Briton xbows can snipe opposing xbows or plumes or slingers with ease. Britons are the ONLY civ where longsword+xbow decisively beats eagle+(insert ranged unit here). The extra range is extremely oppressive. And again, Briton cheap TCs lead to an amazing eco where they can afford literally everything. Some people claim that Mayans beat Britons because they have eagles but I don't buy this at all, I would take Britons against Mayans 100% of the time.

All of this is true, but it doesnt say that there will never be games, or situations, where xbows are not matched up vs pure knights. I mean, talking about team games there will never be skirms, and an xbow army that gets caught by pkt knights will for sure be trading better with thumb ring then with +1 range. This might happen in 3v3s more often then in a 4v4 aswell.
Even in 1v1 there can be cases where the knight player might have skirms on the field, but needs to use the knights mobility; if he sees an xbow army somewhere in the open, has to react to a sneak attack at his base etc,

I don't think Britons are unbalanced in most cases. They are strong, but being strong doesn't automatically destroy the balance of the game. However, certain civs are almost unplayable against Britons. Portuguese, Burmese, Italians, Japanese, probably a couple others I can't think of...

Portuguese die.

Burmese struggle for sure. Only win condition in later stages of the game would be to raid Britons to death with Hussars from the Flanks, in terms of army composition they dont stand a chance.

Same for Italians, even though they can probably hold a bit better with fully upgraded skirms at least. Spamming FU skirms + Hussar and maybe some cheap bombard cannons might be okay-ish.

With Japanese i remember winning a game using absolutely everything they have to offer: FU Skirm, Capped Ram, Yasama towers, kataparuto trebs and ofc some halbs and even some samurai i think. the Yasama Tower + Treb creep worked pretty nicely, in higher numbers japs trebs own briton trebs =)


After all of this i am still not sure wheter you are pro or against nerfing Britons, which seems to be a very important matter in a discussion about sicilians

 

[HelloWorld]

Remove gimmicky civs like Burgundians and Cumans where if you don't do damage at a certain point, you are dead. Oh yeah also, Bohemians clownery and Sicilians knights vs meso are too strong.

 

[Tocaraca]

Remove gimmicky civs like Burgundians and Cumans where if you don't do damage at a certain point, you are dead. Oh yeah also, Bohemians clownery and Sicilians knights vs meso are too strong.

Incas can still handle them fine with mass elite kamayuk (the issue is actually getting there, but it's a transition you have to have prepped rather than just panicking into it)

 

[green eggs]

Just get rid of all the civs that start with B, it’s getting confusing.

 

[Tiekel]

Just get rid of all the civs that start with B, it’s getting confusing.

Boreans

 

[lecracheursagacite]

Boreans

BSicilians

 

[Tarsiz]

Remove all civs post AoK.

Remove halberdier from the game.

Move men at arms to the Castle Age.

Nerf archer stacking and attack move.

Make scouts great again.

 

[Miral]

Remove all civs post AoK.

Remove halberdier from the game.

Move men at arms to the Castle Age.

Nerf archer stacking and attack move.

Make scouts great again.

huns whore detected

edit : beside the fact huns are not aoK civ haha :D

 

[TheCapybara]

huns whore detected

edit : beside the fact huns are not aoK civ haha :D

Please, Tarsiz is a Franks man.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

Remove all civs post AoK.

Nah a couple of them are okay. Slavs for example emerged early enough in history to feel like a valid inclusion and cover a broad group of related peoples rather than a political entity.

Remove halberdier from the game.

You seem biased here 11

Move men at arms to the Castle Age.

If this is to reduce boring MAA rushes I agree in concept but think worth looking at other ways this may be achieved.

Nerf archer stacking and attack move.

Agreed unit stacking is an obnoxious mechanic that lowers the skill ceiling for thoughtful unit control.

Make scouts great again.

Only if feudal archers can aim correctly against moving targets without having to research any technology and do bonus damage against cavalry units with unarmored horses

 

[SuperskinnyBLS]

Remove everything but Poles because only they can seed perfect farms