It depends on the map. Korea sucks but its one of the strongest bf civs, so its relative. Anyway since im arena player, the civ i most dislike for 1v1 is persia.
Im agree with viper, every civilization has their streghs and weakness for everymap and in differents ages
with korea 1v1 you can actually do a nice trush/foward you can put 1 less villager picking stone and send him to gather resources or even foward.
About Turks 1v1 dont think really need skirmish's or pikes we agree that skirmish can be usefull vs huns but instead it has free lc and hussars to fight archers, its not the same but it has other uses thought. also you can always play defensive till reach imperial age and there turks pwn if you got the gold mines tho
WORST CIV EVER was used for emphasis only, in terms of the subjective frustration you feel when you realize you get the civ that least fits your playstyle as opposed to the objective analysis of possible strategies per map depending on civ and res locations throughout particular maps, etc
Sara is fine in maps with enough water. I was actually voting from an arabia pov and korea and sara are the worst two civs there IMO. And koreans were getting most votes so I voted sara.
Probably the Franks. They do knights well, and that is it. And there are other civs that do knights better, even though unit for unit, the Frank knights are better. It doesn't matter how good Frank knights are if they lack the eco bonuses and support units that other knight civs have.
I didn't commented this topic 2 years and half ago because there aren't bad civs, just awful matches like koreans vs aztks, well almost all civs sux vs aztks but thats only in arabia and aoc is much more than that.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.