Without Nerf, All AOE 2 Matchups will Become Sicilian vs Sicilian

[yuzhonglu]

Yes.

Wall yourself in (or start walled in in Arena). Get 3-5 TCs in Castle Age ASAP, get a Castle, win.

[Cacomistle]

Escrito originalmente por yuzhonglu:

Ok. So you agree with my original post. Without nerfs, they're OP.

Also, most tournaments involved nomad, so the Sicilians will show up a lot.

What is the last tournament that involved nomad? I watched pretty much all the tournaments on DE (except the world cup one), and one had nomad (I heard the world cup one did). NAC3, HC3, Red bull, Kotd3, and battle of africa all did not have nomad from what I remember.

And I don't think they're OP. I think they're poorly designed. It probably depends on the map, but on Arabia I think a top 5 civ would just get too far ahead before they get first crusade, or against civs like Spanish with a unit that would crush serjeants I think sicilians would lose to an otherwise mediocre civ (unless the gunpowder buff really helped conqs).

Unless we're specifically talking nomad, but I just don't think nomad is a well balanced map. If they made it not work on your first tc (or not work in dark age), nothing would make sicilians op.

[Cacomistle]

Escrito originalmente por yuzhonglu:

Also, their OTHER Unique Tech is insanely good in 4v4 team games. It's also pretty damn good in 2v2 if your partner is Burgundian.

I don't know that I'd say insanely good. I'd rather have spanish trade for something that only affects games at 35+ minutes or so. Its just regular good.

[yuzhonglu]

Well Spanish trade is one of the best team abilities in the game.

[yuzhonglu]

Escrito originalmente por Cacomistle:

Escrito originalmente por yuzhonglu:

Ok. So you agree with my original post. Without nerfs, they're OP.

Also, most tournaments involved nomad, so the Sicilians will show up a lot.

What is the last tournament that involved nomad? I watched pretty much all the tournaments on DE (except the world cup one), and one had nomad (I heard the world cup one did). NAC3, HC3, Red bull, Kotd3, and battle of africa all did not have nomad from what I remember.

And I don't think they're OP. I think they're poorly designed. It probably depends on the map, but on Arabia I think a top 5 civ would just get too far ahead before they get first crusade, or against civs like Spanish with a unit that would crush serjeants I think sicilians would lose to an otherwise mediocre civ (unless the gunpowder buff really helped conqs).

Unless we're specifically talking nomad, but I just don't think nomad is a well balanced map. If they made it not work on your first tc (or not work in dark age), nothing would make sicilians op.

I don't think so. Top tier civs are only a few percentage points better than bottom tier civs, and the Sicilians are in the middle econ wise. You're overstating the econ advantages of the so-called "top."

[Cacomistle]

Escrito originalmente por yuzhonglu:

Well Spanish trade is one of the best team abilities in the game.

Which is why I put it at the bar for insanely good. This is worse, so its just very good. I think insane implies its like the best in the game.

[yuzhonglu]

Semantics. Look, you're probably the guy who reminds lottery winners they'll die at some point and can't take their money with them.

[Cacomistle]

Escrito originalmente por yuzhonglu:

Escrito originalmente por Cacomistle:

What is the last tournament that involved nomad? I watched pretty much all the tournaments on DE (except the world cup one), and one had nomad (I heard the world cup one did). NAC3, HC3, Red bull, Kotd3, and battle of africa all did not have nomad from what I remember.

And I don't think they're OP. I think they're poorly designed. It probably depends on the map, but on Arabia I think a top 5 civ would just get too far ahead before they get first crusade, or against civs like Spanish with a unit that would crush serjeants I think sicilians would lose to an otherwise mediocre civ (unless the gunpowder buff really helped conqs).

Unless we're specifically talking nomad, but I just don't think nomad is a well balanced map. If they made it not work on your first tc (or not work in dark age), nothing would make sicilians op.

I don't think so. Top tier civs are only a few percentage points better than bottom tier civs, and the Sicilians are in the middle econ wise.

But middle of the pack eco is just not very good. Usually the civ that's played on a map has really good eco on that map (like indians on shorefish maps, malay on arena, civs like aztecs/chinese in general).

[Cacomistle]

Escrito originalmente por yuzhonglu:

Semantics. Look, you're probably the guy who reminds lottery winners they'll die at some point and can't take their money with them.

Its not though. We're talking literally being so overpowered that they're all you'll ever see.

To hit that bar, a civ has to actually be insane beyond any petty semantics. You gave an actual standard, and its not good enough to meet that standard.

[jonoliveira12]

Escrito originalmente por yuzhonglu:

Semantics. Look, you're probably the guy who reminds lottery winners they'll die at some point and can't take their money with them.

Dude, no matter how much you twist it, Sicilians are average at best, needing a buff at worst.

[yuzhonglu]

I agree. Without the tech they're average on most maps (but really good on Nomad and solid on island maps).

With the tech, THEY'RE BROKEN.

Since the tech hasn't been nerfed, Sicilians are currently the BEST CIV IN AOE 2. Hence the title of this thread.

However, your earlier claims that the Sicilians are a bad civ are false. They're average without the tech, and OP with it.

[jonoliveira12]

Sicilians, even with First Crusade, are not the best civ in AoE2, by a wide margin.

The best civ remains the Franks.

[yuzhonglu]

No. That is just wrong. Sicilians with First Crusade are the best civ in AOE 2.

Consider what it's like to face 50 champion units in the Castle Age, whose combined cost is only 300 food and 600 gold.

You either have to spend a lot of resources to build military, which hurts your boom, or you die. If two people of similar skill play, nothing beats it. Period.

[jonoliveira12]

Escrito originalmente por yuzhonglu:

No. That is just wrong. Sicilians with First Crusade are the best civ in AOE 2.

Consider what it's like to face 50 champion units in the Castle Age, whose combined cost is only 300 food and 600 gold.

They really aren't, they are an inferior civ to Goths, Mayans and Franks, by a lot.

[yuzhonglu]

Goths, Mayans, and Franks don't get champions that cost 6 food and 12 gold.

The issue here is that the Sicilian bonus comes in the middle of the Castle Age. You know, the Age where people are booming to imperial, or getting military to fight.

Guess what? The Sicilian bonus means the Sicilians can both boom AND fight.

Everyone else is either building lots of military or going on to 5 TCs. BUT NOT BOTH.

The Sicilians can do both. That's what makes them OP.

[Cacomistle]

Escrito originalmente por yuzhonglu:

I agree. Without the tech they're average on most maps (but really good on Nomad and solid on island maps).

With the tech, THEY'RE BROKEN.

Since the tech hasn't been nerfed, Sicilians are currently the BEST CIV IN AOE 2. Hence the title of this thread.

Best civ is a map based thing. There's no best civ across all maps.

On arabia you can't easily get away with the 5 tc + castle thing. First crusade is good, but its not good enough to win from behind in castle age, and if you go to imperial 2 minutes behind your opponent its not gonna kill them. There's a lot of civs that could easily beat you by 2 minutes to castle age or just outright kill you if you get too greedy.

On arena, its nice and all, but again if you're playing against say Malay and they're imperial while you're castle age, first crusade just isn't gonna work. Serjeanst rely on that pierce armor, arbs/bracer castles would just do too much damage to them considering they also have to break through stone walls. If its not basically killing on an otherwise middle of the pack civ, you're probably behind.

I think there was a good example game I watched villese play. People keep saying they're super op vs archers. Villese was Malay on arabia (a crap arabia civ) failed to damage vivi's 5 tc boom, and when vivi hit imperial age with 50 serjeans, villese took some damage but he held it. That game went on like another 20 minutes. Villese eventually lost (I think he could have maybe won if he went 2h swordsman instead of halbs), but the point is this is a push that people keep saying is impossible to defend against as an archer civ. Villese held it from a decently far behind position on one of the weaker arabia civs, cause they just can't outright kill you through a castle with arbalest.

Basically it took vivi an economy advantage against a failed push, getting a castle on a key hill (when Villese should have had control, this was before first crusade), and Villese being on a generally weak civ for vivi to win over an extended period of time. With a push that people keep saying archer civs can't do anything about.

And that's how I see the sicilians. You have to go heavy eco, not die or fall behind (on a weakish civ), then go into first crusade, and then it has to get a significant advantage, and your opponent has to lack a strong anti infantry unit. Capoch in the same situation I described as sicilians against malians lost, because it turns out they just can't do ♥♥♥♥ to deal with gbeto and aren't even cost efficient vs malian champs (even after wiping like 3 castles and taking his opponent off all his farms).

I just can't buy that a civ that requires all these things to go right to really dominate a game could do that against any of the best arabia civs (and I don't see how its that amazing on arena. The biggest advantage of serjants is that their high pierce armor lets them raid, but if they just hit stone walls your opponent has all the time in the world to build units that are way better than serjeants).