Best 4vs4 CIV team

[Okay]

What is the best civs for a 4vs4 match in your opinion?
Mine are considering late game only, but I would like to know if there are civs who will be good for early and decent in late as well... maybe cumans?

I don't have exprience with all of the civs, but from what I've seen so far I would get:
1- Spanish for the Trade advatnage , its also a good civ late game.
2- Romans - seems decent in late game as well, and has those deadly scorps.
3- Turks - gold civ, could thrive with a heavy trade.
4- any good cav civ, maybe Maygar/Poles/Georgiens?

[yujiri]

I think pretty much any civ can be good in team games, just depending on how you use it (and the map etc).

I think in team games civs that normally suffer in flexibility are stronger, since they can rely on allies to fill in their weaknesses (for example, i don't like Franks in 1v1 because they're only good at 1 thing, knights, but that's not a problem if you have an archer civ on your side), also some team bonuses are especially good, I actually think Spanish is overrated here because its team bonus only affects late game, whereas Teutons team bonus I think is really good all game by shutting down enemy monks for the entire team.

I think Hera (a pro player) also has a youtube video on what he considers the best team bonuses

[James3157]

Originally posted by yujiri:

I think pretty much any civ can be good in team games, just depending on how you use it (and the map etc).

I think in team games civs that normally suffer in flexibility are stronger, since they can rely on allies to fill in their weaknesses (for example, i don't like Franks in 1v1 because they're only good at 1 thing, knights, but that's not a problem if you have an archer civ on your side), also some team bonuses are especially good, I actually think Spanish is overrated here because its team bonus only affects late game, whereas Teutons team bonus I think is really good all game by shutting down enemy monks for the entire team.

I think Hera (a pro player) also has a youtube video on what he considers the best team bonuses

Sicilians have a bad team bonus, but surprisingly have one of the best win rates even on team games for elo scores of 1050 or less. To put in a better perspective Siclians are currently ranked at number 3 for win rates with less than 900 elo team games. Not listed among the top 7 in win rates, but they are ranked 8th place (after Persians and Dravidians) and 50.81% win rate for rankings between 900 and 1050 elo.

The team bonuses for transport ships might be somewhat useful on water maps, but cannot be used on land maps and even with the transport ship cost being cut in half you still have to take into an account that by itself the transport ships are defenseless and might need protection. For Vikings they are overall only "average" at best for team game win rates contrary to them being better at 1v1, but I think that overall the free wheelbarrow and handcart is more important for them on team games than their team bonus for docks. What is however surprising to me that Malay and even Dravidians (despite the fact their cavalry sucks especially for late game) similar to Sicilians at low elo levels have overall descent win rates on multiplayer. Naval civs that you would not expect to do well on team game land maps such as Malay, Sicilians, and Dravidians have proven they are fully capable of doing well on team games regardless of whether the map is land or water.

[Kampfschwein Fjonda]

Funny that OP didn't mention a single Elephant civ.
Still waiting for the experience of 60 Persian Elite War Elephants pulverizing his base on bf :)

[DesertRose92]

- Portuguese
Strong archer opening, strong team bonus, strong on water. Late game Elite Organ Guns are scary, and in very very late game Feitoria stone generation for Bombard Towers can be a very powerful bonus

- Britons
Weak in Feudal Age, but in Castle and Imperial Age the +1 to +4 range of their archers can be oppressive in Knight+Archer skirmishes

- Mongols
Very early Feudal Age timing, and a great early game team bonus. In late game HCA / Mangudai plus speedy siege units is very strong. Requires good micro, though

- Persians
Weak in the early game, but can be very strong if allowed to boom. Strongest Paladin in the game. FU Light Cav / Hussar as a fallback in case you are pushed away from Gold. Caravanserai gives +20% trade.

- Teutons
Weak in the early game, but strong boom. Very strong Knights and Halberdiers. Strong siege. Conversion resistances really helps Knights and strong UU such as Conquistadors.

- Spanish
Weak in the early game, no strong boom. FU Paladins, Conquistadors, +25% trade; if combined with Caravanserai you have +50% trade.

A team of Portuguese + Britons or Portuguese + Mongols as flanks and any combination of Persians, Teutons and Spanish is properly one of the best 4vs4 team composition as they excel in their niche while covering each other weaknesses.

Other strong flank Civs are Chinese, Ethiopians, Mayans, Saracens and Vietnamese, and other strong pocket Civs are Franks, Hindustanis, Khmer and Saracens but I do not think they reach the level of the Civs above.

[Puason]

team bonuses are not that important

[Vemonia]

I would go with Koreans/Bohemians/Teutons/Persians:
- 2 paladin civs and 2 arbalester civs for open maps, even though Bohemians are somewhat lacking
- 2 siege onager civs + houfnice/Elephants for closed maps
- Hussite Wagons + War wagons for the Nomad chaos.
- Some water presence with Korean and Persian navy

I could swap Koreans/Persians with Mongols/Spanish (especially after DLC Korean rework), or Bohemian with Britons, for similar results. But I don't think it would improve the overall team power.

[James3157]

Originally posted by Kampfschwein Fjonda:

Funny that OP didn't mention a single Elephant civ.
Still waiting for the experience of 60 Persian Elite War Elephants pulverizing his base on bf :)

I think that Dravidians only do well on team game land maps because of their elephants (which includes all of them and especially with elephant archers) and skirmishers (because of civ bonus) mostly instead of their team bonus and infantry since Dravidians cannot build docks on land maps, but surprisingly they have one of the highest win rates on team games. Unless if it has something to do with Wootz Steel from Imperial Age, Medical corps, and their civ bonuses I do not really understand how and why Dravidians get overall good win rates on team games even on land maps. I do not think they have the best elephants from stable at least for late game and they do not have husbandry yet (which will change in upcoming update that will buff their cavalry), but are surprisingly good at team game land maps. Dravidians in my opinion are best described as underdogs where I would not expect them to do do well on on team game land maps, but are surprisingly good at land map team games according to AoEstats.

[Vemonia]

Originally posted by James3157:

Originally posted by Kampfschwein Fjonda:

Funny that OP didn't mention a single Elephant civ.
Still waiting for the experience of 60 Persian Elite War Elephants pulverizing his base on bf :)

I think that Dravidians only do well on team game land maps because of their elephants (which includes all of them and especially with elephant archers) and skirmishers (because of civ bonus) mostly instead of their team bonus and infantry since Dravidians cannot build docks on land maps, but surprisingly they have one of the highest win rates on team games. Unless if it has something to do with Wootz Steel from Imperial Age, Medical corps, and their civ bonuses I do not really understand how and why Dravidians get overall good win rates on team games even on land maps. I do not think they have the best elephants from stable at least for late game and they do not have husbandry yet (which will change in upcoming update that will buff their cavalry), but are surprisingly good at team game land maps. Dravidians in my opinion are best described as underdogs where I would not expect them to do do well on on team game land maps, but are surprisingly good at land map team games according to AoEstats.

In team games, Dravidians do not have to worry about lacking knights, they have a pocket for that.

So they are a flank civ with good arbalesters and a solid +200w/age for range/university, and elephant archers late game.

Dravidians are basically designed to be a good flank civ with glaring tech tree hole in 1v1, just like Teutons/Franks are designed to be good pocket civs with glaring tech tree hole (trash units) in 1v1.

[Quintem]

Spanish: Many have already explained why including OP. I will add their navy is good too on water maps they're handy for late game trade as well. Also their hand cannons are top tier because of the faster fire rate they've not been mentioned.

Persians: Strong on boom maps, Savar is a better paladin unless you're a civ with a paladin bonus. War Elephants on maps like BF. Others have also mentioned their perks. Also have fully upgraded camels so if you see a lot of knights in play you can mix in camels.

Ethiopians: Strong archer flank, amazing siege. Underrated a little bit in my opinion. Bigger blast radius on siege onagers, heavy scorpions and bombards cannons is no joke.

Magyar: Arguably best CA in the game. Put them behind any other civ with strong knights or the like they'll tear most stuff apart. Castles make the best trash unit in the game as additional fodder/siege sniping.

Bulgarians: On certain maps their men-at-arms rush throws people off. This is for sure a wildcard. I love the civ, buffed infantry next patch will make this better. Their siege is cheaper to tech into also meaning you can mix in siege with your infantry or cavalry. Konnik on par with or slightly better than paladins. Dismounted konnik slaps cavalry counters. They also have pretty decent CA, they only miss the final armour upgrade. So you can throw opponents completely off with the switch (this applies to 1 vs 1 as well).

Originally posted by Kampfschwein Fjonda:

Funny that OP didn't mention a single Elephant civ.
Still waiting for the experience of 60 Persian Elite War Elephants pulverizing his base on bf :)

They joy of sending in a tide of elite war elephants. Once got told I was dumb for making them, it was funny coming from a guy making mostly plumed archers vs paladins (-1 damage compared to Arbs is not helpful). Would of been an easier BF game but 1 vs 3 is too much even for war elephants.

Originally posted by Puason:

team bonuses are not that important

Tell that to Britons and Spanish after their team bonuses got nerfed for being too good in team games.

[James3157]

Originally posted by Vemonia:

In team games, Dravidians do not have to worry about lacking knights, they have a pocket for that.

So they are a flank civ with good arbalesters and a solid +200w/age for range/university, and elephant archers late game.

Dravidians are basically designed to be a good flank civ with glaring tech tree hole in 1v1, just like Teutons/Franks are designed to be good pocket civs with glaring tech tree hole (trash units) in 1v1.

Thanks for clearing that up to me. It was puzzling to me as to why Dravidians have good win rates on team games and that would help explain why. Dravidians seem to be better at team games than 1v1 similar to Spanish. Having enough access to water are Dravidians strongest point I think, but they seem to be an overall versatile civ for team games when it comes to land maps vs water maps. Edit: The lowest win rate for Dravidians is less than 900 elo at 49.24% win rate 49 making it appear to suggest this civ may not work best for less skilled players on team games and that at best it is only an average civ with team games if a player has less than 900 elo while playing as Dravidians.

[Puason]

Originally posted by Quintem:

Tell that to Britons and Spanish after their team bonuses got nerfed for being too good in team games.

still not that important

[Quintem]

Originally posted by James3157:

Thanks for clearing that up to me. It was puzzling to me as to why Dravidians have good win rates on team games and that would help explain why. Dravidians seem to be better at team games than 1v1 similar to Spanish. Having enough access to water are Dravidians strongest point I think, but they seem to be an overall versatile civ for team games when it comes to land maps vs water maps. Edit: The lowest win rate for Dravidians is less than 900 elo at 49.24% win rate 49 making it appear to suggest this civ may not work best for less skilled players on team games and that at best it is only an average civ with team games if a player has less than 900 elo while playing as Dravidians.

Team games are very much combined arms. You try and bring your best tool(s) to the table. Some civs have a few options. Not just in terms of units but tech.

Give some quick examples Spanish can be flank or pocket. While not the best booming civ, they do have fully upgraded paladins. You can on Arena conquistador rush either with castle drop or just building the castle at home and breaking the wall with a few conqs and a petard. Late game you have fully upgraded trash so you can fill a lot of gaps. Byzantines can do that somewhat but fall short somewhat because while cheap trash is nice. Their halbs are not fully upgraded and neither are their hussars.

Other one is Ethiopians, which I mentioned as a little under rated because of their siege. Their known for those machine gun archers, yes those are great especailly on open maps. On closed maps having fully upgraded siege with a UT that improves blast is surprisingly effective.

When picking a civ to play in team games I'd say you're looking for primary and second role of a civ. Primary role archers, secondary role siege or primary role rush to apply pressure with say conqs on arena, hard to stop gives the pocket a lot of time to boom because you can cripple the other flank while building up a modest force to support your flank vs their flank late game. If you really want to get complicated you can think of tertiary roles too.

Actual quick example of don't bring your worst tools. Don't be a Cuman player for example spamming Kipchaks. While they can have their uses, in team games every civ that can make (good) CA, makes better CA and Spanish have Conqs as their gunpowder CA (which hits hard and is fairly tanky too unlike the kipchak).

Have you played online yet, hmm?

Originally posted by Puason:

Originally posted by Quintem:

Tell that to Britons and Spanish after their team bonuses got nerfed for being too good in team games.

still not that important

Then why did they nerf it? Some could argue with Britons it was more a direct nerf to them but also to make them not be the defacto flank archer civ. Could say the same for the Spanish, games go late, more gold is good.

Seen the Korean change for +3 LOS on villagers for the team, Koreans looking pretty good for those nomad starts.

[Okay]

So far from what I've read its :
Portuguese
Britons
Persians
Spanish

With Britons and Spanish being reccomanded by most.

So no Romans? is there just a better scorpions civ or is that not an issue anymore?

[Vemonia]

Originally posted by Okay:

So far from what I've read its :
Portuguese
Britons
Persians
Spanish

With Britons and Spanish being reccomanded by most.

So no Romans? is there just a better scorpions civ or is that not an issue anymore?

Khmer are way better with +1 range and the double crossbow UT. The Romans gold discount is great in 1v1 with limited gold and faster firing, but much less impactful in team games with trade.

[Quintem]

Originally posted by Vemonia:

Originally posted by Okay:

So far from what I've read its :
Portuguese
Britons
Persians
Spanish

With Britons and Spanish being reccomanded by most.

So no Romans? is there just a better scorpions civ or is that not an issue anymore?

Khmer are way better with +1 range and the double crossbow UT. The Romans gold discount is great in 1v1 with limited gold and faster firing, but much less impactful in team games with trade.

It's less Khmer have the best it's more they make everyone else with good scorpions better. I'd argue Celts have the best no micro scorpions with a Khmer ally. They have much more HP and fire faster. Romans are comparable because they fire faster and are cheap, and while obviously gold is less of an issue in team games. You don't need as many gold miners to fund production. Ethiopians have wider bolts which is no joke in choke points +1 range helps that. Mongols get Scorpions they can somewhat micro. Being big clunky units it's probably on best used to shuffle back a bit or avoid onagers.