Persians and Berbers

[Gigaknyghte]

According to the stats here [aoestats.io] Persians are currently ranked 3rd in play rate while Berbers are 28th. I enjoy both civs, but I'm wondering why the Persians are so much more popular in 1v1. The Berbers seem better in several respects, e.g:

Stable: While the Savar is qualitatively superior to the Berber cavalier, the latter gets a 20% discount. Since this discount applies to Berber hussars and camels as well, I think the Berber stable is somewhat better than the Persian all things considered, though both are top notch.

Archery range: Berber range seems stronger as well. No trash bows, but fully upgraded skirms and bracer (more than) make up for that, no?

Barracks: Persians get halberdier which Berbers lack. Definitely a minus for the Berbers, but discounted camels mitigate that, and the Berber militia line is much better.

Siege workshop: Berbers seem marginally better here because they get siege engineers.

Economy: The Berbers are missing two-man saw and of course their TCs don't get a work-rate bonus. But isn't the boost to villager movement speed a comparable advantage, and a better one in the late game?

Defenses: Persian castles and TCs are obviously much tougher than that of the Berbers, but I'm guessing that's not the only reason for the gap in popularity between the two civs.

So, I wonder if anyone has any insight. What am I missing? What is that makes the Persians so much more popular? (Or to ask it another why, why are the Berbers comparatively so unpopular?) Thanks :)

[James3157]

For one thing the Persian winrate being a little higher than Berbers (especially for top 1% and players with less than 850 elo) and Persians getting a getting significant buff when Mountain Royals came out are at least partially contributing factors as to why Persians are a lot more popular on multiplayer than Berbers. Other contributing factors include Persians having a "slightly" more flexible tech tree than Berbers (mainly because they get better cavalry archers, get siege rams contrary to Berbers, get halberdiers which are much cheaper than camels despite being slower, and have a better stable especially for Imperial Age where they also get heavy camels as well) besides Monastery and University in addition to lacking two handed swordsmen, champions, and shipwright seem to have better unique techs from castle than Berbers, and probably more people preferring war elephants overall over genitors and camel archers despite them being expensive units that are vulnerable to monks in addition to them having savars as a unique unit that is noticeably cheaper to upgrade than paladin. Also, Berbers do not get siege onagers or siege rams despite them getting siege engineers while Persians in contrast get siege rams. Despite them lacking siege engineers Persians are one of the strongest civs right now on AoE II: DE and overall stronger than Berbers; although, it is worth mentioning that for players with less than 850 elo Persians are strong against Berbers on most maps but weak against Berbers with arabia maps.

[Vemonia]

My guess is:
1) Savar/Paladin is a staple unit in team games. Open maps mainly use xbows & knights and while half of the civs have arbalesters, only 20% have paladin/savar. In late team game, cavalier isnt enough due to the lack of pierce armor This make paladin civ very popular, especially as cavalry is the best of the 4 military types (infantry, archers, cavalry, siege).
2) Persians is an OG civ from AOK and a long time fan favorite, similar to Teutons and Byzantines. And Persians culture (or its preconceptions/fantasies) is more well known and liked than Berbers.

Besides Berbers Bracers for the HCA/Camel archer, Berbers Genitours, and Persians halberdiers, all other differences are whatever for the tech tree flexibility. And all differences besides Savar are whatever for most players as long as the civ is strong enough.

And the Persians revent buffs gave them a very strong eco. Before the 5% dark age wirk rate, both civs were around 2% pick rate while everyone complained about Persians mid game power hole.

Overall, both Berbers and Persians are good and flexible civs. Berbers are not in a bad spot winrate wise or pick rate wise by any mean.

[Flakstruk]

Popularity is not neccesarily a reflection of result. Persian have farbetter name recognition and probably a touch easier to play.

Win rate is a almost meaningless stat in a conversation about preferences

[James3157]

Originally posted by Flakstruk:

Win rate is a almost meaningless stat in a conversation about preferences

That is not entirely true. Britons for example seem to be popular on multiplayer with 1v1 matches and 88,133 picks and ranked number 6 for play rate with all elo scores combined, but I think that they would be even more popular if they had a higher win rate and had a significant enough buff too further boost their play rate even further such as for example maybe giving them thumb ring even if that is at best considered to be controversial and at the same time maybe give +1 extra range foot archers starting from Castle Age and for Imperial Age +1 range instead of +2 range involving foot archers with civ bonus in addition to Yeomen giving +1 attack instead of +1 range with foot archers (which adds up to 11 attack and 11 range with elite longbowmen from Imperial Age instead of 13 range since Yeoman adds attack instead of additional range but they also get thumb ring) and skirmishers also getting +1 range as well from Imperial Age as a free civ bonus (meaning that elite skirmishers can get 9 range starting from Imperial Age instead of the normal 8 range); although, it is probably not rare for 1v1 multiplayer matches to involve Britons vs Britons instead of Britons vs a different civ. Before the Persians significant buff for example they were not listed among the top 5 with play rate based on what I could remember. In fact there play rate was low in comparison to many other civs. The Persian unique techs from castle were not as good as they are now either.

[chaoticbalrog]

Originally posted by James3157:

Originally posted by Flakstruk:

Win rate is a almost meaningless stat in a conversation about preferences

That is not entirely true. Britons for example seem to be popular on multiplayer with 1v1 matches and 88,133 picks and ranked number 6 for play rate with all elo scores combined, but I think that they would be even more popular if they had a higher win rate and had a significant enough buff too further boost their play rate even further such as for example maybe giving them thumb ring even if that is at best considered to be controversial and at the same time maybe give +1 extra range foot archers starting from Castle Age and for Imperial Age +1 range instead of +2 range involving foot archers with civ bonus in addition to Yeomen giving +1 attack instead of +1 range with foot archers (which adds up to 11 attack and 11 range with elite longbowmen from Imperial Age instead of 13 range since Yeoman adds attack instead of additional range but they also get thumb ring) and skirmishers also getting +1 range as well from Imperial Age as a free civ bonus (meaning that elite skirmishers can get 9 range starting from Imperial Age instead of the normal 8 range); although, it is probably not rare for 1v1 multiplayer matches to involve Britons vs Britons instead of Britons vs a different civ. Before the Persians significant buff for example they were not listed among the top 5 with play rate based on what I could remember. In fact there play rate was low in comparison to many other civs. The Persian unique techs from castle were not as good as they are now either.

Such a change would mean that Briton Longbowmen wouldn't outrange most Castles, Watch Towers, and Bombard Towers anymore.

[James3157]

Originally posted by chaoticbalrog:

Such a change would mean that Briton Longbowmen wouldn't outrange most Castles, Watch Towers, and Bombard Towers anymore.

True, but they would be better off at the same time. Slightly better skirmishers for Imperial Age with + 1 range which adds more versatility than only just foot archers mostly with late game (although it is probably not uncommon to have some cavalry/trash units in the mix and not just siege), thumb ring, and one extra attack damage from elite longbowmen because Yeoman range being replaced with + 1 attack. Elite longbowmen are not that useful against buildings in comparison to siege units. Part of the reason why they have low win rates is probably because they make too many longbowmen especially for players with less than 850 elo and not enough rams or trebuchets in addition to lacking thumb ring. Also, elite longbowmen should not be underestimated just because they have two less range and 11 range is still pretty good especially when combined with thumb ring and +1 attack for foot archers.

[chaoticbalrog]

Thumb Ring's accuracy boost would make Longbowmen overpowered.

[James3157]

Originally posted by chaoticbalrog:

Thumb Ring's accuracy boost would make Longbowmen overpowered.

But it would also increase their win rates noticeably as well and only 3 more range (but 2 more range for arbalasters) than your average civ for foot archers besides the +1 range for skirmishers from Imperial Age. My point is that Britons might need some kind of buff that is strong enough to increase their win rates in order to get past Magyars for top 5 picks. They are an overall weak civ for multiplayer regardless of elo even with 13 range maximum for elite longbowmen and skirmishers not getting any extra range also means less versatility for late game making them more predictable towards late game.

[chaoticbalrog]

Originally posted by James3157:

Originally posted by chaoticbalrog:

Thumb Ring's accuracy boost would make Longbowmen overpowered.

But it would also increase their win rates noticeably as well and only 3 more range (but 2 more range for arbalasters) than your average civ for foot archers besides the +1 range for skirmishers from Imperial Age. My point is that Britons might need some kind of buff that is strong enough to increase their win rates in order to get past Magyars for top 5 picks. They are an overall weak civ for multiplayer regardless of elo even with 13 range maximum for elite longbowmen and skirmishers not getting any extra range also means less versatility for late game making them more predictable towards late game.

They are weak for multiplayer, but they do not need Thumb Ring. However, their archer focus means that they can't have good cavalry, which leaves buffing either their siege or their infantry.

[James3157]

Originally posted by chaoticbalrog:

They are weak for multiplayer, but they do not need Thumb Ring. However, their archer focus means that they can't have good cavalry, which leaves buffing either their siege or their infantry.

The three biggest weaknesses for Britons I think are mainly three things. Number 1, they can be weak for late game if low on gold especially on maps that are low on gold, number 2, Britons are not that strong during Castle Age, and number 3 Britons do not seem like they are versatile enough for late game. Their infantry is good (where I would at least give them a B+ because they lack nothing from blacksmith or barracks) but not great and do not have very good siege especially with them lacking bombard cannons. For Magyars in contrast despite being a cavalry civ they seem to be more versatile for late game than Britons. While Magyars do have a higher win rate than Britons I think that the biggest reason why they have a higher play rate than Britons is because they are overall more versatile as a civ than Britons especially for late game.

[chaoticbalrog]

Originally posted by James3157:

Originally posted by chaoticbalrog:

They are weak for multiplayer, but they do not need Thumb Ring. However, their archer focus means that they can't have good cavalry, which leaves buffing either their siege or their infantry.

The three biggest weaknesses for Britons I think are mainly three things. Number 1, they can be weak for late game if low on gold especially on maps that are low on gold, number 2, Britons are not that strong during Castle Age, and number 3 Britons do not seem like they are versatile enough for late game. Their infantry is good (where I would at least give them a B+ because they lack nothing from blacksmith or barracks) but not great and do not have very good siege especially with them lacking bombard cannons. For Magyars in contrast despite being a cavalry civ they seem to be more versatile for late game than Britons. While Magyars do have a higher win rate than Britons I think that the biggest reason why they have a higher play rate than Britons is because they are overall more versatile as a civ than Britons especially for late game.

Britons have Halberdiers and decent skirmishers for trash wars, and while their Light Cavalry don't have Bloodlines, they aren't the absolute worst Light Cavalry. Castle Age is indeed a pretty weak time for Britons, but that is also a thing with Goths if someone can raid their base.

[Sabriyuk]

Economy: Persians >>>>> Berbers.

End.

[Flakstruk]

Originally posted by James3157:

Originally posted by Flakstruk:

Win rate is a almost meaningless stat in a conversation about preferences

That is not entirely true. Britons for example seem to be popular on multiplayer with 1v1 matches and 88,133 picks and ranked number 6 for play rate with all elo scores combined, but I think that they would be even more popular if they had a higher win rate and had a significant enough buff too further boost their play rate even further such as for example maybe giving them thumb ring even if that is at best considered to be controversial and at the same time maybe give +1 extra range foot archers starting from Castle Age and for Imperial Age +1 range instead of +2 range involving foot archers with civ bonus in addition to Yeomen giving +1 attack instead of +1 range with foot archers (which adds up to 11 attack and 11 range with elite longbowmen from Imperial Age instead of 13 range since Yeoman adds attack instead of additional range but they also get thumb ring) and skirmishers also getting +1 range as well from Imperial Age as a free civ bonus (meaning that elite skirmishers can get 9 range starting from Imperial Age instead of the normal 8 range); although, it is probably not rare for 1v1 multiplayer matches to involve Britons vs Britons instead of Britons vs a different civ. Before the Persians significant buff for example they were not listed among the top 5 with play rate based on what I could remember. In fact there play rate was low in comparison to many other civs. The Persian unique techs from castle were not as good as they are now either.

Thats a lot of words to say youve nothing to add