Yes, they are slightly stronger. And when you go up against Spain you can actually last longer now. When games used to end at the 10 minute mark you can now hold on for 20+ minutes.
But in the end: Spain > Brits, and Brits still suck in 1vs1.
I guess I try out Aztecs in 1.03 although it seems they actually got more nerfed then boosted in the patch. If they still suck I guess I am forced to use one the OP civs to compete.
Being the underdog is fun for a while but in the end, winning is more fun the losing.
[This message has been edited by MockHamill (edited 03-14-2007 @ 04:42 PM).]
Author
Replies:
Medio Skirmisher
(id: Mediolanus)
posted 03-14-07 05:37 PM
EDT (US)
1 / 14
Quote:
If they still suck I guess I am forced to use one the OP civs to compete.
Now that's just not true. The best civ has a win% of 57%, the weakest a win% of 40%. So that's only one out of 6 games you win more playing an OP civ. The rest is up to your own skill.
It's easy to blame your civ for your losses, but surprise: most of the time you could have prevented it. It's still yourself, not your civ, that is the major factor in winning/loosing. If that 1 game out of 6 is so important to you you rather want to be seen as a lamer than to live without it, I'd advise you to reconsider.
I have no problem with people playing Spain or Iroquois. I do have a problem with that attitude of yours.
schildpad Skirmisher
posted 03-14-07 06:13 PM
EDT (US)
2 / 14
If you just play brittish your rating will be a bit lower and in the end you will win about same ammount as with op civs. If you play for high rating, then brittish is a bad idea and you should just op lame.
"such a kind fellow!" ~ ķįŋğ_Ćħŗĩš_ĬĬ
Furby killer should be crowned leader of AOE forum ~ [SW_GD]Teutonic
Adam42 Skirmisher
posted 03-14-07 06:40 PM
EDT (US)
3 / 14
I thought they were underestimated in 1.02 but now I think they're balanced but on the weak side.
Destiny_Devil Skirmisher
posted 03-14-07 07:01 PM
EDT (US)
4 / 14
I have been longing for this for ages, once I got the hang of brits my ratings shot up, if you can handle any civ well our rating will go up although which civ it is will affect how much.
I played a 5 way FFA the earlier with 4 of my clan members, I wanted to do something so I took out one of the newbs that were next to me then I got attacked by the other newb next to me and the second strongest player at the point (I was the strongest) I got pwnt left at 12 vills hiding, a short while later I was at 99, that kind of eco power is just unbeatable. I would of won the game if it wasn't for trade monopoly I never noticed it until it was too late. (was having a convo of a treuce to give the guy who won justice by teaming up on him on x fire so had twc minimised)
It's easy to blame your civ for your losses, but surprise: most of the time you could have prevented it. It's still yourself, not your civ, that is the major factor in winning/loosing.
I strongly agree. I admit civs affect the outcome to an extent, in the end, its skill that decides the winner.
"History teaches us man learns nothing from history"
MockHamill Skirmisher
posted 03-14-07 07:19 PM
EDT (US)
6 / 14
Civ choice has a crucial effect on the outcome of a game. Of course if you play vs. Grunt civ choice will be irrelevant, but if the skill is close it will be the strengths of the civ that tip the scale.
Using Iro I am a 1950+ player. Using Brits I am a 1700+ player. Sure, I may just suck with Brits. But I do not think anyone can get a higher rating with Brits then they could with Iro.
But right now I will stick with Aztecs since I feel lame using Iro.
[This message has been edited by MockHamill (edited 03-14-2007 @ 07:19 PM).]
L_Clan_Socrates VIP
posted 03-14-07 07:44 PM
EDT (US)
7 / 14
That's just because Iro are easier to play. Brits are in no way underpowered in this patch. Anyone who thinks so is simply playing them wrong.
That's just because Iro are easier to play. Brits are in no way underpowered in this patch. Anyone who thinks so is simply playing them wrong.
Dude your so right. Brits are really so underestimated. Noobs just pick iroquois because everyone complains that they are OP and it attracts them. I really have no problem with any civ except iro. that shotgun blast is so retarted. I build 5 longbows to stop a tomarush and he blasts them. I have 2 hurt longbowmen left. I build 5 more, ANOTHER BLAST. suprise! 3 hurt lbows left! I really get annoyed by iroquois. NATIVES OWN A HIGH TECH EUOPEAN POWER.
Mock, you complain about civs way too often. Afterall britain can handle massed forest prowler a lot easier than other civs can, one example I can think of would be Aztec.
Britain has decent cavalry, decent heavy infantry, the only indecent unit for Britain is the light infantry which didn't counter heavy infantry. However, longbowmen do counter other light infantry well as it is, and now even beat some heavy infantry. The fact that longbowmen most other ranged infantry is made up for in their desperate need for a heavy infantry meatshield like musketeers, which Britain also gets a decent version of.
Thanks to all those that signed the petition to get me unbanned here. And special thanks to smashnbash for making it.
Brtnboarder495 Skirmisher
posted 03-14-07 08:14 PM
EDT (US)
10 / 14
Brits is much more powerful in this patch .. I still feel they will always reside on the weaker side and less on the experts side due to a non gunpowder infantry unit, and because they've never been a civ that excels at an aggressive playstyle. I'll still play them though.
Gameranger: _NiGhThAwK_
Funkyhamster Skirmisher
posted 03-14-07 08:31 PM
EDT (US)
11 / 14
Sweet... I play Brits (since I don't really know what I'm doing anyways) so that's good news...
I'm back. Rawr.
scriv1984 Skirmisher
posted 03-14-07 09:22 PM
EDT (US)
12 / 14
my only issue with any of the civs is that iroq turtle, its just too lame, and too easy to pull off. I despise being beaten by it, as the other iroq player needs limited skill to use it, and its incredibly tough to counter.
I cant ever beat dutch either but that's just because i havent figured out how yet. The day will come....
Ossian Skirmisher
posted 03-14-07 10:57 PM
EDT (US)
13 / 14
Civs do effect a outcome of a game depends on the civ really, ottos in a team game could make you win easily compared to being port, there is no "you not the civ that wins" because of abus/pike as port you can do what? xbow/pike?
But besides otto and russia (maybe aztec) It doesn't differ any.
*WINDOWS CRITICAL ERROR 19891126* Product ID: Ossian Discontinued Contact your network admin for more details about this special edition of player... Allthough cetans are darker, did you know that if you read the word 'cetan' as a dutch word, that you get the same sound as when reading 'satan' in english.-Furby Killer
Medio Skirmisher
(id: Mediolanus)
posted 03-15-07 02:47 AM
EDT (US)
14 / 14
Quote:
Civs do effect a outcome of a game depends on the civ really, ottos in a team game could make you win easily compared to being port, there is no "you not the civ that wins" because of abus/pike as port you can do what? xbow/pike?
That are team games. Why do you think they didn't give Otto pikes?