Civ Domination


How does your civ fare through the ages? When and where does your favourite civ really shine? Time for some charts!

Domination per Age


1st tier 2nd tier 3rd tier 4th tier 5th tier

Strength for every civ per age

We consider an average standard map, so a little water, but not enough to go for an all out grush.

Dark Feudal Castle Early Imp Imp Post Imp – Trade Post Imp + Trade

A few notes come with these charts: a 5th tier in dark or castle age is not as bad as a 5th tier in imperial. A Saracen player can easily get along with other civs in the castle age, but compared to others, they have no special bonus for anything. Hence they get the 5th tier. Feel free to comment on the rankings, they can be changed through constructive criticism!

Domination per Map

We only considered an average map here, while it must be noted that on watermaps, Vikings would be the 1st tier in every age. So time to take a look at how most civs dominate certain maps.


Arena: Aztecs are unprecedented on arena due to their incredible monks. With a few crucial upgrades they have 65 HP, which makes them withstand up to 3 onager shots! No competition here.


Michi: The most important civ in michi due to their strong economy, great infantry and demolishing siege. Only Koreans can keep up with their siege but they lack in economy. 1v1 Celts have been proven to be the most popular choice.


Nomad/LN: 6 villagers make all the difference here. On LN they have a 2 minutes headstart compared to other civs (1 minute on regular Nomad). Mayans and Persians come close on these respective maps but they’re nothing more than princes who will never get on the throne.


Arabia/Land: Probably the most arguable choice but after all these years of being the most popular civ on Arabia, it’s unlikely to change. They are the strongest civ on Arabia, although other civs stand a chance too ofcourse! Their domination can also be seen on other open land maps.


Michi teamgames: A banned civ on Michi must make it a strong one. 1v1 not the kings, but unmatched in teamgames. Banned with a good reason in other words.


Regicide Fortress: Paired up with Chinese for a long time but eventually won the battle for the best RF civ. The games are very straightforward though but despite the predictable flow of the game, it’s still incredibly hard to stop.


Yucatan: A very debatable choice here, as mentioned before, Huns are usually the kings on landmaps and Celts rule closed maps. Since Yucatan is a bit of both and Mongols have traits of both civs, it’s not a big stretch to imagine them on top here. Adding the superfluous hunt makes Mongols pretty safe from early rushing and gives them a wide range of tactics to choose from.


Migration/Nomad: The only civ next to Vikings to make a stand on watermaps. Depending on the structure of the map (docks far away or not) Persians have the advantage or not. Since their stronger docks and faster aging allow a much stronger economy in Dark/Feudal age. Which can be followed by Fireships to fend of the first hostile galleys. On nomad, Persians have been the top tier for a long time due to their “dock first” buildup. Which allowed a fishing boat to gather food even before a TC was built.


Islands/Water: The rulers of the sea. Both historically and in the game. Cheap docks and cheap boats. Above that a strong economy on land too.

Out of the Box

These charts are just a reference, and may or may not encourage you to think out of the box. You may start to think of regular tactics because that’s how civs’ strengths are mainly used, however, a regular map can quickly be turned into an irregular game! As an example we take a look at the early imp charts. Turks are without doubt the kings of early imperial age due to their immediate access to strong gunpowder units. Closely followed by Mayans and Aztecs because they can field elite eagles really fast (aided by their light and fast economy). The second tier goes to the incredible booming civs: Vikings and Britons. Byzantines get a top spot too because they imp a lot faster and their trash units can be financed by a less mature economy. Now if we look at the 3rd tier, we see Spanish pop up. Spanish have none of the advantages mentioned above but they have this great unique tech “supremacy”. In early imp, Spanish vils have few counters, which might make them gain a tier in some occasions (and if you’re kick ass enough to pull off a villager rush). For more information on the Spanish villager rush, you can check out this recorded game.

Do these charts also mean that Koreans will always beat Vikings in late game? Not at all, but it does mean that if you go into the flow of a traditional game, you better be braced for either some great playing or some smart out of the box thinking. Dare to act different!

Picking civs

One last note on the civ domination, if a certain civ dominates on a certain map or situation, do not fall for the trap of always picking that civ. If you and your opponent agree to play arabia, Huns are probably the most obvious choice. However, you may fall for the trap of only knowing how to play 1v1 arabia hunswar in the end. If you agree to play a different civ (e.g. Saracen war) you’ll increase your overall game knowledge and overall fun level.

Recorded Game

As an example I’d like to take a Saracen war (Green Arabia) between _DauT_ and Tim_. Saracens really start to shine in Imperial age, and _DauT_ favoured a faster imp above a stronger economy to take on Tim_. Needless to say _DauT_ had an advantage earlier but the game is nice to watch nevertheless!


Written by Cysion

  • marathon

    Barbarossa, perhaps it’s the better scouts together with farming. I agree that Britons have not only faster ranges but also more comfortable age-up (and maybe faster), that allows them either a better trush or a stronger archer flush. Teutons can defend briton trush better than others, thanks to towers with many arrows.

    Perhaps only a civ with all feudal options get top rankings in feudal, and this means bloodlines. Maybe.
    Other than that, Britons have many pluses and only one minus: bloodlines, so you got a point.

    • LukeMam

      To me, fast producing ranges trump free farms or bloodlines. Getting out that initial group of archers is key, and in addition, Britons reach Feudal faster than the Teutons.

      Sure, later on Teutons may have an advantage due to cheaper farms and bloodlines, but keep in mind that a) bloodlines is an expensive tech and most people would rather reach castle age instead, and b) most people switch to archers later on in Feudal.

  • barbarossa89

    Coming back to this after a while, I have some questions:

    How are Teutons better than Britons in feudal age? Britons can produce archers faster, which must count for something.

    How can Mayans possibly beat Franks in post-imperial + trade? Paladins + ETA destroy Mayan armies, and Franks have better siege.

    For that matter, how about Huns losing to Japanese? Paladins and HCA are certainly more powerful than infantry, right?

    Lastly, I still think Teutons and Spanish deserve to move up a tier in post-imperial + trade. Spanish get a trade bonus which helps the whole team, and allows them to field larger armies. Teutons, as I have mentioned before, are the only civilization to get siege onager, paladin, and bombard tower. Because Celts almost never use paladins, Teutons are realistically the only civilization to use siege onagers and paladins.

  • LukeMam

    Looking at the rankings for early imperial, I thought to myself – there’s hardly any civs that have 4th or 5th tier status. Maybe there should be one?

    Before, the Teutons were considered 4th tier in early imp. But what about the Celts? You know what, I think that Celts should be the civ with the WORST early imperial. Definitely fourth tier.

    Early imp consist mostly of arbalests and rams. Celts have FU rams, but rockbottom arbalests. And they have no hand cannoneers, which means that you can’t do a fast imperial with them and expect them to crush the opponent.

    Champ flood? Works, but 5% greater speed hardly makes a difference. Japanese and Goths can do it better. And champions require two upgrades. And EWR flood, the better option, needs a castle.

    Cavaliers? Lacking bloodlines AND plate armour.

    Celts have an insanely powerful imperial age though, but their only options really are infantry + siege onager, infantry + heavy scorpions, or EWR flood. The first two requires expensive EXPENSIVE upgrades as well as a castle, and the EWR flood requires a castle and an expensive upgrade. There’s no way you could get those combos before a Mayan/Aztec player can mass FU elite eagle warriors, or a civ with FU archers can mass FU arbalests, or a Turk player can mass 10 bombard cannons.

    • LukeMam

      Also, Koreans, although may get to imp very slow, but they have FU arbalests and can utilize the arbalest + capped ram combo.

      • Wurstigkeit

        A real pain for Japanese is that, even though they have the best champs and halbs in the game, and they have FU arbs as well, their eco is really just average as they get into castle age. So I guess Japanese could flood champs in early imp but they are probably not as good as Goths and Vikings. This is probably the reason Japanese are ranked only as third-tier in early imp. Goths don’t have any eco bonus in castle age either but they are compensated with cheaper units.

  • BlanketPI

    Something else I noticed was that there are few 4th and 5th tiers. The average is 21.6 overall with 3.6 per age. Yet…

    1st tier has 1, 2, 1, 3, 10, 2, 6 for a total of 25 (good, yet imbalanced per age…)
    2nd tier has 7, 8, 10, 3, 5, 9, 6 for a total of 48 (!)
    3rd tier has 3, 4, 4, 11, 3, 3, 3 for a total of 31 (great aside from the Early Imperial Age)
    4th tier has 4, 4, 3, 1, 0, 3, 2 for a total of 17 (O.K., but what’s with the Imperial Age?)
    5th tier has 3, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1 for a total of 6 (!)

    Going by age, instead…
    1, 7, 3, 4, 3 for the Dark Age
    2, 8, 4, 4, 0 for the Feudal Age
    1, 10, 4, 3, 0 for the Castle Age
    3, 3, 11, 1, 0 for the Early Imperial Age
    10, 5, 3, 0, 1 for the Imperial Age
    2, 9, 3, 3, 1 for the Post Imperial Age -Trade
    6, 6, 3, 2, 1 for the Post Imperial Age +Trade

    I, personally, think that 2-5 (maybe a few cases of 1 or 6) in each tier should be good per age while still allowing for discrepancies. What do you think? One thing I know is messed up is that Early Imperial Age. You have in the 4th tier 1 civilization and yet none in the 5th tier as well as having 11 in 3rd tier. Everything is clumped up. I guess it’s because you want to say that they are good. Though they do not need to be bad to be in a lower tier, just worse, right?

    I do not know how they should be ranked, but I think 4th and 5th tier have a… stigma about them. I guess I just wanted to bring that to attention. I probably sound very harsh with this, and I apologize for that.

  • Sukai

    I made an overall rating chart out Cysion’s civ domination chart.

    1= Best 5= Worst; Therefore the lower the number the better.

    Aztecs- 1,2,4,1,3,4,3= 18
    Britons- 2,3,3,2,2,2,4= 18
    Byzantines- 5,1,2,2,1,1,2= 14
    Celts- 2,2,3,3,1,2,1= 14
    Chinese- 3,2,2,3,3,2,2= 17
    Franks- 5,4,2,3,2,4,3= 23
    Goths- 4,3,3,3,1,2,2= 18
    Huns- 2,1,1,3,3,2,4= 16
    Japanese- 2,2,2,3,2,2,3= 16
    Koreans- 4,4,4,4,1,3,1= 21
    Mayans- 2,2,2,1,1,4,2= 14
    Mongols- 2,2,3,3,1,2,1= 14
    Persians- 2,3,2,3,1,2,1= 14
    Saracens- 5,4,4,3,1,2,1= 20
    Spanish- 4,4,2,3,2,1,2= 18
    Teutons- 3,2,2,3,2,3,2= 17
    Turks- 4,3,2,1,1,5,1= 17
    Vikings- 3,2,2,2,5,3,5= 22

    “Top” Rated Civs – Byzantines, Celts, Mayans, Mongols, Persians all with a score of 14
    “Worst” Rated Civ – Franks with 23

    The results are interesting but if anything this rating represents flexibility in a variety of situations and maps.

    • GntlMn

      It is interesting. And there is no surprise around the outcome.
      However, the article says: “A few notes come with these charts: a 5th tier in dark or castle age is not as bad as a 5th tier in imperial.” Another factor here…
      Although if we consider open and close land maps… yes, your numbers show the “average”, since open maps concentrate on earlier ages, while closed maps mainly further ages. Generally… But as i see, the most games finished in imp. age or castle age on Arabia too, especially if there is a chance to walling.

    • Richard

      I like this idea. This is really an average of the averages, and of course there is some inaccuracy, but very interesting!

    • Cysion

      Very interesting analysis, Sukai. Ofcourse, the table could’ve been more extended, with early/late castle (which makes perfect sense, since at that point, the UU come in, and a castle isn’t made in 1-2-3). But other than that, I think it verifies that the table is “quite” accurate.

      The civs with a strong imp and decent early game are all on the top, while the limited ones are far more down. It’s also funny to see these numbers shift if you leave out certain ages. If you start counting from the start, Huns, Vikings and Aztecs all come out higher and eventually fade away.

      Nice one!

    • barbarossa89

      I would note, though, that for megarandom, the WCL7 guys still choose Mayans, Mongols and Vikings. Though Vikings have a score of 22 under this system, the fact that megarandom could turn up water means it is too risky NOT to have a Viking on the team. Remember, this chart is only Cysion’s opinions on land maps. He specifically states it is not for water.

      And the chart has morphed over time, and could morph again.

      Remember also that “Post imperial + trade” will not occur in the same game, usually, as “Post imperial – trade.” So adding those in is not necessarily the most accurate.

      Also, for most maps, the WCL7 players use Huns. It is only on migration, nomad, and the 1v1 maps that other civilizations are chosen. The Hun no-house bonus can be leveraged into just about any type of attack; and faster stables for the team is very valuable when castle age warfare is so dominated by knight wars.

      I still disagree with some of the civilizations’ positions in some places on the chart, but then, I’m not the one who took the time to set up a website as awesome as this, so I can’t call the shots.

      • LukeMam

        What I think is:

        Franks @ late imperial -> should be second tier (good siege, superior cavalry, you can’t compare them to Japanese or Aztecs)
        Britons @ castle -> should be second tier (superior X-bow rush)
        Aztecs @ late imperial -> should be fourth tier (no halbs, and need a LOT of micromanagement)
        Teutons @ late imperial -> should be first tier (bombard cannons, paladins, siege onagers, ETK’s)
        Mayans and Byzantines @ Imp -> should be second tier not first. (strong Mayan or Byzantine combos can be easily beaten by a Celtic heavy scorp + halb combo, Elite Mangudai + siege combo, gothic infantry flood, Elite Mameluke + siege, etc.)
        Vikings @ Imp -> fourth tier not fifth. That sudden jump from second tier to fifth seems kind of awkward to me. Vikings can do champ floods or use heavy scorpions in mid imperial, it’s the late imperial that they are fifth tier.

        Just my suggestion. Feel free to disagree. However, I definitely, 100% agree that Franks should be second tier not third in late imperial + trade, and Britons should be second tier in Castle.

  • barbarossa89

    Looking over some of the changes that have been made since inception, I have some questions.

    How are Huns 4th tier in late imperial + trade? Paladin alone should make them at least 3rd tier. And how can Mayans possibly be 2nd tier? They get EEW + plumed archer, which is great for early imperial, but when you are talking population effectiveness, it gets overwhelmed by siege and heavy cavalry. No way can Mayans be over Huns in late imperial + trade. When 40 paladins go against 40 eagles, the paladins win both in terms of numbers and resources. EEWs are only effective against paladins so long as they can maintain a significant (more than 3>2) numerical advantage. Otherwise, the paladins win in terms of resources. I just cannot fathom how Mayans can possibly be considered that good. In early and mid-imperial, certainly, but their military strength doesn’t hold up well later on.

    Also, I might echo LukeMam about the Franks. Better than average siege, superior heavy cavalry. And those are the two unit types (besides UU) most often used in late imperial. Second tier was fine for Franks.

    I think Aztecs should move down a notch in late imperial + trade. Siege onagers: yay. Monks: really? Their eagles really start to lose out, their lack of halberdier bites, and I would almost rather have Vikings in that situation, because Vikings at least have perfect arbalests and heavy scorpions.

    Also, on what basis are Koreans not 5th tier in castle age? Seems to me all they can do is defense…….

    Sorry to sound so negative. I haven’t visited this page in a while. Maybe I can write an article for you to make up for it or something. I do like the overall content of the site, and am grateful for your work to try and keep the game fresh after a decade.

    • Cysion

      Nah, I appreciate that people care about articles and want to correct possible flaws. But this is just a guideline and people will never all 100% agree on the tiers.

      But for now I’m very, very busy, and thus I’m not going to respond to small issues like badly coloured squares on an article. I think everyone understands ^^

      • Richard

        If everything goes well, we will have even more squares to paint here. ^^

  • LukeMam

    One last comment: this is about Franks, and Franks being third tier in Post-Imp + Trade seems very unusual to me.

    Let’s compare it to the other 3rd tier civs: Aztecs, and Japanese. What do Franks have over those two? Gunpowder, Bombard cannons, 192 HP Paladins, and UU that is deadly when massed. That’s a lot. What do Aztecs and Japanese have over Franks? Both have arbalests, but arbalests are more of an early imperial powerhouse and rarely do you see arbalests making a difference in later imperial ages. Aztecs have siege onagers, but no heavy scorpions, and they have no strong unit to support the siege onagers.

    I think Franks should be second tier. Paladin flood + bombard cannon? Check. Gunpowder? Check. Infantry + heavy scorpions with siege engineers? Check. Oh and the paladin + elite TA combo can be quite deadly.

    They have no uber-strong units like elite mangudai, elite mameluke, celtic siege onager, elite janissary, etc., which is why Franks do not get first tier. However, they definitely are stronger than third tier. Japanese can spam infantry with super trebs and hope to destroy something. Aztecs can only do pikemen + siege onager combo and if you’re super good at micro, monk rushes. But Franks can do much better.

    And in addition, Celts should definitely be third tier in post imp + trade because of abysmal elite skirmishers and inferior hussars. You cannot compare Celtic trash units to the Saracen or Persian trash units.

    And you might want to consider moving the Teutons up to first tier in late imperial + trade. They’re the only civs with paladins AND siege onagers AND bombard towers, not to mention 13 range castles, as well as other combos like infantry + heavy scorpions. Teutons IMO are overall better than Franks, so Franks should be second tier, and Teutons should be first tier.

    • LukeMam

      And to add, I read your article on Franks on why they’re third tier in late imp + trade, the reason being that they have trouble holding ground, due to the fact that they don’t have bombard towers. Well, most of the second tier, or even first tier civs on your list don’t have bombard towers as well. Mayans don’t have bombard tower, and neither do Goths, but they have strong unit combos that can steamroll through units just like the paladin + ETA combo.

  • GntlMn

    “A Saracen player can easily get along with other civs in the castle age, but compared to others, they have no special bonus for anything. Hence they get the 5th tier.”

    As I see, it is 4th now. Has this been modified?

    • barbarossa89

      Lots of things have been modified. At one time, only Byzantines were considered first tier for post-imperial -trade, but Spanish have since been added. No civilization is in fifth tier for castle age at the moment, though I think Aztecs should be. Cysion still thinks their superior monks and faster trained pikemen make up for this.

      • CarlosFerdinand

        Lol man, Aztecs have one of the best booms in castle age, and yeah monks ftw, plus all military units train ~17% faster. They are pretty good in castle age, many things make up for lack of knights. Aztec monks are one of the most underused units in the game in non-arena maps, that really kick ass.

        • yampi

          Ferdinand is right on this one.
          Aztek’s castle age is quite good. It really is quite good.
          The only reason why not make it top tier is lack of knight wich in tg as pocket can ruin the game.

          Even of watermaps it’s still time to kick ass, monster econ + fast military building is great and can help finish the game pretty fast (well at least before water imp play where azteks become useless shits)

          Anyway i think they’re hardly worst than castle age japs, or turks, for example, wich are 2nd tier =)

          Just my opinion on this.

          • barbarossa89

            I know Aztecs have a very good economy, but their military is lacking in castle age. Mayans have plumed archers, every other civilization has knights. Aztecs even miss thumb ring. I thought this was supposed to be a chart about military might, generally, not economic. Otherwise, Mongols would be terrible in imperial, as they have the worst economy of all civs at that point, and no economic bonuses after hunting runs out.

            Therefore, I consider Aztecs to be inferior in castle age, from a military perspective. What do YOU do when you are pocket Aztecs?

          • Cysion

            Aztecs are very limited. No knights, no castle unit that makes sense, no outstanding archers or whatever. Ofcourse there’s monks and faster created units. Mixed with an awesome economy, this makes them a strong civ. But the time they really end the game, is usually early imp, not the castle age.

            This game is very balanced, and besides some exceptions, no civ “sucks” in any age. But overall, considering all maps/matchups, I don’t give Aztecs a top tier.

          • yampi

            Meh, wasn’t meant to make them top tier 11

            Tgs are way too much knights dependants so aztek can’t be top, true story.

            But well aoc ain’t only tg + you’re not always pocket with azteks, so that’s why I think they’re overall as good as japs or turks and at the very least worth a 3rd tier =)

            What do I do as an aztek pocket ?
            This will so much depends on the situation / map / players. If I don’t know well my team, i guess i’m gonna make my team loose the match by booming while they’re being raped.
            And as Cys said i’ll go for raid early imp so in this case my castle age will be terrible.
            But on the other hand, if I have a little clue on how are playing my teammates I can plan a teamstrat, like I once went drush flank + fc + sling my flanks who fced as franks, that was deadly.
            Depending on maps / civ you can either boom, mush, drush + anything or sling. I agree that on a very top level your team will often suffer but you can still be worth.
            I remeber a game tim just boomed, went semi fi + very early eew multi raids, after this his loosing team could recover and eventually won the game.

  • LukeMam

    Haven’t posted here for a while.

    Anyways, after playing Koreans for several times, I’ve noticed that they’re quite good with castle drops. Fast stone mining with superior castle age UU means that on maps like Oasis where the opponent usually walls, you can slip in a castle beside their walls which would give the opponent headaches. Then you rush in with war wagons. Not as powerful as, let’s say, Spanish castle drop, but I don’t think their castle age deserves Tier 4.

    • barbarossa89

      The problem is that not all maps allow for walling off, giving the false sense of security which allows for a powerful castle drop. Some maps, like Arabia, involve tons of fighting all along, so no one is in a false sense of security in castle age. Castle drops are therefore less potent, and the only civilization likely to see a castle drop every game is Spanish. Lacking any powerful economic bonuses and bloodlines relegates them to lower tier status until they start to dominate in imperial.

  • LukeMam

    I’m sorry, but I do need a good explanation why Teutons are 4th tier down there with the Koreans in early imperial, because I just can’t see it.

    I mean, 1) they reach imperial age insanely fast, probably the third fastest behind Byzantines and Aztecs, 2) they miss arbalests, but so do half of all other civs, and them missing siege ram isn’t such a big deal because Britons miss it too and they’re good early imperial, and 3) they’re quite good with cavalier floods.

    Other civs that miss arbalests and one of siege ram or siege engineer not including Turks: Goths, Franks, Persians, Spanish, and Huns. And they’re all 3rd tier. What is it that those civs have that place them one tier above the Teutons in early imperial?


    • Cysion

      True, they should up a tier because of their cheaper farms. 3rd tier seems about right for them. Not 2nd tier though because the farms don’t outweigh the economical bonuses from Vikings and Britons. (Maybe even with Britons, but early imp, Britons have a killer army anyways).

      • Barbarossa89

        I assumed that the ranking for early imperial had nothing to do with how fast they could get there. If that were the case, Byzantines and Persians would be tops, and they aren’t. I figured the ranking rather reflected how well they can manage in the first three or four minutes into imperial age, with just a couple of upgrades. So 2-handed swordsmen, but not champions. Cavaliers, but not paladins. Arbalests, but not hand cannons, except for Turks. Capped rams, but not siege rams, onagers, or heavy scorpions. Elite Eagle warriors. Probably not siege engineers at that point.

        Because of this, the meso civs and turks are top because of elite eagles and free chemistry. Civilizations that get arbalest are next, because rams + arbalests is a very good combination.

        Of course, thinking a little more, this doesn’t make sense because Koreans aren’t listed as being that great early imp.

        Perhaps it is a combination of factors, speed to imperial being one of them. If so, then I would ask someone: what can Teutons do very powerfully within a couple minute in imperial? One big answer comes to mind: elite teutonic knights. The upgrade is fast, they are created fast, and no castle age unit can stop them. (Crossbowmen do 1 damage a hit.) “But the upgrade is expensive!” It’s 1200 food and 600 gold. Teuton farming will almost guarantee they will have that much food upon hitting imperial. Bam! Powerhouse.

        • Cysion

          Yup exactly, it’s about a combination, hence Vikings, Britons and Byzantines are 2nd tier. Vikings and Britons because of their insane economies ánd good early imp armies and Byzantines because they have a super cheap imp and 3 super cheap units to pick from. Or they can resort to any other strong early imp unit.

          Persians, while being fast, don’t really excel on those fields imo.

  • barbarossa89

    Have you considered doing a similar chart for water maps? Vikings rule the Feudal, but where do other civs fall? Vikings rule the castle, but can’t other civs stand a chance with a fireship rush, which Vikings miss? Imperial goes to Vikings for a while, but Spanish and Koreans might own them in later imperial. But then, as the map runs low on wood, Vikings are on top once again, with Mayans behind them, where Mayans are normally not dominant in imperial because they lack cannon galleon.

    Persians dominate Feudal and Castle, but in imperial, the fact that they miss bracer can bite. Aztecs are great in Feudal and early castle, but they miss galleon, making them the weakest imperial civilization. Turks get just a gold mining bonus to help them, but their BBTs and cannon galleons can win them the mid imperial brawl.

    Just a thought. Team islands, islands, archipelago, Baltic, Mediterranean, and coastal come to mind as maps somewhat left out of this article. I’d even be willing to help draft ranks per age.

    • Richard

      And saracens are also cool with their 20% faster attack.

  • DonLi3

    Hmmm i don’t really understand the domination per age o.o….

  • r. von fickn

    never got why Koreans have been banned on some games… they are a very sucky civ, with no useful special unit and anything they are really skilled at.. some of you guys could me explain what’s so dangerous with Koreans? thanx :)

    r. von fickn
    ageofrogliano clan

    • Cysion

      Koreans are insanely strong in post imp + gold. Nothing really stops halberdiers + siege onagers + war wagons + bombard towers. Pure paladins can wreak havoc but halberdiers with nearly immortal fatso archers in the back and bombard towers dropping their goodies on you. Well, Kors are insane :p

      • r. von fickn

        mh, i’m still doubtful, but i will try the (expensive) unit combination you suggest :)

        r. von fickn
        ageofrogliano clan

        • barbarossa89

          Korean siege onagers have 11 range. This is extremely high. Their elite war wagons have 200 HP, 13 attack, 8 range, and 8 pierce armor. They can crush most other unique units. Not Goth or Japanese, or SOMETIMES elite war elephants, but usually they win against all the others. All ranged units are terrible against them. With a meatshield, halberdiers can’t get to them. Want to counter with siege onagers? Korean ones kill yours before you can get in range. Eagle warriors? Koreans do get champions. Paladins? Halberdiers. Not to mention what Cysion already did, which is that they get bombard towers.

          Of course this is an expensive combination. But on michi games, no one is cutting before siege onager anyway, so resources are extremely high. You still have to be mindful of things like halberdiers against paladins, but by and large, resources matter less than population space and map control. If the Korean has basically unlimited resources, he can destroy just about anything.

          I have lost michi games as Koreans for two reasons: One was that there was an enemy Turk, whose really long ranged cannons killed my siege onagers, his hand cannons and janissaries killed my halberdiers, and his camels killed my war wagons. The other time, there were three enemies with paladins, and they had too much population space combined for my team to stop. Other than that, I have held off the combined might of a Celt and a Spaniard in a gap for quite a while as a Korean. Eventually, the Spaniard was able to force his way in with gunpowder, but it took them about 15 minutes to push into me. And Celts are not weak late imperial.

          • r. von fickn

            nice explaination dude,thanks :)

            but my point is that into a standard match, lan or gameranger, with standard/random map (such as black forest, migration, green arabia, sherwood, enchanced forest, fallen leaves.. to name those ones my clan likes mostly), you rarely have all these resources, so you need a versatile civ to win, not an expensive-like-paris-hilton one :)

            also if you plan a good commercial route, it could be destroyed in seconds by some randomly going cavalry, so you can’t really count/hope to have endless gold during the match, you know :)

            if this is not enough, wars start earlier than post-imperial age, so… what are u gonna do with Koreans and a small amount of gold in castle age? Hussars? :) Come on :)

            And by they way, I’m gonna test 20 paladins against 10 halberdiers + 10 war wagons with my lab scenario, but I bet Koreans ploton would be ANNHILATED in no time… and what about 20 Elite Cataphracts or 20 Elite Eagles?

            To make effective the strategy you suggest the number of your halberdiers must outnumber your enemy units, because if halberdiers die the War Wagons will be sliced wood in seconds :)

          • barbarossa89

            …..Remember, this is assuming that it is post-imperial+trade. Obviously, if they got rushed early on, this is a no-go. But if it comes down to a late imperial game on black forest or michi, Koreans are awesome. Only Persians and Turks can compare. Those three are the very top for late imperial with virtually unlimited resources.

            On games where it is likely to get this late, there is usually a very defensible position for trade. Black Forest, for example, has tons of trees blocking access in most places. Michi maps allow for tons of defensive preparation before any fighting begins, to the extent that some people wall off the entire trade route, and I have seen over 100 BBTs from one player.

            If you want to argue about Koreans in castle age, pick a beef with the rating of Koreans in castle age, not late imperial. Most Arabia games don’t last to late imperial, just as most Oasis games don’t end before post imperial. It depends on the map.

  • LukeMam

    Does anyone here agree with the idea of dividing Castle Age into Early Castle and Late Castle? I mean, you can’t say one civ is good or bad in castle age.

    Certain civs, once they get a castle up, becomes significantly more powerful. Goths for instance, or maybe Koreans. If there was such thing as a Late Castle tier, Goths would be #1 because their castle age Huskarls are so darn difficult to kill. Aztecs may be bad in castle, but once they have +20 farms, their food production skyrockets, so Aztecs would be 2nd tier in late castle.

    What about Early Castle? The Krusher civs have 2nd tier, as well as cheap Cavalry Archers for the Huns, but the Franks should be at the top due to their ability to build a castle the earliest. The Britons too – upgrade immediately into crossbowmen, and you have +1 more range. I’m not too sure why their 3rd tier in castle age though.

    • Cysion

      True, I doubted for a long while to split but the castle age strength of a civ is so incredibly relative to the map that I already had it hard enough to rank civs on an “average map”. I agree with your divisions though.

  • Pikeman93

    There’s a couple of things I disagree with regards to the tiering for Post Imp – trade:

    Why are the Celts tier 2? Their elite skirmishers are just as bad as the Frank’s, and their hussars lack two important techs, the final armor upgrade and bloodlines. The Chinese Light Cavalry can easily defeat them, and it takes only 25 shots of elite skirmisher’s sticks to defeat them. Their halbs are fast, but only 5% faster so that doesn’t really make a big difference because hussars can still outrun you. To me, the Celtic trash is only barely better than the Frank trash and should be Tier 3 instead.

    I don’t think Teutons should be Tier 3 in Post-Imp + trade – they should be Tier 4. Compare it to the Franks’ trash – their elite skirmishers can withstand one more hit from a halb, and their halbs move 10% faster, which doesn’t really make a huge difference. But their scoutline is one of the worst in the game beside the meso civs – they may have 5 more HP than a light cavalry, but they only have 9 attack, 2 less than a light cavalry.

    Spanish should be Tier 1 in Post-Imp + trade just like the byzantines. They have FU trash, and their civilians can act like trash as well. Byzantines may have cheaper elite skirmishers and halbs, but their hussars suck – basically having the same profile as the Teutonic scout except with 10 more HP. So if the Byzantines are Tier 1 in Post-Imp + trade then so should the Spanish.

    • Pikeman93

      Sorry I meant Post-Imp MINUS trade for both Teutons and Spanish. I’m so not awake today.

    • Wurstigkeit

      Agree. Celts being a second-tier in post-imp without trade has also appeared very strange to me too coz, as you mentioned, Celt skirms and hussars are really less than satisfactory. In addition to that, Celt halbs don’t really make the cut with that 5% speed bonus as Jap halbs do with their 25% attack speed bonus.
      As for Byz, yea they have 25% cheaper halbs and skirms but they get quantity at the expense of quality. Byz hussars are really bad, and hussars are no less important than skirms and halbs in trash wars. Apart from that, Byz halbs (and hussars) lack blast furnace. Well, IMO, lacking blast furnace is a big deal when you are fielding a lot of melee units. Lacking blast furnace is probably just as bad, if not even worse, as lacking bracer. If you are throwing in weaker units you end up having to replace them more frequently. In the long run the Byz trash discount comes at a price.
      Byz certainly have a stronger post-imp eco (full eco tech) for trash than Spanish if you exclude trade, but Spanish compensate that with quality for their trash – all 3 FU trash units plus stronger vills. So I would agree with pikeman93 that if Byz get tier 1 in post-imp minus trade, so should Spanish.

    • Cysion

      As said before: changes to this chart will be made gradually: each time I write a detailed article about a civ, I’ll review this chart again. I’m now writing about the Spaniards so just be patient, thx.

    • barbarossa89

      Celts have faster woodcutting, so they can afford a smaller economy, just like the Byzantines, meaning more army at one time. Their trash may stink, but they can have more of it. I don’t think this should make them tier 2, but it does push them over the Franks.

      Teutons may have a pathetic scout line, but what gold they do get from relics and market trade can go to elite teutonic knights, which take one damage from all trash types. Those ETKs own all trash extremely well.

  • DMZ Regicide

    About domination per map

    Michi 1v1 : celts
    Celts I agree. They have a very good boom-imp. Later, koreans take the power as u said in team games.

    Water maps : viks
    Grush of vikings are wonderful. LAter, long later spanishes raze all earths and win O_o. I think they win on navy too but I didn’t test mass galleons facing them.

    Deathmatch :
    And DM? what do you think about civs in it? Anybody would debates ? :)

    Have good discussion,

    • barbarossa89

      For DM, Huns or Goths. Huns can paladin rush without having to build any houses; Goths can infantry flood with very few barracks, leaving most of their villagers to building houses. Pick your poison.

      • REg

        yes, terrible civs in DM

        u can scream to receive help at start when you’re facing them

        • barbarossa89

          I am perfectly willing to play you in deathmatch if we can arrange a time. Huns and Goths are the best, becuase rushing is paramount.

          Know which civlilization is right behind them? Aztecs. 15% production bonus helps attack faster.

          Deathmatches usually don’t last much longer than 10-15 minutes. They are not huge imperial brawls, they are fast blitzes of units and buildings to kill the opponent as fast as possible.

          The scout in a deathmatch is often sent straight at an enemy player to kill a villager and gain a building advantage.

          If you are playing no rush, that’s a different matter. But deathmatches are over really fast in normal play.

          If you scream for help, then it is 2v1, with the 1 on the offensive. His ally can meanwhile afford to strike devastatingly in a couple minutes.

          So I would rank civs in DM accordingly:

          Huns (No houses, stable bonus)
          Goths (Insane infantry production)
          Aztecs (All military produced 15% faster)
          Turks (Gunpowder production and HP bonus, long range bbts)
          Spanish (Faster builders, stronger villagers, paladins, gunpowder)

          *Skip a few*

          Mayans (no really powerful unit, no production bonus)
          Vikings (At least the Mayans get EEW)
          Japanese (They have to build a castle to be powerful)

          • DMZ Regicide

            Hey barb@rossa89

            I regularly log on Gameranger , my id is in my profile, this way you catch me as you want ;)

            I saw you posting on aok heaven it would be fun to play with you.

            I also wanted to play with Cys lol he’s cute when he plays DM :D

  • JustinBeaver

    First of all, very awesome work!!!

    Reading everyone’s comment, I also agree that Teuton should be put in the 1st tier in Post Imp + Trade.

    They have very good monks, ETKs, halberdiers, heavy scorps and siege onagers with siege engineer to counter Persian’s elephants, while they also have paladins, hand cannoneers, bombard cannoneers and bombard towers. Maybe the only thing they lack is speed. They don’t have arbalests, heavy CAs, thumb ring and bracer, but these are IMO rarely used by a Teuton player. In fact, with siege onagers and siege engineers, Teuton’s sieges are much stronger than Persian, which is the reason i think Teuton are at least as good as Persian, if not better than them.

    My question is: why are there so many “1st tiers” in Imp and Post Imp + Trade?
    There are ten 1st tiers in Imp and seven in post imp + trade, while there are only 18 civilizations. :P

    • Cysion

      First of all: hilarious profile picture. :D

      Okay, whenever I write an article about a civ, I come to check this article and update their colors if needed. So Teutons won’t be updated before I write the Teuton article ;)

      For the so many 1st tiers in post-imp+trade: there are a lot of “powerful units”, heavy siege and heavy cavalry are accessible to a lot of civs, hence so many 1st tiers. Then there’s also a selection of strong UU that make the cut (Mameluke, Mangudai, Elephants, War Wagons).

      In early imp there’s even more of course but there are a lot of “counter civs” there. Mayans are incredibly hard to stop by Goths in imp, but Goths will struggle against a smart Byzantine, who will in return suffer to a smart Mongol, who in return will suffer against the Mayan again. I’m not saying each of these civs “rape” the other, but there sure is an advantage in imp.

      This game is just so balanced that there’s a lot of civs with similar strengths :)

  • CarlosFerdinand

    You’ve got to be kidding lol, i wasnt referring to 1% of arabias when i said open maps. Ara is the most commonly played map, most of them are very open, so Goths pwn in feudal age IMO.

    • MrDanish177

      I’ve been wondering.. When will you consider making an account? :b

      • CarlosFerdinand

        Hmm, not sure, but i can post without making account anyway lol :D

        • MrDanish177

          I know ^^ Just curious. A good way to support Cys though ;)

    • Cysion

      Well, it’s not about which map is played most, it’s an attempt to make an average overview on the most average map. Which is (according to ES) and according to me: Coastal. Standard resources, not very open, a little bit of water but not enough to go for an all out grush. Or maybe better: a map like coastal, but even less water and fish to make a grush less viable.

      This is aocbox, not arabox.

      • Richard

        “This is aocbox, not arabox.” :D

        Anyway, I agree. You can think of Coastal as the average of all maps. So when you are looking at the chart, we can say the tiers are meaned on Coastal.

        I have a suggestion anyway. If Post Imperial No Trade means trashwars mostly, than spanish should be a first tire civ then. The reason is: they are the only one civ in the whole game, who have full upgraded Halberiders, full upgraded Hussars and full upgraded Elite Skirmishers. If you field all of them, you have to research as many blacksmith technologies as you can, which dont cost gold for the spanis, so they can research all of them even after running totally out of gold.

        I like trashwars, they are fun. :)

        • barbarossa89

          You forgot fully upgraded villagers ;) Supremacy ROCKS!

          Most people, Cysion included, think the 25% discount Byzantines get for halberdiers and skirmishers makes them superior in trash wars. This allows them to maintain a smaller economy and thus a larger military. Quantity > quality.

          I think that Spanish and Mongols are right below them, though. Perfect trash + villagers who can be cheap siege for Spanish, 117 HP hussars for Mongols, the only trash unit to win in terms of resources against a Spanish villager.

          • Richard

            I dont think, that Mongols rock in trashwars so much. They have 117 HP Hussar, and that is all. They dont have Halberdier, they miss the Imperial Age archer armor, and cavalry armor. Because of this the Mongolian Hussar is hardly better than others, moreover, they stand less arrows than a Spanish Hussar (For exaple arrows of an Elite Longbowman. Spanish stands 19, Mongolian stands 17).

      • CarlosFerdinand

        omg.. i wasnt talking about maps with water in it where i dont have much idea how flushing would be effective or not. Since it was about feudal fighting i assumed its about arabia or other open maps, also wasnt thinking about ships anyway.

        Anyway when it comes to feudal fighting, arabia is the most important map, dead obvious since most feudal fights take place in ara, so arabia is more like 50% of games and not 1 % in feudal fights.

        • Cysion

          Ofcourse you were not, that was my point ^_^

  • Richard

    Hi all,

    I know that this chart is under progress, and it is impossible to construct the perfect one, and it is only a guidline, and all that stuff. And in major part I agree with this chart, it is quite good. I only have an observation. In feudal, castle and early imp no civ got the 5th tier. This chart is based on comparing the civs to each other, so I think it would be better if at least one civ got 5th tier (and 1st tier too) in every age so the scale would be wider, and the differencies would be more sensible.

    HF :)

    • Cysion

      Well, I’m doing it like this because it’s insanely hard to rank civs in certain ages, especially in the castle age. Usually, people say that the age to beat Aztecs, is the castle age, but they got insane monks and a slick economy at that point, above that they get crossbows like every other civ (except Spain). Saracens then? It depends again: they have good archers, bloodlined knights and if the situation would allow it: good monks and a market bonus you can play with. Koreans? Good chance, but if we stressed so much on archers before, we can’t forget the power of Korean onagers who can defend from any other onager/archery attack without hassle.

      I would probably put Koreans lowest in the castle age but if you play it out defensively, Koreans are actually quite good and def not lowest tier. The game is too balanced I guess :D

      • barbarossa89

        I would put Aztecs in 5th tier for castle. They get crossbowman, but miss thumb ring, which can be really important if you aren’t Britons. Their monks are utilizable really only on Arena, where you plan to use them anyway. They miss knights, have no great bonuses for their military, and their best tactic is often to go to imperial ASAP to take advantage of their infantry and siege.

        For a civ to be viable in castle age, it should have bloodlines or thumb ring, or get a good military bonus. (Britons.)

        Koreans get thumb ring, but no economic bonuses. However, they can reasonably be played defensively until imperial, where they shine.

        Saracens get bloodlines and thumb ring, so they are set.

        Aztec carry bonus doesn’t really shine until late castle age, when you have lots of farming going on. Other than that, their economy is hardly better than other civs’ though mid castle.

        Want to give some civ bottom tiering in Feudal? Franks. Farm upgrades free. That’s it. They miss bloodlines, so they are pretty bottomed out for flushing anyway.

        I agree with Carlos_Ferdinand about Goths. Cheap men at arms are a great asset mixed in with skirmishers. I would give them and Japanese first tier in Feudal for their superior men at arms. Japanese for their cheaper collection sites as well. Think about it: 50 saved per site: one mill, two lumber camps, one mining camp, that’s 200 wood extra. Three farms or a military building. And some people build an extra mill if there are good deer around. 250 wood saved could mean a farm and a military building; quite the boost in feudal. And unlike Huns, they don’t lose 100 wood at start. So it takes probably until population 35-40 before Huns catch up to Japanese in terms of extra wood. It would be 50, but you have to remember villager seconds saved from building houses.

        Also, why are Goths not bottom tier for dark? Is it the hunter carry bonus? Or the attack bonus against boars? Just wondering.

        • Cysion

          This site is about thinking out of the box. I’ve seen many many games other than arena where Aztec monks made a difference. Besides that their farmers work better than other civs. Above that all their military units are created faster. Definitely not rock-bottom in castle age. Hard, sure, but so are Koreans with their defensive play.

          And your quote about “For a civ to be viable in castle age, it should have bloodlines or thumb ring, or get a good military bonus. (Britons)” goes against the wide variety of this game :p For example Vikings, who can even out-knight Huns with their superior economy.

          As for Goths: they’re definitely not worth a higher tier, 3rd suits them fine. Carlos mentions “an open arabia map”, that’s about 1% of all the possible maps you can play on aoc I think? Just because of 1 unit (the most costly one even) happens to be the best for those respective civs doesn’t make them 1st tier overall, especially since Goths don’t have a notable economic bonus. Japs are already 2nd tier in feudal, and they seriously can’t compete with Huns/Byzantines.

          And Goths are indeed not last tier because their carry bonus and attack bonus vs boars. Sure it’s near to worthless but it’s “something”. The tiers in dark age are very very narrow anyways.

          • barbarossa89

            Ok. I am satisfied with those explanations. I got too caught up in “Arabia-think” for a moment there, when it came to Aztecs, Goths, and Japanese. Thanks for bashing my head a bit :P I needed it.

  • MaximuS

    Tecs only one in dark 1st tier!! !9 11

  • barbarossa89

    That’s quite a list, but I have a few questions:

    Why are Spanish and Mongols not 1st tier in post-imp -trade? Mongols get stronger hussars, Spanish have super-villagers that can dominate in trash wars, except against Mongol hussars. And with sappers, they can act as cheap siege as well.

    I saw your reasoning for not putting Teutons at top-tier in post-imp + trade, but I disagree. Why are Persians top tier? What have they got that Teutons don’t? War elephant is the probable answer. They are not too good at micro-management either.

    Teutons have: ETKs, paladins, siege onagers, heavy scorpions, bombard cannons, siege engineers, hand cannons, bombard towers, and 13-range castles. What’s not dominant about that in late imperial situations? Better or equal to anything from Persians, with the lone exception of the war elephant, which is created more slowly and is more easily countered with trash.

    It’s not about having one uber-unit, it’s about having lots of top-tier units. They are arguably one of the top siege civilizations overall, with some competition from Celts, Mongols, Koreans, and perhaps Saracens. I think heavy scorpion > siege ram, but others may disagree.

    • Jaraldo

      I mostly agreed with you on tuts/persa. They have equal pala. Persa has better archers. Tuts have better infantry. The siege is fairly similar. But when you look at the Unique Units, in post-imp, a EWE is really unstoppable. 3ETKs barely wins 1, 3 pala almost wins 1. Even halbs you need at least 3. So if your facing 80-90 EWE, you need 240-270 of halb/etk/pala to win them, which isn’t possible ^^. This is why i think Persa get tOp tier.

      I disagree with something in the list to. I think china should be 2nd,(if not 1st) for early-imp and imp.
      I think tuts should be 2nd tier or that japs should be 3rd tier in dark age, since their bonuses are similar.
      It’s hard to make a chart for every map and situation. So it’s a work in progress :D.

      • Landsknetch

        Its balanced actually, War elephants are holy expensive, costing 200 food each + 75 gold, and they both walk and train super slow, by the time u saw them at ur city gates, u can already pump out a dozen of Halbs before they can even walk to your TC, and i never seen anyone able to mass over 50 elephants (50 x 200 = 10000 food) and that literally squeeze everything out of your economy

        • barbarossa89

          Well, I have been able to mass 50 in michi games, but it required 90 farmers and 40 trade carts to keep up. The other 20 population was taken up with woodgathering to keep the farms and military production buildings up.

          Teutons can keep and maintain a larger force of ETKs. Also, the “better archers” of the Persians means heavy cavalry archers that still miss bracer, so no real domination there, even if they are somewhat superior.

          I would not deny that Persians are indeed extremely powerful top-tier material. But I do think Teutons are up there too.

          Remember, the “guns+elephants” combo can be done in with heavy scorpions alone. ETKs, paladins, and siege onagers are a much more powerful force, IMO, getting stopped only by bombard towers, (bring cannons or trebuchets,) elite mangudai, (one civilization,) or complex and equally expensive unit combinations.

          • Cysion

            Well, what I dislike most about ETK is that they’re quite easily screwed by a well aimed shot of a siege onager. But as said before: I’m still not sure on how to judge Teutons and Chinese.

        • Jaraldo

          …80-90 farm+20-25 trade really makes things easy :D. Remember they wouldnt be dying every 30 sec haha. Unless someone just sucks sending mass ellies into halbs :/. And they aren’t really as slow as ppl make them out to be. They are faster than etk’s if i remember correctly

          • Wurstigkeit

            I myself is a Persian fan but even then, I have to recognize that as soon as the other side starts to mass monks behind the halbs, things start to get a bit complicated but yea, sometimes experts could just overcome it. There was a 3vs3 Yucatan rec in which L_Clan_Bender fended off the halbs+ siege + mang+ monks of Vile and Koven just with EWEs(and without upgrading bloodlines). There were just some only occasional help from his allies.

          • barbarossa89

            You will almost certainly need more trade than that, unless it is a giant map or you have a Spanish ally. Trade brings in gold more slowly than farms bring in food. 75 gold per war elephant is not cheap.

            I agree that two well-aimed siege onager shots can take out a good number of ETKs, but for the Persians, a nest of heavy scorpions can take out a large mass of war elephants. Persians and Teutons both get paladins to help kill unwanted siege. And ETKs in staggered formation are much less likely to die easily to siege fire.

            A well-aimed siege onager shot kills tons of units. Some units may be able to dodge better than others, but Teutons can have cannons behind their ETKs for LoS and taking out enemy siege equipment before it gets in range.

            I would consider moving Chinese up a notch, just because they do get bombard tower. This, along with masses of chu ko nu, makes them extremely difficult to raid. They don’t have something that DOMINATES the way the tier one civs should, but they do have recourse to many different tactics, which they pull off effectively. Archers? Check. Infantry? Check. Cavalry? Missing paladin, but FU cavaliers. And they get heavy camel too. And their heavy scorpions are second only to Celts’, in certain situations.

            Chinese aren’t necessarily so hot at mounting a pushing offense in late imperial, but they can play defense like mad. Post-imp + trade implies an ally. A Chinese player can defend both of them while the ally goes all offense.

          • Richard


            Persian elephants cost 75 gold. That is the same amount of gold that a Paladin costs. So if someone can mass Palas, he can mass elephants too, but needs two times more farms. Teutons are strong in Imperial, but I think they have a hard time if Persians start an Elephant flood. It is seen rarely, but more rarely seen to be stopped.
            Elephants are not that slow. They have the Mahouts technology and Husbandry as well. They move as fast as normal infantries, like a Champion, which means, they are much faster than a TK. And dont forget about the Teutonic Scout vs Persian Hussar case. In my opinion Persians are extremely strong in post Imp+trade situations. They are stronger than Teutons, but of course victory depends on a lot of other things, so anyone can win.

            Peace. :)

          • barbarossa89

            A Persian wanting to keep up continual war elephants will need to have 80-100 farms, depending on how fast they die.

            Heavy scorpions have a significant attack bonus against war elephants. War elephants are still insanely powerful, but the “elephants + guns” combo can be taken down with a one-unit army.

            My argument in favor of Teutons did not rely solely on their Teutonic Knights. Rather, it takes into account the fact that Teutons get the following things Persians miss:

            Siege onager
            Bombard tower
            Siege engineers

            Those are extremely useful in post-imperial situations. What do Persians get the Teutons miss? Uh, War elephant. Heavy cavalry archer. Camel. But those are not as useful as the three techs mentioned for Teutons.

            War elephants are:

            Created slowly
            275 resources EACH

            Teutonic Knights are:

            Created FAST
            120 resources each.

            ETKs are very weak to:

            Cavalry archers
            Hand cannons
            Onagers (sometimes)
            Monks (less so because of Teuton resistance bonus)

            War elephants are weak to:

            Onagers (sometimes)

            War elephants are indeed powerful. The Persians are certainly a top-tier imperial civilization, no doubt about it.

            I think Teutons are too. It’s not just because of their unique unit. It’s more the fact that they are the only civilization to get siege onager AND paladin AND bombard tower. Siege engines, all siege except siege ram, a powerful unique unit, and great gunpowder are icing on the cake.

          • Jaraldo

            I’ve NEVER seen scorps win vs ellies in a straight up fight. Scorp+halbs, yeah that will do it. The only scorps that could beat ellies would be in aok 11

          • yampi

            Full boomed + trade teut is one of the best civ around.

            Halbs / Tkts
            SO HS BBC BBT
            FU Pal (ok not fu miss speed up but well, teut is slow push civ anyway)
            Less woodies with roxxy farms, more pop space.
            Miss siege rams but easily compensed by trebs / bcc covered by so + tks + halbs.

            Definatly a slow civ, but once u’re boomed and get some trade not much can stop you, maybe turks due to lack of siege rams.

            Teut is a really underestimated civ, they actually are doing very ok on most maps, except maybe water but their cheap farms can do the work to a castle water comeback.

            Not to mention their awesome castles who can win you the game on watermaps lol.

          • yampi

            Forgot to say that they are the or one of the best arena civ, perfect aztek counter :)

          • yampi

            In no trade wars, sending a few tk in trash battle line is funny to watch btw.

            ps : sorry for triple post, but i couldn’t edit first one =@

          • barbarossa89

            I have lost pure war elephants to pure scorpions before. It was in a gap, and there were buildings in the way, so that’s not standard. But then again, the types of games likely to go to late imperial with trade are ones with gaps. And people do build in the gaps.

            Halberdiers in front of the heavy scorpions make it all the better.

            Persians still should not go down. War elephants are still extremely powerful. Only times I have lost in late imperial games as Persians are when I am up against people 100+ more skilled than I am, against saracens, 2v1, or when they have a Persian as well.

            Teutons are still the only civ to get bbt, siege onager, and paladin. Celts get siege onager and paladin. Byzantines and Spanish get paladin and BBT. Koreans get BBT and siege onager. Only Teutons get all three.

    • Cysion

      It’s a work in progress indeed, I’m still not very sure on how to judge Teutons and Chinese. Teutons are very strong indeed but as Jara pointed out: once dumbos are starting to stroll over the battlefield, you’re pretty much screwed. Or at least in some big troubles.

      • Wurstigkeit

        IMO chinese are not bad in early imp because they have the killer combos you mentioned earlier on, i.e. arbalests+siege rams, halberdiers+siege rams and also they have discount in techs (though some argue that the discount hardly makes the cut)
        But that’s that, after the first 5-10 mins in imp chinese are, well, to put it euphemistically, function better as support civs to the stronger ones (in teamgames) until trash wars begin

      • _EA_TeuTonic

        Hi all,

        I am a big teuton fan (like my name is saying) but i trie to report neutral.
        At the moment all are comparing the units from teutons and persians.
        So let´s take a look at the benefits from teutons.

        Strongest lategame Eco (maybe mayans are equal, had not calculated)
        why i am saying this?
        – treadmill crane (you can build your farms faster ==> more ressources gathering; little bonus but bonus)
        – guilds (if gold is one time low you can trade more gold then other civs without this)
        – crop rotation (last farming update don´t need so much wood for farms)
        – farm bonus (you need less wood, also a bonus)
        – two man saw (more wood)

        I have not mentioned the gold and stone technolies because would be no gold and stone spots. Excepted map: gold rush

        So teutons had a great eco because of the techs and the bonus. But what benefits had teutons also?

        - access to the bombard towers (what should i say one of the more important buildings to hold ground; only 6 civs can build these nice buildings)
        - Strongest castles in the game (13 range; just great good bonus on water and if you have halbs and the enemy goes hc you can put then inside and get more arrows =))
        - TC & Arrow tower bonuses ( Tc bonus can be quite nice against raids in late imp but both bonuses are more important in the early stages of a game to defend your town and boom up)

        So good buildings and a strong eco is something strong. But let´s look at the units and military techs.

        Gold units:
        -paladins (they lack about the speed update but imo this is not that important; all other techs; strong unit)
        -hand canoneers (all defensive updates for this type of unit, you can also use this)
        -Monk (yes a good way to counter the persians ew, they have access to all upgrades)
        -Champs (Not so important for teutons because of ETK, but you have all upgrades, you can use them)
        -Teutonic Knights (if they are in range they are one of the best units ingame, in some situation just insane, you could make rams and put them inside)

        - siege engineers (strong tech for all your siege weapons)
        - bombard cannons (very nice to protect the army from onagers, siege engineers is helping you)
        - siege onagers (strongest counter to archers)
        - heavy scorps (nice to use in some situations, no friendly fire(?))

        trash unit composition:
        -halberdiers (all upgrades)
        -skirm (one range update missing)

        IMO Teutons are 1 tier in imp with trade they have many good units which are waiting therefore to be used. I see many pros just using 1 or 2 units in teamgames as teutons but you have so many abilities.
        They have imo the strongest eco in late imp which helps out a lot.
        They have strong buildings which underlines the teutonic strengh to play defensive, economicly.

        • MrDanish177

          I agree, they’re very strong in late game and they can be one of the meanest civs in the pocket, as well as at the flank, if played correctly of course. Their defensive structures are superb, extreme range on castles can be used in some slow yet effective pushes along with bombard towers to gain ground, but as you sorta mention all their really good units and buildings require gold and/or stone. So that’s probably why they’re 3rd tier in Post IMP without trade and when stone is scarce, which I think is correct. The reason why they’re not tier 1 in Post IMP with trade, I’m not sure, maybe because some of the other civs like the Persians and Koreans simply outshine them with their superior inf, cav and siege (War Elephants could almost count as siege haha) in the late IMP game. But they are a strong civ indeed, never the less.

          Remember, this chart is good, but don’t take it too literally. AoC is a very complex game, so nothing will ever be justified 100% in a chart (imho), it’s as simple as that. Not saying it’s useless though. So I’d consider it more like guidelines to what civs do well during the different ages, when you just need to get a quick overview before a game or something like that. Cysion has still done a great job on making this though. ^_^

  • diet_coke


  • Pikeman93

    I’m a noob player, so I might be totally wrong here, but there are a couple of things that I disagree with.

    1) Goths have a pretty good feudal age and castle age IMO. Cheap infantry in feudal age, and in castle age, they have the ability to mass together Huskarls which can take down TC’s and castles because they’re resistant to arrows. They should be tier 2 in feudal and castle age.

    2) I asked this on forum, but I still don’t get why Teutons are Tier 4 in early imperial while most of the civs are Tier 3. Sure, Teutons don’t have really strong units unless they do research on them, but so do most of the other civs.

    3) Koreans should be at least Tier 3 in castle age. Free tower upgrade, and +1 range tower, as well as the ability to mine stone faster, hence more towers up.

    4) I kind of agree on the previous suggestion that Saracens should be at least Tier 3 in feudal or castle age. A market costs as much as a barrack, and the Saracens won’t be rushing in feudal so it’s not a big loss. Also, villagers mine gold faster than food, and food requires wood, so buying your food to get to castle and imperial takes fewer resources.

    5) I don’t understand why the Spanish doesn’t have any Tier 1′s in any of the ages? They’re great in imperial – fast firing HC’s, BC’s, paladins, and BT’s that are built up fast. They should have Tier 1 in imperial. Maybe even Tier 1 in imperial w/o trade because they have the best trash units in the game. Speaking of which, shouldn’t Teutons be Tier 1 in imperial age? They have BT’s, paladins, ETK’s, and siege onagers.

    6) Mongols being Tier 3 in Castle age – I kind of disagree. 95 HP LC’s and fast firing CA’s is dangerous for the enemy.

    • Cysion

      Allow me to explain why I ranked the civs like that:
      1| Infantry, especially in feudal is easily countered by ranged units. Same in the castle age and even though Goths can blend in huskarls, it also requires a castle. Besides that, they have not a single economical bonus to sustain this. Especially in feudal.

      2| Well, what I consider “killer combos” in early imperial are arbalests+siege rams, halberdiers+ siege rams, elite eagle warriors and the Turkish guns. Quick and cheap upgrades with a devastating power. They might as well be 3rd tier together with Koreans, so the difference between 3rd and 4th is really narrow.

      3| A tower is just a tower, it’s a big immobile archer. But I’ll highlight this in detail in an article about the Koreans.

      4| I’m doubting more about the Saracens too, I already pulled them up one tier, but give it some time and thought before I move them up again :p

      5| Spanish lack siege engineers, which just evens out their bombard cannons compared to civs who actually have that upgrade. Spanish are very comparable to Byzantines in a way: they have a very wide and extended tech tree, but that also means they don’t really excel at a certain field like Celtic siege or Turkish guns. Except trash units indeed, but because Byzantines already have the best trash units, Spanish are once more, the 2nd place. The reason why Teutons aren’t 1st tier in post imperial+trade (they can’t be in imperial because the combined upgrades of all the units you mentioned can never be afforded in an average imperial game) is because of the nature of the units. Teutons are slow pushers and even though Teutonic Knights are 100% lethal, they lack the ability to be micro’d effectively. Well, actually, the last column is pretty much “DM, no rush with trade”, I’m no DM expert but I’m quite sure Teutons vanish to Koreans and Turks, the civs that will always be feared in DM games if you can’t rush them to death early.

      6| Every civ can field a dangerous combination in the castle age, but economical bonuses must also be taken into account. The combination you mentioned is very lethal in the imperial age though. (Hence Mongols are a top tier there)

      I hope I was a bit clear!

      • apprentice

        I like the Mongols. However due to my lack of exp I mainly suck with them rather than shine. I do sense they have some extremely good hidden potential, altough I have not been able to find it in my matches. Anyways, you can proportion this to your answer.

        2) according to this, can I say Saracens do have killer combo in Early Imp due to: Arbalests + Siege Rams including Siege Engineers?

        A short comparison between the Saracens and the Mongols in this sense

        Saracens vs Mongols

        will become more stronger than Mongol ones due to their armour update and their civ hit buildings bonus

        Siege Rams
        have longer lifeline with the Mongols due the Drill

        So how do you define Early Imp and which type of techs are reasonable to be upgraded in Early Imp attack in these cases?

        • Cysion

          Early imp is pretty much defined as the first 5 minutes in the imperial age. Which is kinda the time where elite eagles can be upgraded and massed, Turkish guns can be massed and the early civs like Britons, Vikings and Byzantines can come up with a powerful arbalest+ram combination.

          So even though I would take Drill out of the comparison (requires a castle, and in the long run it’s not as beneficial as other techs, like preparations for your invincible mangudai army :p)

          Your comparison is correct btw, but keep in mind that I just divided the civs in tiers, it’s not a ranking of 18 civs but rather a rough ranking. So within a tier, there are differences too.

          As for Mongols: their strength is well micro’d elite mangudai+siege (rams or onagers or both) and hussars. It takes some practice though, I myself can’t really handle them either :p

          Practice makes perfect!

  • W17

    Goth can mass m@a in feudal age. it rox, so i think they deserve 2ed tier even 1st tier. huns is actually powerful at early imp. Nowaday we mass CAs in castle age,and once you go will have lots of heavy CAs. Of course it rox.So they deserver at least 2ed tier. Viking is not that bad in imp. Champion+skirm still work well.Why Spain is not first in imp trade+?Nothing can stop paladin+BBT as we see in minch.
    Thx for your reading^-^.This website is amazing. GJ!

  • Cysion

    @Helloz: I ran a simple test with 40 paladins (Huns) against 40 cataphracts (Byzantines) with both armies patrolling into each other. The paladins survived with 23 units left. (Injured, but alive)

    So yeah, they do rock, but I just don’t wonna move them up 1 tier. They’re the top of tier 2, but they just lack something edgy. But thanks to your input the Saracens already moved up :p

    • Jaraldo

      when i tested with you there were only 9 pala left -_-. Sux facts <3 :p

      • Cysion

        Yes my bad, the 23 left was with a test patrol vs non patrol. Good ball :p

  • DMZ Regicide

    Well I lost a lot of BF with persians because the ennemy can mass units to block my ellies while converting some of them or sending a large number of scorps missiles.

    So I would say that you need good allies to be efficient.

    Siege onies civ are definitevely good because you can cut trough the forest and easily acess to ennemie’s trade, who is more exposed than in a michi due to the configuration of the map bf.

  • emmynem

    Which is the best civilization for Black Forest???

    • Cysion

      Hard to say which civ is “best”, but in 1v1, Celts have always been a popular choice. In teamgames, Spaniards, Mongols and Persians come into view too.

      • apprentice

        In noob games, things look very different. Most common things I see are mass Paladins, mass unique units and in other extreme mass halberdierds. I would really like to see how good players cope on team BF. So if you have video about it, please send. Since BF is popular map it is worth video also or even an article in my opinion. To make this reply short i simply end this by “keep up the great work!”

      • HooTsH

        Hello, at first just wanted to say how awesome your site is.

        But I don’t see why saracans are never considered in BF..

        I’m a ridiculous noob (I NEVER win a GA game lol) and I usually buttseks people at BF (noob-avg according to GameRanger standards) because everyone goes for the pala/trash civs and I get saracans and bam..half way through Imperial they’re losing ridiculous amounts of horses and siege..and when its time for the trash…I pwn them some more because I got a bit more gold than them thanks to the market adv.

        • Jaraldo

          Yeah that’s cause noob/avg don’t rush ^^. IMO sara still one of the slower civs, I personally hate them 11(only hate korea more). You need alot of time compared to other civs to get an army going. 4/5min may not seem like alot, but they could be ramming the shit outta you by then and have half your town gone :X. But that’s just in GR. In voobly, sara is really good cause ppl play them right, they get trade going mass the mames and BBC and away they go :). Top 3 post imp civs are turks,korea,sara. As long as they have gold :D

          • HooTsH

            Its true, most BF games I play have no rush :D

            Which is also mainly the reason why I don’t play GA, because I’m still noob at rushing xD

            Thanks for the input mate.

    • Jaraldo

      Brits #1 (imo) Celt probably #2. I’ve seen byz,vikes,aztecs,maya do well though. (with vikes you must be insanely aggressive O_O)

      • Jaraldo

        that was for 1v1 btw ^^

  • Helloz

    Hmm I wont really agree to you putting saracens so low in feudal age. I think their market makes them pretty good enough..Lots of VS gained there if you do strats like sarc scrush etc..

    Also mongols are very good in dark/early feudal due to hunting bonus..they deserve 1st tier

    And byzantine FU cata’s in post imp+trade along with their access to Gunpowder should give them a top tier in that area..

    • Cysion

      Well, Saracens must make a market then, which takes quite some time and resources. I really don’t consider their economical advantage big compared to other civs. You don’t exactly gain VS anyway, since you must build a market (takes a lot of time) and when you exchange your gold for food, you can only keep this up for a little while. It’s a small boost but I don’t think it outweighs the disadvantages of having to make a market. All other civs at least have a “free” economical or military advantage.

      For Mongols, definitely not first tier in feudal. On any more or less standardized map, their hunt is worked out in early feudal and at that point they have no economical bonus anymore. And they for sure don’t outweigh the Hunnic and the Byzantine advantage. And dark age is clearly won by Aztecs, no competition there :p

      They’re on 2nd tier for both these ages anyways. They’re a very good civ in the early ages, but I wouldn’t consider them “best”.

      Byzantines are indeed lethal in post imp but unlike the other civs in tier 1, they lack a killer unit or killer combo. Celts (Monster siege+infantry), Koreans (Monster siege, gunpowder and war wagons), Turks (gunpowder), Mongols (Killer siege and Mangudai), Persians (Elephants +guns) and Saracens (great siege and an unmatched tech tree, awesome UU too).
      If I look at the 2nd tier, I would say Byzantines come on top of their tier, but they lack something killer in my opinion. Then again, this list is totally open for debate, so there might be a need for minor changes. I think the biggest problem in post imp games is that siege, cavalry and gunpowder become very important again. And Byzantines don’t shine in those. They score well in those fields, but just not “top” if you know what I mean :p

      Thanks for your reply!

      • Hmm

        Hmm I dont know really..Mongols can get damn fas advances, they do save a lot of VS due to their hunting bonus..

        Also sure yeah saracens gotta build a market..but thats not much time or VS..only 175 wood. They save a lot of VS not needing farms early on. Ofc I’m talking 1v1 here and not TG

        Also Byz…I still strongly disagree wth you. Elite Cataphracts are damn good units…in mass they are reall hard to kill. Along with those, byzantines get full gunpowder..bc,bbt,hc…with good upgades, thei BBT even have more HP. And they can easily mix some random trash army along with their cata horde ..

        • Cysion

          Well, it’s just that I don’t like to give Byzantines top tier there. Especially if you compare it to other civs in tier 1. Sure they’re monsters in imperial, but they don’t have a special bonus compared to the civs of tier 1.

          The problem with post imp + trade is that raw force comes into play. And Cataphracts are simply not a raw force :p

          They die to Paladins and don’t excel against gunpowder. And the Byzantine Paladins aren’t really a force either.
          Onto their guns then: they have good guns, but unlike Turks, they don’t have an edge. Their siege is really just average too, no siege engineers, nor siege onagers or heavy scorpions. While Celts, Koreans and Saracens excel here. Their BBT have extra HP indeed, but that’s about the only bonus I can see in their whole post imperial army.

          I think the problem with Byzantines is their extended techtree. They have everything and can make everything, but they don’t have a bonus that makes them excel in a certain field. (Unlike Mongols, Celts, Koreans, Turks, Persians and Saracens).

          Anyways, as for Saracens early game, I might change their tier a bit there. Since compared to other civs, they indeed have their market bonus but also the bloodlines upgrade. The lack of which hurts a bunch of other civs. Oh and goodness, I forgot their naval bonus!

          • Helloz

            Hmm yeah, but cataphracts in group will perform really well against paladins and most other units due to their unique -trample-damage-thingy..

  • DMZ Regicide

    hi, I’ve a question :

    “Post imperial – trade” : Does this designate “out-of-gold” games?

    • Cysion

      Indeed, so it’s generally trashwars. (Only units that cost no good are fielded)

  • Jaraldo

    Well i disagree with a few points on this chart..but i know how hard is to even decide on some of these factors. (and have never seen a chart even made on this). So very ty. =)

  • Bublifuk

    Very good job!