An Analysis of Britons
- This topic has 6 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
-
Posts
-
**(Long post, TL;dr in the end)**
Hi all!
OK hear me.
I’m an old school player and thus I have always liked Britons’ design and theme.
I’m totally reluctant to make any proposal towards any kind of rework or something like that.
That said, some ideas have been hovering my mind about this civ, and I’d like to present them to you just, as I always do, for the sake of discussion.
If anyone feels my views are biased, he/she is welcome to comment on them, and I’ll be glad to read them.
I’ll try to include both pros and cons and evaluate them as objectively as possible.
**State of the civ**
Even with the evolution of Aoe2 and inclusion of new civs, we have seen Britons’ popularity remain unchanged, both for 1v1 and Team Games.
Their **play rate is** currently, and has been for many years, **top5** both for 1v1 and Team Games.
They’re an easy civ to play with, because their gameplay is very clear.
That’s very user friendly 🙂
**Win rates** are a different thing.
There has been a little of “power creep” (yeah, why not admit it.
I’m fine with it) from balance perspective by granting more buffs than nerfs to civs.
I have looked into some data **since 2021** and it looks like Britons **have been slowly going down** in Win Rates to their current 6th from the bottom (39th from 45).
Hey, I understand numbers.
If there’s a ranking, one civ will be the first and another one will be the last.
If there are civs with above 50% Win Rate, there will always be civs with below 50% Win Rate.
That’s no reason to worry about a civ’s performance.
**What changes have they undergone?**
Britons have been hit hard with **nerfs to their Team Bonus and Xbows/Arb upgrades being more expensive**.
The main buff to their tech tree was seen when they were given again FU Champions by giving them **access to Gambesons**.
I guess this would make **Arb/Longbow + Champions pushes more viable** against Skirm-based compositions (notably Skirm + Cavalier).
But **the changes that have indirectly affected** the most their performance, I feel, **were for other civs**, both old and new ones. **New units** like Ghulam (8 pierce, bonus vs Archers), Serjeant (8 pierce), Hussite Wagon (1 damage per hit), Elephant Archer (Anti-Archer), Ratha (Pretty good vs Archers), Shrivamsha (no comments here), Armored Elephant (Now Rams attack you back), Savar (this one is new, but I’m sure Britons don’t like it) look like aimed to fight civs with Foot Archers as the core of their army.
Now **Cavalry Archers look more viable** than ever (Japanese +2 vs Archers, faster creation for Magyars, Persians have Parthian Tactics in Castle Age, Koreans half their wood cost…) and there are even civs that can choose from many **units with bonuses to counter Xbows** (like Incas with discounted Eagles and Skirms or Dravidians with Ele Archers, faster firing Skirms and discounted Mangonels and Scorps).
Hell, even we have a Scorpion themed civ on Romans.
And Celts, who already have good Siege and speedy boyz, now got Ring Archer Armor for their Skirmishers.
That’s not good news for Britons.
But let’s talk about the bonuses and tech tree to see what answers they have.
**Bonuses**
Their signature early-game eco bonus (**Shepherds work 25% faster**) allows for **one of** **the fastest food incomes on maps where herdables are available**, and a long-time interesting boost to Briton eco for maps where herdables are abundant (Ghost Lake, Nomad, some Megarradom generations…).
No complaints here.
An early food bonus is an early food bonus, no matter if you’re opening Archers.
This bonus also allows you to open M@a, Drush or even Scouts.
The second eco bonus (**TCs half Wood cost**) kicks in, if you want to, from castle Age on.
I said “if you want to” because it’s a passive bonus, but **it’s dependent on you going multi-TCs**.
If you’re going 1TC full-Archer + Siege, perhaps into a fastish Imperial Arb powerspike, this bonus will not be effective until you start building additional TCs, perhaps to sustain a Champion/Halb/Light Cav production and getting more upgrades.
The bonus means a very interesting 137 Wood discount for additional TCs.
While this means TC + 2 Farms for Britons, it is a weird bonus for a civ featuring Britons’ tech tree.
I’ll explain myself: If you want to play straightaway 3TCs in early Castle Age, you’ll save 274 Wood, which is great for Archer production.
But you’ll also have spent those 276 Wood on a resource that would have been more interesting to see it spent on something to play your strengths: either **University (200W) + Ballistics (300W) to improve your Xbows** or **Siege Workshop (200W) + 2 Mangonels (320W) to support your Xbows against a Skirm answer and threaten production buildings**. **Against a Cavalry civ**, perhaps you’re more interested on a **Monastery (175W) for Monks** to deal with small numbers of Knights threatening your Xbow mass.
Anyway, let’s say that you want to 3TC or 4TC boom… into what?
The answer can only be **Longbowmen/Arb + Halb/Champ + Warwolf, or Longbowmen/Arb + Light Cav/Cavalier + Warwolf.** Longbowmen/Arb + Onager + Warwolf?
Great, no Food units here… I’m not sold on this, given that **Infantry is generic and Cavalry lacks Bloodlines and Hussar**.
**Britons’ strength are Foot Archers**, and **Foot Archers live from timings (momentum).
Delay your push to boom and you lose that advantage**.
Maybe only a couple of civs that are inherently weak to something that Britons can fully-upgrade into, like Burmese or Armenians, could feel nervous to see a Briton player booming.
I, from my point of view, also see **a multi-TC boom as an Imperial Age advance delay**, and thus the loss of the 10 range Arb powerspike.
And mid-Imperial, also in my opinion, is a time when Foot Archers are the least effective (apart from those who have bonuses or UUs).
This is when Light Cav/Hussar spam is very cost effective to inflict losses on gold units (Siege and Archers mostly).
When microing is less common and slower units like infantry can shred unattended Archers.
I hope to have explained myself well. **The main goal of an Archer civ is massing as many of them in the shortest period**.
And **TC discount doesn’t suit that goal**.
It can be used to “later” afford full upgrades more easily.
But they don’t look as a civ powerhouse dependent on food for getting to their highest potential.
Forgot to mention: On water maps, this bonus is good, since you’ll anyway have a ton of vills on Wood, and wood savings on extra TCs help you with Warship production.
Then we come to their signature military bonus: **Archer-line getting +1 range upon hitting Castle Age and Imperial Age**.
We all know the benefits from this bonus and I don’t want to discuss them: This basically makes **Xbows and Arbs way better at what they already are good, and allows them to be better protected from Melee, Ranged and Siege units, with more time to have them killed before damaging your Archers,and micro being more effective due to the extra range**.
Undoubtedly a good bonus and parent of the phrase “Britons: Killing your Siege with Archers since 1999”
The Team Bonus was #1 for Team Games before the nerf (20% faster working Ranges to 10% faster working Ranges), and still allows for a faster unit production and upgrading.
**Unique Techs**
**Yeomen**: We can’t deny that this is a **very good tech**. +1 range for Xbows/Arbs/Longbows/Skirmishers is a very good boost.
But **its prohibitive cost for Castle Age turns it into an Imperial Age tech**.
This means that, if you expected your castle to help you anyway at this very moment because you’re struggling against whatever is countering your Xbows, the castle can’t offer you anything else than a good defensive position and Longbowmen with just +1 attack over your already massed Xbows.
I mean, there are Castle Age UTs that you want to research as soon as possible (Stirrups, Paiks or Wagenburg Tactics come to mind) and others that cost a bit more and you may want to go for them after clicking to Imperial Age.
This one looks as one of the last you want to go for given its cost.
The extra attack on Towers is a bit like Yasama on Japanese when you don’t want to go for your UU and thus don’t need Castles.
I’ve tried these 17 attack towers and have an interesting damage ouput.
But Towers require several upgrades you only want to get if you’re going Towers and Towers are a bit regarded as Stone sinks for the Castles you could otherwise be building.
**Warwolf** effect is turning your Trebuchets into omega-BBC. **Undeniably good**, but only useful for Treb wars (do you have 800W 400G available if you’re also creating Trebs and upgrading/creating Archers?) and to snipe BBC or Onagers that will come later. **Micro-intensive** since Trebs don’t auto-attack units that aren’t Trebs.
**Tech tree**
To sum up:
**Good**
\- 10 range, non-Thumb Ring Arbalester
\- 11 range, extra attack Foot Archer Unique unit
\- 9 range Elite Skirmisher
\- FU Champions and Halberdiers
\- Full Blacksmith
\- FU Towers
\- Full Dock (except Elite Cannon Galleons)
**Lack**
\- Bonuses towards melee units
\- Hand Cannoneers
\- Thumb Ring
\- Bloodlines
\- Hussar, Paladin, Camel
\- BBC, Siege Ram and Siege Onager
\- Redemption
\- Bombard Towers
\- Crop Rotation
Other pure Archer civs have other options Britons don’t have (Ethiopians have Camels and Shotels, Mayans have dismounted Cavalry Archers and Eagles, Koreans have chad Wagons and stronger Siege, Vietnamese have Anti-Archer Archers, Elephants and Bloodlines…), but **Britons double down on their identity with a UU that is a Foot Archer with more attack and range** (only Elite).
**Balance discussion**
I have shown you the facts I could come across during my analysis.
I hope to have had them all included.
Or at least the most relevant.
I feel that **Britons are carried by two bonuses (Faster working shepherds and longer ranging Archers) that, combined, make them a good civ**.
Add anything that synergizes with these bonuses and you’ll totally screw the balance for this civ.
I want to emphasize that there has been a bit of power creep on civs, and this has left Britons on their current, lower Win Rate state.
The truth is that Britons are one of the most one-dimensional civs, but that’s not a problem if their bonuses are strong enough or have enough support from other units from their tech tree.
There are a couple of points from their bonuses/tech tree I’d like to discuss.
Above all I want to keep their identity, so I’d like to stay away from proposing them having new options:
**Faster Working Archery Ranges**: We can’t revert the totally Team Game-focused nerf to their Archery Range work rate, because that would mean again everybody going for Britons on Team Games for the impact it’d have on the Team.
But, I can’t stop thinking that the nerf has affected 1v1 gameplay, even with the meta being geared towards 2 Range Archer openings, especially at pro level, even with civs that aren’t meant to play with the archer line until the end (like Celts, for example).
Britons live from massing Archers/Xbows, and I wouldn’t be against a **+10% or +15% faster working rate for Archery Ranges AS A CIV BONUS** (only affecting Britons and not their allies).
Never forget that, while Ethiopians’ first Archer fires faster, Korean one gets free Armor and is discounted, Mayan and Portuguese ones are discounted, Briton Feudal Age Archers are only produced 10% faster (32s vs 35s for a generic).
Their powerspike comes a bit later.
**Longbowmen**: It always irked me to see the Longbowman **advertised as a “long-range archer”**, only to see that **they only outrange the Archer-line counterpart** by +1 and only **after a 850F 850G upgrade**.
Don’t you think there could be any way of making sure that Longbows outrange Xbows since Castle Age?
For example:
\- Yeomen stops affecting the Archer-line (cost reduction to the tech in order to balance it, but make it affordable in Castle Age)
This feels like a nerf because Arbs would end up with 10 range (which is very good tbh) and the Archer-line is way more a go-to on 1v1 Open Maps than a UU with a expensive upgrade cost and the need to get Yeomen for 12 range)
\- Longbowman tweak: Instead of them having 6 attack and 5 range (+1 due to Briton bonus) in Castle Age, let them have 5 attack and 6 range.
Elite Longbowmen would keep their current stats.
7 range due to Briton bonus + 2 from Bodkin Arrow = 9 range in castle Age.
You could have 10 range in castle Age with Yeomen, but again I feel it too costly to afford it at that Age. 9 range would be balanced with no Thumb Ring, lower attack (“only” 7 after Bodkin), lower accuracy (70% vs 85% for Xbows) and the need to get a Castle and mass a more wood intensive unit (35W a Longbow, 25W a Xbow).
The upgrade cost would then grant them +2 attack, +1 pierce armor, +5HP and +10% accuracy.
Upon hitting Imperial, you’d get to 10 range, 11 range after Bracer and 12 range after Yeomen.
The upgrade cost would still be justified due to the many units with high pierce armor they’d face in Imperial Age.
\- Can we combine all previous suggestions and **turn this into a matter of quantity vs quality**, where **quantity would be for the Archer-line and quality for Longbowmen**, but make them both viable on 1v1? (No, I won’t discuss the possibility of Longbows to be created at Archery Ranges).
o Briton Archery Ranges work 15% faster (25% faster total with the Team Bonus)
o Remove the extra +1 range for Foot Archers in Castle Age
o Castle Age Longbowmen have 6 attack and 6 range
o Yeomen affects only Longbowmen and Skirmishers
o Yeomen costs 600F 300G
o Keep the +1 range for Foot Archers in Imperial Age
o Elite Longbowmen 7 attack and 7 range (final stats are the same)
\- Meaning
o Britons recover the Archer production rate
o The Castle Age powerspike comes from a faster Xbow production but no longer ranging
o The Imperial Age powerspike comes from the extra range (+2 for Arbalesters with faster production, +3 for Longbowmen with Yeomen investment)
o Yeomen is affordable a little bit earlier, and will be intended for Skirm defense and Longbowmen boost
o The Food costs of Yeomen, elite Longbowman upgrade, Chemistry, Bracer, Ring Archer Armor and Skirmishers with their upgrade put together give you a better reason to boom, thus using the cheaper TC bonus more effectively
o Britons can then go either two ways: the faster production Arbalester with +1 range over generic Arbs but no Thumb Ring or the higher attack, +3 range Longbowman
Stats-wise, it’d look like this:
​
**TL;dr**
\- Britons’ popularity remains unchanged, but their Win Rate has been decreased during last years due to straight nerfs and a bit of power creep
\- Britons lack support units and answers to their counters unlike other Foot Archer civs
\- It wouldn’t hurt Britons to recover their faster Archery Ranges as a civ bonus (not as a Team Bonus)
\- Longbowmen should always outrange Crossbowmen, and not only after they are fully upgraded
\- Regarding XBow vs LBow comparison, we could use Briton bonuses to turn the Archer-line into a quicker to mass unit and the Longbow into a high quality unit
Well, that’s it.
I know this has been long, but I’ve gone through everything this civ has to offer, and I wanted to gather all facts to take everything into account, including the discussion about balance.
I’m not proposing these changes, but these sound better in my mind as depictions of what Briton identity has been for so long.
Please feel free to comment on anything I wrote, including disagreeing with me.
Have a nice weekend!
From a design standpoint, yes.
It’s weird to see LB having same range as xbow/arb at any point of the game.
But in practice it doesn’t matter at all.
Foot archer need mass to work.
So foot archer UU is almost always irrelevant at castle age since they are much harder to mass.
​
But I like your general idea of transferring the castle age power spike from +1 range to other aspects.
Locking the extra range behind Yeoman could be a solution.
But I think some extra bonus is needed to compensate such big loss.
Idk if faster training would suffice
I feel like they’re right there in the middle of the pack on open maps and still great on closed maps, so not necessarily a buff-case.
But I can see that we’re perhaps trying to push everything towards the current A-Tier-level, so a minor buff would be neat.
I guess some minor advantage against Cavalry might be cool.
Idk, Pikemen produce a little faster or so.
I’d be in for a bit of a redesign though, I still think they have perhaps the worst design in the game, partially because of the overlap between Xbow and Longbow that you mentioned.
Britons are one of the worst Civs in the game from a design and experience stand point.
1) It is a good thing their bonuses of Sheeps, Archers, and TCs do not just stack on each other.
That gives them the option to play aggressive into Ballistics or defensively into a boom and relic game.
This is the best thing about them.
2) Free range on the Archers is not fun.
Extra range would be fine but free is too much.
Playing against Britons means you have to adopt a certain style unless you are the civs you mentioned.
You basically have to play Knights and Skirm but your options wont work.
For example Saracens have this very nice tech tree and are forced to play the most boring comp imaginable.
3) Britons suffer the same win rate problem as Tatars.
They have everything they need to be played in a variety of styles but Britons reputation shoe horns everyone into going directly into Archers.
A game is a series of interesting choices.
Britons/Tatars give poeple the option to make interesting choices but they never take them.
I know its going to be Xbow/CA in Castle you know it.
All of our choices are basically pre determined the moment someone randoms those civs.
4) Long Bow are awesome but the transition is more of a flex than a legitimate play.
They would be so much better if they were a unique upgrade like Imp Camel, Savar, Winged Hussar, and Legionary.
That style of adding flavor to a civ has been the best innovation in the DE era.
Yeoman should not add more range.
My version of Longbow would have 11 Range and have misses do full damage.
5) Yeoman should make the ranges work even faster like Perfusion.
Not as fast but something along those lines.
**Thumb Ring**
I hate the way it is implmenent as a way to nerf certain archer civs like Vikings, Aztecs, Britons.
Thumb Ring has no business effecting Xbows and Arbs.
It should be purely for Cav Archers and cost less.
The problem with XBows is they are oppressively strong if you reach the skill threshold and bad otherwise.
>Armored Elephant
Nobody likes it until you’re near max pop due to obscene food cost and the fact that you have to babysit with micro it or else it attacks units.
>Dravidians
This civ has shit stable and no Redemption.
It dies superhard to Knight + XBow + Mangonel push, just watch the KoTD 5 final.
>Nomad
Definitely not.
You have no military units to pick up sheep with for a long time, and the only sheep you get are those you pick up en route to building TC and Docks.
You may pick up 1-2 more in range of your TC once you scout, but your total sheep amount would VERY likely still be worse than a standard Sheep generation on a map where you start with a TC.
The Britons civilisation design is currently great, I don’t understand why the civilisation having a somewhat low winrate means it should be changed.
It’s a good classic civilisation that doesn’t need any significant change.
You talk down the TC bonus like I’ve never seen before.
It’s a greedy eco bonus right when Britons have room to lean into it.
*Seriously, which civ has a bigger early castle age powerspike than Britons?*
You don’t need monks against small amounts of knights: you have xbow mass.
You don’t need a siege workshop to match theirs: you outrange their mangonels.
You don’t need skirms to counter their xbows: you outrange their xbows.
You don’t need cav to counter their skirmisher mass: you have a much better boom if they’re making skirms.
So that’s Britons: a relatively unique archer civ in that they can afford both the early castle age upgrades and a boom because their xbows are insanely good in early castle age.
Then you add a counter unit after starting your boom.
It’s okay to have to play defensive in between as long as you establish an eco lead.
Then Britons can still fast imp after that, but why would they if they do damage in early castle age then defend their better eco?
Britons will simply creep forward with arbs, trebs, infantry (sometimes light cav) and the freedom to trade off castles against civs that need their UU more than Britons need longbows.
Btw, “generic” infantry slightly undersells Britons’ barracks.
FU halb is a great support unit and far from ubiquitous.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
