About a week ago, I made a post arguing the “best” civs in Age of Conquerors for a 1v1 land map. In that post, I defined what I thought the 4 main categories of games were (Category 1: 1v1 land, Category 2: 4v4 land, Category 3: 1v1 water, Category 4: 4v4 water). For the 1v1 land games I centered my arguments on maps like arabia because that’s the most commonly played 1v1 map. I personally think that for a 1v1, arabia encompasses the standard way to play. But for 3v3 or 4v4, I think it’s a horrible map. It’s far to open for any forms of teamwork (if you help out your buddy they’ll come in through the back door) So for Category 2, I looked at the most commonly played team map (from what I’ve seen) Black Forest. Now, many players dislike BF, and they’re entitled to their opinion, but I think it makes a good team map because:

The game will not end in feudal. Team games fail to be team games if one player gets knocked out by an early rush. When I envision 4v4 matches I envision games that stretch into Imperial age and will sometimes last an hour or more (on fast speed that is =D). Therefore, when I discuss team games, I’m going to go off of my own personal experience with team games (and I’ve played team games on BF more than any other map, so it’s much easier for me to talk about it) allows for a safe trade system. Now, people still can get back and disrupt it, but it’s not nearly as bad as arabia or Ghost Lake where they can walk back there any time they please and mess up your whole team with just a couple of hussars or Eagle Warriors. gives a good contrast in all aspects to arabia (which is what I believe the game is all about). It means that there are radically different strategies to be used in a team game on black forest than there are to be used on a 1v1 on arabia. Makes the game more interesting to have such huge differences for different styles of play. (let’s the player choose what style they like and run with it.)

For this style of play I’m going to define a “good” civ differently than I did in a 1v1. In a 1v1 you’re looking for a civ that is simply “better” at certain things than your opponent. Maybe they’re a “faster” civ because of an economical bonus they get. Maybe they’re a “stronger” civ because certain units they get are more powerful. However, for a team game, you’re actually looking more for civs that compliment each other and mesh well together. It’s an entirely different game when you take your mind away from “Who’s better, faster, stronger?” And instead look at how you can maximize the use of each civ’s strengths and combine them to form something greater than all of it’s parts.

These are some of the labels you can tack onto a civ:

Spearhead: This civ is great for leading the charge. Usually if a civ has this label it can get paladins or some other unit that is high in health and armor.

Support: THis civ is on the team to provide the backup for the Spearhead civ. They usually will be an archer/gunpowder civ because they can sit back safely behind the paladins and use their range to take out anything that may give the paladins trouble (Like camels or Halberdiers)

Specialty civ: This is for civs that have some special bonus that makes them a good civ to have, even if they aren’t a Spearhead or Support civ.

I’ll do the same tier system as before (tier 1 best, tier 2 second, tier 3 worst) but this time I’ll also tell what label the civ has (Spearhead, Support, Specialty) Hope you enjoy!

Tier 1 (Civs in Tier 1 generally have 2 or more labels so they can serve multiple functions on a team):

Spanish – The Spanish are a MUST have for any team game. They actually fit all 3 labels. The Spanish have great gunpowder units making them a very strong support civ, and they also have access to fully upgraded paladins, meaning they can be the spearhead if necassary. If the need arises they also have access to Halberdiers and E-Skirmishers (the anti cav and anti archer units). The biggest reason the Spanish are a must have civ is their team bonus grants everyone on the team a 33% trade bonus. Usually in a team game I recommend going for 35-50 trade units, so having a 33% trade bonus is HUGE. The way I play team games is: If someone else picks Spanish, I’ll play Koreans or Byzantines or something, but if no one is playing Spanish, they’re my first pick every time.

Persians – Persians are the epitome of Spearhead. They can get Paladins AND Heavy Camels, making them suited for any type of spearhead attack (The best spearhead would be paladins to take hits from your enemies, and camels to take down your enemy paladins) This makes them very tough to deal with in melee combat. Not only that but they get access to the almighty elephant (the most IMBALANCED unit in the game) Once elephants are brought into the game it’s very difficult to deal with, especially if there’s a strong support civ behind the Persians. (if you wonder HOW you kill elephants, feel free to check it out here.)

Byzantines – The Byzantines are an especially good Spearhead unit because the Cataphract is even harder to deal with than Paladins. Paladins are ineffective (cost) against both camels and Halberdiers, but Cataphracts EXCEL at killing these units. When fighting a Cataphract heavy army, there’s no cheap or efficient way to to kill them (for paladins: Halberdiers are a cheap way to kill them and Camels are an effective way to kill them). The only real way to beat Cataphracts is just to have more paladins than he has cats! =D Not only are Byzantines a good spearhead civ, they also get access to all types of archers, making them a decent support civ too. Try to have other support civs though, because in the ideal world the Byzantine player builds ONLY cataphracts =D Another nice Specialty bonus they get is their team bonus, that allows monks to heal 50% faster, meaning a monk heavy army (like one that say, the Spanish, Aztecs, or Teutons would make) would be very hard to deal with.

hard to deal with. Britons – Now the Britons have a hard time standing on their own, but the massive range of their archers make them a nice addition to any team. They make a pretty good support team that doesn’t get in the way of OTHER support teams (Other support units have 3 or more less range, but the English Longbowman gets as much as a bombard cannon) Putting Longbowmen behind Paladins makes a scary force coming down on you.

Saracens – The Saracens are interesting. Saracens get access to VERY powerful camels that are hard to kill (as well as a camel that throws swords). This means that they make a very good spearhead civ. The one downside is the relatively low pierce armor that Camels have. Saracens need to be careful when they engage. if it were just a matter of Camels and Paladins, they would win every fight, but when you put masses of archers behind the lines it becomes much more difficult. Because of this teams with Saracens should try to initiate combat out in the open where it’s easier to mauever rather than in tight spaces. The Saracens also can bring Siege Onagers to the field which is always a huge help. Mamelukes and siege onagers is a very scary combo. Additionally they get access to all archers/upgrades, and because Saracen Cav Archers obliterate buildings, it’s not a bad strategy to go late-game Heavy Cav Archers and Siege Onagers to tear down enemy buildings. The reason Saracens are tier 1 and not tier 2 is that although they can be beaten by a good unit comp, once they break through your first line of defenses (be it a wall, castle, or both) they’ve nearly impossible to stop. Cavalry are useless against them and archers can’t stand up to camels unless there’s something to guard the archers.

Koreans – The Koreans are a good civ for 2 reasons. The first is the War Wagon. War Wagons are VERY hard to kill and deal above average ranged damage. If enough War wagons get on the field, the Korean player becomes a great supporting civ. The second reason is the mighty Siege Onager. When used together almost nothing can kill an army of War Wagons and Siege Onagers. Having Koreans on the team is nice because they are able to hold their own with War Wagons and also assist allies push forward elsewhere on the field with their Siege Onagers.

Those are the ones I thought were Tier 1 when I was looking at them, I may have missed some critical “must haves”, so if you noticed that I did, please leave a comment explaining why you think the civ is so important =)

Tier 2:

Chinese – Chinese make a great support civ, and also have access to heavy Camels. They’re Tier 2 because although they can get great units, there’s not much that really “puts them over the edge”. I’d rather see War Wagons on my side than Chukonu, and Koreans can also help out with Siege Onagers. However, I WILL admit that this is a very close one. It would not take much for me to change my mind on why these guys should be Tier 1, so feel free to give that a try ;D

Turks – Turks have AWESOME Gunpowder units. The Janissary is one of the most difficult support units to deal with. I only drop them down to Tier 2 because of their lack of so many basic units. They cant’t get pikemen, making them vulnerable to knights/paladins until they can get Heavy Camels out. They can’t get E-Skirms meaning they have a though time against archers. They can’t get Paladins meaning they can’t really spearhead too effectively. However, Jannisaries almost make up for all of that by themself. I merely put them in Tier 2 because out of the two gunpowder civs (Turks and Spanish) I would rather see Spanish on my side by about a million percent because Spanish help out in SO many other ways.

Franks – Franks are a good Spearhead civ because of their above average Paladins. The downside to the Franks is that their only really good unit is the Paladin. The Throwing Axemen is cool but the tier 1 civs have just WAY better unique units, and they also have access to a much larger variety of standard units.

Huns – Huns are a cav civ that has a great 1v1 bonus, but it becomes significantly less effective in team games. Faster working stables is a nice team bonus, and Huns can serve as a spearhead civ with their paladins. If the map is an open map, they could probably pass as a tier 1 civ because mobile armies of Cav Archers are more useful on open maps, but on maps that are more closed off, they are much less valuable (And since this post is centered around Black Forest Huns are a Tier 2)

Celts – Celts can supply below average paladins with above average siege units, making them a solid civ to have on your team. They also get Halberdiers, vital for killing off enemy paladins.

Goths – Huskarls make a great addition to any team because of their high pierce armor. They can’t stand up to a paladin in a fight, but they CAN overwhelm their enemy. Huskarls en-masse backed by solid archers will kill Paladins backed by archers (enough Huskarls will beat anything)

Mongols – Mongols are another civ that are better on more open maps like arabia. Their biggest asset is their Mangudai, but they lose effectiveness on closed maps. Treat them like Huns. If you’re playing an open map, they’re great, otherwise, choose a better civ =)

Mayans – toe to toe Mayans can’t stand up to most tier 1/2 civs, but they make a great Support civ. Also, if they’re holding a line by themself, they can fight enemies of pretty effectively with mass archers, halberdiers, and siege rams. You’ll lose more than you kill, but it’s cost-effective to fight Paladins with Halberdiers.

Tier 3 (to be clear, there is nothing wrong with Tier 3, in the right hands ANY civ can be good, these are just civs I’d prefer not to see on my team when compared with above civs, they’re also civs that I would be bummed to random in a team game):

Teutons – The Teutonic Knight is a BEASTLY unit, but other than that, Teutons are average at best. Teutonic Knights themselves are slow, and don’t have great pierce armor. They’re great if you can get them up close to the enemy, but chances are, you won’t. I have a slight bias against Teutons, they probably belong in at least Tier 2, but I hate playing them myself so it’s a little hard to be unbiased =D Feel free posting a comment that explains why you think Teutons should be higher in the list.

Aztecs – Aztecs are hard to use because they don’t get cav, EW can’t stand up in a fight, and they can’t get halberdiers. This puts them at a SEVERE disadvantage against civs like the Persians or Byzantines…

Japanese – The Samurai is good against Unique Units, but infantry are hard to use because they die to cav. Japanese CAN be used for support because they get good archers, but I’d just rather see an archer specific civ as my support civ than an infantry specific civ.

Vikings – Vikings are bad. Don’t play them unless it’s a water map. Seriously. They have NO redeeming units for land. You may try to convince me otherwise, but I really doubt you will =D

I hope you guys like this second list. I also would LOVE to see some changes to it (because good strategy evolves from collaboration) So post any disagreements you may have and lets discuss them! I’d like to see this evolve over time to hopefully weed out the “Ultimate 4v4 Team”!