CBM MA Races Rankings - Voted by the community!

[DeSangre]

CBM - MA Races Rankings

Hello guys,
I'm kinda new to the forums, so first of all hi to everyone.

This thread is dedicated to a project that -everyone- can join to help. Basically the goal is simple: to create a list of nations ordered by strength from top to bottom.

I already talked with some of the "experts" on IRC and we came up with this current, tentative list for MA. (other ages will follow later)

The list was made with CBM in mind. I'll get to a vanilla version of this list (which should be, in any case, somewhat similar) only once this CBM list will have settled a bit.

The list is far from perfect, but it's aim is not to be "perfect", it can't be and never will. Instead, it's just made to be an helpful tool, both for beginners (they even in this current very "beta" stage can see at a glance if a race is MUCH better than another) and for experts (handicap systems/team games), but we need the list to settle on a much larger input before we can say "ok this list is somewhat reliable" and this is why I decided to open a thread on it.

The numbers you see are at the current state probably based off a single guy opinion, so they are "obviously" not averaged, not tested, etc. but I've been on the Internet enough to know that people are prone to discuss more over data (even random data) than over blank cells When you see three identical numbers for a race, they're probably just placeholders: suggest anything even remotely more accurate.

For MA, which is the scope of this thread, we decided that Ermor was the nation of reference, having the "best" early, middle and endgame. Ashdod is the only exception, but since as of now it's just too powerful, it'll be treated as such, with values over 100%.

So Ermor gets 100% in the 3 phases of a game.
It has been somewhat decided that
Early game: Rush strategy/Efficiency in expansion in Turns 1-12(or more, if map is very large)
Midgame: Everything in between
Endgame: Advanced summons and/or end game tactics at a nation disposal

The "exp" tag means that to unleash the full potential of that race, an expert player is needed.

How can you help?
It's easy and you can help however you want, I only ask that you try and be honest in what you say, after all, there's no "right answer" so if you think a race is underrated or overrated, just drop a line, assuming you believe in what you say. I'll give you some examples:

Man 70-40-25

It means you think that Man is good at the beginning, mediocre in the midgame and poor (but not downright terrible, that would be 10-0) in the endgame.

If you can, please avoid comments like:

Oceania is underrated (period. )

Stuff like this doesn't really help much, because I won't know if you mean that it should be top tier or something. Of course, you don't -need- numbers in your post, just make sure to add whatever detail you consider relevant to your suggestion. If you agree with something someone else said, that is good feedback too.

I'll eventually update this message based on comments I receive.

Note: I acknowledge something like this might have been tried in the past, but I couldn't find it in the forums and in any case I thought: whatever. (I'm that deep)

               Early    Mid     Late
Ashdod		200	130	100
Pythium		100	100	100
Jotunheim	90	100	100
Ermor		95	95	90
R'lyeh		40	110	120
Vanheim		100	100	70
Shinuyama	85	95	85
Mictlan		90	80	75
T'ien Chi	70	90	85
Marignon	90	60	80
Pangaea		75	75	60
Abysia		70	60	75
C'tis		50	70	80
Arcoscephale	60	70	60
Caelum		55	80	40
Bandar Log	25	45	95
Machaka		65	90	10
Ulm		60	50	30
Man		60	60	0
Eriu		30	85	0
Atlantis	25	40	30
Oceania		50	25	0
Agartha		25	20	0

You'll find the most up to date revisions here, but I'll try and keep the 2 versions both updated with the changes:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?k...7Q&output=html

[Squirrelloid]

Ok, normally I don't think HoF wins or lack thereof are necessarily indicative of anything. (Small sample size, players choosing or avoiding nations based on their presumed strength so some nations have a larger number of chances than others) But MA Vanheim is not avoided as a weak nation and yet it still has an abysmal number of wins.

Looking at what it has, its got great raiders, decent troops, and decent (early) midgame magic options (TS spam). But that's all it has. Its blood is limited, and it has no cheap hunters nor efficient hunters, meaning blood is at best a sideline for it. Its certainly not going to win the race to endgame blood summons against a real blood power. And that's the only endgame they have.

Now, if you take a bless for your sacreds you rate that 100 early game. But if you take a bless for your thugs you'll have a better midgame by far. Those sacreds are mostly irrelevant by midgame since (iirc) they're cap only, and thus really limited in number. thug blessing, otoh, just uses skinshifters, which are still pretty awesome.

So sacred blessing strat probably rates 100 50 20
Thug blessing rates 80 80 20

[Zeldor]

90% of those numbers are flawed and totally unrealistic and untrue. Someone who made it has probably never played MP and loves to read K's posts.

Anyway - you just cannot give same amount of points to a nation that is weaker than other in same game phase.

[Amida]

What exactly do you find so unrealistic, and why? Just curious.

[Zeldor]

Pretty much every nation.

[Jarkko]

Would be interesting to hear the reasons why Pangaea has a flat 60 in all phases, and why Eriu has 25 in early stages. Sounds like somebody who had no clue rolled some dice and came up with those...

IMO Pangaea is amongst the strongest nations in early and mid phases (a combo of tramplers and berserks (with the option to take manikin against any big&scary hostiles) in early game, Mass Protection and the very nice nature summons make it strong in mid game. A "60" is prolly a good number for late game, as MA Pan has access to Death (all the way to Tartarians) even though it doesn't have anything against MindHunt spams. 100-80-60 maybe

Eriu having a 25 in early game just is so wrong. The Firbolg together with False Fetter spamming mages will rip apart anything in the early game. While 25 for early game is waaaaaaay too low for Eriu, the number 60 for mid game is quite generous (yes, they have nice raiding thugs, but raiding seldom wins the game for you). 80-50-0 might be more correct.

Machaka has the numbers totally screwed up. They have a strong early game, a super strong mid game, and a non-existant end game. 25-75-60 is just so wrong in so many ways 100-120-0 would be at least in the correct ball-park.

In all, I wonder who the experts have been for these numbers Seems like most of the other numbers too have been generated with the stetson theory :P

[Squirrelloid]

Jarkko-
Machaka:
Machaka's early game is as good as Ermor's? Seriously? I don't buy it. Now, you can do two things as Machaka - you can bless your cap only sacreds, which might buy you a great early game but it'll suck later (limited availability because they're cap only and eat resources like crazy), or you can go without a bless and have a pretty poor early game.

Midgame can't rate above 100 unless you're Ashdod. And I doubt anyone would say they dominate the mid game, so while I agree they're strongest here, they can't rate even 100, much less over 100.

And they have (pretty good) death magic and thus national access to one endgame path. They must be better than '0'. A 0 for endgame implies no endgame magic options. I think it hilarious you find 60 for Pan appropriate because they have access to tarts, but Machaka rates a 0 to you when its death access is at least as good.

Eriu:
Compared to what other nations are fielding, firbolg are *not that good*. They're pretty bad actually. To pretend otherwise is just crazy. Oceania's icthycentaurs, for example, are vastly superior, and most people wouldn't rate Oceania as having an amazing early game.

Someone has to rate near the bottom. This is a comparative scale, not an absolute scale. Now, it may be Eriu should outrank Agartha and Atlantis in the early game, but that's a matter of reducing Agartha/Atlantis or improving Eriu's ranking slightly, not jumping them way up. We aren't going to squeeze most nations into the 80-100 range.

[Festin]

Why does Bandar Log have 100 for endgame? This is unrealistic and probably the score was given before the clam nerf. Marignon's 90 is also strange, etc.

[Jarkko]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Jarkko-
Machaka:
Machaka's early game is as good as Ermor's? Seriously? I don't buy it. Now, you can do two things as Machaka - you can bless your cap only sacreds, which might buy you a great early game but it'll suck later (limited availability because they're cap only and eat resources like crazy), or you can go without a bless and have a pretty poor early game.

Just *what* can Ermor do against spiders in early game? Not a squat. And for example Ashdod Giants are breakfast for black spiders, bless or no bless.

Midgame can't rate above 100 unless you're Ashdod. And I doubt anyone would say they dominate the mid game, so while I agree they're strongest here, they can't rate even 100, much less over 100.

There are few things that can stand against Machaka in Midgame. Thug rush? Spiders eat them for breakfast. SC's or giants? Shadow bolt them till they don't know where their butt is. Massed undead spam? Blade Wind from range and Flame eruption close up. Everything else just fries in Falling Fire.

I am willing to take Ermor on in midgame any time as Machaka, and I'll laugh myself silly at their puny attempts.

And they have (pretty good) death magic and thus national access to one endgame path. They must be better than '0'. A 0 for endgame implies no endgame magic options. I think it hilarious you find 60 for Pan appropriate because they have access to tarts, but Machaka rates a 0 to you when its death access is at least as good.

Machaka has no national mages able to cast GoH or forge the chalice. Pan can get GoH up without a sweat. Pan has also access to lots of Blood (and thus Life for a Life which simply kills end game SC's just like *that*), which Machaka can only dream about. Add to that the sneaking regular armies of Pan who disrupt all your movement lines, burn temples and all that. Pan has a ton of mages able to cast faery trod and move lots and lots of hard hitting troops along. What can Machaka do that compares with that? Summon tartarians with afflictions and no means to get rid of the afflictions; that sure does rock the house...

Eriu:
Compared to what other nations are fielding, firbolg are *not that good*. They're pretty bad actually. To pretend otherwise is just crazy. Oceania's icthycentaurs, for example, are vastly superior, and most people wouldn't rate Oceania as having an amazing early game.

Firbolg alone arent worth a poo, but together with mages able to cast False Fetters they rock. Have you ever tried to rush Eriu? It just doesn't work; having your troops shackled by False Fetters means your elite troops will be eaten alive by the *not that good* firbolg, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about that. Eriu is strong in early game, so-so in midgame and absolutely no tools in end-game.

[Squirrelloid]

I have fought an early war against Eriu, they died to massed principes pretty handily.

I suppose if false fetters are so amazing then Man, with actually good troops, rates even better at early game than listed. And TC. And everyone else with air magic - because all of them have better troops than Eriu. Even Caelums troops are better than firbolg.

Machaka:
Spiders vs. S9W9 SVs backed up by longdead horsemen - betting SVs win that on equal gold, not to mention are much easier to mass.

Spiders vs. F9W9 Eagle Warriors - clear victor eagle warriors. Its not even close.

Those are what I'd consider the gold standard for early game in MA.