Vote

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I think it is a combination of that, as well as group think. Group think is a terrible thing. I cannot tell you how many games have been ruined by group think, because people don't want to get out of the preconceived notions about a nation. Heck, look at Kailasa, BL, Patala. There have been a fair number of wins among those nations, but all you hear is the complaints about monkey PD (not trying to dredge that up again). If they were so bad, how are those nations getting the wins (K has 4, BL and Pat have 2 each)?

Frankly, the hall of fame (and the results of multiplayer games in general) isn't the place to go to get an idea of whether or not a nation is balanced/powerful/objectively competitive, simply because of the very small sample size coupled with the fact that MP games are more often than not decided by map geography, random luck on sites and most importantly diplomacy and who fights whom when.

In the case of the monkeys for example, on paper they look like they have a great endgame (monkey PD or not) tacked on a really tough start. So if they get rushed, they lose hard - which is the time frame their dreck of a PD really hurts, too. When even the 25PD on your cap can be taken out effortlessly by 40 tribe archers... yeah.
But OTOH if their neighbours have other fishes to fry during those first few years, the monkeys probably have a decent shot at the win.

In the same vein, while everyone quite rightfully agrees Ashdod is overpowered as all getout I'd wager they'll very rarely if ever win one of the rare games in which they're not outright banned, simply because they'll immediately get ganked by a coalition of all of their neighbours LA Ermor style. Whereas an underdog nation in the very same game might unexpectedly thrive... because everyone else is busy ganging on Ashdod and leaving them alone.

(Yes, I know my sentences are overly long and convoluted )