Are the developers aware of the Malta?

Malta can click age up at 2:20 and bring units before opponent has his outpost or barrack up, and can contine this free unit spam every game, the biggest mistake ever made is calling it as a normal crossbow while it has stats of a different unit, results a lot of imbalances for the entire game, With the addition of malta crossbows getting all their upgrades, the nonexisting unit counter system already goes away, you can make pure bow to deal every unit in the game, for the cost of only 40 food and 40 wood, I think it needs to take attention to not call a unit standard crossbow and give it extreme buffs unlike any other civ has it, they can even siege at range with a super fast way.


Does he pass with 10 or 12 vills, does he take that many treasures of food, or does he do it on all maps with no treasures? Folding that fast looks like an all in with very poor economy so it’s a risk I wouldn’t take.
For the rest I don’t comment I got tired of commenting on the Maltese units

1 Like

You don’t need a decent economy to spam 10 batch of broken crossbows.

These last 2 days they have insulted me a record amount for winning in 1v1 deranked games with Malta, I don’t know how they have the nerve to say that the archaic is very OP, it is in the mid-late game with their respective improvements, at first it is crap and you limit yourself to that, the crossbow loses considerably against any archer, have you not seen the horrible match between Malta vs British or any civ with a guerrilla or archer? a Maltese at the beginning cannot mix cavalry with archaic, it is too expensive, it would have to be almost at minute 7 and up, the other 2 infantry units are weak at the beginning and are only for defense, and when they age they are well worth it use them offensively, the cavalry.

In addition, you are exaggerating, a Maltese does not happen that fast, rarely with the phenomenal help of the treasures that you will see in 5% of your games you will find a Maltese that passes with 14 villagers, the normal is 15 if you start with a market, that is, per minute 2.45 or approximately 3 with 16 villagers,

You really burn all your economy in that, the civilization does not have any economic bonus, it only supports with good cards that really are not many

If you see that a Maltese loses his batch of archaic troops at the beginning you will see him with his measly 6000 points

I don’t know what elo you will have but I tell you that I have periodically 1700 - 1600 this month the Maltese have, I think, the second worst win rate in the game, they have a terrible match, many people don’t know how to play them, that’s why they complain, recently a Spaniard I stopped the pikeman rush doing an FF with only war dogs, even so I won the game later because like many are stupid and don’t know how to play it, it’s true the pikemen and crossbow are very strong and profitable in the game medium or late but it is quite an investment of experience and macro to execute it, and everything can go to waste with only, 1 shipment of urumi, 1 shipment of spahi where they can catch you not very well off

Below is a 3v3 game I have played just now.
This is not hard to achieve in a team game.

After lost 3 falcs + 2 culvs + 1 flying cow trying to destroy fixed gun during battle but failed, fix gun HP was fully regen within 30sec by paying half cost, and it enjoys units + 2% HP shipment buff.

How Malta crossbow OP many people already mentioned.

Again I am not saying Malta are OP in 1v1 and I also AGREE they should have some buff, but team game they are actually broken somewhere not affecting 1v1 too much.

1 Like

The maltese are bottom tier statistically with a poor win rate. The crossbow are nothing special until you send many cards and in age 2 the cards are the same cards brit gets for musks, there’s nothing amazing the crossbows get. 19 siege range isn’t anything crazy either, longbow can get 26 and have much more DPS,


@PichulaJr froggywizards Is Revnak one of the top 5 players. in the world. If he says malta Is broken, i think he knows what Is talking about.

Reviewing revnak’s history, the only maltese he loses with is against “Bow enjoyer” I don’t see other malta players who beat revnak, Revnak is an elite player but bow enjoyer is too, he is even better positioned in the TOP, In my opinion, Revnak finds it difficult against Bow Enjoyer in the British vs. Malta match, while Optimus and Ezad apparently do not with India and Ottomans, they are circumstances of the Match, it can be seen how Ottomans and Indians hit Malta. Revnak recently beat Bow enjoyer with the Ottomans. Apparently the civilization is not broken but Bow enjoyer knows how to play well against the British, which is the civilization that manages revnak. That’s why I think the reason for the post,

I verified all this with the dori APP I saw the game history of the 4 players

Revnaks a fantastic player but too much weight has been placed on top players opinions in the past that I’m 100% sure has resulted in many civs especially newer or less traditional civs being nerfed too harshly. We’ve seen just how harshly inca have been nerfed into irrelevance and funnily enough they received a big nerf after kaiserklein lost to kynesies inca and whined forever and a day and quit the game for the umpteenth time.

The devs have the information of all the win rates and they should balance the game around that so each civ is as close to a 50% win rate as possible. With the charts we’ve seen from sunbros recently we can roughly see the win rates of the civs though not as accurately as the devs can and in all the data portugal, malta and inca have had low win rates and poor match ups each time the chart updates.

Top tier players will always have their bias especially players that come from legacy and the skirm-goon meta, it’s well known just how much they hate slower paced games and turtling for example that’s why semi-ff was a meme.


LB deal much less siege damage than crossbow.

I kept saying I DON’T DISAGREE TO BUFF MALTA but their crossbow and fixed gun needs to be nerfed, then you just rush to argue they are weak so nothing should be nerfed even they are OP in other aspect.

So what is your suggestion to buff Malta from just complaining they are weak and what should do to steel bolts.

This phenomenon is also funny when people want to argue something, first push elo for supporting their opinion.
After some pro have opposition view, it becomes pro also have bias.

In fact I don’t like to discuss something just by talk, anything UP or OP should have evidences support.

It’s because the steel bolt argument falls apart when people only have an issue with malta, italy has steel bolts as well and nobody cares, pavisiers can be pretty much identical to maltese xbow in fortress yet nobody cares in that case. The difference between the pavisiers of italy and the xbow of malta only takes off in industrial when the former lacks a true guard upgrade and must use a card and malta has received many home city shipments, even then xbow HP is so low that they’re minimally effected by the 2% hp bonus. Most games never even get to industrial.

Also worth noting that italy is also in a poor state after several nerfs, the FI nerfs were needed but it remains with a mediocre military and now papal shipments arrive so much slower, the lombard issue was never solved either they need to provide a greater return for such a huge resource investment.

You can’t nerf the only good thing about a civ and not replace it with significant buffs, inca was very strong with the huaraca FF then the stronghold and huaraca got nerfed and as I said at the time straight into D tier it goes.
Malta is already in D tier with a low win rate so it’s crazy to me that people still think it needs a nerf in some way, this isn’t B tier USA this is a D tier civ on the levels of portugal and inca.

As for buffing it that’s a difficult question because currently it’s glaring weakness is to the standard 2 falc FF, people already go crazy over the fixed gun despite the shipment being underwhelming at a value of 700 resources for an age 3 shipment so I doubt making it 2 fixed guns would go down well. Perhaps a fast age up without needing to use the card like exiled prince or just reduce the age up time of certain politicians, alternatively just give them a 2 falconet shipment.


First I have to say, team game can usually get to industrial, otherwise how about suggest remove team game from AOE3de or giving 3 factories to Malta? this doesn’t matter 1v1 right?

you have said why Italy steel bolt is not considered OP but Malta yes.

This is not only good, is OP, and again and again and again and again, I agree to buff them in other aspect too. I hope I don’t need to repeat this anymore.

For your suggestion due to I don’t play 1v1 but I also agree and hope dev would understand what is your opinion.

There’s nothing OP about it in fact I’d argue it’s entirely necessary for malta exactly due to the lack of the 2 falconet card as they have nothing to siege with and the xbow mass still gets shut down by the 2 falc FF.

I’m referring entirely to 1v1, we can’t discuss every detail across every mode. Some things are useless in 1v1 but good in treaty. Either we discuss team, treaty or 1v1 not all of them together or it will become a pointless discussion. I’d argue malta get worse late game due to the lack of a factory and xbow requiring wood, most of their units being 2 population and the fixed gun costing a lot of pop makes them very pop inefficient late game which is why they suck in treaty for example.


Because you don’t play that mode, you don’t care other people. you just care yourself.

As you said 1v1 seldom get to industrial but team game not, and I keep just saying their mid late game which not affecting 1v1 but you just object this not affecting you.

Selfish speaking again.

As I said we can’t discuss every mode at the same time, in 1v1 malta are a weak civ with a below average win rate in general due to their weakness to the standard FF.

Now in regards to team it’s difficult to say, I don’t play team but I imagine it’s very different in 2v2 vs 4v4. I guess the larger games are likely to go later, Malta is perhaps good in 2v2 due to less vulnerabilty early on but as I said before once it gets to very late game they are bad as well due to having just 1 factory, a lot of 2 pop units and high pop fixed guns, their best unit also costs wood which can be scarce later on and with only 1 factory that’s a huge issue.

1 Like

I’d rather malta get 2 cannons and a rework of her sentinels than rely on ##### bows/culverins and terrible turtle tricks.

And with how beautiful the Italian pavisier is, it is a pity that he is not the star of the xbows.

Completely inaccurate.

Here are the examples of cassadors and skirms with full advanced arsenal techs + upgrade shipments included compared to malta crossbows with 10 shipments sent and upgrades. As you can clearly see, Malta crossbows are outperforming in atack for around 45% cheaper cost. There is not one competitive player that can justify this as a normal, especially the scaling of cheap units is extremely important in aoe3. Malta has better culverins and the most broken light infantry in the game, so comparing it to a normal crossbow is far from being accurate at all.

Malta units cost around 45% less, please keep it in mind



A dutch skirm would be a better comparison because it also has 3 combat cards by age 3.

Funny though that even taking into account that malta have 1 good unit they still remain 1 of the lowest tier civs and with a low win rate across all elo ranges. Yet people still want them to be nerfed without reason, malta need 1 efficient unit because all the others are very pop inefficient, the above civs have 2 factories as well which I’d say isn’t fair on malta.