I have started this topic to get some insight into what others think about the Brit manors. From my experience it seems that with manors it is easy for Brit players to boom and apply early pressure.
I think this makes Brits the best civ. With the manor boom you can get 20 extra vills out before 15 mins. From then on Brits have the most resources gathered and as long as they are decent with their military they can win.
Do you think the Brit manors should get a wood increase ?
Hell no. Leave brits alone, they are in a good place. Just because u lose games to them doesnât mean the civ is too OP, it could just mean u need to understand how to play against them or just need to get better
Yes please nerf the Britts. I mostly play Germany but when I see a britt I always conterpick and go Britt. Their mannors are just way too strong. When play British against people on my level or in rank itâs basically playing the game on easy mode
Insulting someone doesnât make you right mate
I made this topic to understand more and give my suggestions. If what you say is true can you give me more information to understand why I am wrong.
I agree they are strong, but only if youâre unable to scout it and it goes unpunished in the early game. Itâs a big wood investment, meaning they either spent a card or gather time, and will probably have less early military, being easier to raid. Additionally, having more villagers early makes you have to go farther for resources, leaving them even more exposed.
Iâm no pro by any means, but IMO manors are in a OK spot.
Brit Manors are really strong early on, but after Age 2 they no longer are much of a factor, because you will already have your 20 discounted Villagers.
I think brits are fine.
They have some good match ups and some bad match ups.
They also need to be out on the map earlier than other civs cuz they eat through hunts really fast so If you can deny them access to hunts they are pretty much in a terrible spot.
You guys are making good points but it just goes against all my experience. As the britsh I always keep up military production rather easily and they eat so many hunts because they have the villies to do it, therefore they are getting more and then they have what they need to defend hunts.
I beat Britts alot especially when Iâm playing Germany or Sweden but the moment I play Britts or someone who isnât stupid you see just how op they are.
I think people just donât realize it because most people who main Britts canât make troop counters to save their lives
The truth does not seem very strong to me, Manor houses are expensive, They have a good penalty because they take time to build and also by destroying them gives a lot of experience, I cannot deny that a British experimenting with agile hands is brutal, What seems unfair to me is abuse of the walls as they do haha, but in general it is very balanced, If you nerf the manor houses it would be too strong a nerf for them, at best following the logic they did with many civs you could take 100 of wood for 100 of gold, but would not agree to nerf their houses
If you let them âboomâ unchecked with the manor houses, its going to be hard to beat early game but thats why if you are facing a Brit and realize they are going hard on the manor houses you need to apply pressure with raids. They wont be able to cut wood and hunt safely if they are going all in like that.
Scouting and some disruption of early eco is always a good strategy imo especially at higher levels of play.
I donât think so, for a person who mostly plays treaty games NR40 i find the British to be underpowered and donât have the units to counter civs like France or Spain, Its all well and good saying oh nerf them and etc etc but you have to think of the wider picture, In treaty they are considered a moderate or underperforming and might be so that the British can get a good boom going but have you seen Spain lately for rush? I think they actually need a buff for late game just something to give them a boost. I currently have the rank of around 140 in treaty so talking from a little bit of experience 
Brits are OK as they are now. Yes, they have nice vil boom but they lack skirms. According to one poll made on this forum several months ago Brits were classified as well balanced. I agree with that.
And to be honest, paying 135w for manor is a big factor in that⊠If you take into account both lbs and pikes also cost wood any player must know how to balance all those vils (I dont take into account card discount)
British are the quintessencial Supremacy civ. Their whole design is for quick Boom and Rush. They lack Skirmishers and have average Dragoons, but have an amazing Age 1-2 Economy and great Age 3 Musketeers and Hussars.
British, like the entire game, really, are balanced for Supremacy, and they are excellent in that very mode, because Supremacy games end by early to mid Fortress Age.
gotta disagree with that, treaty is part of the game, And they should get a buff to make them more viable in the imperial age and take into account Supremacy balance. Treaty has a large following to and to say they are balanced enough for just supremacy is not really right as you are forgetting the other modes to. And the British are not just a supremacy civ they are not bad in Treaty they just need something to give them a late game boost compared to other civs, like for example buffing one or two of the cards they can send like infantry HP and attack or something along those lines
I think Revolutions should be ditched for State Mandate mechanics that would add in missing units (variants of them, at least) to a lot of Euro civs.
Check this out:
if we are discussing brits being too weak in a thread called âBRIT [âŠ] too strongâ. It sounds to me everything is perfectly balanced.
Brits are like the most vanillaish standard civ of them all. The have all the stadnrad euro units exept for longbows instead of a proper skirmisher unit. If that alone is enough to make them bad in treaty, then so be it. Dutch and German dont have a musketeer. Thats how the game is.
Also British have the best cow booming for a nice food gather rate bonus in treaty that allows them to spawn more musks than anybody else. The problem is musks arent good in treaty gae mode, but that is fiiiine.
Ateast brits arent as bad in treaty as japan in deathmatch
No, that would be the French and Spanish, both of which have basically every unit type, or a variant of it, plus a 3rd Cavalry unit option.
i guess you are right about that. i am bit biased since i played aoe 3 nilla brits on game ranger for one and a half decaces.
sidenote related to the topic: manor been is and has always been the best play in lower elo games than arent played too agrisselvy as you can get aways with a very greedy manor boom that nothing can match long term. Dutch can be a thread (and maybe epansions civs i have never understood the meta). anyway manor booming is OP only if you dont rush train a batch of 5 hussars and kill all those defenseless british villagers.
ouch deathmatch lol, have tried them in that never will again 
, In regards to this thread i can see a lot of people are Supremacy players, nothing wrong with that but to nerf the British in supremacy would have a nasty impact on Treaty for the British.As a main treaty player and having experience in multiple different civs i just find them weak compared to the likes of France, Spain and Germans. Not saying that the British Ecco is bad its great i love doing the Cow boom and also using the Wood trade for the longbows and cannons later on, its more so its units to me feel weaker, i can push with them and defend with them but i just feel they need somthing, Even if they took away the speed reduction of the Thin red line card at the church (unique church card upgrade) to actually make it worth taking or just buff the another card, nothing huge that would make them broken just something to make them a little better