That’s an intersting name you have there, Mr Pichula.
1 Like
I think the only problem with this civ is the sheer amount of villagers it can get in the short term. Manor houses do not seem like a problem to me, but the set of these 3 things is:
Villagers from the metropolis + villagers from the urban center + villagers for each house.
What I would do is reduce the number of villagers that can be sent from the metropolis.
10 Likes
i’d personally cut 8 settler shipment to deincentivize FF into eco for supremacy and slow it down in treaty, equalizing thing a bit for other civs
If we want to nerf British, I think that is a good way to do it. Just like French and Ottomans miss the age 3 shippment due to their eco getting stronger and stronger (French lead increase linearily with number if cdb, Ottomans lead increase when they add 2TCs), removing the 8 settlers for britons may be a nice way to put a brake to their eco lead. (Germans missing the shipment is probably for another reason).
Would be a little sad that no european civs would then get age 1,2, and 3 settler shipments, but at least we would still have incas/aztecs/japanese with this feature.
1 Like
Hello, here are some of my thoughts after playing many hours of brits
As someone said in this post before, LONGBOWS are already pretty bad, they are good when they are not moving and shooting a target without re-targeting, But when it comes to moving and re-targeting the unit is just bad. To this we add the recent nerf of -1 attack This not only nerfed the age 2 longbow but it also nerfed the age 3, 4 and 5 as upgrades give stats based of their basic stats. by age 5 they used to have 35 I beileve they now have only 32 and that’s huge for what the unit already is. To this they didn’t add any compesation buff after that nerf to the unit itself I suggest to revert the nerf or to decrease the wood cost, Or implement the following change. -1 in age 2 but by castle age it goes back to its original base stat allowing for upgrades to be the same as before
Removing the 8 vill won’t solve anything. Realisticly speaking British is like how zerg is to sc2. British out of the entire roster of civs. is the only one that can get so many vills in a short amount of time. Most of my recent games I get close to 60 when I’m left untouched while my opponents usually at 20+ or 30+ at most and when you put this into bigger perspective British plain simple wins most games by the middle time by simply outbooming. Before ever using the 8 vills I’m usually at 70+ and with 2 tc, I don’t really see the use of 8 vills by then. Now I do play differently from the rest of players most of the time
Brits have always been like this since 2005. Devs haven’t touched them much aside from the verstaility that, they now have skirms but that’s a late game strat which does fix their late game.
What made it hard for brits back then was that MAPS didn’t have much resources thus rush civs always had that advantage over them as they could control the map and resources, however as Maps have gotten much more balanced now there is no deficiency and now we can see that as brits is more of a boomy civ they just outpace most if not all civs.
Now you would say, you can rush brits. Realisticly you can, but as brits can also defend. we are left with the only viable option vs brits, which is. To always Rush or time push, because if left untouched there aren’t that many civs that can equal their boom.
To add to this all. Brits unit are not the strongest nor the weakest they are just the generic units that are in the game. It is just that having ok units with the ability of outboom most gives them that strong influence they currently have.
After expressing this point, I would only say to devs be careful in how you nerf to try to balance brits out. I believe that if their core identiy of making vills through their houses is hard nerfed. This can likely put them at the bottom tier. I would suggest to instead keep changing other civs to get them to higher tiers rather than nerfing brits to see if they can fit better
Why do I suggest this? because Rush civs really aren’t strong anymore and this happens because of how maps are now balanced and the main reason to rush before was to deny resources. You might still be able to rush in some maps but there are just enough resources in base that rushing is no longer as viable as it was. Then it woulnd’'t really be a brit problem but more of how the game has developed after the changs
2 thoughts
Look how brit is denied fast fortress because of their already slow but steady presence in age 2, you can’t really FF with brits, But if nerfed in their age 2 presence. I would suggest to look into options of giving them a fast age up button to Fortress like most civs why?
Well if you were to play without a deck brits would be ok and maybe even weak vs many civs. Cards are the ones that makes the change here, Wether it is booming or if it is a rush that is coming from the other civ.
My own thought in regard of allowing brits to delete their own houses
I think if looked into this, Brits could be given the option to delete their own houses but at the same time adding the following option. Every time the Brit player deletes a completed house, There is a -1 counter to the next vill that would come out of the next house. Meaning that we would be able to delete houses to use land spaces where we need them but at the cost of not being able to make a vill on the next house due to this counter of -1 being added after self-delete Be careful here, because if this is implemented we probably are going to see a bug where people will delete half completion and will get this -1 I do think this would allow brits to self delete their houses which is a big NONO, because when you delete you still give your opponent EXP. So we would be able to delete full completed houses. for space convenience, but at the cost of next house not giving us a vill and still giving EXP to opponent I still think that the fact that you delete a building that hasn’t been touched by your opponent and gives them exp is a bug or shouldn’t be a mechanic within the game
I belive this game perfectly shows how playingy vs a HARD RUSH and sitll do decent and even outmaking vills much later. If you commit to a hard rush this has usually been the outcome
By clicking on play it put you directly on the match at hand which is Brits vs Iro time time 16:25
2 Likes
Italians don’t have villagers cards, I think English shouldn’t have these cards either, another option is to take away their 700 resource cards, that could slow them down quite a bit.
Note: In my opinion, I think developers should apply both options at the same time. 
You people are out of your minds. All the stuff that’s bonkers in this game and you still can’t tear yourself from the brits
5 Likes
I personally would remove the shipment of 5 villagers, since it is in the ead 2 where the economic boom occurs.
+1
Yeah, it’s rather odd that one of the original civs is gettings some unneeded settler/manor balancing!
People do know that longbows have 1.5rof right? and the animation while bad is still better then the native civ archers so still have decent damage.
a 16 dmg longbow is equivalent to a 32 dmg skirm in age 2, if it wasnt for their animation and slightly lower multiplier it would be the most busted unit in the game
Mathematically speaking it all soungs great on paper, ON practice however there is a lot of movement and between moving and retargeting. LONGBOWS become extremely bad, plus the nerf of -1 affects the upgrades of age 3, 4 and 5. If it was only a nerf of -1, that affected only Age 2 longbow. Then yeah why not. But this affects all the other upgrades making a compounding effect on the nerf. I do remember clearly by age 5 longbows used to have 35, now they only have 32.
I wouldn’t be opposed to have longbows with 16 damage in feudal but re-stablish their late game as they were already prior to the nerf
You can not try and move them alot, which increases their DPS by a tonne. they also have the highest range of all light infantry.
so the current longbow DPS is 64 compared to imp skirm’s roughly 35, with increased range as well, that is no where near a terrible unit
1 Like
I think in practice it is less than that, because the longbow got 1s charging time instead of 0.5s ( Longbowman (Age of Empires III) | Age of Empires Series Wiki | Fandom )
So it is more like 16d/2.5s for longbows vs. 15d/3.5s for skirms. Then the longbow only got x1.25 vs HI whereas skirms got x2, and x3 with arsenal upgrade. And the longbow gets a card for better range instead of damage increase.
Overall, the skirm got smoother kiting and longvows higher range and dps. And with extra range and damage,you should need to kite (and you should have pikes or dragoons nearby).
I hate to admit it, but the problem may be that aoe3 does not have enough civs, as so many players are unable to compromise and instead cry until their civ gets every single feature that they want…
Currently civs with “factory houses” (japans, british, incas, swedes) do not have regular skirmishers, we have to choose.
And if we rather want Yumi for better micro, we have to give up european canons and accept to run around the map to put down your houses…
2 Likes
You know, this is quite funny. Yes all you describe sounds too good. But in the late game I rather just use Rangers than longbows due to how bad longbows function and Wood being a limited resource which is better used in cannons. And canons simply deal better vs longbows in general [ This last part of preferring canon over longbows is because if you were to play a mirror match I would rather have rangers + canons than longbows + canon as it is less wood heavy ] then if you take this idea out of just that all civs that have skirms + canoon simply deal much better vs longbows in the longrun
1 Like
I have a more radical thought:
- Revert the longbow guard/imperial change, so that they are not enabled by default and require the yeoman card.
- Make the ranger available at age iv by default like the Italian bersagliere (with veteran and guard upgrade)
BTW yeomanry should also enable guard/imperial upgrade for pikemen.
Since DE because of the change, British pikemen were the only (non royal guard) one that could upgrade to guard by default. Now it is the only one that cannot upgrade. Both are very odd.
4 Likes
The fact we need a dedicated forum to discuss if British is OP then there is something wrong with British… lol…and there was another post recently closed complaining about the same thing.
1 Like
I think the British would stop being a problem if the following actions were applied. 
- British houses can only produce a maximum of 20 villagers and then they don’t give more for the rest of the game
- The British lose all villager cards.
I also think British houses should cost 200 wood, but I’m leaving this option up to the developers.
1 Like
To be honest, according to what dev did huge nerf to rush civ bonus, such as
Russia Boyars 15%>10%;
Haud musket rider 30% > 20% range resistance;
Lakota and Haud market cost 50w more for level 1 gold mining;
Lakota age 2, 5 clubmen (in their view 5 clubmen = 6 musketeers);
etc.
From these similar adjustment, I think manor should cost 150w to 160w for each at least, to meet or need to pay more for the vil cost.
1 Like
For me it’s kind of crazy that Lakota or Aztecs no longer have 5 villagers in Age II because it is too strong apparently but British with eco twice as big as Aztecs have still all villager cards.
In my opinion is doesn’t make sense.
5 Likes
That is ridiculous to spend so much wood at once for a building that has to be done in short intervals of time, also if you raise the price accordingly you would have to increase the experience for building it and the life for which you would make a manor house of about 2000 of life that would be better than a wall, you would also make the British slow down in age because they already have 100 less food than the rest and you will have to collect 20 wood at age 1 to make the second house, In addition, although the british bonus if it is very strong it is only 1 bonus, an aztec has a lot of peculiarities that if you add them up are several bonuses that does not make the british look broken next to the aztec, aztec has a community square, warrior priests, war chiefs with ( Experience bonus), a unification of (barracks and detachment), noble Barracks
1 Like