Can we establish a differentiated balance between Supremacy and Treaty?

I mean, basically, to establish a balance and special mechanics for treaty, and separately, balance and special mechanics for supremacy, the possibilities could be endless.

The benefits, clearly, would be less friction in the balance between both game modes, maybe more work for the developers but I think that it is easier when creating a patch.

I can give 3 simple examples, you will say if I am correct or not, but remember that they are hypothetical examples by way of example.
The Camayos card of the Incas, which exchanges food for gold, this card in supremacy does not make sense, it should be eliminated from that game mode and used only in treaty, I have seen Incas use it in 3v3 supremacy and it is really useful there in late game .
Players could be allowed to rebuild wonders, factories and other key buildings in treaty, but not in supremacy.
Native civilizations could be given special mechanics to passively obtain resources only in treaty, but not supremacy.

The possibilities are many, and I think everything will be better organized and more balanced, to cite quick examples, increase the WP limit for Aztecs in treaty, reduce the rate of food generation for kanchas in supremacy, make the spies and other units that they use stealth immune to buildings and explorers only in treaty, among others.

What do you think?

What’s the difference between treaty and a supremacy game that lasts too long?

I think most of the resource problem could be solved with an imperal tech and a card in age 4 rather then the need for a special differentiated balance as it were.

For example, aztec mining has been great step forward for aztec lategame/treaty purely by just reducing the need for wood. Earth bounty for lakota likewise allows for better lategame without affecting the early game. More of things like this allows for better treaty without messing with supremacy. Euro civ have some of this as well, the imp strelet giving more range and imp longbows giving more damage against heavy infantry, all helps. Haud could be given a late game wood tech, either in the vein of say the hausa card that also gives wood gathering in farms or the incan dance that gives wood trickle or maybe haud could be given a big button that trade food for wood that can be used infinitely.

I also don’t think that removing features from the game mode makes much sense, it kinda restricts what people can do rather then allow more flexiblity.

as for allowing rebuilding, i am against that purely on the basis of the game has to end at some point and if you lose something big, make it permanent, makes it more important to protect.


I think using Age 4 cards basically means it is mainly being used in Treaty / Deathmatch, except it is broken (like svea lifeguard), then it will also be used in Supremacy. So all Treaty balance can be achieved with Age 4 cards or changing some “mediocre” Age 3 cards (like the aztec mining). So yeah, dont think it is necessary to split the game up


i see no reason to separate the balance, as you pointed out yourself a lot of cards are only useful for 1 mode.

1 Like

I see no need to divide the two game modes, after all ‘the turtle plan’ in supremacy is very little fomented (rather almost nothing). Supremacy consists precisely in that ‘military supremacy’ in the shortest possible time and that is why you choose the cards that guarantee immediate benefits (so to speak).

In the event that the game is prolonged, the treaty cards are also useful in supremacy, but since you previously chose a supremacy deck, the cards that military and economically enhance will surely be few.

What I would suggest is:

Infinite 1200 wood for all civilizations. (There could be exceptions) This to make creating natives and boats sustainable.

Letter of ‘infinite natives’ for civilizations that do not have them. For example the Ottomans could have a shipment of infinity from some African tribe and substitute the card of ‘15 infinite corsairs’

It could be rebuilt, but in such a way that they are still important objectives. That is to say, once you see them destroyed, it costs the player to restore them. Here I explain it better:

In AOE-4 you can restore wonders. Why not AOE-3?

1 Like

Because destroying the wonders is a win condition in aoe4. Like trading posts are in aoe3 trade monopoly.

This doesn’t fix it though. There should be possible to build mango groves or something similar for all civs, in imperial age. Shipments are also in low supply in late game.

1 Like

Pines, acacias, oaks or eucalyptus.