So what exactly makes Ethiopia so good in treaty but not Hausa? Hausa is as if designed for treaty.
OP units, infinite mortar shipment, stack 3-4 mortars with abuns constantly healing them, then you can destroy anything (even cavalry) if the enemy is quick enough to kill each mortar they need instant 3 culverin shot and that’s if you don’t even train culverin with Ethiopia which you must obviously. Neftenya (insane HP and Attack + they have siege resistance) + Javelin is super deadly and you have Jasuit overpop, you have chaos ability with explorer, you have 4 tanky explorers with decent range damage. Mountain monastery boosts all nearby units HP and gives coin and/or influence trickle (let’s not forget you have 6 Mountain monastry). you get gold + influence by killing enemy units basically your eco will sustain forever with your strong units. Since Ethiopia can win Hausa as well and they can win USA as well (without natives). That’s why USA and Ethiopia are both S+ tier. You can even go Mercenaries build with Ethiopia because with Arabs on imperial mercenaries will be super cheap so basically, you can mix Javelin + Gatling Camel + Mortar and destroy everything while your economy sustains.
6 Likes
I don’t play much treaty so these kind of wacky combos are not common in my games.
But a mortar + culverin + abun is very population intensive, purely spamming cavalry should deal with it (especially heavy duty cav like gendarmes).
Javelin + Gatling Camel is an annoying combo do deal with indeed.
1 Like
You have to keep in mind Javelin is 1 pop and even so 2 culverins + 3-4 mortars + 10 Jasuits + Neftenya + Javelin. As I said the stacked mortars kill everything. 3 mortar can 1 shot 4 Gendarmes if the Gendarmes are moving close.
Tier list are useless except to measure op strats and obviously op civs. Most civs have strong elements but for the most part it deals w the strengths in the matchup. For example people say brits are strong and china weak. Really! China rolls the brits most of the time. The spear crossbow mass is very difficult to overcome.
The exception is totally broken stuff like inca and japan (if you fail to overwhelm them in 7 minutes).
1 Like
sorry but you don’t know what you’re talking about, to say that brit is weak against china with an army of chu ko nu is just wrong lol, it’s clear you really don’t know the match ups, so i thought you had a minimum of knowledge when you said my tier list was bad, it seems i was wrong lol
btw people complain about japs but above all you have to understand how to play against this civ (like dutch), it’s obvious also that you don’t know, japs got a ton of nerf since DE but this civ still broken, it’s obvious that after a while its not coming from the civ but from the players don’t you think? (a tip: if you can’t beat a civ, play this civ to understand how this civ works and then you will find these weak points)
2 Likes
I’m heavily biased towards China, as that’s the main civ I play in treaty. I also only play 2v2 or 3v3 treaty, so this is the context of you playing with teammates.
China: Super strong with teammates. Spam civ, but with one of the strongest treaty ecos to back it up.
Russia: Honestly, also fits this bill, in most situations. Slightly weaker in terms of matchup viability - rather weak vs heavy infantry spams, due to over-reliance on artillery being Russia’s only viable counter to heavy infantry, but stellar in every other situation.
France: Good in every situation. Jack of all trades… also master of most trades. One of the best economies in the game, alongside the strongest skirmishers, heavy cavalry, and artillery out of the European civs. (Lakota/Haud skirmishers are stronger, and Lakota heavy cavalry is far better, but Lakota has exactly zero economic power whereas France is made of economic power.)
Inca: Excellent economy, especially considering it’s a native civ. Downside is the relatively mediocre army and short range. They lack the strengths that the only other short-range civ uses to make up for their short range (Lakota has heavy cavalry en masse), but they make up for it with their economy and ability to cheese.
Britain: Excellent economy. Strong early boom, which can make a huge difference in a treaty game. Reliable military, if not the most versatile. You know what they can do, and they’ll do it.
Japan: Auras on auras on auras on… you get it. A serious weeb designed this civ and it’s terrible, but it’s strong. The military is difficult to overcome, as every unit is capable of massacring its hard counters… mostly. Naginata and Flaming Arrows are notoriously useless outside of niche situations.
Portuguese: Strong economy, extremely good at staying out of your range. Despite the incredible economy to back them up, their best strategies involve losing relatively few units - Keep your dragoons, Cassadors, and culverin as far away as you can while your super-long-ranged mortars whittle people down. You can deal with most people this way, as nobody can get close to your mortars while you systemically tear everything down from a mile away.
Dutch: With the DE buffs, they’ve moved up from B tier to A tier. Super strong economy, but I think it ruined their old playstyle niche of being an early power spiker civ that fell off. Now they just powerspike fast and never fall off. Downside is that their economy still isn’t as good as it could be, but their military is overall excellent quality. Versatile. Similar to Britain - You know what the Dutch can do, and they can reliably do it.
Disclaimer: I don’t know jackshit about Hausa or Ethiopia, so ignore where I put them. I literally just tossed them on there without thinking and even got the positioning wrong. I’d switch where I have them, but I’ve never played them in treaty against a competent player.
Aztecs: Economy is a lot better than people seem to think, the downside is that they’re overly reliant on a single card to be viable, which really hurts their late-game power… which is highly reliant on a high number of cards. ERKs are a 1-unit response to pretty much everything, which is iffy design IMO. They sport some of the strongest anti-cav in the game, which I think is ■■■■■■■ hilarious. A fully upgraded Puma Spearman can deal over 160 damage to cavalry. That is a basic pike unit costing 1 pop and 90 resources dealing more damage to cavalry than a 2 pop, 160 resource elite mercenary unit.
Ottomans: Their lack of versatility is their downfall, although the lackluster economy doesn’t help. Not much to say. The Ottomans boom slowly in treaty and can’t usually offer more than a lot of artillery, but with the right allies, Ottoman artillery can be the deciding factor of a game due to heavy turtling and how easily the Ottomans will rip through it… if properly protected.
Spain: Can be strong if you’re microing your Missionaries well, but if you’re not, you’re screwed. Economy is lackluster, but is sufficient for what they do. There’s not much to say - they’re basic, but reliable. Problem is, they’re reliable to be mediocre, while other reliable civs like the Dutch and Britain, are reliable to be excellent.
Sweden: Nerfs, buffs, both. I don’t know where they stand anymore, but as someone who mainly plays China, they’ve always been relatively easy to beat. Their lack of a proper skirmisher means they can’t have high numbers to attack from a range, and they can’t deal with a lot of units at a time due to their over-reliance on mercenaries that often aren’t worth the large population they’re taking up. Mercs are great to mix in, but when they’re comprising most of your army, you have problems, and that is usually a volume problem.
Germany: Best eco in the game, hands down, if you’ve got all your settler wagons and villagers out. Problem is, this leaves you with 60 population to build an army… and when your units are rigid, stiff, and unable to function outside their specific purpose and all cost a large amount of population, you cannot make a viable army with less population than other civs. You’re lucky to get a patrolling party out on that population.
India: A solid choice. Their biggest issue is they’re overshadowed by China and Japan - What they can do, those two can do better, which leaves them without a proper niche to occupy. That, alongside their ridiculously slow training times, means they’re largely non-viable. India just can’t keep up in unit production, even if their economy can keep up, more-or-less.
USA: Problem here is I’ve never played a game vs a competent USA player. Either that, or they’re so chronically bad that it’s impossible to do good on them. Or, a third option, they just suck vs China in general. Whichever one it is, only two civs are easier to crush than the USA.
Lakota: Best military in the game, hands down. Cavalry capable of doing anything, literally. Problem is… zero economy. None. Nada. Zilch. Not a single economic card available to them that makes a difference in treaty games. (Food silos doesn’t count, everyone has that. That’s just a baseline.) That strong military is useless if you don’t have the economy to produce it once it’s been depleted in your initial charge.
Haudenosaunee: Worst in game. IMO they should be near the top in terms of raw economic power, slightly stronger than where the Aztecs should be but slightly below France or China. Combine their poor economy with a mediocre military - seriously, their only useful units are the Forest Prowler and the Light Cannon - and you end up with a civ that can’t keep up in both military and economy in a treaty game. They should be creating wood left and right from their Longhouses, and rely on wood to an extent that makes India look like they’ve never heard of wood in their lives.
There. A treaty list from someone who’s been playing the game since 2011, and reached level 35ish in the old ranking levels. (Colonel, iirc.)
4 Likes
Well yes, China hard counters USA.
I have to agree, Lakota late game is sad. They are very strong in the early game in supremacy, so probably that’s why they do not get buffs (they do have some absolutely bad matchups there as well though). Hopefully, they are next in the rework queue. They really need some sort of eco buff, they are the only faction that has to deduct a full 25 villagers to their plaza which is a hard hit to their late game economy. They could use either a buff to economy, a buff to their ceremonies or a way to get special performers for the plaza (like inca gets lamas and aztecs gets priests).
Hauds are actually doing better than Lakota in late game, because of the earth mother ceremony that grants extra population slots, meaning they can dance and keep an almost saturated economy.
They are actually luckluster in late game.
Japan is stronger than people seem to think due to their units being ridiculously cost-efficient. Sure, you don’t have the same raw economy to back up your nation as much as other powerhouses like France or China, but you have units that are almost on-par with Lakota cavalry and a much stronger economy behind it. Basically, you end up with units that are 1.5x as strong as their normal counterparts, which means you often need a significant number less of them to accomplish the same thing.
I hate them. A ■■■■■■■ weeb designed them and they’re obnoxious AF.
6 Likes
It’s funny these tier lists have been coming out for a year now. All the ones up until now have had brits in the solid middle tiers. Now someone posts them at the top and suddenly they are on top on all the subsequent posts. The civ has been totally unchanged since the release. No buffs, no nerfs, unchanged.
It’s a good lesson in mass psychology.
3 Likes
Yes, it is really funny what you say.
Likewise, the British were always considered one of the strongest civilizations. It only has one very important limitation, and that is that it consumes an irrational amount of food, consuming almost the entire map very quickly. Now in DE natural resources are more abundant and better distributed. If you think about it, it’s a major buff for Brits.
Now that civs in general were nerfed, and brits were untouched, it stands to reason that they now climbed higher on the tier list.
9 Likes
Other civs get changed and nerfed though, which changes their relative strength to Brits.
2 Likes
It’s like I said. All civs have their strengths and weaknesses. Someone that plays primarily a civ that british counter well such as spanish would think them op.
I play alot of brits and feel that way about china who people complain all the time are weak. It’s all a bunch of winning and angst because some imbalances are built into this game intrinsically.
The only true op nonsense is stuff that can’t be overcome by anyone. Post nerf swedes, inca currently, japan and their near universal superiority in almost every aspect of the game if you don’t negate them in the first few minutes.
4 Likes
The AoE community can be so fickle I’m sure devs spend a lot of the time pulling their hair out. People are way too eager to label things “OP” it gets rather tiring. Nerf this, nerf that, buff this, buff that…but not too much!
I get it to a point but when factoring in different skill levels and whatnot it makes things difficult to get a firm grasp on most things.
What disturbs me is some suggest things that would end up making the game another AoEII…and even that game with it’s civ design has people constantly unhappy.
4 Likes
you played a ton of brit but you can’t know how to beat the chinese with brit: D
What you don’t understand is that the brits are strong since the fixed crates were put in place (even at the beginning of DE and the end of EP), give me a civ who has a better start than Brit currently i’m curious to know (brit can 2 manors (which gives 2 vills) or tp with manor or market hunting dogs and manor), the only civ that has a start as powerful as the brit is the hauds with the dock start ( i’m not talking about the Incas obviously which are just incredible everywhere), the new maps are abundant in food which makes the brit incredible aswell
All the time i see people complaining about the japs but people don’t even understand how to play against this civ, they just let the jap boom and complain just after he loses because of their strong units and their good eco, they do not understand that the japs is a very slow civ, easy to scout and easy to counter, the shrines have 1200hp with a gold start which does not help (imagine you can even scout what the japs does just by clicking on a shrine and watch how much it collects but people complain without even knowing the game) and btw this is one of the civ that has received the most nerf on this game and despite this civ is still broken, i say it again but is rather the players who do not know how to play against this civ
And although not a lot of people know it i guess but I hate japs, i’m just as neutral as possible on balance
And btw “japan and their near universal superiority in almost every aspect of the game” you have no idea how much the brit can outmass and outeco the japs in the first 10 minutes of the game which at that time you need to pressure and attack instead of waiting and let japs boom
and yes the dev must be fed up since people complain about the balance when they don’t know how to play (you have to nerf this or buff this but they are 1000th in the rankings), it’s tiring tbh but i admit that the brit does not beat china made me laugh 
9 Likes
Drongo put together a list of compatible strengths in match ups some time ago. It was pretty good. For the most part where someone gets ranked on these stupid tier lists is dependant on what civ they mostly play and what civs are favorable against it.
1 Like
True op is game busting stuff that negates civ advantages across the board. The higher a players skill level the more disadvantages that player can overcome in civ balance. This game is impossible to balance entirely. We wouldn’t want to play it if it t did, that’s chess. Anyone play computer chess anymore?
I can frequently beat japan but it sucks never having a real game against them. Their only weakness is the slow start. You strong rush or die. You see the true nature of the op in their play. You can see by how they control their units and strategies that they are lower players but their inherent advantage carries them through. That is op.
I used to mow down swede vils and keep them to super low vil counts all game and they would still out econ you. That is op.
3 Likes
I never understood why anyone was putting them middle tier. They’ve always had one of the strongest booms in the game.
4 Likes
British economy is strong and booms well, but it can’t keep the pace up for long and its military is a bit lackluster. Their military is reliable, but fairly inflexible and their units are rather doomed to be single-purpose. They can’t get away with something like a Gendarme spam or a Jinete/Cass spam and hope to succeed - they require more forethought and strategy to be on the same level as others of a similar level, which puts them in a lower tier.
3 Likes
Their boom is nice but nothing to write home about. It is also tied to the industrial age manor boom, without it, the Birtish have a very average boom, only slightly better than non-booming civs
Also their military is good, but has obvious weaknesses: muskets are slow, they lack range (aside from the longbowman, but they have the weird windup animation so the advantages slightly goes away). They are basically a slow deathball of artilery and muskets but it can be countered.