Don't change the base meta plz

I feel like the meta is in a great place. I however see more and more posts and people aksing the standard ‘‘buff the longswords’’ and nerf archers and knights in castle age.
Since i feel like those nubers of people are increasing, im am starting to get scared that the devs are going to listen and change it.
I think almost all units have a good place in the meta. In feudal we see scouts, archers, skrims and spears. In castle it is mainly xbows and knight with support form monks siege and trash and even full eagles are very viable. Also since the CA got buffed, they are viable again and i love it!
I really like the knights vs xbow dinamic beacuase they have different windows in which they beat eachother and i feel like it mostely comes down to player skill. Its not like you beat archers with knights 7/10 times. If you lose, you know its bc you made mistakes or the other player was better.
In early imp the knights and xbows get upgraded ofc, but as the age goes on, your eco will be big enough to transition into the hard counters and support there respective hard counters and we even see elite eagles, halbs, champions or infantry UU.
The only unit that i feel is rarely viable is the handcanon. They are supposed to hard counter infantry, but i feel they are underwelming in that role.

So overall, i feel that almost all units have there pro’s and cons and have a great spot in the meta. I however am a bit scared that the devs will listen to the vocal few how want that every unit is always viable or who dont like the knight vs xbow dinamic in castle age.
I hope more ppl agree with me.

The meta is balanced for 1v1. In 1v1 double gold (xbow + knight) unit is a really good but really hard strat.
A result of this is that in teamgames, knight + xbow is the best strat by far. I feel like this is justified since it is not unbalanced. Also it is a clear result of the game. In teamgames you win if you cover eachothers weaknesses best and support eachother best. A ranged + mele unit combo with high mobility will do this best and i see no way how to change this without change the core of the game (I also see no reason for it personally but ppl can have different opinions)

The beautifull thing about this game is that you can enjoy it in a million different ways. You can do diplo games, CBA, make it a city builder or play competitavely 1v1 or in teams.
In my opinion, the balancing is only really for the higher competative games, as long as it does not hurt the other ways.
I define higher competative games as 1200+ 1v1 ELO, since i think from there on ppl can constntly produce vills and understand the counters and all the rock paper scissor ways.
Not to devalue people, but i think that the only way to look at balancing is from a mid to higher level competative way.

I also just plowed myself through the nerf heavy CA cost and i also think all the costs are very good balanced within a 10-15% cost.


if you play teamgames you will understand that we only use 2 units and not anything else on your list


11 i was still thinking about how to frase my opinion on teamgames but you were faster with your reaction. I edited my post with my opinion

Yes, because it’s the most efficient composition you can make, at least in arabia/open maps. I suppose that everyone knows it at this point


The meta is pretty much completely messed up right now. There are a handful of usable civs out of 37. You can reach 1500 elo by just memorizing 2 openings and 0 game knowledge (which actually puts you above a large chunk of the playerbase). Just ridiculous post OP.


With all due repsect, I just have something to say about your topic. We have now 37 civs and 2 on the way, so we will have 39 civs by this summer, every game with 37civs the enemy go with scouts/archers then knights/xbows, whatever the civ is, I don’t know about you, but imo playing more than 35civs like they are 2 civs is not funny imo, yeah you see CA now and eagles but it will not change the truth about the current meta, so this is one thing.

About buffing the militia line, I just suggested to make the starting cost 50 not 60, and I wrote a topic to give them a charge attack with big spike of speed but of course everyone said No, you know why? Because they are like you, their fathers and grandfathers were playing the game 20 years ago as it is now and they thing then yeah it is fine, but not because if the change is worthy or not.

3rd thing I noticed that you mentioned the heavy cavalry archer cost upgrade and you said it is fine the I assumed you read my topic about this upgrade, well I respect your opinion but this doesn’t mean you are right.

Paying 900f, 500g for getting +1 attack, 10hp, +1 melee armor is not a fair cost at all, and most people pay it for just the +1 attack which is the main advantage and because they alreadly invested tons of costs on the CA already, so I just suggested to dcrease the cost or give it more benefit to make paying 900f, 500g for this upgrade is worthy, like for example make it give +1/+1 not +1 melee or remove the stupid 10hp and +1 melee and cut the cost by the half because both of those things are useless for a unit like the CA.


i tried to awnser you Heavy CA cost respectfully post rn. I also have no read exactly all posts about the militia line.

The amount of civs is a different discussin. I agree that 39 civs are too much for this game and that they will feel too similar.
I am saying that the current 1v1 meta is great regardless of civs. I also see no clear way of adding the militia line into the current xbow knight dinamic. Maybe you have had a great idea of wich i hadnt thought. If i have time i will try to find your topic.

Also, i think you really care about this game and want the best for it. But if you use the ‘‘you play this game 20 years and dont want anything changed’’ arguement. It really disquallifies your good intentions of makeing the game better.
I btw only play for 2 years :slight_smile:


I have never said anything about civs. (see my response to equalizer)
Also 1500 Elo is about the top 3000 players so it isnt that easy apperantly.
Id also appriciate if youd come with your own constructive opinion and not just dissmiss it. If you dont like it and dont want to think about a nice and good reaction, then dont awnser

Well I started to play this game too once DE was out so I am like you but I already got bored by seeing everygame the same, 37civs and 2 otw with knights and xbows all the time them doesn’t feel funny tbh, and about my topic for changing the infantry line here it is, hope you like it.

Idea to make the infantry line in aoe more exciting

I have really fallen in love with the meta and i see every game smt new. I think i will never get borred from it but its not for everyone ofc and thats fine. Its oke to get borred with it and move on for a while

That was my constructive answer. The meta is obviously pretty bad if you can just pick up a strategy or two and get into the top 3000 players despite otherwise not even knowing the civ tech trees at all etc


and my awnser to that was that is apperantly isnt that easy since there only only 3000 ppl who can do that (your logic) out of the 25000 (idk how manny are on ladder but its more than 20000).

Straight archers wont work above 1300. From there on you need a drush or m@arms or do scouts into archer etc. There are a lot of possible openings which all have there pro’s and cons

Of course my experience was anecdotal in teaching a friend the game a few openers and he got to 1500 with remembering 2, despite otherwise not knowing even some basic things like Saracens don’t get Cavalier etc. So I guess that the fact that I mentored him probably was a bit ‘cheating’ but nonetheless, it’s still dumb that it was possible.

1 Like

When I started to play the game I was not knowing anything about build orders, and all what I did is doing the art of war, and guess what? I just was doing FC like the Art of War training and I reached 1300 by only naked direct FC without any other rush, then I leraned that there are many build orders than the Art of War (LOL) and now I reached 1600 ELO by only doing few things and speceific civs/build-orders, so you are totally right. So imo the real skil start to show up from 1700 or even 1800 ELO not below that.

Well you guy have to understand that getting easely to 1500+ is really rare and you you are an expection.
I dont want to discurrage you from enjoying the game in your own way but al lot of ppl need to play hundreds of games to get there so for those it isnt dumb and requires a lot of time and effort


And I respect what you said, you still better than anyone go (cheese) (like me lol) if you play standard or go random, because at least you picked the right way to learn, but I am like Hoang, go all-in every game and sick strats, so anyone play the normal way is much better than me. I will try to learn the standrd play but I think it will be so hard for a Yolo player to change his style to normal, it is just like saying to Hoang to stop picking celts and go random and play normal after all these years.

This doesn’t necessarily require a balance fix. Specialists will always perform better than generalists in their specialty. Even if the balance changes your current specialty, there will be others you can learn to achieve similar results.

A solution is to remove specialists from the ranking. Very simple, no choice of civs or map. Full random, good luck. :grimacing:

That is if you want the rank to prop up generalists. But the point of the ladder in the first place is matchmaking opponents of similar strength. So it needs to pit specialists against stronger generalists. And it does that, so it works great (ignoring smurfing, it’s a different issue).


I think thats fine and as long as you can enjoy the game and not ruin an other person his experience its great.
Only when al lot of ppl have a bad time a change can be done. For exaple the inca vill rush demotivated a lot of ppl from going ranked even while they wanted to


Yeah this is a lie, if by a handful you mean Aztecs, Britons, Burgundians, Celts, Chinese, Franks, Huns, Lithuanians, Mayans, Mongols, and Vikings. and that’s just at the top and not assuming Arena style maps or Hybrid maps both of which are popular. and that’s not even including civs that are good but not at the top of the meta, like Bulgarians, Japanese, Khmer, Malians, Persians, Slavs, Tatars and Teutons.

you could do this in literally almost any RTS.

and yet you decided to play a game where the civs are all very similar but with modest differences between them - if you wanted a game that was drastically different aoe1 or aoe2 is not the game for you.

again this is true of literally any game out there - starcraft 2, arguably the most popular RTS of the last decade. memorize 1 or 2 builds and you can make it all the way to grand masters level, which is the top 0.25% of the game.


Starcraft2, isn’t the game like, dead? I guess that’s not a good example to follow indeed then. Anything to do with Blizzard of the past several years is probably just a pretty bad example to throw in, company is losing its fan base and its games are slowly dying out, so idk man