How hard is to balance tr with sup?

How hard is that Dev’s ???

  1. Otto, india, Aztec , hausa , all have very bad train time , on head on fight they lose . Hauda is somewhat better , but hauda works on timer , if furtraded gold run out hauda is lost .

Can’t u just make they infantry train faster like 10-15% , and for balancing make their infantry build military building 25-30% slowers with battlefield construction card

Also another solution for slower train time issue is giving 15-20 more pop space to compensate for units struck in training most of the time .

Also otto can get Jan and abus nerf reverted with imperial age ,

None use battlefield construction card in sup and sup gane hardly goes to imperial age .

Currently only way to play then is either split then or somehow have so many military building to train , but if ur opponent knows how to wall and mortor down ur military buildings number , u will struggle to keep units on feild

Aztec need lots of thing ,

they have no splash units , no artillery , no mele units with splash , they can’t deal with mass units .

Cyote is very weak as a can unit 10-15 musk I’m front of skirmishers can stop a horde of cyote in tr .

Slingers are not good at killing anti cav . Due to lower multiplier.

Arrow knight can’t trade too cost effective vs horse artillery and horse artillery has bonus vs arrow , horse artillery can ■■■■ down arrow before arrow can kill horse artillery , it’s not a cost effective trade , like u do as culverin . U need lots of arrow night to one shot horse artillery and if u make that many arrow knight , ur army composition is too weak vs cav and skirmishers

Can u buff cyote stat , slinger multiplier and arrow knight get bonus vs artillery with imperial upgrade , or by some industrial age cards ??? That will have minimum effect on sup .

Also alternatively u can just increase warrior priest number in imperial age to like 15-20 , that can also
Most problems except arrow knight bonus vs artillery

  1. Malta has huge pop problem for anti cav , Malta can benifit from faster train time and 15-20 extra pop space

if not alternatively making sentinals one pop musk for their cost and stat . .

  1. All of italay units are below average . May be buffing 2-3 units will work , they have full cost worst musk ( after russia) , below average skirmishers , and cav .

  2. Nerf usa fort stat , probably nerf marines ,

They have like 405 hp , 52 attack , stat of a strong musketeers without tag of heavy infantry , no palanty to cav , and bonus vs artillery . And with fort age up , every building u destroy spawn lots of Martine , no to mention super fast speed of building construction by usa wagons .

Marines stat need nerf , may be give marines heavy infantry tag ,

Slow wagon’s building speed for building .

And their eco is just too strong for cheap and strong units and instant Nats , that need some adjustments in either cost of units / or their strats / or their eco .

  1. Biggest issue with Mexico is their cav that counter other cav and skirmishers , only thing that can stop chinaco is heavy infantry , but mexico has good musketeers and skirmishers to counter heavy infantry .

Merging chinaco or some other other nerfs can fix mexico . Mexico has everything good with them .

Good eco and all units are good , they may need a few more nerfs to be balanced .

  1. Euthopia , same thing with euthopia , best goons , best skirmishers with average eco . .

Neftania need some late game nerf .

  1. Russia is pretty average except when fight some strong heavy infantry , stelet are cost effective but with low attack they can’t kill heavy infantry fast enough for cossaks to be effective .

May be 0.5 increas ein heavy infantry multiplier for russia can complement their unit combo


China = with vill delete , china can overwhelm most civs , , they need like a little nerf to steppe riders in age 5 ,they r too cost effective .

Or may be a bit more nerf in german consulate , Chinese eco without German consulate is not super good to sustain even after bad unit’s trades .

Inca = if u don’t like them have mortors , at least increase range for harunca , they are so bad at seige late game , also they have no multiplier vs artillery, with half attack demage , , may be they need compensation like +0.5 multiplier vs building and artillery late game , right now they are very bad to have good chunck of them in army composition.


I agree with a lot of these suggestions. But are they likely to make changes? Maybe…

I’ve come to the consensus that with the recent changes that the devs have made for treaty balance, I don’t think that many of them play as much treaty as we do to properly balance the civs. Some changes were real headscratchers. I do however, believe that they very passionate and hardworking, and I am very grateful for having done a great job with the game since DE release.

But, just like many of us players with full-time jobs and other responsibilities, I don’t think it’s likely for them to be into treaty that much, since treaty games consume so much freetime.

(Hell, I wish I had that much time to play treaty as much as I want.)

But with that being said, if the developers really don’t have that much time to understand the nuances of treaty balance problems, then they really need to take in advice people who do and have extremely high amount of experience in it.

I am in a few discord chats and am familiarizing myself with a lot of higher leveled players. A lot of people in those chats take their advice like God’s spoken word. I mean, they literally are the best players and know their stuff.

There should be designated players that the devs can go to for detailed treaty balance advice.


I wonder why not Dev’s consult with top tr players or even hire some good tr players for balancing ,

It’s obvious , they don’t know much about how treaty works . And they are destroying this beautiful game mode.

I think all they do is , reading some random thread made by someone who just has started playing .

Just like how they deleted Lakota , probably becoz of some random person posted 20 teepee stacked units stats , that is impractical in real game .

None allow Lakota to make that many teepee , and even if Lakota make that many teepeee , attack at some other place , Lakota can’t fight at all at multiple place , Lakota was always below average civ .

How hard is to understand a civ with worst eco in game need super strong units to compensate for eco ??? ???

Anyone who has slight knowledge of tr mode can understand that .

Im not agree with Italy and Malta buffs.Malta units are very strong with rockets while veteran Pavise have more attack than legendary AKs while cost just 1pop slot LOL

Italy juat needs a bit touch on lombards to compensate for 1 factory. But, Im not sure why that is that a great issue when there are civs that havent got any factory…:thinking:

How hard is that Dev’s ???
Otto, india, Aztec , hausa , all have very bad train time , on head on fight they lose . Hauda is

The whole issue is that you are also messing up with supremacy like this. And it’s really bad (for sup) giving all possible techs, units and cards to all civs to cover their cons. I personally despise this approach.
Having that said, I really don’t know how to solve your issue but I hope they do. People complain alot about India in Treaty.

I think for Treaty, in particular the best move might be giving them custom technologies or rework unused ones? Techs that are too expensive for use in supremacy but viable for treaty?


Always consider that there has to be a separate balance between Treaty and supremacy, a basic example, if you give a quick training card or advanced arsenal to Aztecs available in Industrial, (clearly intended for treaty), those who play 1v1 are just going to do turtle until get to Industrial (which isn’t too hard) and send those cards.

They are able to edit game settings for Empire Wars, why not treaty?

There’s got to be some UI option where selecting a treaty game enforces a set of balance changes whenever the treaty game mode is selected.

I suggest that whenever someone wants to host a lobby and implements a treaty, a dialogue box pops up stating, “Warning: Some civilizations will be adjusted for this game mode. Do you wish to continue?”

Then the game continues on as normal but with all the set of desired balance changes. No effect to supremacy.


Yeh this is likely the only way to balance the 2 game modes properly

Thats why natives had to wait until imperial to train mortars for example, or getting faster training time with migrants. About this one I think that europeans shouldnt get it cause they are fast enough

Is it really that easy to do fast industrial? I ask because I only play supremacy sometimes. I thought that most supremacy games end in less than 20 minutes, especially after people hit their age 3 timings

That’s the meta, but lately the trend is changing to trying to turtle, buy time and get to Industrial, especially now that there are more and more broken cards available in that age.

I don’t think it is that hard to balance Supremacy and Treaty together. 1vs1 Supremacy games always ends before Age V. In Treaty mode you’ll always reach Age V.

So, to properly balance Treaty games without making completely separate balance for particular mode (which will require a lot of work) devs just need to add one or two specific technologies available only in Imperial Age for specific civs.

For example, new upgrade with faster training time for Aztec units. Or maybe better rate of fire for Abus Guns. Or 60% upgrade instead of 50% for some units like a Sepoy already has.

Little precise changes like these would make better balance for Treaty without impacting Supremacy and without a need of creating completely separate balance.


I agree , any solution will work .

May be expensive age 5 tech , like adding benifits to migrants tech or age 5 imperial upgrades for units .

It’s very rare that someone get age 5 and get those techs in sup .

Or have some card for age 4 .

People will not take many age 4 cards , as fast industrial is not viable for most civs

I suggest that a long time back .

Have some civ specific tech enable when hosting a game in nr20+ just like we have for empire wars or for certain maps .

( Still belive nr10 is just ff)

I fully support this

It’s not easy to turtle to age 5 .

And even in fast industrial , why will someone take faster training card industrial age for supremacy ???

U can simple make extra military buildings for same effect in supremacy , so people use some 1000 resource or some instant units shipment over faster training cards .

But in treaty , u need faster training .

I never talked about going up to Imperial, nor about FI, I just said that players are more aiming to buy time to get to Industrial, taking advantage of certain mechanics designed for treaty games and creating really frustrating games.

Because let’s be consistent, the main difference between AoE2 and AoE3 is the speed with which the games are resolved, and for those who like a longer game, there is the treaty, I deeply hate when in 1v1 supremacy my opponent forces me to play a treated game because he only turtles and doesn’t attack.

This could be easily resolved if there were a separate balance between treaty and supremacy.

To cite an example, if the Aztec skull knight has 5 speed in treaty it would be balanced and useful, but in 1v1 supremacy a skull knight with 5 speed is broken.

i m agree for seprate balancing .

but for ur sake if some do turtle , u just boom

rush > boom > turtle > rush

work on nur late game , running with 15-20 units is not the only way to play

Aztecs are a joke in treaty and supremacy imo. I don’t know what they were thinking when they reworked them.

Malta should have the sentinel card rebuffed back to 50% like it was pre release, or at least 40%. Makes no sense for a 2 pop unit to be that bad.

Italy needs a lot of things. Their economy is very boring, lombards are tedious especially in treaty and don’t offer a lot of benefit. Their cavalry is very average with their dragoons being kinda decent at best due to the fire rate buff tech. Pavisiers are a complete waste because they don’t tech beyond veteran despite almost every other crossbow civ able to guard and imperial their crossbows.

The papal units are good but so unusable in treaty because of the shipment mechanic. This seriously needs to be changed.

Bersaglieri are a bit subpar. Below change would benefit them however.

Italy seriously should have mercenary cards.

Of all civs whose identity was made by mercenaries it would be the Italians (Germans too). You literally made the Italian leader a mercenary adventurer (which is nonsense, it should be Victor Emmanuel!) But no special mercenary cards?!

Redshirts was a good card to add but should be more. It should affect all gunpowder infantry instead of just Italian specific ones so mercs can benefit. It should also be 5% more (20% damage total). That would give Italians fairly solid gunpowder mercs and gunpowder natives (like the euro houses) and make them have a versatile military. Especially since lombards double as taverns it makes sense for Italians to have good mercs, especially in treaty.

Lombards also need a buff. At base they give less resources when you invest 300 food which is ridiculous. The whole point should be a return of investment. Every investment of 300 should be a gain of 25 -50 resources at base. Currently it’s just a really bad market mechanic. They need this buff in treaty and supremacy. Usury should also enable an auto investment mechanic so you don’t have to obsessively micro your lombards. Auto investment should be able to be set by resource so you can choose to push a specific resource.

Papal units should get enabled as trainable straight from the basilica in the imperial age. Make it part of ufizi or add a card that changes their cost in age IV to only gold and food (move the wood cost to higher gold/food cost) and makes them trainable directly from the basilica. Papal units would fill an Italian army composition extremely well but keeping them expensive would also balance them.

USA needs a carbine cav buff. Carbine cav are a joke. They need to have more hp and more res base. Even in sup they are bad but even worse in treaty. And maybe more damage too tbh.

Texas strat is such a broken meme, minutemen/marines are fine though, forts should just spawn less minutemen, maybe only 4-6 instead of 8. Also USA forts should have a bit less hp. They need to make other age3/age4/age5 age ups viable for USA. As Age 3 has literally no viable treaty option (we take Indiana because it’s something rather than the nothing every other age3 gives).

Age4 is only New Jersey, and California if you’re doing the insane vill strats. Vermont needs to get a buff imo.

Age 5 is basically exclusively Illinois unless you’re doing the Texas meme strat.

New York is for mercs and outlaws but zouaves are so terrible now since they’re 3 pop that card is basically a pain to use. And the other card which gives Napoleon guns simply doesn’t need to exist anymore since they changed outlaws so that they shadowtech in industrial and imperial. USA mercs are decent though since their combat cards affect mercs, but patriotism kills any idea of using mercs since the train time is unbearable. Seriously need to fix that too.

Patriotism should be more like liberation March and affect unit groups and not just USA specific units. Really frustrating. Makes the fort card units also frustrating to use.

Watching this comment just makes me think that you only spam USA. USA is the strongest civilization in the game they have many different BO for treaty which is completely strong and solid. Texas is not Meme, it’s broken. USA age ups need no more buff so please stop talking about USA buffs. They have 3 viable option for age 4 and 3 solid option for age 5 for treaty. :pinched_fingers:t2:

Well r u the reason people play cancer fort strat in lobbies with usa and abuse those op marines . And i haven’t seen anyone playing usa other than cancer fort strat .

U popularized Magyar husser strat , but currently people are just doing Gatling gun fort strat in almost all lobbies where usa is allowed.

I never play usa , and i didn’t mention usa becoz they need lots of fixes , they have many cancer strats .may be u can post some suggestions on fixing usa late game .