How in the world are people saying Malta is Broken now?

It was always only one or two players in the top 200 that made the claim, and this was towards the Malta at launch which has since been nerfed.

Now those same loud voices are screaming again and trickling down to any player who loses to Malta.

Malta having a 1% XP nerf (from 2%) is still a nerf from launch Malta.

It’s also a very minimal change that doesn’t “break the balance compared to before”.

Malta has consistently been in the worst 3 civs across the board and has only ever received nerfs (I believe the only real “buff” they got was changing German Tongue from 500w to 450w).

Their sentinels are horrible late-game even in defense behind a fort.

Are people really trying to argue that Malta went from D Tier to S Tier due to a situational card being added to age III and the "1% XP “Buff” " rewarding their timing that much?

Malta needs a variety of small buffs, none of which will break the balance. One or two players at the top 25 shouldn’t dictate balance.


Malta have suffered since release due to how annoying they were, they have never been good as far as I remember I don’t think they’ve even had a positive win rate at any point.
Things like depots and fixed gun caused the vocal minority to whine and the devs listened time and time again.

I always here the reasoning that malta scales well and so they can’t buff them but do they really? Late game wignacourt becomes just exotic hardwoods and you only have 1 factory, population heavy fixed guns and sentinels don’t help at all either.

The new card should have been 1 falconet and 1 culverin with a small cost if necessary which would work perfectly for a more defensive civ like malta offering them some push back vs FF civs but not providing as much siege as 2 falcs.
1 fixed gun card also needs a buff, just give a tower wagon with it or something. Currently is a 700 res age 3 card, at that value it should be an infinite card.


Tbh the civ reminds me of old lakota in thats its not OP but nobody wants to deal with them. They like thr anti lakota with annoying defensive units and a slow grind spamming buildings fixed guns depots and cheap units. They are certainly beatable but by god is it boring often as like you said their late late game aint so much so you either yolo all in early or prepare for nr40+ and people hate it. Understandable why but then the civ doesnt have much else to offer. As someone I know said, the issue with malta is that it turtles well and can hold forever but cant really push back out which is boring.

Tbh civ needs an overhaul I think too. Less emphasis on gimmicks and more depth to units staggered so its more viable all ages yet less imherently scalable. Prob need to give 2 factories and cap unit hp or something. Sentinels are a constant struggle as is. I dont know all the solutions i just know it needs a deep overhaul i think.


Isnt also just that most of the top players of this game hates defensive/grind play? we have had these convo with a lot of civs I feel, from like early DE port, inca wall spam to the classic daddy of them all, japan. The game was definitely not designed like that at the beginning and the players are definitely not used to it but I think the devs are more willing to give new tools to break turtles rather then bring down turtle civs (even if they will be annoying to deal with) like the changes to advance arsenal and the probably mistake change to the samurai.

1 Like

While I agree that devs are clearly swinging the meta from turtle city, as pre DE it was rush/sweat city, i dont really hear much love for malta at the lower levels. Most people find pushing into towers boring, as is being rushed by a million dudes. ideally, you have a mix of both. Really id say its not so much that malta is turtly but its how it does it. dutch can be starved and is weak to early pressure. ports need hunts. inca has no real artillery. italy is on a timer and doesnt scale forever. Japan has to get out on the map. Malta doesnt need much map, has cost effetcive units, can spam defences easily, and has scalable eco and units. its hard to get all them going vs savvy opponent, but it ruins most civs ability to do what they want which causes players to not like the matchup. basically, if you arent a FF civ you end up having a worse long age2, and so many native civs have no answer to this level of turtle.

But even with adv artillery and wall changes, it still doesnt change that malta will outscale most civs hard so has to be FF>cannon or similar about every play. or settle for a very, very, looong game. Its not just pros who hate pushing into 5-6 fixed guns; in fact most normal people see red and throw these types of games. I cant count the number of mid level games ive watched and tried to calmly help someone pivot into long term games but most people dont want to play the very slow grind games that are often considered “treaty” territory

So like lakota/sioux before them wasn’t OP but god did no one like seeing them as it meant a miserable time, its just a civ that tends to do gimmicky stuff like tower spam, sent raids, annoy people with depots, and then throw a billion super buffed units all while sitting under those damned fixed guns. And thats both limiting to play with making malta less popular, but also makes the community not want to see the civ buffed. People seem to agree malta needs something, but the fear of 2 pop ashi spam, or how if the FF as is cant stop malta not much can for most civs. I dont know how much longer in the oven or what temp, but i just think the current civ design needs more than small tweaks to really be able to address the glaring weaknesses of the civ in a manner that’s healthy. if that makes sense

Lastly, to a tabletop mantra, any design that limits an opponents ability to play the game must be sparse and counterable. fixed guns absolutely screw the native civs, TAD civs, and force culverins. add a depot and it literally forces a standstill if placed smart. Sure, once culvs are out no issue but its super lame to feel your stuff is with 1 thing useless. hoops can be literally culvs of a sort, oh speaking of culvs malta also wins the culv war late meaning you have to fight so much cleaner to ensure your better eco scales. and yet, for malta it also sucks to know you get btfo by cuirs, sipahi, and knowing your eco flatlines and while you can omega culv like a turd, fixed guns and no horse art makes late game artillery wars sloooooooooooooooow. I just think these extremes limit players of malta and vs, and they should be toned down to make malta more consistent to play into and as.


I agree with most of this except the scalable eco (though our ideas of this may not match) cause for the most part its eco is standard euro except for wignacourt (which only boost natural res gather, implying you still need some amount of map control) and the settler wagons which is very good but the civ doesnt have any villager card outside of age 1 and you have to invest 450 wood + 600 res. It gives you an edge the longer the game goes on (which feels on brand) but its not something that gives you the ability to get ahead quickly.

Like compared to some other scaling options other civs have, its good but not particularly impressive. Like we are at a point in the game where brits can arguably do an even more annoying version of this with gentlemen of the pikes or ranger FI but I dont think people find it as annoying.

The fixed gun though is an annoyance though I think its mostly down to its range, if it has say 28-30 range (and no way to increase it) but greater LoS so it fires first I dont think it will be as much of an annoyance (I also forget if you have mandatory space needed between them, if it doesnt it should) cause for all of scariness the thing still does less damage then a great bombard and deals less damage to infantry then heavy cannons. capabilities wise its about the same as the sebastapol mortar and while I consider that unit good it doesnt strike the same fear into people as the fixed gun

I would kinda argue that it doesnt necessarily force culvs, cause mortars also counter the fixed gun and the civs that completely lack mortar access is China and India. Saying that it does feels very Age 3 focus to me. If its range then gets reduced I think elephants and hand mortars also become very reasonable counters.

edit: or give hand mortars and elephants increased range against buidlings

1 Like

Malta is not broken, it’s just the scaling of crossbows and pikemen in late age 3 is extremely broken due to how cost efficient they become. It goes similar as legacy Old han bow pike spam. Archaic unit cost of Malta should be increased after sending the combat shipments. Can also give Malta better option to hold ff rushes with falconets after but that’s another topic, Town center has negative bonus against artillery
should be reduced or removed because it’s nearly impossible to hold spain and otto ff rushes as certain civilisations in the game.

Here is the Match up list of Malta based on rank 1 experience.

Malta vs Aztec : Malta favoured
Malta vs Port : Malta favoured
Malta vs Mexico : Malta favoured
Malta vs Japan : Malta favoured
Malta vs Inca : Malta favoured
Malta vs Lakota : Malta favoured
Malta vs Ethiopia : Malta favoured
Malta vs Hausa : Malta favoured

Malta vs Russia : Close
Malta vs USA : Close
Malta vs Brit : Close
Malta vs China : Close
Malta vs France : Close
Malta vs Sweden : Close
Malta vs India : Close
Malta vs Dutch : Close
Malta vs Germany: Close

Malta vs Otto : Otto favoured
Malta vs Spain : Spain favoured
Malta vs Haud : Haud favoured
Malta vs Italy : Italy favoured

well for eco, its moreso the combintation of SW produceable in age2 plus an all res 30% (which stacks very well with SW) that gives malta incredible eco until natural res are used up. So whereas say automacro/house eco/classic boom civs civs have to invest 1000s of res, matla send a card and spens under 1k res early on for almost equivalency. and those saved res go into their very cheap armies. Now, it has a ceiling and that is a good design im not calling for any nerf im just saying how these scalability of investment for profit is often too much. By age4 till late game transition to estates, no civ wants to tangle with malta. But then malta is slow to go so can be nipped. And is trash vs true late game juggernaughts like france or usa germany mexico ethopia etc in age5. this experience is very much you win big or die small. And that is moreso what i am speaking of inconsistency which is an issue all across malta imho. eco unit cards etc all scaling to either too much or not enough

I like the idea of a much cheaper, less range fixed gun. frees up pop space, more counterable, and makes it not so hard to push or redeploy. Also it nukes cav so hard right now, literally 1 shots goons. incredible aoe as well. maybe make it suck vs cav? Again i dont know if 1 or other direction is better i just current version is extremely gimmicky

P.S- i forgot china hand mortars are range 33 or 34. the other 2 TAD civs, and even now i trhink AR civs, will struggle since lack of culv range options to be spammed espeiclly if a culv war is needed

1 Like

I actually don’t know why Malta needs fixed guns (over other civs), and would rather them have a focus on towers/forts tbh.


Yeah, no. I like the style in which you listed things out but you can’t possibly have data that reliable so far.

We obviously still need to wait a little longer for the new patch to fully take its course but the 1% XP difference isn’t making them broken - it’s still a nerf from two patches ago where they actually needed a few small buffs.

Being a top player in and of itself doesn’t make you correct about balance. It helps but we need to take into account the overall win rate of the civ as well and its historically been in the bottom three.

You were one of the lone voices saying Malta was S tier in the patch before this one and the very slight buff on this patch simply set you over the edge. Sorry buddy, doesn’t work that way.


I still think its more comparable to say a british manor boom or mexican hacienda boom but your strength is limited unitl the natural res runs out.

like to compare it, the maltese ## ## say 3 vils → german tounge → wignacourt and assuming you age at say 15 vils.

To me that means that you from this you get about 42vils equivalent on natural res when you max out the settler wagon (15 vils at the start of age 2, train 6 in the time you train 6 SW and 6 SW) + 25% gather rate (just checked i forgot they nerfed it) which is pretty good but compared to say a manor boom where you go 3 vils → Virginia company you are looking about about a 34 vil eco but with the added XP which I would think is somewhat comparable since you can still send things like 4 vils, wood crates etc

If we think its too much then we can remove 3 vils from the deck and make them like russia so they would end up at only around 37.5 vils on natural res + trickle.

Edit: or you can stagger the SW build limit, say 3 to start and then 1 for every age later.

They do have x.75 vs cav so they do like 225 damage vs cav which is higher then heavy cannons (200) less then the great bombard (250) so I think its less the damage then the range

For the class of unit that it is which to me is a heavy artillery/ tower hybrid the only thing that is causing its problem is the range. If we just say make it so that you cant build it until age 4 (still keep say the wagon shipment), combined with less range and maybe a build area exclusion (so say fixed guns needs to be 10 distance between each other) its about the correct power level it should be, range aside.

culvs are never really a big issue for asian civs from my experience or the most part they are never enaged in a culv war, I think thats too focused on a euro civ style of play. Artillery for Asian civs are mostly secondary considerations so making culvs against them for the most part is inefficient, especially spamming them. If they are needed to defend artillery play from euro civs, then they dont behave like euro artillery so spamming them is kinda not a good play, and as long as the asian civ takes out the main artillery, then they have accomplished their mission.

Like take the flaming arrow for example, they cost less res then falc or culv but they have 28 range in age 3 and they still do bonus to infantry and are more mobile so they have the advantage of just keeping the distance, firing at your army and using their terrifying units to charge in or defend and they 2 shot falc but for culvs to kill them they also need 2 shots due to them having 175 HP so unless you are micro god and have more culvs then the opponent has flaming arrows you cannot stop the flaming arrows from taking out your artillery or really taking a toll on your army

A similar ish story applies to the siege elephants, it takes siege ele 2 shots to kill falc but culvs take 3 shots to kill siege ele (4 if you have elephant combat) so engaging in a culv war is very inefficient.

This is different story then say the Haud light cannon, which only has 150 HP meaning they will be one shot by culvs and making their role in trading against an euro cannon mass very inefficient despite their range advantage and multiplier

even an age 4 flying crow can sorta do this since they take 3 shot at base from culvs but this stops after culverin royale

AR civs have enough influence generation and pretty good goons and cav options that I think for the most part they dont need culvs until like late age 4 where Euro heavy artillery can be a problem but their eco should be setup for artillery at that point.

I guess you didn’t read it. it is written according to the opinion of rank 1, not according to data, although it is a bit odd that you connect the subject to data, that data is also shaped by the games of high-level players meta most of the time. The competition size of the game is not high, and besides, there is no data officially published by the game. Malta is a far from being a weak civilisation, it just has very bad match ups, and the number of them is not very high. There are written match ups that this civilisation struggles I also mentioned why it’s hard to handle ff rush of spain and otto

Making a conversation as if it was the wrong topic to call Malta broken when it indeed was led the topic to an incomprehensible discussion, Malta 2:20 age up into 10/10 bow pike rush with bows that were countering hand cav before the negtive multiplier change was objectively broken. If you can’t see it, I can’t help you. Crossbows could defeat all the compositions in the game by disrupting the unit counter system just by making bow pikes before the unit counter system change.

More negative was added to the light infantry against hand cav, and also malta could easily defeat all artillery battles before because Maltese culverins fell to 3 hits, I’m sorry, what you are saying was far from the reality at the competitive level.

well the thing about these fixed guns comparisons is that fixed gun is age3, and that 1 shotting goons makes goon skirm very ineffective vs these. and you cant even charge in if their is a depot or xbows under it. So you kind of have to go to 4 for some civs to deal. thats the key issue- sure its not a heavy cannon, but its an age3 one with a bit less raw damage. Also more aoe makes it very capable of killing groups without issue.

As for a TAD civ, it doesn’t change that the units you would would need to make to deal with fixed gun is really vulnerable to a culv or 2. making the game drag out. thats the key element i am speaking to, it makes it very 1 dimensional. and in a game that i think does best when you got 2-3 counters for every unit that sort fo counters 2-3 of its own, this design just doesnt gell well with aoe3. it needs a redesign; i like your idea of less range and for less investment. make it a unique hvy cannon or sorts sounds fine to me

Yeah, I guess the Devs thought the existing campaign fixed gun worked as a Maltese unique building as part of their defensive play style.

Historically just about every nation that had coasts had fixed batteries. Malta did have a 100 ton beast of a fixed gun which was actually built by the British and used to deal with the potential threat of ironclads. That’s the only link however that was super late on in the 19th century.

1 Like

What if the [Fixed gun] were to become available to other civilisations as well. Or would that make things unbalanced?

Eh, maybe like an age 4 card that enables 1, but other than that not a fan.

Honestly one thing that would be a big Malta fun boosts would just be architecture changes and more unique defensive focus.

So we make it an age 4 unit then, easy solve, or like a fort a shipment in age 3 but only build able in age 4, like the sebastapol mortar.

The aoe thing also applies to the sebastapol mortar but again I dont think people have the same feelings about it.

Yeah but this applies to any sitaution that would involve static defense, like a fort and while yeah it will slow it in the long term its not favourable to malta (siege ele with elephant combat kills the fixed gun in 4 shots, so you can just one shot it with a batch but malta will need 8 culvs with near precision micro to kill 2) while for Japan I just checked and apparenly the yabusame has a hidden 7 multiplier in its siege attack against the fixed gun so just spam that plus flamming arrows and you counter both the culvs and the fixed gun.

The seeming lack of counters to me though speaks more to the design of the culv then the fixed gun cause the fixed gun has 2 counters since its both a building and artillery, you can either make mortars or standard artillery, both will work but against the culv in a defensive position the only real hard counter is other culvs.

The point is Malta was never broken to begin with.

The 1% change is a nerf, not a buff, from two patches ago when they needed a few small buffs.

Can they get momentum? Yes of course - if you let them and also get severely outraided or ########### etc, then those civ-specific bonuses start piling up - as they should as a consequence/reward of outplaying the opponent.

It doesn’t just boil down to “can my civ FF with cannons? Then favored. If not, then not favored.”

Literally a rush can widdle down the defense of Malta faster than they can pay for and put those defenses back up. Rushing Malta is as good an idea as FF’ing them is. If you don’t succeed it’s because you got outplayed, not because Malta’s defensive capabilities and eco are too strong. Especially if German Tongue is sent and you force the SW into buildings - that’s a card that takes a lot of investment to get going and is therefore vulnerable.

Malta has literally never been in the top 15. Claims that they’re S Tier is completely ridiculous, they are the among the worst civs in the game at all levels.

1 Like

the thing is again fixed gun is age3 cannon. forts die to falcs and are a 1 time send in age3 (sans inca). And yabusame get 1 shotted and die horribly to archer so again, goon are not the right answer here. and seige eles also get bonus damaged by culvs so for all these civs you need age4 shipments to really push. a fort cant be refunded, cant be rebuilt (usually) in age3. and thx to malta civ bonus, midway to age3 their culvs can survive extra shots. However, malta’s ability to send it age3 i think is fine. so thats why im for toning it down. maybe let its age4 stats scale back cause age4 its not as bad but as you pointed out, its a design thing: many civs simply arent designed for this. perhaps more native civs can get the lakota card for mortars since mortars for natives as long as they don’t have culvs is less a problem.

2 words: bow enjoyer. aka kaiser. the engineer of the modern german tower rush basically showed he can still do it with a different civ and i think that provoked the reaction. then ofc various changes came later but I think for at least that period people were like "oh pike xbows with faster age up, cheap rax, and the occasional depot gimmick is pretty good. I also think the xp nerf came due to the i think legit complaint how cannons and fixed gun scaled. now those are toned down, its probably fine to remove it. I still think hp should be infantry/vills/explorer etc only and no xp malus

1 Like

They do but you really want to take a look at the numbers on this cause its definitely not as simple as they do bonus damage therefore they counter. Its like saying xbow counter musket just because they have multipliers when in reality they do less damage to musket then musket do.

Culverin does 280 damage (40 x 1.75 x 4) per shot to a siege elephant while the siege ele has 777 siege HP at base (700 / 0.9) so it takes 3 shots from a culverin to kill a siege elephant. If you have ele combat then the siege ele has 933 siege HP and takes 4 shots. That in no way makes them a good deterence to siege elephants just marching in shooting down stuff or even them just firing back at culvs cause of how mobile they are. If anything the would be a bigger deterrence but india has mahouts for that.

That would require 15 cards to achieve (atleast for culv shots), I doubt this is happening midway to age 3

1 Like