I don’t think any civ is truely OP when the game is limited to castle age. Malian would likely stand out because they are the only civ in the game who doesn’t lack a single tech in castle age, and they can freely use their +2 pierce armour pikemen without caring about lacking halberdier later, and Cuman having capped ram would make them quite good since normal rams are quite bad against castles. But it shouldn’t be too much to handle.
Yes because for guns and camels mughal india I can play AOE3. That theme doesn’t fit AOE2 in my opinion. Medieval Age Indian Kingdoms/Empires were mainly Infantry + Elephants + Light Cavalry + Strong Fortifications, and that can be better accomplished by limiting the game to Castle Age.
What about the Burgundian eco bonus? As far as my experience resources do not really run out when playing limited to Castle Age. So I guess it doesn’t have a big impact either?
Need more feedbacks on what civs might be poorly balanced in castle age.
Yes and I actually like this strong fortifications theme more. It also makes siege towers more useful who get useless by imperial age. I just wish there was a less accurate trebuchet available in castle age to supplement the siege weaponry.
Another ugly unit in imperial age is the wings of hussar. I don’t like to see it when playing as Asian or African Civilizations.
That’s a complicated question to answer. Can you kill Mongol Castles with rams? I really don’t think you can. I think in castle age they also have the best Light Cav in the game, bar maybe turks. Speaking of turks, the janissary outranges every unit in the game except a brit crossbow in castle age. I think there’s an argument to be made that you used to be able to handle Mongols with Mayans by using Crossbows with obsidian arrows, but now that it’s been removed, Mayans don’t stand a chance without cav in castle age.
Really, all the meso civs get a huge nerf, the Mongol Mangudai becomes even more OP, the Jani/Conq seem like cheat units, and castles for civs that get a good anti-ram unit become indestructible. It’d be a long game.
yeah… it doesn’t matter. Incas, Mayans, and Aztecs all have no cav. The game grinds to a halt since nobody can kill castles, it becomes a war of attrition. When you don’t have a fast unit you can make without spending gold, you become totally useless in castle age when the gold runs out.
Meso civs are all completely horrendous in castle-age limited games. Get down those first few castles and you are guaranteed a victory so long as you have LC.
Generally Castle age only buffs Cavalry civs quite a lot in 1v1, as Archer civs receive +3 dmg. in the Imperial age, while non Paladin civs only receive +2 armor, while Skirmishers also scale worse into the Imperial age than archers, and a lot of cavalry civs lack Imperial age archer upgrades. Looking at Franks for example: FU skirms and fast producing knights would probably be quite unbalanced.
So the whole balance will be shifted towards knight civs.
we still have to apply current games to predicted outcomes, aztecs can be just as aggressive as they are now knowing that the opponent can not tech into imperial age power units… they can know that if the opponent creates CA thats it, no masssing and teching into PT HCA with extra range or paladins or even superior arbs
the aztec skirm is literally the best skirm in the game hands down in castle age.
yes they will still have the same issues they have now if the game drags out into imperial and gold runs out… but they have those issues anyway
WTF are you still going on about this I DID NOT SAY CELTS WOULD BE FAVOURED
answer this … imagining garbage and then contending it…
both incan and mayan are way better because arrow fire exists…
Oh right I forgot about those guys also kind of sad uz the OP doesn’t like gunpowder
Well castle age limit = you don’t care if you lack most imp upgrades for your archers, the siege bonus somewhat helps against the predictable castle spam and stronghold might become good just because you will never have to care about trebs and BBC.
Well they would eventually fall of against Teuton and Lithuanian knights since they aren’t actually better quality wise than generic knights. I think the Franks would be dangerous but mostly because of their cheaper castles to abuse their resilience in castle age.