Is the game balanced for Ending Age = Castle Age?

There are few things that I dislike about imperial age:

  • unique units not getting a visual update on elite upgrade feels a bit out of place.
  • gunpowder break my medieval immersion (bombard cannon, cannon galleon, ugly looking hand cannoneers etc.)
  • my favorite civ indians become even more camel specfic which i don’t like due to historical theme reasons.
  • sicilians look better with kite shield combo of sergeant + knight.

So i was thinking of playing with end age set to castle age. But I was wondering whether all civs are balanced in that settings? What do you forumers think about this?

looks like wahat you want is a classical indian civi without guns or camels.

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.

1 Like

town centers and castles are too hard to kill without imperial age units, but the rest of the game will work fine


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.

You can limit the ending age in hosted games to Castle age. It makes pushing castles really hard.

I didn’t think about it, but it shouldn’t be a big upside. It’s definitely worse than what Cuman and Malian get anyway.

Yes that’s what I am doing.

I am just wondering whether its balanced to play that way.

Certain civs get weaker in imperial age relative to the average and others geta lot stronger.

Example cumans and aztecs are much better off if you stay in castle age, Italians, byz and CA civs are better off if they can get to imperial age.

Could probably argue Teutons and Franks are better off if everyone stays in castle age.

But as mentioned above, everyone will struggle v castles (cumans less so) so im assuming the game will be more turtly

Thinking about it more… The dominance of the knight is an indicator of which civ will likely perform better or less so by staying in castle age.

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.


At that point, Cumans have the most Cavalry options too. Moreover, Capped Rams have blast radius, which Battering Rams do not. So I guess Cumans and Malians are the best civs.

1 Like

What?? Aztecs and Celts are the weakest militaries in Castle Age.

Tatars have more options since they have the keshik, the Cuman don’t.

when did i speak about celts? also you realise the hoang rush exists right?

wrt aztecs, they lack a lot of imperial tech, and their eco bonus specifically favours shorter games, they lose a lot of power the longer the game goes on for…

even their faster military production means less later in the game

they lack hussars, and their pikes are weaker than halbs at doing the job

their imperial arbs are not as good as ALL archer civs. they lack TR and the final armour

they dont have HCA

they dont have paladins

literally all they have are pikes+4 and SE onagers…

they dont have some amazing imperial age UT that makes a huge difference, like el dorado, farimba or forced levy

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.

Best eagles in the game when raiding. Champions which can take out villagers in 2 hits. Glaring siege options.

If anything, Aztecs are buffed in Castle Age on water.

Good point, specially because their Light Cavalry is one of the best too. Byzantines are a close 3rd.

The civ has great eco options. Hoang is a great player with the strategy, otherwise Celt military falls flat in Castle Age, having subpar Knights and Crossbowmen.

Dude, no complaints there. I specifically said military, not economy.

I don’t understand whether you’re arguing that the Aztecs are viable or not, it’s not apparent from your statement.

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.

1 Like

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.