Japan ruining the game

Japan (Tsukuyomi) feels overtuned in Classical due to unit and hero saturation

Since Japan was added, the Classical Age matchup — especially Tsukuyomi vs Greeks — feels structurally skewed. This isn’t about late-game scaling or Mythic power; it’s about how many answers Japan has in Classical compared to how few Greeks do.


Classical Age: viable unit options

Japan (Classical) — ~5 (OR 6) viable combat lines

Japan effectively has access to five strong, overlapping unit options in Classical:

  • Onna-musha — melee hero unit with high damage and a special attack

  • Yumi heroes — ranged heroes with very high range and an 8× multiplier vs myth units

  • Yumi archers — long range, safe default ranged option

  • Samurai — durable frontline infantry

  • Yari spearmen — reliable anti-cavalry core

Shortly after, Naginata Riders enter the picture, and they have a tech option that allows them to counter cavalry — removing one of the few remaining Greek pressure tools.

Japan technically has two hero types in Classical, but they are not limited in number. In practice, this leads to hero saturation, not meaningful hero choice: Japan can field multiple melee heroes, multiple ranged heroes, and still support them with standard units and myth units at the same time.


Greeks (Classical) — 3 viable combat lines (4 with god lock)

Greeks, by contrast, are limited to:

  • Hoplites

  • Toxotes

  • HIPPEUS

  • + Achilles and Ajax, hard-capped at two total heroes

With Ares, Greeks can add:

  • Hypaspists (god-locked and tech-gated)

Greeks have:

  • No ranged hero option in Classical

  • Only two heroes total

  • No special attacks on heroes in Classical

  • Heavy dependence on god choice just to reach basic parity in options


Why this feels fundamentally skewed

This isn’t about one unit being “too strong” — it’s about answer density.

Japan has:

  • More viable unit options

  • Scalable heroes instead of hard caps

  • Ranged hero pressure

  • Cavalry that can tech into countering cavalry

  • No meaningful tech gates to access these tools

Greeks have:

  • Fewer unit answers

  • Hard-limited heroes

  • No ranged hero pressure

  • Myth units that lose value due to hero saturation

  • Narrow, rigid compositions

As a result, Japan can answer everything, while Greeks are forced to commit early and hope they guessed correctly.


The psychological impact (and why this matters)

When I queue into Japan, I already feel dread — not because I expect to be outplayed, but because I know my opponent has an answer to every reasonable Classical composition I can field.

That feeling doesn’t exist against other pantheons.

Most matchups are more standardized:

  • Clear strengths

  • Clear weaknesses

  • Clear counterplay

Against Japan, it feels like:

  • Heroes counter myth

  • Ranged heroes invalidate positioning

  • Naginata tech counters cavalry

  • New Moon controls tempo on top of all of this

Greeks feel stuck playing a much older, more rigid design, while Japan operates with a modern, flexible toolkit.


If Classical already feels skewed due to unit and hero saturation, Heroic does not reset parity — it amplifies the problem.

1. New Moon is a massive tempo multiplier

Tsukuyomi’s New Moon isn’t just strong — it compresses multiple layers of tempo into a single timing window, accelerating everything Japan already does well:

  • Faster unit production

  • Faster hero mass

  • Faster pressure

  • Easier snowballing after early success

New Moon allows Japan to bypass normal trade-offs by simultaneously accelerating tech, production, and unit scaling, often creating a decisive power spike that is difficult to meaningfully contest.

By contrast, Greek god powers in the same window (e.g. Sentinels or Restoration) are defensive, static, and reactive. If I want to counter Samurai in Classical, I’m forced to give up Restoration and invest into a tech just to unlock Hypaspists — while my opponent can simply transition into myth units or leverage New Moon to push their advantage further.


2. Cavalry hero clarity and pierce asymmetry

Japan’s cavalry heroes in Heroic have:

  • Very high pierce resistance

  • Similar silhouettes to Shoguns

  • Poor visual clarity in real fights

This creates a real execution problem: even if you identify the right target, Toxotes struggle to punish them due to pierce resistance. I

By contrast:

  • Prodromos, which are explicitly designed as anti-cavalry, have no pierce armour

  • This makes them extremely fragile against:

    • Yumi

    • Ranged heroes

    • Any mixed Japanese composition

Worse still:

  • Yari Spearmen hard-counter Prodromos

So the one Greek unit meant to answer cavalry is cleanly answered by a core Japanese unit.

This creates a lopsided interaction: Japan’s cavalry heroes are resilient to their counters, while Greek counters are exceptionally vulnerable.


3. Japan continues to outpace Greeks in unit availability

As the game progresses, Japan continues to gain new tools earlier than Greeks.

  • Japan gains Shinobi in Heroic — adding harassment, disruption, and siege utility

  • Japan already has strong siege access

Greeks, meanwhile:

  • Do not gain comparable pressure tools in Heroic

  • Must wait until Mythic Age for Gastraphetoroi to gain meaningful ranged siege pressure

By the time Greeks unlock those tools, Japan has already:

  • Dictated tempo

  • Forced fights

  • Gained map control

  • Layered additional hero and unit pressure

Even in Mythic:

  • Japan gains Onmyōji, a strong ranged hero

Once again, Japan gains a new answer at each stage, while Greeks are still catching up.


The pattern across ages

The problem is not any single unit or god power.

It’s the pattern:

  • Classical: Japan has more viable units and scalable heroes

  • Heroic: Japan gains tempo god powers, clearer pressure, and better cavalry resilience

  • Mythic: Japan continues to gain new tools while Greeks finally reach parity

Japan feels like it is always one step ahead in design iteration.

Greeks feel like they are constantly reacting with fewer, narrower tools.


Why this makes the matchup unfun (not just difficult)

This is the core issue.

When playing Greeks into Japan:

  • You don’t feel outplayed

  • You feel out-optioned

It feels like:

  • Japan has an answer to everything

  • Greeks must commit early and hope the opponent misplays

I’m sure Japan is very fun to play — it has flexibility, power spikes, and strong tempo tools.

But from the Greek side, the matchup feels structurally stacked, which makes it frustrating rather than challenging.


Closing thought

Japan does not need to be “nerfed into the ground”.

But right now:

  • They have one too many units

  • One too many hero options

  • One too many tempo tools per age

That cumulative advantage makes the matchup feel imbalanced and exhausting, not competitive.

For comparison, when I play against Chinese, their Pioneer units are clearly vulnerable. They are their primary hero-equivalent in Classical, they are limited in role, and they have only 12 range — which creates real counterplay. There is an obvious trade-off.

By contrast, Japan’s Yumi hero units have 18 range, no meaningful vulnerability window, and can be massed. On top of that, Japan also has Onna-musha as a second, scalable hero line. What were the devs thinking here???

If ranged hero pressure at this level is acceptable, it raises a broader design question: why do other civilizations with hero-equivalents — like China — not receive similarly flexible tools? Either those units are meant to be limited and vulnerable, or Japan’s hero access is simply out of band.


Summary

  • Classical Age

    • Japan: ~5 viable unit lines

    • Greeks: 3 (or 4 with a god lock)

  • Japan’s extra options include scalable heroes, ranged heroes, and tech-based counter pivots

  • Greek flexibility requires specific gods and additional tech investment

That’s a structural imbalance, not a matchup quirk.


2 Likes

“Yari Spearman” and “Yumi Bowman” are funny, those literally mean “Spear Spearman” and “Bow Bowman”. Sohei (僧兵) and Ite (射手) could be used instead. Those are more generic terms but at least they’re not redundant.

Those surely need less base damage so they are less effective against non MU, given they are spammable.

This is one of the changes I could never quite understand in retold. in EE, the 2nd hero was ranged. in retold, they switched age3 with age2 heroes.

PS: nice chatGPT post.

The second archer hero allowed for some dumb early games where you could initiate a gold starve and opponent with the range hero. It was a very specific problem that was frequent when the map spawn allowed it to be so. Granted there was more ways to adress it.

Some time ago in the balance server mista explained why you would rather as greek have the option as it is now than before.

Most of this claims feel more of a skill issue aspect iml than actual issues. Some i dont find true at all and some are meaningless. Like the idea that having more units equal better.

This is very very false. If any thing is the opposite. Greeks put the preassure early and japan has to react to what is coming. This doesnt mean that japan isnt favored into greek, but the way the match goes is the opposite of what you describe.

Yea this is Just a loosing mentality. You can apply any example with thwt mentality and it sounds Just as baseless.

And yea hoarding he whole structure and Ai language seems like its coming from chat gpt

You do realise you’re arguing with chatgpt, right?

I don’t think japan is ‘‘ruining’’ the game but greek vs japanese is really hard match up if you don’t rush him in early classical.

I think the problem is that Japan is too close in strenghts as greek but lack their weakness.
-Weak heroes : Greek are limited in heroes number (which lead them to have overhaul weaker heroes) and their heroes are supposed to be stronger individually, but japanese have both strong and spammable heroes.

-Hard access to heal : One of the main weakness of greeks is the lack of healing, it was originally meant to be in the old AOM because their units were stronger than others pantheons but the thing is japan has strong units like greek… The only healing options for greek is restauration (very limited, usualy you just use it in fight not to heal your units due to the high cost) and Apollo temple (need the technology so it’s a cost, kind of slow heal, that need you to set up a temple and only 3 units per temple) while japan has heal with mikos and onmyoji.

-Favour gain is compensate by others ressources : While technically mikos production reduce the number of villagers produced and technically compensate the income of other ressources, the fact you only need a small amount of mikos to have so much favour is a clear ‘‘better’’ way of generating favour than greek, the only down side is that greek can ‘‘burst’’ more favour if they want to. We can also talk about having mikos exposed but since they can garrison on the shrine it’s not even that true. Anyways, this greek weakness is less ‘‘true’’ for japanese since they have better favour generation.

But on the other hand japanese have the greek strenghts : a powerful army (but quite expensive), a lot of units options to win against most targets (even more than greek in classical), impactful gods powers, good myth units, very good late game : probably the best of all pantheons, especially true with Susanoo but even Amaterasu.

And on top of that they have better technologies on the board, a lot of them buff a lot of units including heroes, so they gain way too much stats : from shinobi to ona-musha, to bushi to even yari who become almost hoplite tier and of course samurais who are just overbuffed in late with all the techs IMO, especially true with Amaterasu.
They have the bushido who give them free lines (a lot of ressources saved despite having a similar economoy to greeks) and even a tier 5 in late-game (barely happening in 1v1 but still free stats in larger maps/team games). Their unique gods bonus are really powerful, Susanoo is just so strong in late game. And Tsukuyomi free ressources with New moon (on top of already free bushido) also amplifies the ‘‘free ressources’’ syndrome.

It’s not impossible to win against Japan as greek, but except in early it’s hard. I don’t think Japan is totaly OP but definitively too strong in many areas. This is especially visible against greek because like I said Japan share a lot with greek but are kind of just better overhaul with less weakness.

I think japan need small nerfs here and here (hopefully not making them unplayable too) and greek probably some buffs in some areas (heroes ? healing access ?). But it’s tricky because if you buff too much greek they can be really strong. Im waiting to see Demeter performances too, maybe it will be OP at release.

Indeed Samurai are OP

Thats just called a skill issue if they cant deal with a single hero archer. Japan has access several if they so wish. My point stands that their optionallity is far too much for one pantheon. It is literally just Japan. I have no problems with other civs as it stands.

Japan is strong. It has the advantages over greek in their matchup. But in your spreadaheet of complains some of those are simply not true, which i pointed out. You can Disregarding them all you want. It does seems you have a bad time against the civ and Just look at all its things from a negative side. You seem to be more focused on complaining and blaming outside factors than adressing shortcomings.

Theres clearly things japan has that need to be tuned, but you list almost all its aspects when some of them are simply false. The most clear one is greek having to adapt to what japan does, when not only they age up faster but have better early preassure and Mark then initial tempo of the game.

The hero aspect of japan is better than what china has so its very weird your issue is with japan alone on that regard.

i somewhere read that:

  • japan civ style/direction is even more fitting into AoM than Chinese
  • japan civ is similar to greek but with less weaknesses

and i personally have to agree with both.