Let's talk about Lakotas

Taking advantage of and inspired by the colossal movement carried out by all to reverse the changes of the Chinese, I would like us to discuss the Lakota.
Are the changes fair? Are they enough? did they pass?

Personally, I like most of the changes. But the change to Bow Ryder I didn’t like, I think the negative multiplier vs villagers should be removed. Also, I think that to compensate for the changes in the teepees, you have to provide the card of 4 villagers in commercial age. The rest of the changes are 10/10, especially the initial crates and tashunkes.

I like all the changes including bow rider vill multi and I don’t like how soft they’re being on Chin, the nerfs don’t need rolling back imo.


Lakota has been a balance concern in the recent patch, but with what’s coming in the pup are way too much, even TP start nerf alone was a significant one.

I like the changes, rarely see bow riders raiding early anyway tbh it’s usually tp start fast age up into 4 axes.


Personally I liked that the Bow Ryder was the only ranged cav that didn’t have a negative multiplier vs vills. It seemed to really emphasized using this civ as a fast raiding one, not quite sure why they’re reducing the effectiveness of that strategy being as its been there for 10+ years, but I guess the Bow Ryder coupled with the chief are still fast enough to do some damage and run.

The rest of the changes are fine with me, I’m grateful they gave more late game gold opportunities for Lakota with the 2.5 coin trickle and the natural resources gathering + coin, along side the fur trade (food to coin conversion) . I don’t feel like i have to put most of my vills on plantations late game anymore, its great.


Now that Lakota and Haudenosaune healers are working in the plaza, this significantly improves the endgame economy for 2 reasons:

10 fewer villagers are needed in the square. (Before 25 workers, now only 15 villagers + 10 healers).

They do not cost population. They can also cure as usual.

1 Like

The work being done on the Lakota and Hauds is appreciated, but I personally think it should cease for the time being.

The devs launched the DE with the promise of addressing the problems present in both civs - so far, this really hasn’t happened. All they’ve done is put bandaids on the issues repeatedly without actually addressing the problems themselves.

The only way to uphold the promises of addressing the problematic nature of both civs would be the rework both from the ground up, removing the Community Plaza entirely and replacing the Warchiefs as explorers. The militaries need redesigns to reflect the warrior societies of the two cultures and the economies need to reflect the permaculture ideals that both civilizations strive for - it also doesn’t help that they’re both designed off just being a reskin of European civs with minor tweaks.

I think progress should be halted on both and held off until plans for full reworks can be planned.

Please don’t bring your own personal political correctness into the game. It’s not advisable. This is just a game, an rts game with a historical theme.


The devs launched the game with the promise of changing things. If they’re going to use my culture for woke points and marketing, I’m going to push them to hold their promise until they actually do it.


So, in order to keep away “political correctness” we should keep a political wrongness?
I really cant understand why people wouldnt want a game with historical theme to become closer to history as much as possible. By “as much as possible” I’m obviously adressing that game balance for competitive multiplayer is a must. Like, if they can change it, why not?


Hi all,

I wanted to take the time to provide some insight into why the Lakota balance was nerfed with such a heavy hand

Since AOE3:DE launched, the civ has maintained the highest overall winrate of all civs at all skill levels in all game sizes, but especially in ranked team games (and we’ve mentioned this before in a previous update post). To the point where having a Lakota ally will significantly increase the odds of your team winning by an amount no other civ even comes close to. So for a long time, an update to address some of the fundamental issues (whilst remaining true to the civ’s gameplay identity), has been on the proverbial cards…

The new Lakota is one of my favorite civs to play (the extreme mobility and eco teepes are fun, I also like how expandable Teepees are with cards/upgrades… I particularly love the big button which enables the speed aura once you have a network of Teepees over the map for roaming around your lands)… but, Lakota is also one of my least favorite civs to play against (for perhaps the same reason - losing vils is annoying :sweat_smile:). So whilst we knew the gameplay re-work would turn the civ more one-dimensional in this regard, it seemed necessary to ensure their early economy is fair, given the civ’s considerable ability to get an economic advantage through raiding. Hence the early Villager shipments were removed. The resulting missing mid-game ‘scaling’ is replaced by economic Teepees which essentially make every vil trained worth 1.1 vil (which also helps their lackluster lategame eco). Great Hunter granting food also gives Lakota a bit of a ‘second wind’ at the 10-15 minute mark that’s extremely tuneable. And, the food it deposits makes certain the upgrade is always compelling at some point (which is also handy for the mid-game economy… and late-game economy when using infinite bison shipments)

All that said, it seems clear now though that the rework shipped with considerably overtuned balance values, resulting in an unsatisfactory winrate reduction. The measures we have taken are heavy-handed, but I personally believe entirely warranted. Regardless, we will monitor the civ’s stats and forums carefully to ensure they get to the right place.


Is there any possibility of a rework of the Lakota and Haudenosaunee in the future? I don’t mean a small thing like has been going on, but full reworks from the ground up. The two civs share nothing in common with Mesoamerica, and I don’t believe they should be considered part of the same “regional” playstyle as the Aztecs or Incans.

The Lakota and Haudenosaunee should have a unique playstyle that fits them. Creating a civ based on the British Raj is a no-go because it undermines the independence of India, so why is a British Haudenosaunee civ OK? The Hauds deserve a unique playstyle and identity that isn’t just Europe Lite. Both civs deserve a representation that isn’t based on nonsensical firepit magic mechanics. (Y’all reskinned the firepit. Y’all did not remove the problematic nature of it.)
The Hauds’ core structure is based on the Clans and Clan Mothers, but are there any of these in the Hauds? What about their Three Sisters farms and permaculture practices? Why aren’t maple orchards their source of gold?
They are just a reskinned Europe Lite, and it’s terrible.

I am surprised about the winrate, would it be possible to share the break down of this by skill levels?

1 Like

Comments like this from balance team are highly appreciated :slight_smile:
It would be very nice to hear your opinion on some hot balance topics a little bit more often.


The godlike 7 fires council shipment in age 4 still needs 1000 coin cost nerf :thinking:


I would love to hear more behind the scenes reasoning behind many of the balance changes please.


I’m not, raiding is an easy way to get ahead even later on because even players at high level you will see risk their villagers and send 15 to a far away mine with no protection or you can fake an attack and watch as they pull the military away and just send 5 huss to massacre the vills, so often ends the game right there.