List of suggestions for upcoming patches. (2024)

this isnt a 1 to 1 historical game
the unique unit being shared isnt new idea, but clashes with inca
inca getting culvs is a major issue. their army is larger and cost effective. it would be like giving haude trainable cuir- just pure bs

again i know this is forums where people kind of have their idea on how a civ should be, but if you compare aztecs and incas as the meso civ (yes inca isnt a meso civ in reality but its how age of empires logic works) giving them horses and artillery not only clashes with their identity of how they are in aoe3. pre contact with a few cards for later references but the core identity is pre contact armies.

you give them horses now what? f chimu or i guess we make them have weaker than 1 pop units, so either trash or op? artillery on a civ with extra forts, extra defensive buildings, overpop ability, fast army? and not just any artillery, the best in the game ligth cannon that is the terror of any decent apm player. that would be absurdly overpowered as is. so what we nerf the actual unique units to compensate? then you got haude, but not haude and another weird grabbag of units like malta or italy.

Keep civ identities clear. make huaraca not a meme. its hard, but haude just as haude shouldnt train cuirs despite having weak hand cav (sort of) or aztecs shouldnt have soldados there is something unique and intersting about pre columbian armies duking it out with early modern infantry. the design is there, the balance? well not so much.

WoL inca? if your only reference is that well ig that says enough. WoL isnt DE, so bit odd to try and justify balance ideas out of a mod for legacy that is fun in its own way but not seen as a goal for most people.

1 Like

I like the idea, the Incas are poorly represented.

Let’s agree that Italy is the civilization that requires the most micromanagement from the player thanks to the Lombards, giving bonuses of this style only seeks to make 5 Lombards really equivalent to one factory.

In addition, you would still be dependent on shipments, dead enemies and the conversion time into resources, it should not cause any balance problems and would barely affect the game at the beginning.

I think it’s a great idea, I hope the developers think about it too. :slightly_smiling_face:

Same answer as before. I think it’s a great idea, I hope the developers think about it too. :smile:

The developers made too many mistakes, I think it’s time they listened to the community. Nobody wants a civilization that is tedious to use!

I think you go on too far to justify why it shouldn’t be there, but they may simply be elite units that are difficult to acquire. These are not replacements for chimu or anything like that.

By the way, I am not supporting that the Aztecs and Incas have the possibility of training mortars in the native embassy. That’s completely made up, but if a pre-Columbian civilization used Western animals and weapons in real life, why not include them in the game?


Well, if we include more than Aztec empire and we include a more broad Nahua people civ, that could include the people that allied with Spanish that adopted European Warfare. Some sort of revolution/revolution card could fit for them to create new nahua/spanish units

Me gustaría que el escaramuzador de argentina sea así



Mis sugerencias:
Los Aenna ganan una habilidad pasiva a partir de la edad de las fortalezas que le permite disparar dos flechas rapido cada 3 unidades que mata pero solo a una distancia de 12.

Los manteletes ganan la habilidad pasiva de evasión, después de todo es un gran escudo para proteger a las unidades.

1 Like

Hey,I suggest for to Scottish rev civ and Jacobite Rebellion Please give us in update’s Britain’s revolutionary two civ

1 Like

Tercio Tactics


The tactics of the tercios were based on combining pikes and harquebuses, this card makes no sense.

Spanish Square


A Spanish square was composed mainly of pikes and harquebuses, this card also makes no sense.

Please give us tercio harquebusiers!!!


I guess it’s just to make them look like Aztecs civ? X D

1 Like


Improvement for treaty games:

13 Cherokee Allies

Replace the 13 Cherokee Allies card with an infinite British Gurkha unit card. These new British Gurkha units will be reskinned Cherokee Riflemen, maintaining the same stats to preserve game balance. They will be classified as native units, occupying no population space but with a build limit of 13. Additionally, consider allowing the Baker Rifles card to affect British Gurkhas, increasing their range to 20 from 16.

The new British Gurkha models should resemble the image provided, with a slight reduction in height compared to regular British soldiers, akin to the stature difference seen with Giant Grenadiers.

P.s. This new home city card could be called Treaty of Sugauli and cost 1000 coin each time it is sent.


Would this imply a potential new real house?

Probably not no. The Gurkhas didn’t fight for any other western powers in that era apart from the British so it would be weird to offer them to all civs. This would purely be a unique unit available to the British and maybe the British Consulate for the Indian civ.



Please devs fix this age old bugbear with idle villagers on mills and estates.

I don’t know why my settlers keep getting frozen to mills and then being unable to move them.


Only Settlers tasked in Mills and Estates have this problem.
I think in them they should not move around, just like in Farms, Fields, Rice Paddies, Hacienda.


It just means that the so-called British Gurkhas are simply reskined Cherokee Riflemen.
A better way would be to make the Gurkhas mercenary units and get new stats, and have the British have an infinite card to ship 8 to 12 Gorkhas (depending on how good the stats are) by 1000 gold.
And replace the current Gurkhas with another new thing, probably Banduqchis, as the new Indian skirmishers.

If it had been French India instead of British India, then maybe they would have served Napoleon. What if.
Being a mercenary does not mean that they had served many Western powers, like ninjas had only served the Japanese.

It also feels a bit weird to have the native unit be a unit in the consulate.

1 Like
  • Rework Cree Tracker: Currently, the Cree Tracker is a strictly better version of the Cherokee Rifleman, making both units feel less distinct. To address this, Cree Tracker stats can be reworked by 1) reducing ranged attack to 10 (so they becomes a low-damage high-HP skirmisher), 2) adding the Salteador unit reveal ability (to highlight the Tracker part of the unit).

  • Buff Arsonists: Giant Grenadiers cost 2 pops, why does Arsonist take up 3 pops? Decrease Arsonist pop count to 2 pops.

  • Nerf Abus Gun: Abus gun shoot-and-scoot is very powerful, especially in Age 2. To address this, add a small setup delay (similar to Longbowman).

  • Nerf Sipahi: Sipahi is sometimes near OP to fight against. The biggest issue is their HP and regen, making them near-invincible. To address this, reduce their HP to 650.

  • Remove +2 Range from Ranged Cavalry Caracole (Controversial): Basic Dragoons out-ranging Musketeers just feels weird. If necessary, compensate by slightly improving the light cavalry firing rate.

  • Increase Infantry Breastplate HP boost to +20% for Hand Infantry (Controversial): This is to encourage more hand infantry plays in late game, i.e. Guard Halberdiers, Doppelsoldners, etc. Of course, Asian, American, African melee infantry stats or techs may need to be changed accordingly.

  • Allow Asians to Upgrade Imperial Mercenaries: This is needed to make mercenaries viable for Asian civs in the late game.

I simply aimed to make an aesthetic change without significantly impacting game balance. Converting the new British Gurkha units to mercenaries would affect British treaty gameplay, as the 13 Cherokee riflemen card is typically sent to maximize army population before the end of the treaty period. If the Gurkhas had a population cost, they couldn’t be sent as a replacement for this card.

I’m not opposed to your proposal; I just wanted to suggest a change that could be easily implemented without causing much community upset.

I don’t want to cause an unnecessary debate here, but you could argue and say that Gurkhas never fought for the Indian army prior to British rule as they were part of their own independent Nepalese Kingdom.

I suggest we make a seperate forum page to discuess Gurkhas, so not to bog down this page.

(Like this post if you want me to make a separate page for gurkhas


I meant you could still keep the Cherokee shipments and add a shipment about the Gurkhas.

By the way, as long as you still have room for 1 population, you can still ships mercenaries and make the number exceed 200 population.

I knew. I just thought it might be a little unlikely to happen that a new Gurkha skin would be introduced for the Cherokees that would be exclusive to the British at the same time that the Indians still have Gurkhas.

When the Indians rework their unit roster, the Gurkhas will likely no longer be their regular unit. The Gurkhas, then, would most likely have been a mercenary unit, and thus could have been a shipment for Indians and British. Even if they become a native unit for the Bhakti Temple or a new Hindu minor civ or no minor civ, it could still be a shipment for Indians and British independent from the curent Cherokees.

This is nothing to argue with as mercenary units can come from independent political entities, like the Dahomey Amazon, Kanuri Guard, Iron Troop, Sennar Horseman, etc. Giving the British and Indians a Gurkha mercenary shipment is even quite historic.

I have no objection to your statement about the history of the Gurkhas, and what I want to discuss is not their history so we don’t have to extend the discussion about that. The point I was trying to make is that regardless of history, the units in the consulate are allies’ own units, so that’s as unnecessary as asking French or Russian allies to provide Royal Musketeers or Tatar Archers to the Chinese.

1 Like

This is not practical in the treaty.

I like your proposal because it helps to free European civilizations from their original approach, which was to discover and colonize the New World, and give it a more globalized approach. The problem I see is that if what you are proposing makes sense as a “native unit”