November PUP is here!

No portuguese buff??? ;(


Disagree here. In small numbers maybe yes but if you had a group of arambai…this unit was deadly. In my opinion even one of the strongest units in the game, because it had barely real counters. I think many people just didn’t try them out or just didn’t know how to play them. After this change they traded a lot better vs range units…and they still shread cav to pieces. The only nerf was, that they couldn’t take out buildings anymore in castle age. I still think this wasn’t a nerf overall…just a different playstyle.

Not so sure about this change now, tho. This will make arambai indeed useless or at least no option to go for only.


not a fan of the Vikings change - they should have hit the eco and left the arbs alone.
fine with the house and infantry changes (though i honestly don’t think it will do much, they still require a castle).
i think the Burmese change isn’t going to help much because it requires a castle and a UT.
Byzantines change won’t do much either.
on one hand i understand the nomad treaty, on the other hand i think it will just lead to douching.
the cumans change is okay as well.
the Poles getting SE surprises me.
why no Mayans and Chinese nerfs?


Very well described. I think out of all the civs that doesn’t have neither BL nor TR, they will suffer the most as they don’t have any compensation for either of them.

Why though? I think that is a good alternative.

Exactly. This is probably because of the Berserk buff.

and 10 attack (previously 8 attack).

of 5 minutes.


I think having treaty for nomade could be worse than before. This could lead into people walling in other tcs and ressources or am i mistaken?


I will take a bit of credit fo my post 11 XD:

And still no nerfs to Chinese, Mayans… No nerfs to Britons and the broken Franks paladin spam at TG…Nothing to adress the broken sicilian cavaliers, first crusade and Flemish revolution.
I hope Byzantines get the deserved Logistica trampe damage on Knight line one day.

Fantastic, my favourite change

1 Like

Infantry UU buffs are great, it shows the devs listen to the community. They are still pretty expensive, but at least they have the stats to justify using UU’s over longswords. However, I think the devs listened a little too much to the vocal minority calling for wall nerfs. Negative armor on houses, how does that make sense?

Nomad treaty is a funny one. I don’t think it’s a solution at all. Just will make every game into an undefendable Persian TC drop, with maybe some Celt sheep laming and resource walling mixed in. Treaties have no place in competitive ranked games IMO.


So Burmese, Goths and Spanish stay the weakest civs in the game, with two of them still being extremely weak against archers and the other being weak in general, and Vietnamese and Koreans are still weak against cav


They already got nerfed several time ?

1 Like

Non balance change: now if you go to the scenario editor you will get editor-related tips on the loading screen.


Idk, this means you can’t outrepair 3 maa at houses anymore, but still at walls. Is it supposed to stop including houses in your walls? Was this really an issue? Quickwalling with houses will still be a thing because of the high building speed for a 2 tile building.

Terrible decision. As if civs with good early eco weren’t strong enough currently. Now they are supposed to be the only ones which can wall behind the rushes. Great work in disbalancing the game.
Early walls may be annoying to play against, but are completely balanced as the waller has to sacrifize a lot of momentum already to make this. It’s not a strong strat.
Besides that for a drush fc build the extra 50 wood spent are peanuts, as this build is the least tight of all openers. And it is already one of the strongest, if not the strongest opener in the game. So great work in strengthening the drush FC meta with this change.

Both changes benefit the militia openers the most, and they are already considered extremely strong in the current meta. I don’t understand the reasoning behind these changes. Only because some people notoriously demand “nerf walls” every time, that doesn’t mean that walls are too strong. It’s right the opposite, raiding is too strong and if we nerf walls it becomes even more OP.
Shall most of the games end in feudal because one player just happend to have the better rush with more eco damage? Why you don’t buff the counters instead so people can use them for active defence better? Then nobody would be tempted to wall that early anymore if there were the counters actually capable of doing their job. I’ve had it several times that archer just picked of vills under heavy skirm fire, because you get just so much more value from killing the vills even if you lose the archers in the process. That need to be fixed. You shouldn’t get more value from raiding while being attacked by the “counter” unit. If it is that way, no wonder people use walls. What else can they do against archers then if their skirm “counter” play gives them less value?
It’s not that walls are OP, but because of that current raiding ftw meta they are just so basically necessary to get a strategy game. They are currently the single thing that keeps it a strategy game - without them it would just be a raiding game. Why should i queue for 12 minutes of repetitive gameplay? Always just chosing my best rush, gor for the eco no matter what and whoever kills more vills early wins? That’s bs, that’s not aoe2. We love aoe2 because of the strategic depth and the first openers are just there to define the players role in the match. They are supposed to be an early skirmish so the players know “ok now i’m ahead 2 vills, let’s go up and try to snowball that” or “ok now i’m behind 2 vills. I need to be more agressive so the opponent can’t easily snowball to a V”. That’s how it should work.

And btw the changes will completely miss the intention of “less walling”, cause they will just lead to mor drush FC play. You can citate me later, but I prognose you that we will see much more drush fc and therefore even more walling than currently. Because the change completely misses the current state of the meta and instead of counteracting the meta development it actually amplifies it.

Actually nice that they adjust the infacntry UUs a bit after the last militia buffs. Don’t know if this is enough but I like they at least try it.

Totally useless… Acually even quite bad for the civ as it is a huge nerf to their Hussars. Previously Burmese could use the hussars to raise buildings. Nobody expects hussars to destroy TCs, but burmese can actually. This is no gone for a basically useless lategame atk bonus against archers…

Good change. Was just a bit too much imo.

Can actually change poles gameplay a lot. Especially their lategame now becomes much more scary. And I think this will actually lead to them being able to show more of their real power cause you will play them more defensively in the early to midgame which I think is better in terms of utilizing their eco bonusses.

Ok… Not what I hoped for. I think their insane eco makes them so annoying to play against. Also this empowers their early game drush fc and maa archer openers even further. I think in the aftermath this is actually an overall buff to the civ, cause most people go for thumb ring way too early. I don’t think it’s a bad upgrade, but it doesn’t offer as much for it’s cost as the other archer upgrades. But maybe in pro play this will be seen as a slight nerf… But still the civ will stay among the best picks for 1v1 arabia even without thumb ring. (just to explain, having the critical mass of archers is in most cases just so much more valueable than firerate. You only want to add thumb ring when you have that critical mass)

Love it! Finally we get a good arabia gen. Besides it may be a bit more open, it is still defendable and leads to a lot of different game scenarios. Finally an arabia which has the versatility and balance of the map still on view. A map gen you can go for basically every opener and doesn’t forces you to specific repetitive lategame scenarios like the last ones.

All in all, they made some great decisions, but also some really bad ones for the strategic balance of the game. I see already the complaints of “man it’s only drush fc all the time” and “nerf walls” again. Because they still miss the basic understanding why walls are so essential in the strategic balance of the game. People will always find ways to wall of if the overpowered raiding presists in it’s current state and the castle age also prestists to be the by far biggest powerspike (also for it’s investment) in the game.

And btw I don’t understand that, because it looks like in age 4 they fixed both. Raiding is way less powerful in age 4 and the individual age powerspikes are also way weaker than in age 2. So I don’t understand why they don’t apply this to age 2 more as it looks as if they understood that this causes problems for the strategic balance. And yes, you see that because of that adaption people wall way less in age 4, because it’s just not that essential as in age 2 to get an interesting strategic gameplay.

So please devs, why don’t you apply your knowledge of strategic balance to age 2? Why do you try to nerf the basically only remaining counterplay to the most OP strategy (which is raiding) to the ground? Why you don’t give us counters that give enough value so it’s worth spending ressources into them?

And btw walls aren’t too strong. It’s just that people complain when they are hitting them with their raiding units. Cause they are not capable to adapt. Don’t punish the whole community because there are some players that are unwilling to learn the game and only want to play “learn and execute rush ftw”. That’s not age2. And these people also don’t understand that this wall cost increase will just lead to more drush fc. And therefore, ironically, more walls.

Yeah sure, they will stop complaining if they see that their demanded change leads to even more walls… And even if, they complain every time they even see a palisade wall, they are this kind of ever complaining people who don’t want to understand that some things are just necessary and the world just doesn’t works like in their dreams. And if they nerfed walls to the ground they will leave the game cause then it’s boring and repetitive and queuing is longer than the game itself…

If you want less walling, buff the counter units and/or reduce/delay the castle age powerspike. Then it’s less tempting to go for drush fc.


Indians should be renamed and we need a new Hindi themed civ (plus Dravidians and perhaps Bengals too).

1 Like

I’m quite curious to see what’s going to be the impact of walling nerf to Mayans and Chinese, which are probably the civs that enjoy the most going for dark age walls thanks to the extra villager(s) and loom from the beginning.

For Mayans likely not too much, since they mitigate the nerf with their wall discount (that should be nerfed imho expecially thinking to team games) and can still be good opening more aggressively, but for Chinese might be quite a problem since they’re not the best civ early feudal.

By the way this is another reason why I’m not liking the Viking change, since it’s another civ which is most likely penalized by the wall nerf I would have waited to see how that played out. In general I’m not a big fan of stacking major general balance changes and civ balance changes in the same patch.

I think this will be the case with civs with wood eco bonuses, especially dark age ones. But this may apply in civs with feudal eco bonuses… For example, vietnamese saves a lot of wood in the early feudal, so they can mitigate the nerf with their wood discount. Lets see what happens.

It looks really beautiful :heart_eyes:

I hope that the characters from the Trade Carts will be new regional models for the Villagers in the future.


Why is everbody freaking out about vikings losing tr? Yeah there might have been other solutions but I honestly kind of like. The eco is still great but your army packs less of a punch in early imp all while their infantry options got buffed. And they do have insanely strong late game army comp with berserk, skirms and siege ram. It’s just so expensive that you rarely get there. Especially since non elite berserk used to be uselessness but maybe that is different now (we’ll see). Kinda prefer these changes to just nerfing their eco nc that wouldn’t have changed the playstyle (just make it a bit weaker).

Not a comprehensive argument (done that too many times by now) but a hint: I watched kotd qualifier deciders this sunday and iirc each set that I saw (was 4 or 5) it had Vietnamese in it. So weak against cav or not (it’s not their strenghts but imo it’s fine) the civ should be good enough in general or otherwise people wouldn’t consistently pick it in a tourney.


I dont like the 5 minuts treaty in nomad, its way to much. 2 minuts of treaty should be fair enough.


Eithervway I think Koreans are too weak against cav. Tbh not really sure how good Vietnamese really are, but I have seen them struggle way more against cav civs or eagles while being pretty good sgainst ranged civs.

Vietnamese are flexible, so they are a good filler civ that isnt going to be banned.

However, they struggle against cav in castle age in most elos. I would like to know their tournament performance against cav civs.