Ornlu state of the civs 2023


We all know that Ornlu civs are the originals plus the Conquerors (with the exception of the Goths)
I was kind of shocked when I saw the Khmer jumping to S-tier

It is for the bonus of advancing in age without building pre-requisite buildings, being able to do fast imperial…

:man_facepalming: :man_facepalming: :man_facepalming: :man_facepalming: the videos are about how well designed are the civs not how strong are.


Tbh Khmer are decently designed, their bigger problem is that Heavy Scorps as well as Eles are bad and expensive to upgrade most games

1 Like

If you can get there though, which you often can’t, it’s amazing.

The reason I like the “State of the Civs” is that it isn’t just a 1v1 arabia tier list. He considers the flavour and feels of civ and tells how well they fit within the AoE2 framework.

I do think he got the goths completely wrong. They are a weirdly designed civ for sure, but they are iconic at this point, and very flavourful. They aren’t just an infantry civ either, despite what most people believe.


Well, similar xd… A well-designed civ can also be strong and vice versa…

I really enjoy Ornlu’s energy, he’s charismatic and fun. I do tire of his “it doesn’t feel like age of empires” comments which are frequent and negative.

“I don’t like single-use techs, it doesn’t feel like age of empires” it’s a nothing comment.

I could say “I don’t Throwing Axeman being ranged melee, it doesn’t feel like age of empires” It’s a dumb position but entirely justified by how I feel about age of empires.

He could say, “Flemish Revolution is a bad tech for game balance, as it either wins or loses games and that is just too powerful of a tool to give to a civ without any response possible from the opponent”, but instead “it doesn’t feel like age of empires” is what we get.

Overall I watch these vids and appreciate his comments.


Yes, he says “it doesn’t feel Age of Empires” because in fact the Flemish Revolution is a mechanic straight out of the Nordic Ragnarok god power from Age of Mythology (and partly from the revolutions of AoE 3 as well)…Oh, sorry…I did not know that the only true essence of AoE was that of AoE 2 and that all 4 subsequent games are profanities that should be burned in the depths of hell (I clarify that I am being sarcastic)…if he is so bothered by the new mechanics of the 2 DE brought from later games, there is the 2 HD or the original The Conquerors, which are still there, that yes the campaigns will be only 75 of pob and not 200 like the modern aoe…

not really, i completely agree with him, look at how bad the single use techs have been and how either really bad or game breaking they are.


A civ which cant be competitive with just tweaking a few numbers is badly designed. And Ornlu made some good points about the civ being forced to lame and that it has inconsistent match ups

And they are practically just an infantry civ.


Yes, but his position is built on the ‘Appeal to Tradition’ fallacy not on the actual value of the tech/unit/civ. That’s what makes it a “nothing” comment as I describe. I don’t care what he considers “age of empires”, I care if the tech is objectively bad or not.


I disagree. A great civ can have huge problems in any competitive scene. Vietnamese and Dravidians are two civs which are bottom tier on competitive Arabia scene, and you can’t “fix” them with just numbers. However, both of those are very flavourful and provide unique experiences imo.

They are the iconic infantry civ. But, they have respectable cav archers, hand cannons, bombard cannon, and even cavaliers. They have no bonuses for anything outside of infantry. You aren’t playing them right if you play them as “practically just an infantry civ”.

Vietnamese are already solid enough for pros and Dradivians could be buffed by increasing the extra wood or skirm rof if necessary. You could even try to buff the Vietnamese hp bonus if you want

Lmao having generic hand cannons and non FU Cavaliers without an strong eco is nothing worth mentioning. Gothic cav archers suck too.

Franks arent a siege or monk civ either just because they dont suck completely

Outside of siege and trash none of the other units they have are even worth making 95% of the games as Goths. You arent making a good argument


I’m glad to see this series return – I find it much more interesting than a standard tier list, even though I don’t always agree with his comments and placements (e.g. Aztecs and Byzantines in the complete tier).

I totally agree with this. I think what he thinks he means is “they feel out of place because those kind of mechanics weren’t in AoE2 before DE”. But he doesn’t actually mean that, because if he did he’d apply it to all other mechanics fitting that description, e.g. armour-ignoring damage, Keshikks generating gold, Folwarks, Obuchs reducing armour, and so on. What he really means is that they weren’t in AoE2 before DE and he doesn’t like them. But that effectively reduces to “I don’t like them because I don’t like them”, an empty criticism.

This suggestion would only make sense if DE was exactly the same as HD except for the single-use techs. That clearly isn’t the case, and you even admit as much yourself. Presumably he thinks that the benefits of DE outweigh its drawbacks, relative to HD.


By that logic, you can just increase the goth infantry discount if you want. Or their population bonus, or building damage. That’s really all you need for them to be the #1 civ, just by manipulating the numbers.

Oh, you are one of those people who think that circumstantial uses aren’t a thing. You can act like pros don’t use Goth Knights, Cav archers and HCs all the time, you’d just be wrong.
Alright, I don’t care enough to argue with you. You can keep believing what you believe, I don’t care.


Agreed. it should be a thing.

1 Like

Not the same thing. The problem with Goths is that they are already good in late game and buffing their infantry would only make that worse. Buffing an economic bonus or a bonus like archer discount makes sense because while strong they arent overbearing rn, and buffing them shouldnt mess up anything ekse

Also even with the increased barracks discount (lets say increase it to 25/35% indark/feudal age) or infantry that destroy houses Goths still need to wait until a castle to do anything against archer civs.

And the other two bonuses are mostly late game focused.

They will be using knights. But CA, Cavaliers or HCs I doubt it. HCs are situational to begin with and CA need either an eco bonus or thumb ring to be at least decent but Goths lack both. Cavaliers are also not common to see unless a civ have a good eco, and without the last armour they suck. Something situational is fine, but theres a point when its so situational you have to call it bad and with Goths I think thats the case. Something situational is for example Burmese archers. They are very very bad, but you can still use them if you need to because you at least have your economy bonus.

You are acting as if you made a good argument when you havent. You are just telling me that they arent just an infantry civ because they can use suboptimal units with no bonus helping you when using them.

Anyone who actually cares can go and look up the last 20 or so goth matches in liquidpedia and see how they are played. It is, of course, situation dependant. Infantry spam will do it in most cases, if you get to imperial. However, you have options in both castle and imperial ages.

Here’s the link: Goths - Liquipedia Age of Empires Wiki