[Poll] Which AOK civ needs most significant changes after Persians (and Saracens)?

Kataparuto is a gamechanging tech in closed maps at least, I know some were against the buffs it got (cost reduction) because it was that powerful. It’s more or less why I don’t want to change it, as I cannot imagine Japanese without Kataparuto trebs. I almost feel like if they were to get Bombard Cannons instead, the effect would almost have to be a ‘Bombard Cannons fire X% faster’ just to keep them similar, but that’s also really OP. 11

1 Like

Never heard Spanish is OP.

Spanish gets 18% faster firing Bombards for free, a tech would obviously give more. 33% faster firing Bombard Cannons sounds pretty strong to me.

In the case of Teutons, one small change i’d like to see would be a way to have access to the crusader knight. Maybe it could be similar to Flaming Camels, and by that i mean the unit being enabled as a secondary effect of some technology.

Not that Teutons need that much of a rework or anything, i think Teutons are ok, they have clear strenghts and weakneses and are overall fine as they are in DE.

1 Like

The Japanese Bombard Cannons have no need to fire faster. The Bombard Cannons themselves already have some advantages that even the fast firing Trebuchets don’t have, for example they really help counter siege units like Onagers, which really helps the civ that has no good cavalry. On the other hand, the new UT will buff the other things like samurai, so the civ will get more, not lose power.

Very radical change. I don’t think we should go through any of these honestly. Both Standard & Elite Longbowman range get +1 range. And change Yeoman effect to Longbowman can be trained at Range.

I’m sure most of the people that has high influence are against to change their start.

I am really against them getting stone walls. I also don’t think losing Cavalier is necessary. I’ll change the extra attack of infantry by age because it is just a weaker Burmese bonus. And Burmese gets Arson on top of that while Goths don’t. If I want to keep that anti-building bonus damage theme for Goths, I’ll suggest getting Arson for free.

Well, I’m also against UT affecting only UU. And it will be very niche since that is an Imperial UT. Maybe it can be a generalized infantry tech.

I realized that right after commenting. Also Japanese have SE but Spanish doesn’t.

1 Like

As I said and will say many times, Samurai taking reduced UU damage should be baked into the unit.


They were really following the tradition of “let’s give the Japanese something that was rare in Japan but called by the katakana reading of its English name so that we can pretend it is a unique Japanese thing”.

That’s why we got katapuruto and morutaru.


It’s not a priority right now, by any means. But the fact that the main standard unit for the civ and its own unique unit have the same disctinctive feature and fill the same role is a HUGE design flaw. If Britons were released today, they would be pointed out as lazy-ly designed.

It’s a radical change needed to fix a deep flaw.
I’m not a fan of replacing standard unit lines with unique upgrades, but replacing xbows with longbows is the only one I find makes sense, from a gameplay and a historical pov.


You want to talk about significant change so I post it.
The long range towers fit the long-ranged features of Britons, and the faster firing towers will be more useful to the Koreans than to the Celts.

I stand firm against Longbowmen in Archery Ranges unless they are replacing Crossbowmen.
Otherwise you are just putting the two units with the same functions and features together, without solving the unhealthy competition between them, and it will even be worse because of the same access method (being in the same building).

And the start is the key making the gap between low elo and high elo.
I don’t think there is a way can really minimize the gap without tweaking the start.

One of the problems of Goths is they can barely survive through the middle stage. At the time, they only have cheap infantry, no solid bonus. If there are some new free bonuses to help them get through the period by their infantry, then later the infantry may be overpowered. The basic stone walls are actually pretty decent. If the player need the protection in the middle stage, the player has to pay for it, and it cannot really protect the player and won’t really buff the infantry in the later game.

The devs refuse to give Goths useful Knight-line to avoid players from not using infantry, but full-upgraded Hussars can really help the civ. Losing Cavaliers is a good compromise for getting Plate Barding Armor since it completes the Hussars and sticks to the intention of using infantry in the Imperial age.

Not a significant change, and honestly a small one which I don’t feel it can help.

A generalized infantry tech cannot make Samurai more different from Barrack units.

If the UT can really change the battle, it will be okay even if it only affects Samurai. Something like an archer mode may be too powerful if it is directly a part of the unit, so it is better being the last stage of the unit. That is the point. The essential problem of the UTs like Mahouts is that those UTs only make UUs from being not worthy to being worthy to use, since those UUs originally don’t need such many stages.

Replace the Ports Organ Gun with Aventureiros.

I don’t see why it is not implemented already.

Britons used Crossbow and Arbalest too. Removing them won’t be the best idea.

Okay. But it is too big change. I don’t see why Britons need such a renewed design.

That’s not logical. You are making apple and orange the same fruit. Tower and Archer are two totally different thing.

Yeah sure. But it will be a nerf to both. Faster firing tower is almost non-noticeable in practice.

Fair enough. Other 2 civs at least don’t have their UU’s specialty blend into generic unit.


I’m sure there is. We need to use our brain more for this.

We can add this two and think about a mid game bonus without giving them stone wall.

Samurai base stat can be more specialized as pointed out.

It may be the best idea so far. Yeah they indeed had used crossbows but replacing Crossbowmen with Longbowman would still make sense. I know in AoE4 the English have both Crossbowmen and Longbowmen, but in AoE3 the British just have Longbowmen to play the role of other civs’ Crossbowmen so there is at least precedent.

Who fire arrows from the towers?
If you think that the archers fire arrows from the towers, then the thing pretty makes sense.

You can consider +X% rate of fire like a bit weaker +X% attack, so it is not bad on paper. The reason faster firing towers are almost non-noticeable in practice is that people won’t play towers on purpose when they use the Celts.

Koreans are very suitable to play towers from the beginning, so it will be pretty smooth that people using Koreans build towers → towers auto upgraded in Castle age → have stone to drop a Castle → research fast firing defensive buildings. At least smoother than the Celts.

Celts can have a new UT to replace the Stronghold so they can get buffed on where they really need. I think the fast firing is better than extra range for the towers in some situation, like it can kill approaching targets faster. Personally, I don’t think it’s a nerf to both Celts and Koreans.

Sure. But it’s just not the effect of the UT.
We can give Samurai better stats like resistance on the UUs’ attack. (I hope it can specifically focus on the UUs’ ranged attack.) But an archer mode for example is more interesting and requested by many players and requested by many players, and it is more suitable to be an effect of UT than a part of basic stats.

They did at some degree, yes. But one of the most prominent features of medieval England was the encouragment of using longbows instead of crossbows.

AoE2 always uses bonuses and tech trees as references to history rather than accurate historical representation. If any civ would see their crossbowmen and arbalester replaced by some kind of archers, it should not be because they didn’t use crossbows in real life, cause about half the civs already didn’t, it should be as a reference to some kind of specific twist regarding bows and crossbows, and Britons are the best candidate in that regard.

Same person that operates siege weapons.
Towers and archers are 2 distinct things of the game. They are not related by any means.

Koreans most definitely need biggest rework among the AOC civs. But I’m not in favor of removing tower bonuses from them. And I’m not in favor of Britons getting extra range for both archer and towers either. That will be a bad decision both in terms of design and balance.

Only if you can provide a proper replacement for their Castle UU.
Spanish also used crossbow but they don’t have it. I’m not sure about Bulgarians. I was never a big historical accuracy type of guy. So I won’t mind this change. But I’m yet to see a new UU for Britons that fit their design. Personally I’m in favor of a new Infantry UU. Infantry was always their secondary army except for the few couple of months when they didn’t have Gambeson (which was really weird). Long before TMR DLC, I even asked to change Britons TB to current Armenians TB. And faster working range could go to Magyars as some suggested.

I bought this game because I wanted a remake of the original game. I was happy with the purchase I made, I don’t want the product I bought to change.

(Optional) additions are fine


My boy Goths has been nerfed so hard throughout the ages :frowning:

None. All AOK civs are good IMO.

However, if we extend the poll to include AOC civs, then I’d say Huns.

Can’t really say much about the others since I dunno enough about them, but I’ll say sth about Chinese and Japanese.

Japanese’s imperial UT Kataparuto does feel kind of out of place for this civ since historically they weren’t known for using catapults or trebuchets. I’d wish it be changed to sth that boosts their gunpowder units such as Hand Cannoneers or Elite Cannon Galleon, since they were rather quick to adopt European firearms in the 16th century. Their new imperial age UT could be named Teppo which gives their gunpowder units more blast radius (this came off the top of my head I’m not sure if there’s a similar civ bonus or UT in game already). And Kataparuto could be given to a new civ that focuses on siege, for instance the Jurchens. And the name needs to be changed to something else, could be renamed as Whirlwind Catapult or Xuanfeng Pao.

For the Chinese, their most glaring weakness is anti-siege in late game. While I understand that they were deliberately made that way, they are a bit too weak against siege since they don’t have BBC and also lost Redemption. My idea is either to grant them access to BBC or give them a 2nd UU (for instance the Fire Lancer or the Dragon Flamethrower in the scenario editor) which serves as their late game anti-siege unit. Perhaps their access to Heavy Camel Rider could be taken out in exchange of having the BBC or a 2nd UU that focuses on siege and anti-siege.

And plus I feel that their civ bonus of +50% HP for their demo ships feels kinda out of place and doesn’t sync well with their theme as an archer civ. I think this bonus should be given to a potentially new naval civ in the future, for instance the Chams or the Javanese.


Why saracens excluded in the list?