Removing 3 villagers from Brit's homecity is definitely the most ridiculous change I've ever seen in a classic RTS game

OK. I fully understand devs’ anxiety and struggle with the balance issue of this civ. We all know how op british are, they are almost impossible to beat economically. They always managed to spam large numbers of musketeers and hussars to overwhelm their opponents before eating the map dry. They have an amazing pick and win rate. I also fully understand the devs’ desire to provide British with a more diverse and interesting play style. Removing 3 villagers seems to be the easiest and most straightforward way to achieve this.

But. There is many more about this game than just balance. The long-standing memories and emotions of players are the foundation of the game’s community, and Brit, a civ that has existed in the game since 2005, is part of that community’s shared memory. For seventeen years, countless players mustered the courage to challenge another player for the first time. This basic 3 villager card will always be the first card sent by British players in most games.

Yes, the British also has VC and a lot of other cool new cards you guys have added recently . I believe they would be effective replacements for 3 vills, but this 3 vills card has always been a common memory among players. The removal of this card will leave players feeling disappointed and embarrassed as it seems like all their memories of over a decade of learning and training have disappeared. This is highly likely the first card in the first build order that many beginners (now probably you and me) of this game learn. I can’t imagine at all how a SC player would feel if they found out that zergling’s movement speed upgrade was removed, or how an AOE 2 player would feel if they found that Franks paladin was removed.

I don’t care about how many times Ethiopians and Hausa villager card have been removed and then reverted. Because FE devs are the parents of these new civs and they do have the right to decide the playstyle of their product. But I still strongly recommend that the devs leave some dignity to this old euro civ that has been with our community since 2005. We hope that when we are old, we will still be able to open the British homecity, send this 3 villagers card that has always been with us and have a good fight again.


Well you are just used to british being op


Britannia without 3 villagers is modeled after Italy. Is boring

1 Like

I think devs are slowly trying to dial back the 3 villagers meta, 3 villagers probably should have never been a card, it’s probably one of the best cards in the game and civs in legacy were literally balanced around it. I think the lack of the card opens up some more interesting choices and decisions for the civs that don’t have it. Otherwise in like 80% of cases its the first thing you send regardless of your strategy and what you’re trying to do, it makes build orders kinda boring in my honest opinion. Ofc it is a classic card tho so you’re free to disagree.


Yes, I always used it… or at least the infinite sending of 2 villagers…

While I understand the nostalgic part, We do need changes for civs to be balanced. I’m open to see how much this change affects brits in the long run because they are indeed at a good position

As you’ve pointed out in other games.
Zerg did receive nerfs and changes to balance out the game, example infestor is not the same it used to be since game release and gameplay has chagned a lot.

I just thinkg it is great our devs even think about taking these changes , just gotta see the results and if anything they have reverted many changes so its good


Surely this is a parody post.


It seems that distributivism is better

In my opinion villager shipments in Age I can be even removed for ALL civs. That would encourage people to use other cards.


This. Having the first card be 3 villagers for every civ be a must send just to be competitive makes the card pointless. Just remove it. There are plenty or other fun options.

I think people would just automatically use crates for some sort of fast age2. But I do agree that removing vilager cards for everybody might open up new strategies for other cards. Or people would just save up the cards for age2…

Some people were suggesting “no card modes”. That may be too radical. Maybe we should try a small step with “no age 1 villager card modes”.

This is something I’ve been thinking about for a long time. I would like the devs to remove all the 3 settlers/villagers cards, because I don’t like having to always choose the same card, it’s not a good design, I prefer that there is a greater variety of cards and strategies at the beginning. By default, 1 settler and 1 starting crate can be added to civilizations that need it as compensation. This would free up a card slot and the possibility of making new starting cards that are more interesting also appears.

I don’t get why they just didn’t remove the 5 vills in age 2, that’s a much safer change and would stop the 700 wood, 5 vills, 600 wood.


I think they’re trying to make GMT seem like a reasonable opening card. So they wanted to take away more lucrative age 1 cards.

1 Like

I like the concept of GMT. It is very creative yet not too complex or gimmicky.

As it now arrives fast it is much more likely to make full use of it before entering (or even clicking) age 2. Maybe wood trickle + GMT has become a viable option?

Only thing is it relies too much on TP placements.

1 Like

Yes, it’s better for you to use the 2 infinite villagers than only 3 villagers in a single age… so you’re gathering experience and you’re sending 2 villagers all the time…

Yes, I use the infinite crates of 300 of the three resources, then in the second age he sent me the 6 villagers and well I distribute myself between military shipments and resources… my decks are super-anti meta, but they are mine and I like them xd…

I don’t see a problem with the British not having the 3 villager card. Its economy will continue to be strong.

With the new release there are no more 3vs and sending 2vs is considerably worse than distributivism. I tried to reason whether to send resource crates but #### make age much faster but it seems to be all in why do it, what advantages do I have? 300w in resources will get me 2 manors then 2 settlers with a further 20w savings i get xp but i get my 2v later than the 2v shipment and i need to build the 2 manors so 2v will be “idle” to build the house.

In essence, not having 3 settlers doesn’t destroy civilization but slows it down in timing, in the wood gather during the transition it will be less and at the end of the boom you will have 1v less if they let you play, you can do the normal boom if they let you and it will be the same civilization as before with just a different timing but the rush will be harder to handle. Let’s see when the patch comes out what will happen to the Brits

I honestly don’t think it makes much difference, 3 vills is good for most civs but brts could really use other cards my personal favourite is the 7 sheep+homestead card, or distributism or greenwich time or virginia company.