Stop saying that the new civs are to op and so on

I know i am going to get a lot of hate from this but stop writting that the new civs are broken! The devs know this very well but they want to bbuff them in the first mounth only to make em look cool to new players after which they will get nerfed HARD, everyone knows that the civs are overpowered and it is no need to point it out, please stop. I want to see more intresting discussions on the forum exept of titles like: Burgundians op, Burgundians very broken and so on, so please stop.


They have every right to complain. Not everyone likes to play deathmatch michi with infinite resources like me. Or insane Diplo Europe maps, where civs balance does not matter. Since all sorts of crazy things can happen in scenarios.

I even like ranked play sometimes. These news civs have near completely shattered the competitive scene. Plus, the Lithuanians are broken now due to relic stacking. I assume that was unintentional.

The sets a bad precedent for the future release of new civs, that could shatter the game balance when it was more balanced beforehand.

Criticism is vital to keep the game actually good. And not a broken mess of incomprehensible insanity. Lack of criticism could lead to microtransactions and other awful things games are flooded with these days. Or even, things like paid mods.


I played a game as Sicilians, expecting an easy win, but my opponent had Burgundians! How am I supposed to get the easy wins I paid for if I have to play against an OP civ?! It’s outrageous, people with the DLC should only be matched against people who don’t have the DLC so they can have the easy wins they paid for.


The most ridiculous thing is that the devs themselves said that it was highly important for them to not disrupt the balance with the new civs (Footage of Lords of the West, with Coustilier in action at minute 5:21:00). While the whole forum and every player I have talked with complained weeks before - just by reading the civ boni - that they will be completely broken and kill competetive play…


I’m totaly with you BomberGriffin. This mess must be critisized. It has broken with a long game tradition of balance and fairness. I suspect that the marketing dominated the devs and are responsible for this desaster.
I agree and can confirm that ranked games are shred. You should avoid playing ranked or the lobby browser. I’d rather prefer to play custom games then using the lobbies.

1 Like

lol what? long tradition of balance and fairness?
from aoc until forgotten we were literally in a huns war meta with an occasional meso civ thrown in for variety.
before DE at least a good 60% of the civs weren’t even viable.

the “balance and fairness” has come in the past basically year.


Living in your parallel world again 11
What did i told you in the last thread.

Also, of course the new civs must be OP in order to sell the DLC better. They also know and I think there was even an interview with Cysion where he said that the make it slightly OP (but this time its worse than ever) to sell it better. Not 100% sure tho

lies. that’s what your best at.
everyone knows that the game was hun wars before Forgotten. and it wasn’t because “that’s what was fun”.

but then again, you were the guy who said that cav archers didn’t need buffs, despite literally almost every pro disagreeing with you on that. and what happened in this patch?


AoC is currently more balanced than DE right now.
As now there are only 2 civs viable right now. Have you played 1v1 ranked lately?
Actually only 1 civ with bugs 11

1 Like

ah yes lets use bugs and new civs to make our point, because you’re so honest that you can’t tell the difference between balance and an unintentional bug.

but then again, what else should i expect from you?


Guys keep a normal debatting atmosphere.

ol what? long tradition of balance and fairness?
from aoc until forgotten we were literally in a huns war meta with an occasional meso civ thrown in for variety.
before DE at least a good 60% of the civs weren’t even viable.
the “balance and fairness” has come in the past basically year.

Sorry, I almost started my AoE advanced career with DE, so I can’t speak to much about HD.

still not much grounds to call it a long tradition of balance and fairness though.
at the release of the game any civ with Steppe Lancer was busted. Lithuanians were busted too with +5 relics too.

making new civs strong at launch for a month is not something new to this design team.

1 Like

New civs are usually OP, but that doesn’t mean we have to normalize it, because it may affect the game in a bad way:
Even if every single person bought the DLC(which is not the case), the players will only play with new civs or their counters at best, which will make it harder to properly balance the civs eventually.
Or, if we acknowledge the fact that many haven’t bought the DLC, then we will also lose some players in the process - temporarily or permanently.
All of that considered, I think we must criticise this system and, hopefully, next time we will get more thought through balance before the civs are released.
P.S. Correct me if I’m wrong, but i don’t remember civs from “The Forgotten” or “Rise of The Rajas” being OP. Even more so, some of “The Forgotten” civs needed to be buffed and still suffer from being somewhat underpowered - Indians or Italians.

1 Like

Italians have been one of, if not the strongest civ on water up to this point, and Indians were so OP they have been nerfed repeatedly since their release. Indians may be UP now (in 1v1) but that has not always been the case, not by a long shot.


Okay, i wasn’t a big player at the times of "The Forgotten"s release and as such, based my opinion on the state of those civs nowadays and some old patch notes, thanks for correction.

I clearly prefer fighting Sicily/Burgundy over the kind of monsters that Cuman and Bulgarian used to be. I’m actually surprised they bothered to do stuff like not giving siege engineers/bloodlines to Burgundian, or making donjons and serjants weaker in feudal age. They actually tried to limit the OPness. If they pulled off a DE release again, Burgundian would have got bloodlines, and coustilliers would have more than 8/11 base attack outside of their charge, while Sicilian donjons and serjants wouldn’t be weakened in feudal.

Of course there are still problems, both in balance and design, but I don’t feel you’re forced to take the DLC to climb the ladder.


new civs have to be slightly OP to encourage people to play them and learn them. It’s sad but it’s normal. Why would you play a new civ if it’s balanced compare to other civ but you also have to learn something instead of using your actual knowledge? Of course it needs to be sligthly op, no completly OP.

Problems here seems that burgundian UU is not just slightly OP but very OP (kinda like steppe lancer was at release). People does not play them at max potential and does not counter them at max potential too.

And don’t talk about the relic bonus bug of lith. It’s a bug, not a feature. It’s sad, it needs to hotfixed and in my opinion people should be banned for abusing it. Or maybe devs should implement a way to ban civ when a huge bug like that occurs until a hotfix came live.

Tbh coustilliers aren’t anywhere near the level of stupidity SL used to be. SL were extremely fast, especially Cuman ones, were extremely good against buildings (while coustilliers are actually bad against them) and would pretty much beat everything that isn’t eles both cost and pop efficiently. At least coustilliers lose to paladins, camels and halbs. Even their ability to one shot siege, villagers and archers is worse than what a swarm of SL could do. And they are locked behind a castle.


Assuming you dont micro, for some weird reason. But the same is and always was true for SL: Their strenght is in stacking/micro, not in 1v1 combat ability.

I don’t get why people say coust are a micro nerd unit. They had the good sense to make the recharge time quite long, so if you charge and then immediately run away you end up doing less damage than if you kept fighting.