[Suggestion]Buffs and Ideas for Old Civs

I think still winrates even with %52 still not giving enough evidence but I noticed play rate actually gives much more accurate in my opinion after all people tend to pick civs that they considered strong notably FatCuman,but even with them considering black forest casual player favorite it still doesnt represent after some part but its safe to say top 10 for both play rate and win rate has some mutual civs which are franks,mongols,slavs,huns,celts,aztecs and mayans so its definitly these not weak at all compared to other civs.But my argument is this these already strong giving them say for mongols giving final cavalry armor only going to effect their hussars in late game and thrash wars and that all, for that reason I do not believe its gonna make mongols autowin,civwin whatever its just very tiny buff which will effect meta very little almost unnoticable so thats why they should get it even just for rationalty sake despite them already being can be ignored and again same with steppe lancer almost no one uses them anymore.As for final archer armor tech I already made it clear that mangudai is a powerful unit it definitly needs to be taken into consideration unlike last cavalry armor tech.

For franks again my buff only gives them normal hussars(they do not have very good thrash either with elit skirms lacking bracer) and +5 HP for knights in castle age,6 hp for cavalier and 8 hp for paladins which in my opinion will not effect meta in a very noticable way again I believe it can be considered even if they do not need further buff just for rationalty sake and say its implemented to game its not like its gonna stay that way forever if its unbalanced anyway. I mean cumans were ridicolous did devs let them stay like that ? Or almost all african kingdoms civs when they first released.

Again byzantines bonus you are correct with your numbers but in feudal and dark age nobody attacks or aim to kill buldings anyway(expect palisade walls which cumans team doubles hp far more op). As for Castle age again there isnt much push happening towards bulding its more raid oriented rather siege and destruction.Only place where it effects game the most is imperial age in which they almost identical to some normal civs which lacking because again it supposed to be the time where they supposed make difference and impact more than just 2 treb shots or 5 ram shots(I mean in imperial age its very rare someone tries to take a bulding with single treb or ram or bc it very rarely occurs so bonus is good but overall lacking and I believe simply unlocking masonry or at least trying would be good to try after all as you can notice I m not saying give them both architecture and masonry just try out with masonry see feedback than if its way too strong simple just nerf it back if its good than keep it )

Unlike khmer and burmese their wouldnt get any special bonuses,also battle elephants can be countered by halbs with ease(very cheap trash unit) and I do believe majority of players will still choose to go imperial camels over battle elephants(even with indians eco I do not think on a 1 v 1 they can go for both at the same time). So overall I think it ll the way they play only by a little after all elephants are situational units.

I was referring franks there…

For melee it makes no difference versus halbs or camel as they slaughtered very easily as they should be it only makes difference vs other hussars(which is rarely occurs) and for ranged units they are actually worse than generic full upgraded hussars. For cavalry archers CA you are right and I did mentioned that how much it ll make mangudai stonger needs to be considered.

Thats why elo ranking exists in first place yeah you can take gamble like that but agasint more or less equally skilled person you gonna end up losing more than you gonna win.

I was just commenting them based on winrate stuff there is nothing to comment about it

Wait so you are saying that surviving 2 extra trebs shots is useless (for some reason), therefore we should give them architecture so they can survive a whole 2 more hits ? But if as you say surviving only a couple of hits doesn’t make a significant impact, what difference does it make that it’s 2 or 4 more ?

And you are wrong by the way. Treb wars happen all the time with low number of trebs, and being able to survive just one extra hit can be the difference between winning and losing a game. You should really try to better understand high level play.

And your argument around buffing civs is moot. Civs with strong early game have weaknesses in the late game for a reason. You can’t just buff Mongols imperial age and say it’s not bad because early game is not affected. Of course it’s bad, because you are removing weaknesses that were put in place for a reason, to balance early strength and post imp power. Remove these and your civ just becomes too well rounded with no weak point. Giving plate barding is a huge deal. It makes Hussars a lot stronger, as well as cavalier and camels.
Mongols have an insane early game and a very strong post imp with mangudais and siege, offset by a weakness in cavalry armor. No one in their right mind would ever suggest to make Mongol post imp stronger.

You’re not making any sense, I give up. Good luck to those who want to keep talking to a wall.


for 1 treb yes it makes difference after 2 trebs its unnoticable.

I dont expect 5-10 trebs ofc but if between 1 to 4 trebs considered casual than 1 is low and 2 is normal,rest high number for trebs simple as that so basicly bonus can be good for just low numbers but higher its unnoticable.

If I remember correctly bonus hp for light cavalry line exists for mongols since dawn of time so we can say devs wanted to make their hussar stong in late game in first place! But just like japanese faster %25 which they didnt realise it was actually %33 after many years I do think its case for mongol hussars too because they wanted make them stronger than generic stuff so my suggesttion is more like how they are supposed to be in first place.

Well I rarely saw that people actually going for fully upgraded cavaliers(expect malians) if they dont have paladin I mean any people on their right mind would go for other stuff mongols have thats why I m saying this wont effect gameplay and as far camels they already lack halb and very weak to paladins actually so again to me it seems you just love to outright refuse stuff.

Just out of my curiousty checked some your other comments on other balance suggestion mostly you do is saying stuff like ‘‘no there reason why its like in first place , no they already have this or that blabla’’ which is fine but you telling me I m like wall etc unlike you I m open to discussion and actually I m putting some stuff out there instead doing nothing and being just fixed minded about even trying stuff.

That can be the difference between losing your castle or saving it (because you defend/repair your castles right?)

Ok so if you refuse to see it with this explanation (because Burmese’s only food bonus is free lumber camp upgrades and Khmer got a food bonus less than 1 week ago and it’s only significant in the early game, before hand cart (ie.before you start making elephants) while the Indian bonus around this time becomes even better. Let’s put it another way: if Indians don’t even get knights it’s for a good reason (and no a super late game improvement for Camels that make them somewhat less bad against non cav unit isn’t a replacement for knight line. And elephants are much more versatile than Camels and the elite upgrade is much cheaper than Imp camel. So yes people would stop using them)

Yes, because you said it wasn’t normal that Huns get a speed boost to their cav production for free and not Franks but since Huns are a cav civ that’s fine (btw the current Franks are a civ that received 2 HUGE buffs since AoC. You still think they need more?)

Champions? Cavaliers? UUs? Hussars vs Hussars never happens because trash wars don’t exist?

So why a need to tweak what works perfectly fine (and add to that that mangudai are better for the civ’s feeling than generic CA anyway)

You might be shocked but the random button still exists. Did I mention you gave 0 buff idea for Goths, and failed to see that Portuguese are UP? And that giving top tier civs even more stuff is going to nerf the weaker civs?

You literally said :

It means if you were playing the game with a coinflip you would be more likely to win that way rather by being Goths. You can’t call that OP.
But seriously wow.

Then if it’s so inconsequent why bother? (and you knwo that mongols warrior where lightly armored, right?) And whenever I see Cuman play I see Steppe lancers much more often than knights. Because you know 40g<75g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XbQoMacX14 Here is the never used unit razing a castle defended by pikes like it’s no problem, 1:58:58)
(I mean in imperial age its very rare someone tries to take a bulding with single treb or ram or bc it very rarely occurs so bonus is good but overall lacking and I believe simply unlocking masonry or at least trying would be good to try after all as you can notice I m not saying give them both architecture and masonry just try out with masonry see feedback than if its way too strong simple just nerf it back if its good than keep it ) Then again: WHY? The Byzantines where tested extensively in the AoK beta and players got 20 YEARS to decide whether it’s good (spoiler:it is)

The Japanese bonus is confusing because of how weird the attack reload mechanic is (and is not OP, Japanese only ever got buffs). And in AoK there was no bloodlines so Mongol LC was always better than any other LC. But you can trust ES that if they didn’t got the last armor upgrade along with Bloodlines and Hussar in AoC that’s for a good reason. (bonus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe5Wx9W4u4Q&t=2533s a game that shows they real they are fine as they are)

The paladin upgrade is worth enough to buy 40 cavaliers, so even paladin civ will make cavaliers most of the time. And how come Saracen not getting cavaliers is a weakness then? (bonus:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqFCHVx7CfU a game where British cavaliers (ie not FU) give the win)

So is it a buff or does it change nothing 11. But seriously Mongols are strong vs siege, buildings, infantry, most archers, and they are even decent on water. Why aren’t you playing with full tech tree if you want civs with no weaknesses?

Welp first he said he won’t answer and 2 he is used to this kind of threads. And genius ideas like giving Bloodlines to Briton or believing OP steppe lancers - some armor = balanced are welp, not to be accepted just because it makes you look open. And you looks quite yourself firmly attached to the idea that small buff on good civs = vital change or that surviving more hits = no importance (I mean come on even if 2 more treb shots isn’t relevant 5 WHOLE HITS FROM RAMS definitely is!). And if you wonder while I’m still wasting time on this, welp, at least I will have done everything I can to prevent people from drawing wrong conclusions because ultimately it will make them salty when they don’t understand when it doesn’t work the way they beleive it could, and because I feel a bit bad for the devs (you know when it’s your job to do something but tons of people fail to see when it’s well done)

1 Like

For small scale I said it matter say 2-3 rams attacks castle(which is very normal) 5 extra hits actually becomes 2-3 extra hits and with 2 trebs it simply becomes 1 extra shot that my point there.

Well I put after the update so what Im supposed to do compare them to Khmer that doesnt exist at the moment?

Yes its for good reasons and one of those reasons are make them more authentic just like I m try to do here.

On cost wise maybe but did you know elephants win vs imperials camels by small margin(despite their better stats) with equal resources? Not to mention indians dont heresy and elephants can be easily converted on castle and as for imp halb always gonna be problem and to lesser degree monks too. Also camels have mobility which in most cases far better.

Well if your opponent can field champs while you can only field hussar even with mongol hussar you are pretty much lost %99 of time and say do you go for champ if your oppenent mongols rather than halbs or some other stuff ?.About thrash war say out of 100 games how many goes into thrash wars even than mongols dont have halbs and this only make their hussar a bit better vs others thats all vs halb or even pikes they ll still get shreded.

As I said many times before some there just to throw some ideas around.

people using random either very pro at game and they believe they can compensate for whatever bad civ they get or just wanna have fun in either case its their own free will and how much sense it makes just not do something because of random button?

So here is story since you didnt read anything at all

after this

yes 1 game between probably the best 2 players at moment and you compare that general everyday stuff.

As you said 20 YEARS passed and they remained unchanged and who decided ? Its more seems like forgotten to me rather than being decided they are good and I m not only people who posted stuff like this about byzantines do you really think its just coincidence?

Again Mongol hussar are not bad thats not what I m saying what I m saying they are meant to be better than generic you just make no sense and japanese bonus was there just to give an example nothing more.

Answer is make them feel more authentic.

Can you tell me how many times this happens say out of 1000 games ? Less than %10 or less than %5 ? Than so how does this make valid point for majority which at the moment Im focused about.

Anything that gives a civ something is called buff on paper.

Already gave an answer for this.

Who said we fail to see ? I mean if we did than I m only making suggestions some stuff not all of them and some people agreed on stuff too , you might not like some stuff about these and saying all of it worthless totally wrong.

If learned one thing it is this you never know until you try them out.

I give up aswell men. I don’t understand what you thing balance is. Peace


Do you defend your castles at all? Because when the enemy use a lot of rams so that don’t get all killed it’s the kind of moment that the Byzantine bonus can allow you to make a clutch play.

Ok I didn’t explain enough so it was to emphazise than on paper KHmers didn’t need a food bonus for the devs back in RotR times. It’s only after years of experience showed that they are too weak that they got such a bonus.

You seriously believe that Indians never figured how to put metal armor on a horse 11. Of course they got to use heavy cavalry, but balance>accuracy (How else would Goth, an antiquity civ, get hand canonners and bombard cannon?)

Welp first unless it’s a mirror the enemy won’t have imparial camels himself. 2 conversion is already an issue for IC 3. You have Faith and Hussar for Monks 4. You have Hussars and FU cav archers for mobility

Ok you say you know a lot about the game so I assume you use a meatshield for your ranged units right? You see, the Hussars are a good meatshield for CA since they don’t cost the same ressources and they don’t slow them. So the Mongol Hussar will protect the Mangudai from Cavaliers, Hussars, fast UUs and even Champs (because you can’t micro for ever) much better than a normal one.

And why are your ideas thrown in the “buff this top tier civ” direction?

Welp you push changes to make top civs even more top tier so the random button will be the only way people will ever get lesser civs.

[quote=“MilitantPrawn14, post:26, topic:68138”]
I know there more civs that needs buff like burmese etc but I dont have any creative good ideas at the moment for them so thats I left them out on this one.[/quote]
You indeed failed to see who is weaker because unless free wood upgrades, free Garland wars and top tier monks (and it’s only the civ bonuses) is equal to a bad water bonus + a meh eco bonus (-6 gold per archer wow!) + a useless building then I can’t help.

I read everything and I cleary noticed that you said

Which means for you 45% win rate looks OP, which is just a complete nonsense.

I can’t both browse all of Youtube to find more games and participate here you know. And you do aknowledge that those players were playing a fair match so we can agree what we see here is relevant (it’s not like it was some weird smurfing)

Changelog Edit

The Age of Kings Edit

  • Must research Town Watch like all other civilizations.
  • A team containing Byzantines: Monks heal 3x as fast as normal.
  • Cataphracts train in 23 seconds.
  • Cataphracts have a Rate of Fire of 2.03.

The Conquerors Edit

  • With patch 1.0c, Town Watch is free.
  • Logistica introduced.
  • A team containing Byzantines: Monks heal 1.5x as fast as normal.
  • Cataphracts train in 20 seconds.
  • Cataphracts have a Rate of Fire of 1.83 (1.73 for Elite).
  • Cataphracts receive +12 (+16 for Elite) bonus defense against anti-cavalry attacks.

The Forgotten Edit

The African Kingdoms Edit

  • With patch 4.8, Greek Fire costs 250F/300G.

This is the changelog of the Byzantine, courtesy of the wiki. You will notice the building bonus have never been tweaked. And when people complain about Byzantines it’s because the Cataphract is too expensive to use and upgrade ( I read the forums too you know)

(I write in italic cuz it glitched and it’s in a super big font if it’s not italic) Welp who said they had to be STRICLTY better? Wanna see a list fo civs that have generic units made better in some situations and worse in others?
-Aztec pikeman: worse against cav, better against halberdiers
-Briton arbalests: worse DPS, better range
-Goths infantry: more spammable , less durable
-Malians champions: worse attack, better pierce armor
-Spanish bombard canons: no siege engineer, increased fire rate
-Turk bombard cannon: no siege engineer, better HP and range
-Bulgarian Two-handed sowrdsman: worse against range, better in melee
Teuton capped ram: worse against buildings, melee resistant

So question is: why the Hussar Mongol would be a problem

Welp Mamelukes actually weren’t dudes on a camel throwing scimitars but dudes with armor riding a horse. So giving Cavalier to Saracen and deleting the Mameluke unit is the way to go if you want “authenticity”

Then again I can’t browse all of Youtube while participating right? And if using your non FU cavaliers against an enemy with even worse cavaliers is a good plan, then why would using FU cavaliers against a non cav civ be a bad idea (there are more civs with no FU cavaliers than civs with Paladin)

Ok here you’re trolling me, off course it’s a buff if it gives something but you keep saying it “doesn’t matter too much” as if it was so unimpactufl it would have no effect on balance

Forgotten Empires had YEARS to see whether Byzantines buildings arent good enough or if it’s essential to buff Mongols/Incas/Franks/whatever (btw they indeed changed these civs, like giving Keep and Thumb ring to Incas, balancing the Mangudai several times and giving the berry bonus and Chivalry to Frank) and you decide to “give random ideas”

Then why are you trying to throw ideas for what has been tried thousands of times? You have 4 new civs to test, you have the new Koreans, Persians and Khmer to test, and here you are trying to give random buffs to meta civs that are fine.

1 Like

They didnt need specific food bonus but even back than they needed better or more bonuses.

AOE 3 indians unlike other civs dont get any horses but they do get camels and elephants so in 2 very different games they are actually same in that regard and you saying its just balanced and stuff, well Its more than just that. As for goths I dont like it either actually I prefer that it would be removed.

My goal there is to point out how strong imperial camels are again you just try mislead this to someplace I dont even remotely mention(mirror match ???).

On faith and hussar both are expensive techs its not easy even for indians go for them and elephants at the same time it ll only happen about probably %1 of time if you managed to gain trenmendous advantage early game which on that you won %99 of time either way doesnt matter you have elephants or not.

Yes meatshield do really need meat shield vs champs when you mangudai or cav archers? As cavalier your opponent can easly go hussars themselves for your own hussar again but this isnt argument.My whole argument they are already supposed to be better than as of now I do think this do to due some being overlooked motst likely.

Again I did some buffs or suggestions for lesser civs like teutons,turks,byzantines(you may agree or disagree but many people probably agree) and as for others I did not I dont have anything that comes to my mind that makes sense for them and good at the same time. For example new koreans wood discount is good bonus but really doesnt make any sense at all and totally lazy, but its better than nothing ofc.

In any of my posts I did not mention burmese at all someone else just said they needed buff I gave a general answer and again like with me you just straight up disagree with him as well.Also burmese recently received a buff actually again all this time you talk like ‘‘devs already know whats best blabla’’ and with this you actually contradict with yourself.

oh really did you read? Its very clear Trirem put some winrates out there said ‘‘just check them and you can see whos op right away’’ and I said ‘‘well based on this winrates byzantines actually stronger than mongols and britons, goths are above average civ which is clearly wrong’’ so I still dont get whats the point you even still mentioning this you make zero point.

Well good news you dont have to because I already watch them a lot.

First of all those were 20 years ago and A LOT changed since back than after conquerors basicly only thing byzantines get Castle age unqiue tech and some price changes on it and to me yes they are totally unchanged.

Unlike those other civs’ bonuses that you are mentioned all of them make very noticable differences during gameplay which you dont even need tests to notice them at all but mongols hussar its unnoticable and has almost no impact at all thats what I trying to say all this entire time.

Changing rates on scripts are actually easier than changing entire design of a unit thats I why I suggested these easier to implement suggestions and I dont like way mamelukes look too or byzantines churches being catholic architecture and many more stuff like that so I decided start with easy to change ones rather than hard and time consuming ones.

You dont have to browse, I already watch a lot of them and yes I have seen games where cavaliers made difference but again they were probably %5 or maybe even lesser.

Ok let me define , something gives an extra power to a civ is called ‘‘BUFF’’ no matter how small effect it has and same goes for reverse anything that makes civ weaker is called ‘‘NERF’’
simple as that even if it has no effect on balance it would be still called buff or nerf. Its not rocket science its basic stuff dont know why you dont get it.

They did get chivalry as Castle Age unqiue tech just like every other civ in existince so its not a specific buff just for them your point here makes no sense and other they got is HP bonus moved from knight line to all cav. and berry bush gather bonus(which is the only one that made noticable difference imo). Again these are not random ideas random idea would be something like say ''give khmer free farm placement ‘’ it makes no sense why they have it and doesnt have any background but it certainly worked really well so far so even my ideas are not random but even random ideas actually can be good so you are wrong either way.

Actually koreans,khmer and persians tested and I watched them being used by various players and they are actually very good at the moment in my view.(koreans’ and khmer new bonuses makes no sense and has no rationality but they worked well and really good)

Welp fair enough

https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Jat_Lancer And AoE3 does give priority to balance as well. For instance this thing https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Tlaloc_Canoe can duel most European ships no problem.

We can dream of an overhaul where they would have more options to counter anti-infantry I guess

You realize Imperial Camel are anti-cav right? So of course they will feel strong against a cavalry unit.

Then why giving thel to Khmer (ie.elephant civ) in DE made them go from trash tier vs monks to somewhat weak only?

I literally showed you a huge, non-exhsustive list of civilisations that make an unit worse at something but better at another role. Here it is AGAIN if it can help you read it:
-Aztec pikeman: worse against cav, better against halberdiers
-Briton arbalests: worse DPS, better range
-Goths infantry: more spammable , less durable
-Malians champions: worse attack, better pierce armor
-Spanish bombard canons: no siege engineer, increased fire rate
-Turk bombard cannon: no siege engineer, better HP and range
-Bulgarian Two-handed sowrdsman: worse against range, better in melee
Teuton capped ram: worse against buildings, melee resistant

And you will notice than besides Teutons all these civs are labeled as infantry or gunpowder and yet their infantry or gunpowder is not a strict upgrade, just different. And Mongols aren’t even a cav civ! And yes you need meatshields even for CA because unless you can micro whole armies of Mangudai late game they will eventually get caught up.

Ok, so teutons and byzantines are average, and most suggestion are centered around the unique unit. You tried to buff the bonus that is perfectly fine for Byzantines (and 1 more tech for cav looks interesting but what about the cheaper camels?) and surprisingly proposed a speed boost for teutons wich is good. Sorry to be that guy but the rest is just!!! More armor on both champion and paladin because Bulgarians have more melee only on 2 handed swordmen? why? And no, Crenellation is fine because it’s already strong enough it literally removes one huge counter of the list. As of Turks, they are top tier on Arena (much better than say Portuguese or Goths even tho those two are supposed to be Imp civ a swell) and are decent enough even on Arabia for a slow civ. The gold mining help, free LC and Hussar can be insane for raiding and gold saving, and who cares if you have no onager if you can replace your mangonels with BC as soon as you hit imp? Also, no pikes and no ES = no problem if you win with your gold units. So while there is room for improvment I don’t think that buff is the way to go (and full stable minus paladin and regional units is really good). And the Korean new bonus if I remember well has been suggested by Ornlu who study Korean history and is a caster. So he has both a good knowledge of the game and the actual civ.

Welp, imagine that your boss gives you a 10€ pay increase and then claims he cares about his employees? Technically he is right, it’s an improvement, but you will still feel cheated.

I can guarantee you that if Franks got Nomadism or Boiling oil it wouldn’t have allowed them to be that good.

Let’s forget than the HP boost to scout gives them a top tier scout rush and that before DE it would make their scout always win his duels in Dark age shall we?

Welp, it makes as much sense as depositing meat in a mill and making it teleport to a stable and feed a camel with it 11

Ok, mayeb it’s this passage

It gave me a feeling of randomness, but if I’m wrong then fine

Oh, that’s nice. However I feel like you’re still underestimating Steppe lancers and overestimating Bulagarian 2HS


Today the priority civs are teutons, goths and vietnamese.

They already buffed saracens and khmer (which were bottom civs aswell) but the above 3 civs are still far behind an have been almost erased of the competitive scene.

I believe teuts lacking light cav, husbandry and bracer is too much. Even though the farm bonus is OK, this is the worst civ among the “farm civs” when gold is gone in post imp.

As many people has said in forums, after supplies, goths are just an average infantery civ that only relies in that. They lack diversity compared to other infantery civs.

Vietnamese is a bad civ overall. Their only strenght are the archers with more HP but its not like you cant beat them with decent micro and counter units.

1 Like

If remember correctly its a mercenary that is special for them its not one of their default units on start they need special shipment to train and still even with it that doesnt change the fact they have 4 different elephants, 2 different camels and only 1 horse cav that can only be trained with shipment which I think easy enough to tell for indians elephants and camels are indeed specialty.

Ofc but point here is they are overall very flexible and strong unit almost do anything well besides maybe few things and elephants maybe cheaper to upgrade but camels cheaper to create too.

You can definitly feel those bonuses(I mean like how not feel britons extra range or spanish cannon galleons shooting like thunderbolts etc you have to be blind) my complaint here compared to these bonuses mongol hussars’ bonus feels without impact at all thats why I believe given last armor tech it would be felt but wouldnt be game breaking at same time and they are supposed to be like that in first place.

Well same argument can be made for malians they are called infantry civ but they have bonus for cavalry too(its good bonus too) and turks called gunpowder civ but they have one of the best if not best cavalry archers in the game reason behind its probably forgotten which is fine its very minor detail,I mean any decent history knowing person knows that the turks and mongols had very good cavalry.

Say enemy has champs-elit skirms(which makes sense on paper skirms counter mangudai and champs hussars) but unless Im malians I wont go that route because halbs-skirms better option and dont need any gold for it and probably will do better than the first as for most players.

Actually armor on most cases is better than HP bonus so bulgars get their TH swordsman upgrades for free its ready right away when they hit imp which they can easily put those resources to unique tech. At the moment SoTL didnt tested them but I m expecting them to being better melee than generic full upgrade champion despite missing champion tech themselves so I m not definitly not overrated them also unlike teutonic knight which cost 80f,40 g and top of being very very slow two handed swordsmen much faster and much cheaper(TK have better attack,hp,armor but its so slow it barely can make use of those) and dont need castle to create as well so basiclly they can do what TK supposed to be best at faster and cheaper.

Teuton castles are very good my suggestion on crenelations is increasing its cost but making it giving towers also +1 range for lacking bracer but giving them bracer also fine by me.

For arena they are for arabia they are avg at best and like teutonic knight their UU janissary barely get used due to fact it doesnt any much difference from hand cannoner(which are created faster,with free chemistry can be trained as soon as you hit imp and actually stonger for turks) expect +5 attack +1 range(range really doesnt effect much because they are even inaccurate than HC) but considering elite upgrade cost(which is a lot) and being created them from castle it doesnt really cut it for them so janissaries really needs to be buffed at the moment.

Their have only have one thrash unit I think at least it should be good also I did say if that implemented cost of castle age unique tech cost should also be increased according to that its not like I m saying give them free stuff.

You wouldnt call it cheated but rather guinness book of records : World’s lowest pay increase.

Yeah nomads and atheism needs to be adressed as well just like burning oil totally forgot about nomads.

Actually that hp bonus wasnt that overpowered in Feudal age but it was op in dark age which recently got removed, as for top tier scouts back in african kingdoms top tier scout civs were probably slavs, magyars,berbers and after them franks howewer due berbers’ nerf franks took their place but still they are cavalry civ and they are one-trick pony they cant go archers or towers at least they should be good at scouts imo also they dont get bloodlines eventually other 2 mentioned will catch up or once CA starts rolling in their only advantage will be free bloodlines nothing more(again not so OP imo)

Again I like khmer bonus I have no problem with it I dont care it makes sense or not but I m just saying its a random bonus thats all.

When I read it I see that randomness as well but this just one sentence from huge stuff and most the my suggestions are actually already exists within game so thats why I dont like them being called random.

I m just waiting for bulgarians civ overview and I can tell they are better than generic full upgrade champions in melee just from a glance not to mention that they get with free upgrades and with supplies they are dirt cheap just like steppe lancers. As for steppe lancers they were use to be unbeatable now they are just what you are paying for.

Byzantines(lack of late game power spike) and turks(janissaries if nothing else) can be added to list.

First of all, stop giving more power to Chinese!! Now we can talk.

There is a way to differentiate all civs better and make their win rate fairer:

**Each civ gets a 1% bonus for movement speed and attack speed for their specialized units for each age, starting in feudal age.

So Infantry civs would get that bonus for their militia-line ans helbs (perhaps even for their unique unit if their win rate is below 45%). This means 1% in Feudal Age, 2% (total) in Castle Age, 3% (total) in Imperial Age.

What would this mean? This change is minor but would allow each civ to really be 1 step ahead in their specialization. On a 1v1 infantry (say M.A.A.) combat a infatry civ would be 1 attack ahead (if just barely). For archers, the bonus would allow you to dodge, or micro the last enemy arrow.

How would this help civilizations’ win rate?


  • for civilizations with win rate over 55% you delay 1 age (so only 1% extra in Castle, and +1% extra in imperial, for a total extra of 2%)
  • for civilizations with win rate below 45% you give them one extra 1% at Imperial Age, for a cumulative 4% (perhaps even 5%, with 1%,2%,2% if needed be, but I doubt).

Of course this can be adjusted with time after the initial implementation.

That’s weird. And the “1 hit first” thingy pretty much doesn’t depend on speed, often Teutonic knights will get the first hit in which allows them to beat (narrowly) Samurai and Jaguar warriors. To show how much underpowered this would be: Celts infantry will lose to Burmese/Aztec/Japanese, while a Cuman Paladin still lose to a Frank/Lithuanian Paladin, while their Hussars die to Farimba LC. And if they fight a civ with equal upgrades (like Spanish) the outcome will be random.

The outcome won’t be random, the melee unit with the first “last attack” will win, and for archers you will have a chance to dodge away from the last enemy arrow.

Have you read the entire thing?? The idea behind this is to make the civs more unique, so if Celts move at 115% now, they will move at 116,15% in Feudal, 117,3% in castle and 118,45% in Imperial.

This will only happen if their civ win rate is between 45% and 55%… if not they will get buffed/nerfed.

If Celts infantry lose to Burmese/Aztec/Japanese now, yes they will likely keep the stats on losing after this, because they are all Infantry civs, but the cels will still walk a lot faster. The thing is will Burmese/Aztec/Japanese or whatever other civ have the same 3% bonus by the Imperial Age? It will only depend on the civilization win rate.

But one thing is certain, Celts/Burmese/Aztec/Japanese infantry will win over Britons/Franks/Huns/Slavs infantry with the same upgrades… just barely, but they will, and they should, otherwise they shouldn’t be called infantry civ.

The way things are now, infantry/archer/cavalry (etc) civs only diferentiate from the others because of a unique unit (likely correspondent to the civ specialization) and because they have an edge in post imperial. It should not be that way, it should be an infantry/archer/cavalry (etc) civ from the begining, specialy since most games wont go to post imperial.

With a bigger buff going to the civs with low win rate, we would have much more viable choices:

  • Portuguese would be more viable in water
  • Vietnamese would have much better archers.
    and so on… since they would have a 4% or 5% bonus instead of the average 3%…

I think the speed boost is too small. And anyway, I don’t think it makes civ more unique to give them all a speed boost, even if it’s not of the same value.

So I wonder why the Boyar is cavalry then if the Slavs are an infantry + siege civ, or why the Shotel warrior is infantry if the Ethiopians are an archer civ… And anyway it’s false that the civs only “have an edge in post imp”. If I take the exemple of the Militia (https://ageofempires.fandom.com/wiki/Militia_(Age_of_Empires_II)): Civilization bonuses Edit

  • Aztecs: Militia are created 18% faster.
  • Bulgarians: Militia upgrades to Man-at-Arms for free.
  • Burmese: Militia have +1/+2/+3 attack in the Feudal/Castle/Imperial Age. Researching Faith is 50% cheaper.
  • Celts: Militia move 15% faster. Militia can convert herdables even if enemy units are next to them.
  • Chinese: Technologies that benefit Militia are 10%/15%/20% cheaper in the Feudal/Castle/Imperial Age.
  • Goths: Militia are 35% cheaper (starting in the Feudal Age) and have +1 attack against standard buildings. With Perfusion researched, researching Tracking, Squires, and Arson and upgrading to Man-at-Arms is 100% faster.
  • Japanese: Militia attack 33% faster (starting in the Feudal Age).
  • Magyars: Forging, Iron Casting, and Blast Furnace are free.
  • Malians: Militia have +1/+2/+3 pierce armor in the Feudal/Castle/Imperial Age.
  • Portuguese: Militia cost 15% less gold.
  • Slavs: Tracking is free.
  • Spanish: Blacksmith upgrades that benefit Militia don’t cost gold.
  • Tatars: Militia deals 50% bonus damage from a cliff or an elevation
  • Vietnamese: Conscription is free.
  • Vikings: Militia have 10%/15%/20% more hit points in the Feudal/Castle/Imperial Age.
    The only bonus that is in Imperial is the Vietnamese one, and it’s as soon as you reach imp so definitely not “post-imp”, and most of them are Dark or Feudal bonuses.

I know about those, but you are missing the point.
The thing is this is “make civs more unique” thing is to make them more viable and raise their win rate.
It’s a resonable way (using civs specialization) to level the play field to make unusable civs better, a way to make them have a better chance.

If Vikings/Aztecs/Franks have good win rates today, they will be lessened… while boosting the win rate for lower civs.

Of course I said 45%-55% for the average 3% boost to movement speed and attack speed, but it can (and should) be evaluated by the devs, If they feel like 3% is too little they can change that. If 4% is too low for vietnamese they can boost that. And so on.

But don’t forget that you won’t want to drush a infantry civ with low win rate anymore… specialy if you are using a cavalry civ with good win rate. Their bonus will be of about 4-5% and yours will be 2-3% and not on your militia/MAA…

This will make your fleeing units be cought for 3-4 extra hits, since you move slower than them. Will this make a huge difference? Not for civs with similar win rates. But will absolutely help Vietnamese (5% extra for archers) have a better chance when they face an Aztec (2% extra for infantry) drush since their archers will be rushed out firing faster and following the units better.

By giving them all the same kind of bonus? There are already a lot of speed boosts out there, isn’t it enough?

Then Byzantines will have “10% faster defenses”? The civ specialisations are rarely accurate, for instance Incas are an “infantry civ” even though they get 0 infantry bonuses, Chinese are an “archer civ” and yet they get 0 bonus for archers (cheaper techs are for all units/buildings) and so on.

Welp, since they will outspeed my villagers by such a big margin I will want to distract them right? For instance, let’s assume a Goth player drushes. Wanna see how many civs will have a better eco and will just have militias out first? Without looking at the wiki I can tell you that these non-infantry civs should be advantaged:
Franks, Britons, Mongols, Chinese, Persian, Turks, Mayans, Huns, Spanish, Indians, Portuguese, Berbers, Lithuanian, Tatars. Heck! Even Korean (their villies will see your drush coming from further away than yours will) or Vietnamese (they are slower but they also won’t lose time scouting) would be advantaged. Also actual infantry civs will outclass Goths as much as they do currently.

Sorry to spoil it for you, but the purpose of a Drush is to attack during DARK age, so archers won’t matter. So in this situation Vietnamese will still suck. And even if they reach Feudal their 5% faster archers will still get wrecked by Skirms/Eagles.

They are the same kind but not the same amount, and not on the same units.

Why?! I say “we should send apples to help hunger in Africa” and you answer “why not pears?”.
If Byzantines have Catas, then give their bonus for cavalry, or even make their arrow shooting structures shoot faster or more arrows. The bonus itself doesn’t matter… for ANY civ, since for all civs you can choose a proper unit to be buffed. Stop trying to slide from the fact that everything can be done resonably.

Their archers will have a much better chance now, why are eagles such a threat to archers? Because they have speed and pierce armor on their side. So what if you consider mayan eagles? Their advantage is lessened because now their “67% win rate” on encounters vs Vietnamese archers is now reduced to “59% win rate”. Or the HP left on the eagles is reduced a significant amount.
All this with similar amount of resources spent.
The Frank win rate is 61.25%, the Portuguese win rate is 41.24%.
The point is I’m NOT trying to revert the franks to worst civ and boost portuguese to be the best, etc…
The point IS to lessen their win rate delta, so this 20%+ delta is halved to 10% or so.

So players using archery civs with low win rate will know they can have a better trade if they rush their archers. It likely won’t revert a situation, but his loss will be lessened, likely to a point where the opposing player consider fleeing for low HP, instead of keeping an attack that would have enough HP to keep going to gg.

Civs won’t go from zero to heroes and vice versa, but their capabilities will be more comparable.

About Skirms, only archery civs would have any bonus on them OR NOT (not to be decided by you or me).

It’s funny how you try to find ways to refute things… If they fare better now, they will still fare better after this proposal. The thing is the amount of how much better can be lessened a LOT.
“5% won’t help to put every civ within the desired 45-55% win rate” make it 20% if needed be…
The point is not what is made, the point is the result.

Giving civs bonuses on their specialty is just a easy way to make players absorb things.
Much more acceptable than adding a different bonus for each of the 30+ civs. Now only the amounts will change.

Anything more complex than that can make it’s way to AoE4… and be more acceptable than changing AoE2 DE drasticaly.

See the Khmer bonus? How they gave them an original farming bonus that isn’t a rip-off of other farming bonuses? Now imagine that instead of this, Khmer and other weak civs got +5% and “good” civs got 3%. Doesn’t that sounds less powerful and super boring?

I was just trying to show you the limitations of relying on in game descriptions for civs.

Yeah, +5% speed will definitely make up for the fact that they lack Bloodlines, Blast furnace, and are obscenely expensive to upgrade.

Choosing between a Celt or Japanese rip-off, how exciting (and that’s forgetting that both got these techs because they lack other upgrades for their structures, and you’re trying to give their bonus to the most solid buildings in the game).

I don’t think so. Anyway, is it really needed?

You literally wrote this:

I’m pretty much sure 2% on a fast unit such as eagles is more than 5% on a slow unit. So you just buffed Aztecs even further.

Let’s assume you meant eagle scout so El Dorado is out of the picture shall we? Then the answer is: it won’t matter cuz Viets have 0 eco bonus, Mayans get THREE one of which is cheaper archers . So your 5% archers will come out too late to attack and will be outnumbered.

Then again, Viets = 0 eco bonus, Mayan = 3 so this “similar amount of ressources” will be proportionnaly bigger for Viets.

Those are Arabia winrates. I’m excited to learn how faster boats will help the Portuguese there. And even if you take the gunpowder theme: how much 5% faster Organ guns will help while the faster economy of Franks (or pretty much everyone else besides Goths and Vietnamese) will allow the enemy to cripple you long before you get a castle?

The only “low winrate archer civ” is the Vietnamese. Your “buff” won’t change the fact that 5% speed boost won’t matter because the enemy’s superior eco will make them have more archer sooner. I don’t think you’re aware of this, but BURMESE of all things get a better archer rush virtue of free Double-bit axe.

Vietnamese already have a small HP boost to archers that while pretty minor is still much more significant than this.

Their “capabilities” will indeed be more comparable since 1 third of them would have a speed boost on infantry, another 1/3 for archers and the last 1/3 on cav. Booooooring.

The devs already did, by making Italian and Ethiopian skirms ( archer civs) no longer benefitting from their UT/bonus while allowing some archer civs to keep their bonuses on skirm and giving skirm bonuses to non archer civs. They decided to give bonuses where they are appropriate and not on just everyone while only tweaking some %.

It’s funny how a little speed boost is less important than having an actual economy. Doesn’t seeing that TATARS, the absolute worst infantry civ, would still be better than Goths after your change (because the sheep bonus both dwarfes the speed boost and the fact Tatars won’t be able to upgrade their infantry) makes you question your idea?

Oops, did I forget to mention that the bests known numbers are for Arabia only, and that the DE meta isn’t anywhere close to being stabilized?

It’s the exact opposite: it would make things harder. Right now, if a newbie decides he likes speedy infantry, he will easily learn that Celts and Meso civs would fit him, and that he should avoid Portuguese and Khmer (no squires). With many civs getting different speed boosts, he would have a hard time deciding whether a 5% faster Berserk is better than a 7% faster Samurai or a 4% D.Konnik… (and while Incas have 0 infantry bonus, Vikings, Japanese and Bulgarian definitely do have such bonuses already)

Or you can, you know, only add bonuses where needed, or tweak existing ones (if you weren’t aware of: almost no one advertizes for all civs getting new bonuses, the OP of this thread is an exception)