The Problem With Balancing Civs Through Missing Technologies

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

I think Mali helped establish a design trend: balancing through missing technologies.

Mali isn’t weak. It has a strong gold eco, high pierce armor infantry with a defensive role, and UTs that compensate for some missing techs.

For example:

  • Cavalier can reach 12+7 attack.
  • Light Cavalry and Heavy Camel can reach 7+7 attack.

So Mali still has a clear direction. The issue isn’t missing technologies itself, but when too many weaknesses are stacked together.

Examples:

  1. No Blast Furnace.
  2. No Bracer.
  3. No Siege Engineers.
  4. No Galleon.
  5. Still keeps Siege Onager.

Each one can be explained individually, but together they can make the civ feel more restricted than unique.

I don’t think every weakness needs to be removed. Some limitations are part of what makes a civ different.

The problem is when a missing tech doesn’t create a different playstyle, but simply prevents a unit from reaching its expected potential.

A UT should add something new, not just replace something that was removed.

Otherwise it feels like:

“You took something away, then gave it back under another name.”

Cao Wei’s Mingguang Armor is a good example.

+4 melee armor is an interesting idea. But if Cao Wei still needs the protection from Plate Barding Armor, players will naturally ask why the normal upgrade was removed in the first place.

The issue isn’t only Tiger Cavalry. It affects the whole armored unit lineup.

Elite Tiger Cavalry also has other ways to balance it:

  1. Reduce base speed to 1.3.
  2. Remove kill-based scaling.
  3. Keep Elite Tiger Cavalry at 4 pierce armor.

These solutions target the unit itself instead of weakening the entire tech tree.

Kipchak has a similar problem.

Kipchak has a clear role:

  1. Steppe cavalry archer.
  2. Multiple projectiles.
  3. High mobility and ranged pressure.

But because Cumans lack Bracer, their own UU can sometimes perform better on other civilizations through Mercenaries, simply because those civilizations have better ranged support.

The civ that introduces a UU should at least be a good user of that unit.

Other shared units handle this better.

Vietnamese Imperial Skirmisher is still extremely strong for Vietnam.
Berber Genitour works as a normal version without missing key support.
Italian Condottiero is also very usable for Italy.

Sharing a UU is fine, but the original civ shouldn’t end up with a worse version of its own unit.

Cuman Mercenaries has a similar design issue.

The mercenary concept fits, but directly giving allies free Kipchaks feels strange in AoE2 because military units normally require resources and production.

A better approach would be:

  • Allies can produce Kipchaks normally.
  • Cumans get a 25% Kipchak cost reduction from the Imperial Age UT.

This keeps the mercenary theme, while also making the UT useful in 1v1 instead of being mainly a team game bonus.

Current Kipchak:

  • 60 Wood.
  • 35 Gold.

With the UT discount:

  • Around 45 Wood.
  • Around 25–26 Gold.

This makes Cumans the natural Kipchak civilization while keeping Castle Age investment and rewarding Imperial Age specialization.

Xianbei Raider is also an interesting comparison.

It is a strong unit, but it comes with:

  1. High micro requirements.
  2. Low tolerance for mistakes.
  3. A high skill ceiling.

Even fully upgraded, it only has around 60 HP.

Kipchak having around 65 HP doesn’t mean it needs heavy restrictions.

The real question isn’t “Can Kipchak become stronger?”
The real question is:

“Why does the civ that created the unit need missing technologies to balance it?”

Missing technologies can create identity.
But they shouldn’t replace it.

Good civ design should make players think:

“I play this civ, so I use this style.”

Not:

“I play this civ, so other options were removed.”

Suggestion for the Next DLC: The Empty DLC
2

isn’t this part of aoe2’s core design: a shared tech tree, but each civ has weaknesses due to missing techs.
missing techs are older than unique techs, they are one of the three original ways of establishing civ identiy (next to the castle UU and civ bonuses).

even the concept of “the civ is missing a tech, so it gets a bonus/unique tech to compensate” is at least as old as AoC: Franks lack bloodlines, but get extra health on their cav for free. (maybe there is even an example for AoK?)

Also what would be the alternative? Every civ gets every tech?

5 Likes
3

Good point. I agree that missing techs have always been part of AoE2’s design.

I’m not saying Mali invented the concept. Missing techs, tech trees, civ bonuses, and Castle UUs have always been core parts of how AoE2 creates different civilizations.

My point is that Mali is more of an extreme example where this approach became more concentrated.

Older examples like Franks missing Bloodlines but getting bonus cavalry HP are much simpler. The missing tech directly connects to a clear civ identity.

The concern is when a civ combines multiple missing technologies with several replacement mechanics and UTs at the same time. Then the design can start feeling like it is built around restrictions rather than strengths.

So the issue isn’t “missing techs are bad” or “every civ should have every technology.”

The question is whether the missing tech creates a meaningful difference, or whether it just limits the civ and then requires another mechanic to compensate for that limitation.

The issue is when missing techs become the main balancing tool, especially when combined with UTs that compensate for those losses.

Older civs usually handled this differently.

Britons:

  1. No TR.
  2. Range bonus + Longbow identity.
  3. Strong eco.
  4. Infantry as another option.

The design isn’t “you lose TR, so you must play Longbow.”
It’s “you have a different ranged identity.”

Franks:

  1. No Bloodlines.
  2. Extra cav HP compensation.
  3. Still have Knight/Paladin identity.
  4. Infantry became a stronger backup option over later balance changes.

The weakness exists, but the civ still has multiple directions.

The concern with some newer civs is that they increasingly combine:

  1. Strong UU.
  2. Missing key techs.
  3. UTs replacing those techs.
  4. Fewer alternative options.

Then the civ starts feeling like it only has one intended path.

4

you really think so? I find it weird that you are making this argument for one of the most flexible civs in the game. they can reasonably play infantry, cavalry, or ranged units (Xbow into hand cannons), with strong siege options.

I would be interested in an analysis for how many techs the average civ is missing. My intuition is that generally speaking civs are becoming more flexible, not less. With newer civs missing fewer techs (although older ones have generally been getting buffed by getting previously locked techs)

isn’t this pretty similar to Malians’ “you don’t get the final attack upgrade or gambeson, but you have extra pierce armour”. ie you have a different infantry identity.

i have to strongly disagree. Malians have multiple strong options.

a big issue with the new civs is that they have the exact opposite problem: they are too good at too many things

5

I think this is where the misunderstanding comes from.

I never argued that Mali is weak or inflexible — I literally started the post with “Mali isn’t weak.”

My point is about the design trend, not Mali’s overall flexibility.

Missing techs are not the problem. The issue is when missing techs + UT compensation + UU restrictions are stacked together.

6

It literally goes back as early as Turks still being the only civ without eskirms

2 Likes
7

I guess I interpreted “restriced” as inflexible.

If you are not arguing that they are inflexible, I don’t understand what you are trying to say.

I don’t see what the issue is?

Isn’t this “issue” identical/worse for Longbowmen:

no thumbring, a UT that gives them extra range. While for Malians their UU isn’t even affected by they UT?

8

In other terms can you say what do you think the issue is? Do you just think that “UTs that compensate for missing techs is inelegant”, or is there more to it?

and what do you think should be done to fix it?

1 Like
9

This is a core “issue” of AoE2. It comes from AoE1 where it was used way way more heavily. AoE1 civilisations play a lot more different compared to each other because the are missing much greater parts of the tech tree and their bonuses are often much stronger. they just leak in felt uniqueness because they have no unique units or unique technologies.

Every other game in the series has not done that. Or at least to a much smaller degree.

In AoM the Norse have less upgrades for their walls and Towers then other civilisations for example but all units of all civilisations get full upgrades and full Armory (Blacksmith) upgrades.

In AoE3 there are a hand full of units that can not be fully upgraded but they can’t be fully upgraded for most civilisations (Pikeman and Crossbows), though that has been watered down by adding options to get upgrades for those units to most civilisations. AoE3 also doesn’t have an equivalent to Blacksmith upgrades. Their Arsenal upgrades are more like University technologies.

In AoE4 there are some cases of technologies missing but it’s rare. I haven’t played the game enough to have a deeper opinion on that and some stuff has changed since the last time I played.

tl;dr

I think it’s a flaw of AoE2 design but not a flaw that can be fixed without making it a different game. That game would basically be AoE4.

1 Like
10

I think the key difference is restricted ≠ inflexible.

I never meant Mali only has 1 path. A civ can be flexible while its main identity still feels restricted.

Longbow is actually a good example of missing techs working: no TR + extra range creates a clear trade-off and identity.

My concern is when it becomes more concentrated: strong UU + missing support techs + UT compensation + fewer alternatives.

The issue isn’t missing techs. It’s how much restriction is placed on the same identity.

Missing Elite Skirmisher and Pikeman feels acceptable because they had a clear identity around gunpowder, especially with 60 HP Elite Janissary in AoK.

The issue isn’t missing techs themselves. It is when too many limitations are stacked on the same identity without creating a clear trade-off.

I think I already provided examples in the original post.

11

I need an example of this because Malians are quite versatile despite lacking both smith attacks and a few other techs. If it’s about Blast Furnace/Farmimba it works out surprisingly well when paired with the bonus infantry armor because you already have huskarl durability with good melee armor don’t let thin hit so much harder too

1 Like
12

I agree missing techs are a core part of AoE2’s identity.

I don’t think the issue is missing techs themselves, or that every civ should get a full tech tree.

The problem is when missing techs feel mainly used as a balance tool. A strong UU with multiple restrictions and UT compensation can feel uncomfortable instead of creating a natural trade-off.

Turks lacking E-Skirmisher and Pikeman is a good example. The weakness matches the civ identity and creates a clear choice.

My concern is when the limitation is designed around controlling a specific unit.

For example, if Elite Tiger Cavalry’s high PA is difficult to balance, there are other options:

  1. Lower PA.
  2. Reduce speed.
  3. Remove/reduce kill scaling.

The unit doesn’t have to rely on 5 PA as its main identity, and the whole civ tech tree shouldn’t need to be restricted because of 1 UU.

As mentioned above, I already said Mali is strong and versatile. The +7 cav attack example was meant to show that missing techs can work when the compensation creates a clear identity.

Also, Mali has a solid tech foundation before Imp. Its missing techs mostly affect late-game scaling, not whether its main options function properly.

The Tiger Cavalry example is a different case.

13

i don’t understand what you are trying to say. how can a civ be flexible and restricted?

what does that mean? Malians (to stick with your example) are surely less restricted than Britons or Franks.

you provided examples, but I don’t understand what they are meant to be examples of

14

:joy: I think we’re going in circles a bit here.

15

There is nothing wrong with this design,if you dont like the game dont play it.

Why do I get the feeling you were here before with a different name.

16

The issue is the method of negative bonuses which out of the absolute rarest cases tend to be anti-fun because they punish you or worse a bonus or team bonus that hinders your ally feels like a curse you just have and can’t do anything about.

Let’s say you went Knights +2 damage but +10% cost well is it really an advantage? In castle age Burgundian gets to play with this with a cheaper Cav and Paladin upgrade

17

I’m not sure where negative bonuses came from.
My suggestion was simply to redesign the UU itself.

18

The lack of armor is replaced by bonus HP on the Hei Guang and the Tigers have Huskarlism with high base Pierce to not miss out on plating. This mixed with the UT makes them pretty beeftt

19

I understand the compensation.
My point isn’t that Tiger Cavalry is weak.

The concern is that Plate Barding Armor is removed and replaced by UU mechanics and UT compensation, rather than balancing the UU itself.

20

As I said it’s a huskarl situation. It’s been a tactic of game design since before this millennium