Unit/Civilization Balance Changes:

Hello everyone,

I’ve been reading a lot of forum posts about units being OP, civilizations needing nerfs, or civilizations outright lacking an answer to another civilization’s units.

Balance changes are important and should give every civilization a fighting chance.

However we should always approach this topic with the understanding that every civ has their strengths and weaknesses - it is not a “balance problem” if you can’t figure out a proper counter or good way to beat them, it is a “real problem” if the other civilization is simply designed as “too strong” and without flaws. Or even yet, if your civilization truly just doesn’t have an answer of some sort - then that is a problem in game design and not the actual player.

This post is dedicated to consolidate all the gripes, complaints, and wishes from all levels of the AOE3 community, in hopes that they devs would see this and consider implementing deeply felt changes that the players want to see.

Now, before everyone wants to suggest powerful buffs to their favorite civilizations and to nerf the ones they hate, we should all be grown adults and suggest actual things that will give lower tier civilizations (such as the Aztecs) a fighting chance.

Note that each civilization was designed with historically accurate concepts behind them, driving their design. It would be foolish to suggest something contrary to what the developers had intended for that civilization (as they are doing their best to be historically accurate). But for a better gaming experience, there should be always be in-game balance to this.

It’s no secret that the Aztecs have fallen far into demise, while other civilizations like the Swedes and their booming torps has even given seasoned players a lot of trouble to deal with.

Note: With these new civilizations, it is probably likely that a new civ “seems OP” because the old civs haven’t found a compact strategy to beat them yet. Mybe it is worth waiting a bit so experience can take over. But certainly, voicing criticisms or praise about these new civs is still very important.

We can’t always get what we want, but at least we should try to shed light on any imbalances to improve everyone’s overall experience.

That being said, I still start by listing all the civilizations and putting links to other post discussions in this one. After linking them together, I want to constantly update this post to see if that is the general consensus of most of the AOE3 community, since we are the ones playing the game and dealing with it head-on. The goal is to simply bring more attention to long-held civilization needs.

British

British strong in 1v1? (1 - weakest, 5 - OP)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

British in Team Games?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

British in Treaty?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Issues with the British:
Need a better late-game skirm unit? - Balance suggestion for the British and A random thought on the Brits

Dutch

Dutch strong in 1v1? (1 - weakest, 5 - OP)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Dutch in Team Games?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Dutch in Treaty?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Issues with the Dutch: (none)

French

France strong in 1v1? ( 1 - weakest, 5 - OP)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

France in Team Games?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

France in Treaty?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Issues with the French: (none)

Germans

Germans strong in 1v1? (1 - weakest, 5 - OP)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Germans in Team Games?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Germans in Treaty?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Issues with the Germans:
Powercreeped by Sweden when it comes to mercenaries? - Balance for Swedes vs. German Mercenaries

Ottomans

Ottomans strong in 1v1? (1 - weakest, 5 - OP)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Ottomans in Team Games?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Ottomans in Treaty?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Issues with the Ottomans: (none)

Portugese

Portugese strong in 1v1s? (1 - weakest, 5 - OP)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Portuguese in Team Games?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Portuguese in Treaty?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Issues with the Portuguese:
Needs a lower settler cost to be competitive in 1v1s? - Ports are not feeling to be competitive civilization

Russians

Russians strong in 1v1? (1 - weakest, 5 - OP)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Russians in Team Games?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Russians in Treaty?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Issues with Russia:
Strelets need a little more range to be effective? - Strelets, Not dealing well vs what they counter?
Needs late game buffs? - Does Russia lacks creativity? Weak Late game?

Spanish

Spain strong in 1v1? (1 - weakest, 5 - OP)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Spain in Team Games?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Spain in Treaty?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Issues with Spain:
Needs a nerf? - Spain need a nerf
Make missionaries easier to kill? - Suggested Buffs / Nerfs

Aztecs

Aztecs strong in 1v1? (1 - weakest, 5 - OP)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Aztecs in Team Games?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Aztecs in Treaty?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Issues with the Aztecs:
Lategame eco a problem? - Aztecs need a serious economy buff
Needs an overall buff? - Warchief civs buff
Needs better anti-inf? - Suggested Buffs / Nerfs

Haudenosaunee

Haudenosaunee strong in 1v1? (1 - weakest, 5 - OP)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Haudenosaunee in Team Games?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Haudenosaunee in Treaty?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Issues with the Haudenosaunee:
Needs an overall buff? - Warchief civs buff
Better anti-cav for their tomahawks? - Suggested Buffs / Nerfs

Lakota

Lakota strong in 1v1? (1 - weakest, 5 - OP)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Lakota in Team Games?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Lakota in Treaty?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Issues with the Lakota:
Late game treaty eco a problem? - Lakota, treaty eco
Needs an overall buff? - Warchief civs buff

Chinese

Chinese strong in 1v1? (1 - weakest, 5 - OP)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Chinese in Team Games?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Chinese in Treaty?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Issues with the Chinese:
Needs overall buffs in Supremacy? - Chinese civ questions and Chinese suggestion

Indians

Indians strong in 1v1? (1 - weakest, 5 - OP)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Indians in Team Games?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Indians in Treaty?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Issues with the Indians: (none)

Japanese

Japanese strong in 1v1? (1 - weakest, 5 - OP)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Japanese in Team Games?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Japanese in Treaty?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Issues with the Japanese:
Needs overall nerfs? - First the Swedes, then the Incas, and now the Japanese please
Ashiguru musketeers move too fast? - Why does ashigaru move at 4.5 speed ? It's faster that most range infantery
Do something with the Daimyos - Suggested Buffs / Nerfs

Incas

Inca strong in 1v1? (1 - weakest, 5 - OP)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Inca in Team Games?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Inca in Treaty?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Issues with the Inca:
Need solutions to artillery? - About Inca Balance (Updated)
Or is Inca broken? - INCA is currently BROKEN
They outclass the Aztecs? - Incas outclassing Aztecs in Game Design

Swedes

Swede strong in 1v1? (1 - weakest, 5 - OP)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Swedes in Team Games?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Swedes in Treaty?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

0 voters

Issues with Sweden:

  1. Torps OP? - Ideas for Balancing Torps
  2. Units too well-rounded? - Swede and Inca need an overall redesign
  3. Hakkapalit stats too strong? - Is this unit even close to Balanced? yes Hakkapalit

Please feel free to comment and post links or other thoughts, as I will try to keep this updated daily.

Looking at the results of the old polls on overall civilization performance, there seems to be a sort of agreed upon tier list among the civilizations…

Top Tier - Sweden, Japan, Inca

Mid Tier - British, Dutch, France, Germans, Ottomans, Portugal, Spain, Indians

Low Tier - Russia, Aztecs, Lakota, China, Haudenosaunee

12 Likes

Only first 3 civs can be voted.

2 Likes

Had some trouble with the formatting, but we’re good now. Thanks for letting me know.

1 Like

Thanks for this vote, I also wanted to create but failed.
However there is one more suggestion from my friend, he suggests this vote would be better if separate into 1v1 and team game.

3 Likes

That actually is a very good idea, since each civilization performs differently in different types of games, including treaty. I will implement more polls soon once I get a lot of time.

2 Likes

What did you do to Russians XD.

1 Like

Looking at Sweden and Inca, the production team was convinced that they had never played this game’s Multiplay Match.

And they have a deep obsession with buildings that automatically generate resources!

1 Like

Here’s the problem with Sweden and Inca.

Sweden

  1. There is no light type unit at all.

  2. Units designed as all-rounders make it difficult to balance They’re going to be too powerful or too weak by minor numerical control.

  3. Sweden’s main economic strategy is to create a strong economy with torp, and then continue the economy with settlers built on behalf of the obsolete torp. This is a completely different result from the initial production team’s announcement.

Inca

  1. Some special abilities are heterogeneous and irritating.

  2. Cancha doesn’t support a population of 200. It’s because of ridiculous food production capacity.

  3. They can have a trading post that’s advenced, but They can create a trading post that’s more advanced.

  4. Some cards have taken away the characteristics of other civilizations. EX, Inca can have two TC from 2age. And it’s stronger and more powerful.

These two civilizations will continue to cause balance controversy. If you don’t redesign them from the ground up,

Minor adjustments to figures will never quell the controversy over these civilizations.

4 Likes

What I really dislike about the Swedes is the design is so out of place, instead of mere balancing issues.
Of course there is a simple way to balance the units, just nerf the stats and we’ll eventually reach a place where people no longer spam that unit or complain about it all the time.

However, the roster of Swedes is so strange, even stranger than the craziest mod. Look at Swedes in Napoleonic Era mod, by which DE is definitely inspired (Torps, Leather Cannons and Drabants), and even that mod is not this crazy.

If you look at it, every civ in the game has a regular unit roster that covers all the basic functions (ignoring natives and mercs because they are either random or optional):

  1. At least one anti-cavalry infantry (musketeers, pikes, or some special melee units)
  2. At least one anti-anti-cavalry infantry (archers or skirmishers)
  3. At least one all-purpose hand cavalry.
  4. At least one anti-cavalry cavalry.
    Then you might have some fancy units with special functions, like Lancer or Urumi. But you don’t lack any of these.
    That applies to all other civs, even Ottomans (who at the first glance only has one unit in the Barracks) or Aztecs/Incas (who at the first glance only has “infantry”) do not lack any of these functional units.
    Swedes does not. Besides mercenaries, Swedes completely lacks 2 and 4. Hakkapeliit is basically another 3. And Carolean is the mixture of 1 and 4, and they also counter infantry at melee, and they start with a short range but can be buffed to longer than every other musketeer/dragoon, and they can even have a range resistance. That is a unit that basically does anything except countering artillery, and it even changes its function during the game.

In the Napoleonic mod they introduced a regular unit called “Fusilier” which is basically a reduced version of the mercenary Fusilier. I think that is already a proper design for Caroleans.
Then given them a Dragoon and move Hakkapeliit to the same position as Lancer/Cuirassier/Opri/Rifle Rider (special-purpose cavalry) or make Hakkapeliit a regular dragoon with higher melee maybe.

Speaking of Rifle Rider (as a ranged cavalry, it also counters heavy infantry but gets countered by dragoons), image it being the only ranged cavalry Lakota has with Bow Rider removed. This is what Swedes looks like now.

Addition: I feel the same for the new expansion for AOE2. Introducing new stuff is nice, but they should fit well in the general gameplay. Even though AOE3 civs plays much more differently than AOE2, there is a line above which the difference is so large and feels out-of-place.

4 Likes

I think Chinese is weakly now.Although they have many villager,but slowly update and Army weakly It’s bad!And in age 1 only have 200 food.Telling me,How to update so fast?

1 Like

As a treaty player, I recently experienced the Swedes mirror match. As Caroleans counter all other Swedes units outside of artillery, there was no choice but to do a pointless Caroleans VS Caroleans fight with the occasional horse artillery that were quickly countered by culverins. For most civs, even in mirror match, the heavy inf. army would have triggered light inf. which would have forced heavy cavalry, than light cav., etc. I can agree there is something missing in their roster. Jaegers are just too pop heavy and slow to create to be considered in treaty.

Not sure how they decided that giving the civ 2 heavy infantry and 2 heavy cavalry would make for an interesting army. Nearly every other unique unit replaces a base unit that serves the same role. Is there any reason to upgrade both cavalry units when playing as Swedes? What about upgrading both infantry units?

Also, who on Earth uses Imperial Pikeman? What a waste of a Royal Unit upgrade…

3 Likes

Pikeman royal guard? On treaty you have the “legendary” Spain Instant Tercio Spam Backdoor!! (Yes, I know, only works vs noobs and you get out of wood in a minute, but is funny)

I do think every civ in the game should at least have the basic functionalities that everyone else has. For example Cassadors are basically more specialized skirmishers, instead of skirmishers that also counter cavalry, etc. Of course there were always units that have very distinct roles for their class, like the ones I’ve listed, but they do not replace the base unit.
If you really wish to introduce a unit with very unique traits, it should be added to the roster, instead of replacing some base unit.

1 Like

Inca and Sweden
Too strong as an enemy.and as an ally, there is too little help and no convenient team cards.
Everyone doesn’t like them

Inca is also known as Tawantinsuyu, which means “the alliance of the four places”, but their aboriginal allies have more than three kinds(Inca also calculate)

Before the emergence of Sweden, Germany was a powerful mercenary country. No matter how the mercenary benefits are balanced, the game production team hurt the feelings of German fans

Remove Falconet! Germany does not have musketeers, so it needs professional troops to deal with the opponent. Sweden wants to highlight the characteristics of mercenaries and retain the all-round musketeers. This is a necessary sacrifice

If you want artillery in Sweden, you can still use cards to train mortars and artillery early

2 Likes

I would like to remind you not only to talk about the Swedes and the Incas please, there are several topics that talk about the balance of the Japanese, in the votes you did in your post the Japanese are above the Incas and very close to the Swedes!

If you want topics that talk about the subject, I can pass you up to 2

https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/first-the-swedes-then-the-incas-and-now-the-japanese-please/108374
https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/why-does-ashigaru-move-at-4-5-speed-its-faster-that-most-range-infantery/108519/32

I’m talking about Aztecs with the last recent update in this new topic, feel free to tell me what you think all about what I said :slight_smile: .

1 Like

The point I don’t understand is, why most of us know Japan has been OP since TAD for 13 years, devs still put the same OP eco house to the new civs.

1 Like

Japan wasn’t op on RE after 2010, iro otto india was OP

1 Like

I appreciate the effort in creating this poll but maybe we should be clear about whether this is for 1v1 or team games or treaty. Some civilizations like the Ottomans are really strong on 1v1 but not really on treaty. It’s a kind of similar thing but Russians but to a much lesser extent. Spain is pretty decent in non-treaty games. In treaty games, apart from Unction, they kinda suck.

I think the results from this poll kinda show that Swedes, Inca and Japan are currently the strongest… at least that seems to be the general consensus.

Apart from this, Chinese, Sioux, Aztecs, Russians seem to be under performing.

IMHO, if a civilization has a rating between 3.5 and 4.0 (both included), it’s in a good place. If it’s greater than 4.0, it’s over powered. If it is less than 3, it is clearly under powered.

At 4.57 (as of this comment), Sweden is the most over powered of them all.

1 Like

You’re right.

The development team does not disclose the victory rates of civilizations and that is bad.

My opinion is that the balance should be made using the statistics of the 10% best players and, separating the game modes as treated and supremacy, 1v1 and team games.

1 Like