Updates to first gen aoe2 civs

Hello one and all!!

This is my first thread post on a forum ever. As a brief preface, I’ve been playing aoe2 since it’s release in 98 and have been loving the quality of care that microsoft has been making to ensure that this game is properly taken care of. Further, if ya’ll could swing it, maybe aquire blizzard and make warcraft IV happen? just food for thought. If you’d like story suggestions for a warcraft IV RTS, I’d be more than happy to discuss options! But I digest.

OK, back on topic. So there are three civs in aoe2 that I wanted to ask if there is a chance of getting a face lift to bring them to a place where they could be a bit more viable than what current state they are in. Please feel free to provide feedback and critiques, as my desire is to continue to improve this great game.

First civ to discuss are the Britons. I like the bonuses to archers and the elite longbowman is fun. However, given the history behind the crown the requirements for fighting age males to practice archery, I wonder if one of the below options may be an improvement to the costly status of the current archer researches.
First civ: Britons.

  • Creation of a “trash” bowman unit at the archery range. the unit could be called the “Yeoman” and be a bit stronger than the skirmisher, but weaker in armor than the archer/longbowman.

  • Reduction in cost for the elite longbowman, or perhaps allowing the elite longbowman to be made that the AR (archery range). Though I’ll admit, the latter option would make briton OP as all get out.

  • Cavalry for the Britons is quite lacking. Though they did not have as many knights as France did, the quality of Briton Cavalry was world renowned. Would it be possible to grant them either a discount/buff to the armor/attack of the cavaliers or perhaps grant access to Hussars? The Celts already have access to Hussars, so it wouldn’t seem to be too far outside the realm of possibility.

Second civ: Franks.

  • First adjustment for the Franks would be to either improve the throwing axeman’s range/attach, or just give them a whole new special unit. The poor guys is not very useful.

  • Plus, improved light cavalry wouldn’t go amiss. Though the Frankish paladin is really tough, it’s really expensive and with the archery range lacking, this leaves the Franks with severely limited options in regards to army selection. So adding in some perks or discounts could be really helpful.

Third civ: Teutons.
Yes, the beloved Teutons are the final civ. I dare not to believe that I am the only person who’d love to see them updated, so here are some solutions that could be helpful for making them a bit more viable.

  • Update to the Teutonic knight. The guy is too slow and given how expensive he is, this makes him just a poor choice. Now, what would I suggest? So glad you asked lol. First option would be to simply put him on a horse and rename him the “crusader knight”, then give him the same affect that the bulgarians have, which is to turn into a slow knight when the horse dies.

  • Another option for the Teutonic knight would be to replace him with a whole new, slightly cheaper, mounted knight called the “crusader” and give him a lance to carry. No bulgarian affect.

  • Buff to cavalry in stable. Perhaps grant hussars to the Teutons. Given how the celts already have hussars and that not all of the knights in the Teutonic order would’ve been heavy cavalry, it isn’t unreasonable to think that the Teutons would’ve had initiate knights who had to work up through the ranks to be granted a heavy horse.

Other than the above suggestions, the Teutons would be well served by some adjustments to their cavalry.

Let me know what you think though!

P.S. Ok, real talk you guys. First, if you don’t like what I have to say, that’s fine. Heck I made a post on the internet, you can not agree and tell me all about it. Just keep it civil. This post has already been “flagged” and I’m not sure it can be viewed. Which, if that is the case, completely defeats the purpose of doing this.

Second, seeing as how this if a LITERAL FORUM, I’d like to reply to what you all have to say, so if you could allow the reply options, I’d really appreciate this.

Third, to the user who compared the one of the new special units to the ghebeto, yes the unit does seem like a copy; but they throw metal frisbees! Which is some sick mortal kombat shenanigans! I love it. Plus it represents a flavorful unit that can reflect a little of another culture that many may not know about.

Fourth, when posting critiques and criticisms; please use proper grammar. Otherwise I cannot understand what it is you are trying to communicate. Sorry, elder millennial problems lol. :smile:

P.P.S - another user commented and articulated concern about allowing scenario units to be trained during regular games. Here are my reflections, initially I doubt that the developers would just allow scenario units to be accessed that easily. It wouldn’t surprise me if the developers would test out the unit before release. I will also admit that I’m a fan of new units and civs being added at every opportunity. Simultaneously, I get that there is something of an equilibrium that needs to be maintained. Given the work that Microsoft has invested in this product, I don’t think that we need to be too concerned, because if something were to be added that would alter/diminish said balance, it could be nerfed or edited to minimize or eliminate impact.


yeeees. give all civs region units like crusader knight not just new ones.

gurjaras have 3 region and 3 uu. battle elephant, archer elephant, elephant ram, shrivamsha rider, chakram thrower, camel scout.

pls do for all. but not just skins


I’ll tell you what will happen to them

Shrivamsha riders are underpowered and will be forgotten soon like SL
Chakram Throwers are literally a Gbeto-like unit from the Castle, and very costly so also will be forgotten soon
Camel scouts will only be made in order to start camel production before Castle Age.

So a civ with 3 UU will end up using only Camel Riders and Light Cavalry as their army :joy:

1 Like

I wish the devs would give the teutons the crusader knights from DotD DLC… even some of the youtubers like Viper were talking about it. or at least as a reskin for the paladin.


If we start making scenario units trainable where will it end? Crusader for Teutons France Britons genitors for Berber Portuguese Spanish and the list can go on.

1 Like

Frankly, these are all bad suggestions. All civilizations you mention, in particular Franks, are considered to be strong (if not OP) in the current meta. None of them needs a buff. Furthermore, even if they did, I do not like your suggestions.

  • The English were known for their longbowmen. Their longbowmen required more training than the crossbowmen from other nations. This is reflected in their cost, training time and requirement of a Castle. It is fine as is.
  • The Throwing Axeman is based on the weaponry of Germanic Franks. It is not useless at all and complements their Knights pretty well to snipe Pikemen.
  • The Teutonic Knight is meant to be slow and is an iconic unit of the Teutons. Why turn it into a clone of a cavalry unit we already have, or make it a bland cavalry unit?

The rest of your suggestions remove more weaknesses and thus identity from the civilizations.


The way it is in game it’s actually just a fantasy unit. The devs didn’t know better at the start of making Aoe2.

1 Like

This topic is temporarily closed for at least 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.

This topic was automatically opened after 44 hours.

and what’s so on then ?
Maybe giving Mongols a new Mangudai who can release fear effect to his enemies ?
How about giving Samurais ‘‘omnislash’’ ability ?
So maybe we can try Berserkers with immidiatly kill cd ability ?
Why not Jannissaries with ‘‘head shot’’ ability ?
Killed saracen monks returns as a ghost can convert but cant collect relics ?


I have to be honest, I agree with none of the suggestions. The civs you wanna change are generally already very good, for example Britons don’t get Bloodlines but get everything else for their Knights and this is enough for you to play Knights when needed. The civ is archer focus, can’t have as strong Knights as French or Persians.

Other cases, such as asking to buff Throwing Axeman, show you dont look at cost. The unit is very cheap and acts like a ranged Champion of sorts. It is good when massed, not the best UU in the game, but very cheap. It is not meant to compete with Crossbows, which are its counter, it is meant to be used vs Halberdier-heavy comps that Franks otherwise struggle against.


I am annoyed by all the ‘civs are good dont need change’ posts

So, being good doesn’t exempt it from reworks or balances. I think both should occur


why say their ‘‘too strong’’ to get 3 region unit and 3 uu like new indian civs got?

so make it work. is not fair…

1 Like

Because if the units are useful you are buffing already well designed civs. The old Indian civ was badly designed, so when they reworked them they added a fairly mediocee regional unit.

I love the old civs the way they are alreadu (except Goths and Spanish). No need to change them

And stop with the “its not fair”. It is ridulous you even dare to say that when half the civs are from Europe


can always balance out with new units.
indians bad design? no no was always top pick in tournaments XD

Theres one original civ that need buffs: Goths. Theres other problematic civs like Spanish, Persians and Koreans but its not that big od a deal since they at least have maps in which they perform very strongly. The other OG civs beyond those four dont need buffs

Strong ≠ well designed

And the new regional unit isnt a biff really

1 Like

I am not saying old civs can never be reworked in principle. But OP is talking purely about buffs, and they are not even buffs that would make the civs more interesting or unique, and neither would they even improve historical accuray. They are just bad suggestions from every perspective.

An unfortunate problem of the European civs is that all other civs are modeled around them. Castles should be regional buildings and Knights should be regional units, but they aren’t. Since everyone else is using iconic Europe stuff, European civs may appear to be more bland than some others.

I believe they had the lowest pick rate in ranked. People seemingly didn’t find them interesting.

Its not an extra option. They lost rams to have armored eles.

And my point was that the civ was strong, but it was badly thought out.

1 Like

Thats a new civ and its fine. The camel scout is more of a bonus than a unique unit.

No. Unless Ghulam carries the civ I think missing the pierce armour bonus as well as losing FU Cav archers will hurt them. Gunpowder units will barely help them on arabia.

Stop with this nonsense. Its also special treatment that Eurooe has half the civs. Thats fixable without screwing over the currently balanced civ designs.

And the only really addition for the sake of addition is the Armoured Elephant.

No. Old civs are good as they are rn. They are fun and unique and simple. I like simple civs

1 Like

If the civ is already competitive and unique enough, adding more would be pointless.

No its not.

No its not. I dont think the extra complexity the devs have been focused on adding to the DE civs has been necessary, but if they make it work alongside simpler civs like Franks, Malians and Slavs I still will be fine with it. We dont need to screw over allthese designs to put the civs in line with the newer ones. Old civs are already in line with the newer ones in the battlefield, with a lot of the simpler civs being way more fun to use.

I can back it with my own civ designs (How many civs total and which? 😱 - #40 by TungstenBoar) which rarely have more than one UU. I have literally 0 bias for India and I love the old civs.

You are just trying to generate conflict with that kind of comment.