What are the worst designed Civs in your opinion? (You can select five anwsers)

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
21

I like the design on paper as well but on practice is just a pain.

Honestly if it was a weaker effect and avaible to a civ with other main bonus it would probably be better but as it is is just frustrating

22

So used to do Slavs, yet you were perfectly fine with them like that and even opposed to breaking up their umbrella.
Regardless I also think Indians could use another civ to divide them into North and South.

1 Like
23

You already got your Slavic civs so no need to mention this again.

Unnecesary stuff you probably already know

And Slavs werent represented by an outsider empire that was formed at the end of the timeline and represents any civ on India terribly not to mention that at least all Slavs are united ethnically (and are as close culturally as Indians are if not more) at the very least while India doesnt even have that and its only named after a geographical region. Not to mention India is just a richer and more populous region and comparable in size to Eastern Europe (and with the added territory of South Asia is even larger)

Also none of the Slavic civs add anything gameplaywise that cannot be represented with the civs they are closely related to except maybe in the case of Bohemians if they are an archer civ or Croats cos of the naval focus. They werent powerful enough either to overcome this problem (imo ofc the devs think otherwise) like other civs that could be added.

1 Like
24

There are still Slavic civs missing in the game but disregarding that, I wasn’t talking to you.

1 Like
31

Personally I voted for Goths, Portos, Cumans, Liths and Sicilians.

Goths are designed to just go infantry every game and steamroll everyone on late game and that just makes the civ near impossible to balance properly. If the early game is buffed until they have actual viable options the late game will have to be nerfed instantly

Cumans because the second TC is near impossiible to make balanced as well. Too big of an advantage.

Portos because of Feitoria. I think we will have Flemish Revolution balanced before the Feitoria is.

Liths because they are too one dimensional. They get relics they win, they dont get relics they lose.

Sicilians because its also impossible to balance practically. The reduced bonus damage is just too big to be with an eco bonus, and their UTs are also pretty bad.

32

In my opinion the worst designed civs are:

  1. Indians
    They just have a design that isn’t working. The extra PA armor bonus is good in castle age but in imperial the cavalry lacks 1 MA, which let it feel like an anti bonus. In addition to this they don’t have acces to the knight line, which is a very important unit in early caslte age for every cav civ, because camels just don’t have enough stats to be very viable (except against other cavalry). Their shorefish bonus is also bad designed, because it just makes them strangely strong on shorefish maps

  2. Cumans
    The 2nd TC in feudal age and the siege workshop in feudal age just don’t work properly

  3. Burmese
    They don’t have much against archers and they are focused on monks and infantry which is only viable in very limited situations. Furthermore they are to reliant on the Arambai and their elephants aren’t that good and fitting

  4. Goths
    Either they destroy everything or they are super bad. One trick designs licke this just don’t work and I absolutely hate to play against Goths. In addition they have extremly bad matchups which are nearly unwinnable for them like Byzantines, Aztecs or Incas

  5. Britons
    I like Britons, but their archer range bonus is a huge problem imo, because it removes the mangonel line and the scorpion line as a counter to archers, which is a especially huge problem for civs like celts, slavs or teutons. For those civs it’s very hard to do something against this and in other cases it’s also very strong

Note:

I don’t think the dlc civs and Lithuanians have bad designs. Lithuanians have their strong knight line, but for it to be above avergae you need to get relics, which the opponent can deny. Otherwise they have very strong trash units units, who can win a game on their own, so they aren’t too reliant on the knight line. Furthermore I really like their eco bonus because you can use it in many different ways, it is fun to play and a good dark age help for beginners, but I have to admit that they are a bit too good on hybrid maps.
Sicilians are one of my favourite civs, because their 50% less bonuzs damage can be used in so many different ways. I don’t think they are a one trick civ like goths, because you can make use of the less bonus damage bonus with your cavalry and archers extremly well, but it isn’t op, because your opponent has the options to just overpower your units, because you have to force you enemy into defensive trash untis for this bonus to be strong. Their serjeant is only viable in late game or on closed maps, because it lacks mobility and it isn’t a ranged unit. On the other side I have to admit that their UTs are pretty bad designed.
Burgundians are very fun to play, because with the eco bonus you have to make some decisions when to get them, so you can choose if you wan’t stronger military or stronger economy (for example bow saw in early feudal age). Their castle age cavaliers are strong, but not unbeatable and they fall off in late game. I have to admit that flemish revolution is a very bad designed tech and I don’t like it.

Please respect my opinion, because I also respect yours :slight_smile:

5 Likes
34
  1. Khemer: getting speedrun to Imp AND MAKES the most unfun to play against them
  2. Goths: getting imp,researching the unique tec on imp plus combo on team games from inf = horrible unfun (even on 1v1)
  3. Maygar: Getting imp and instead to be mass damage as inf/cav, they do the mass Archers Cavaly with their unique tec
  4. Ethiopoans: free 100 wood and gold for passing age and 15% speed attack from their archers, overpassing counters as cav/skim
  5. Mongols: Did i said how hunters with 30% fast of recolection can make a simple fast feudal and castle for just a second?
    Dishonorful civs mentions: Teutonics, Chinese, Franks and Aztecs
35

well where’s the recorded game where Lith paladins are killing all unit?
Also, have you considered that is the only thing that you can avoid, because going for relics is nothing free and easy, the monastery, monks and the must have upgrades (sanctity and Fervor) cost and are investments, also you can’t send Monks alone to collect the relics you need support units, (that’s why fatser trash and faster working monasteries exist). furthermore Liths lack eco bonus after dark age, and their boom is among the weakest in the game. In addition, the relic bonus was one of the very fist things that was nerfed (Limited from +5 to +4, and no longer including Light Cavalry, which was needed).

36

Devs should make a total redesign of the Spanish, spliting them in two: Castilian and Aragonese.

2 Likes
37

I kind of agree with you, but I think it’s a bit too late now


38

Zero votes for the Bulgarians as it should be.

4 Likes
39

Tbh while Bulgarians have an amazing civ design gameplaywise they have some identity problems.

1 Like
40

Its a pretty clear cav/inf civ to me. It plays very well without saying you have to go this route.

41

I mean it more like how the civ is ridiculously similar to Slavs. Tbh its not the only civ with that problem (Magyars come to mind among others) but I think that it is a minor problem that the civ has to deal with.

Either way Bulgarians are far more interesting to Slavs so I cant complain that much.

2 Likes
42

Generalist civs that jack of all trades, but master of none, like Italians and Portuguese are quite boring to play on land maps. Their UU are poorly designed as well imo.

Indians design is so poor. Camels as the substitute of knight line is quite lame to compete against other civs.

2 Likes
43

The devs have lately developed civs either too strong (burgundians,lithuanians) or just too weak to a point where they are pathetic (sicilians).

Look at lithuanians, they don’t have a single weakness, their tec tree has every single option available with full eco tecs and attack upgrades and its almost about the same with burgundians, the coustillier is still broken compared to the cost of other similar mounted units(tarkan), their eco bonuses are just the worst idea possible to make them attractive, i think i don’t even need to talk about flemish rev.

But well you guys should already add poles and bohemians there, cause they will be more of the same but worst cause they have to surpass their latest creations.

1 Like
45

My List:
Cumans:
Too many conflicting bonuses, too little civ advantages the civ can take of. More often than not, you’ll end up playing without being able to make use of any civ bonuses. The civ needs a total redesign.
Remove either the feudal TC or Siege bonus, and decide whether civ should be booming civ, or rush civ. Now it’s not very good at either (in most practical situations, you dont get away with a 2nd feudal TC boom, even if it looks very good on paper). Also, I’d repurpose the steppe husbandry UT into something that’s more useful than “I can save wood on stables”. The civ seems confused, and doesn’t seem to have a clear game-plan.

Indians:
I’ll address the elephant in the room: The EA is usually an impractical unit, and the camel-line just
 doesn’t work out too well as the backbone of an army. The shatagni tech is also kinda trash, HC are trash, maybe repurpose the tech to make the EA’s a viable unit ?

Burmese:
Arambai are kinda trash post-nerf, they don’t have the same kind of high damage output that you’d expect from a unit as expensive as that. Moreover, the civ’s weakness to archers just makes it pretty pretty bad overall. I think they need to buff the light cav for Burmese to be their main-anti archer unit, given that their own archery range is a joke.

Spanish:
They’re just overall pretty trash, Conqs aren’t very strong anymore, tower rushes are kinda weak in the current meta, they have a good tech tree on paper, but they don’t have any strong eco bonuses going for them and usually only good to pick for the trade bonus into a TG. Right now the civ doesn’t really have any game-plan to aim for. Not recommended to pick for 1v1. Either Conqs need to be changed so that one can afford meatshield in front (e.g. light cav), or tower rushes need to be buffed and brought back into the meta.

Incas:
Basically the civ since its nerf no longer has a main civ strength of any kind. You get a minor boost to your dark age eco with the house and the llama, but the civ has no long term strengths or goals. In AoE2 it’s best to be very specialized at a specific strategy or strength, so this civ suffers from the similar problem as the Spanish.

46

Meanwhile Incas top3 civ on arabia for high-elo. Their strength is that they can counter everything you do. They have eagles and a broad techtree what else you need if you want to react to your opponent.

1 Like
47

Don’t get me wrong, their early eco bonus is still awesome if you want to make the game messy and YOLO the feudal age. Just 
 it isn’t particularly a civ strength or anything, you can do better with just the Lithuanian food bonus (who also have a better tech tree).

48

Their eco is smoother than lith I believe. You save also idle time for houses and are less likely to be housed. Its like half lith + half huns bonus.

2 Likes