When are devs going to care about Otto Game balance?

Pretty simple otto disgustingly strong for a long time.

capitalism > 3 vills age 1. Too strong for otto due to not needing a house and idleless Tp + mosque.
5 vills: too strong given they dont need to train vills (age 2)
Abus: too strong (base unit and having 2 combat cards)
deli: Needlessly stronger than a huss (4 deli age up to age 3 is insane value
minutemen: STILL have no neg multis vs vills and STILL have multis vs Heavy infantry, please nerf hard.
advanced church: way too strong, always has been.
Cheaper church tech card: saves 3100 resources of high impact “techs” more like unit spam for a civ with supposedly low eco
Spahi tech in advanced church: great so spahi can resisit and destroy hand infantry now which was kind of the only thing keeping these units in line. Also getting more spahi without having to spend a shipment on them is incredibly dangerous design.
Nizam tech: trainable units that counter anything and everything are we insane?

otto have better eco, skirs, huss, arty, grens, minutemen, bombards than other civs.

And finally…

Its too easy to play as them


The Ottoman economy is slow to grow and weaken over time; Abs is hard to protect from horses

1 Like

good question, otto went from a civ with low eco with strong unit to a civ with a lot of eco, much better units than it was and tech in the mosque 20X stronger

And still the civ need to be buffed again and again…


In my opinion, Otto whiners are just toxic. I am sorry but it is simple as that. If you ask me why I think like that, it is because I read the data of Civ Grid since the latest patch and Ottos are nowhere near to Sweden or China.

Otto haters only want Ottos at the bottom of performance list, they will be satisfied only then, and it is not my opinion, they have confessed it few times already here, or at other platforms.


this is one of the best messages what i have read in a long time. Yeah Jans of course are bad, cav archer in age3 as well and yeah a economy which basically dont need to gather wood, can send capitalism and 5 vills is also pretty slow and worse :frowning:

1 Like

I don’t think it is necessary to weaken the economy of a civilization whose economy is not strong.


Villagers are free, but very slow to create.

You can have a maximum of 25, so you have to do some improvements to extend the limit. A shipment of 5 villagers is not a big deal.

I think the biggest difference is its cadence, but it’s not very sturdy.

United States can create reusable militia and they don’t lose all life.

Even with the card you still have a considerable investment of resources.

I don’t think this is too much, it keeps getting countered by its counters.
Haven’t you seen the shipments from Italy? An entire army on a single card. This upgrade gives 4 spahis.

20 musketeers with no melee tolerance and no range tolerance. At age 3 and at a huge cost in wood without the cheap majoras. They are strong against cavalry and heavy infantry. They are like the Lakota Rider with Rifle, but limited and not as maneuverable.

Strong early economy, but average in the medium and long term.

There are civilizations with access to many more possibilities of units and strategies.

The Spanish and French have all kinds of units, they can power the natives much more, the Ottomans have no gunpowder cavalry and no melee infantry.

Although it is easier than creating the villagers yourself, but this is the only thing easy compared to any other civilization.

Have to be aware of the population space and the improvements of the mosque.

The only thing I agree with OP is missing negative multiplier to villagers for Bashibozuk. It was probably just missed by developers. Other than that Ottos are in a good spot and current winrate data confirms that.

1 Like

civ grid is a bit tricky because otto is easily a 150+ elo boost, meaning you may be winning 50% at say 1400 elo but couldnt reach 1200 without otto and be 50% there with say france.

The thing is 1.5 years ago, otto was a noob civ meant to bash other noobs. it had lost its op rush and abus, but otherwise had little scaling and while ok on certain maps in 1v1, was not much for treaty or teams. Devs, to their credit, added thing after thing to breathe life into a legacy civ. Otto went from timings or bust to having a few units that could scale. Azaps, despite the average ottoAI user hatred of them, solve some pretty miserable matchups like lakota, humbaraci allow grens to punish FF falc pushs. Otto also gained some improve shipments and card to allow more deck flexbility. This is ok and good, and im not wanting to nerf otto into the ground.

That said, too much of a good thing is too much. Jans now scale into the late game, giving their abus perfect meat shields. their abus scale better than most civs 2x skirm, meaning otto shreds anything infantry. their cav archers are now also extremely good price, speed 7 and up to 30%attck/15%hp (beefy to begin with) and high dps so good luck touching the abus. Also, hand cav that you can never break snare from so you loose battle of manuever often vs civ with higher dps and or hp. Sipahi, now more plentiful to get. Minutemen that nuke heavy infantry so guess what, age2 pressure? pffft ez. Then the new church lets like 60 population of overpop for pittance of price. so now a civ that was already pretty easy to pilot has ways of removing your micro via raw hp/dps, timings, snares, and simple eco meaning macro is much easier to manage. put simply, up until teh highest levels otto player will work far less in supremecy than the opponent. This feels extremely bad to play into, watching jans abus z move onto you or them pop 20 moba nizaam and 5 bombards while you are getting vet techs in 3. It really went from simple, solid, but counterable to all pros no cons and i think the majority of the playerbase is tired.

How to fix? well some will call for blood and some will pretend their jan cannon 1kw sipahi every single game no matter the opponents choices is “totes skill” but i think reasonable would be tone the church overpop (really 200f sipahi, same price as a huss, is BS we can agree), reduce animation of abus to have set up time of .25 or so, so no 360 no scope should devs be happy with current damage output, and given reduce flight archery for CAs to 10% or none. Also age4 card that effects 6-7 units combat should be reduced to 10%, if boyar 3 units too much 7 surely as well. Also, their minutemen need to be .8 vs cav, you want super skirm militia they need to follow the rules. These are small changes that would make otto forced to adapt to say mass cav (i know, make uber goon killing azaps the “horror”) while still giviing them teeth in treaty or team mode. also, prehpas 600w tc since they get way more value out of their TCs. no all of these at once maybe, but something to make the coutner system mean something vs the std jan/cannon ez win or at higher levels most civs having no answer to CA/abus. imho shitter thoughts.

sorry for the sarcasm a bit, but i actually play alot of otto and i can threaten 1600 elo players as a prob slightly (or ill tell myself lol) 1300 to 1400 elo player so i feel this comes from otto player and foe of otto.


Problem with Ottomans is that they have soo much power in Commerce age, especially with those Delis (That shouldn’t attack fast in Commerce) and Abus Guns, also you have that sublime port card which is insanely strong.

Pickrate refers the civ strength.
Or people are really so naive trusting players in AOE3 are specially different from other RTS games, players in AOE3 like to pick the weaker civs for rank?

1 Like

So this this first image is historic data from the last six months or so. The Second image is from the data this Patch.
In the Top graph it is percentage of games played at each Elo, So in Otto’s case people playing at 1900-1700 elo would expect to vs otto 12% of the time. The bottom graph of the picture it shows the win rate at different Elo’s. You can see Historically (last six months at least) Otto have one of the best win rates (of the vanilla civs).
Historic Data:

Current patch Data:

Notes about this data: This is filtered counting matches longer then 5 minutes, higher than 1000 elo, The two players having an elo difference of <100. Ive done my best not to include an errors or potential bias, but willing to hear feedback if someone has ideas on improvements. In the Historical data its drawing from around 87,000 with over 17,000 picks of Ottoman (333, 1722, 1984, 2886, 4560, 4611, 1593) and for this latest patch it is about 5000 (70 378 450 808 1456 1453 454)


12% pick rate is just big lol, there are 22 civs…

And ye poeple don’t pick bad civ on the ladder, civ has just ton of new content ton of new gimmicky broken tech in the mosque and unbeatable army while your vills train for free with 500w tc and broken mm

well… just watch otto buff next patch haha


If there were no favorite’s we would expect 4.5% pick rates for each civ. Overall pick rates for Otto (10%), China (10%) and Germany (7%) are high. Ethiopia, Hausa and Haude average just 2%. Dutch, Japan, Mexico, British, Sweden and India are all about right (5-4%). That said its not an even spread over all elos.

For those interested in where i got this info:
Sunbro’s Discord where the data is Hosted

All time Data: In the work in progress tab, sorry about the mess. ########################################################################################################

Current Patch data: On the data display ideas tab

Sometimes I feel players are adamant on making sure absolutely no rush strategy is viable.

Pickrate logic doesn’t work here because Otto was always a popular civ even a few months ago when they were considered B/C tier by pros.

Devs clearly are not using pickrate as their main balance indicator. Aztecs - civ with one of the lowest pickrate of all civs (2-3%) are getting nerf after nerf in every patch.


I play as Ottos because they have a unique and cool (looking) roster. It is not because they are powerful or weak. You may say that natives or asian civs have also unique roster but I want to play with European civs and Ottos are the coolest one. I very hope that devs will make more reworks for European civs.


As I see in many streams often players with less skill beat other players with more skill ie Ottoman players beat other civ.
This because with otto you only need to press buttons to overpop with quite embarrassing units and click another button and write gg ez nobo

Ive spoke to the devs directly about this before. Statistics can guide your inquisition to investigate potential balance but tells you nothing about balance. Balance only comes from detailed reasoning based on in game examples. if people say otto win rate is near 50% so everything is ok, well that just mean bad players are winning about 50% vs better players. Problem is when n gets large then most numbers will drift to 50% with wins. I also really dont think any dev actively plays ranked gameplay or ladder so they have to rely on posts or general discussion. I feel sorry for people who can’t agree with otto being a civ in lets say top 20%. You know something is up when even jan falc mamelukes is “bad play” these days xD


Could you explain this further? That’s a bold statement.