When will balance changes end?

I would Say 7, the Game is very well balance except for some details.

The only reason i don’t give more points it’s because many units are not viable, and if they are not viable, those units are not balanced for me


Without counting the new 2 civs, i feel the game is pretty well balanced. Only certain units feel lackluster (handcannons, longswords) and only some civs need some twerkings (burmese, spanish, maybe goths, maybe saracens, maybe vikings)

All in all, pretty well balances


Age of Empires 2 was already balanced in 2000 in my opinion. There were only a few extreme bonuses like the Spanish trade team bonus (it was +33%), that’s all.

1 Like

yeah, that’s why we spent over a decade with the meta being huns wars, and maybe the two meso civs and mongols for a little variety.

totally balanced


The question is not how balanced it is but how balanced you want it to be.

Some games like Dota2 for example have seen a balance change every month for 10years…

There will always be one civ with the statistically highest winrate and one with the lowest. The question is: how much should it deviate from 50%? And should it always be the same civs or different ones after each balance change…

Hehe, I hear ya. In fact, I tried the same thing back in May of last year :wink: Is funny our thread titles are so similar:

After seeing replies there, though, I came to the conclusion that balance changes to ‘stir the pot up’, so to speak, are kind’ve cool. It would be pretty unfortunate if civs were forever locked in stone with one particular civ being the dominant civ for all eternity in the game, and so everyone always plays it. Isn’t it nice that power can change, and/or you have to devise new strategies due to balance changes?

Prior to that thread, I always thought balance changes were simply to try and create the perfect state where all civs are perfectly equal in power. So, I also wondered how/why it wasn’t perfectly balanced yet after so many years, or why it was such a big deal.


Byzantines, Celts, British, Japanase, Persians, Goths. All of them were good civs in 2000.

I think that the game is mostly balanced, the only 3 civs that aren’t balanced are the sicilians, the burgundians (which aren’t in a bad state for a new civ, but needs some adjustments) and Indians (which are the worst in my opinion).

Then there are other civs that would benefit form minor changes (both buff and nerfs) like Italians, spanish, franks, chinese…

Overall though I’m happy about the balance of the game.

You cant say that game is balanced if players or pros always want to choose same civs for tournament. This pretty much shows that some civs are far more better than others.


There is a civ in Age of Mythology EE, which was considered OP, but nobody used them on tournaments: Chinese. Their pick rate is close to zero. How can you explain this?

Realistically, the game will keep getting balance updates as long as the game is “alive” (i.e, the community is not stagnating).Only way I can see that happening in the near future is if everyone is so wowed by AoE 4, that 60-70% of the community migrates to that game- including the multiplayer scene, the scenario designers and all the big content creators.

Otherwise, it’s likely that the game will keep getting ongoing support and balance changes for quite a while.


The worst civ at the moment is definitely Malay, I just want to say because many of you does not notice it.
They got nerf because of the elephant nerf in November. Cavalry are trash, Malay miss mobility and their infantry is nice but not amazing. Karambits are only situational good and weak in general. Force levy is useful but remember they have trash light cav. Archer are good but nothing special compare to Archer civ. Only the fast age up keep them a bit competitive.

Gentlemen agreement not to pick that because its unsporting?

I don’t think so. Devs nerfed them drastically one year ago and they aren’t OP anymore, but their pick rate is still near to zero. Players just don’t like them.

Game is balanced other than Indians and Arambai needs 100% rework.
And of course nerf that new civs.


They are the counter civ to all cavalry civs and three of the civs with the highest win rates are all cavalry civs.

Indians only good vs Turks

Lol, but this also comes from the guy that thinks Hun Wars were fun.

Just go back to Voobly, but expect to find it empty, because the majority of the community loves DE.

1 Like

they were balanced but they were vastly overshadowed by the other ones i mentioned. oh. and goths were terrible back then, sorry to burst your bubble.

source please, a real source. complete with pro quotes. because frankly, the pros are only going to use strong civs. want to see the truth of that? on water they currently use 3 civs, portuguese, italians, and vikings. why not any of the other naval civs? are they not fun? or is it because even viper acknowledges that those are the top 3 water civs in the game right now?

what about land - if its all about fun and enjoying the playstyle why did everyone stop using Persians in tournaments after they got nerfed last year? oh. another blow to your “we play whats fun not whats strong” argument. look at the most recent empires war. despite Lithuanians being commonly used in the first two, they weren’t really used in the recent one. could that haVe something to do with the Lithuanians empire wars nerf or did Lithuanians stop being fun?



Balance changes will never end.

As tournament prize pools keep increasing, new geniuses will appear revolutionizing the game. Our Lord Daut already did this in Red Bull Wololo 3. He showed that ranged cavalry was a thousand times more viable than people gave it credit for, and that it could even leave the reigning world champion perplex.