Why the Franks shouldn't be nerfed

Some civilisation has to be number one so why don’t we let it be the Franks?

While I agree that I don’t think it needs another nerf right now, the reasoning sounds a little odd :slight_smile: [clarification: curious to see how the unique tech age swap will affect them overall]


pretty sure the Franks nerf is targeted at team games where they can grab Chivalry on the way to imperial age and then just spam to there hearts content.

i mean come on.

look at that playrate. nearly 10% and overall…

they are at 10%.

even in 1v1.

9% playrate. you want to know why they are getting nerfed? because they are being played excessively because how easy and strong they are.

Yeah. Lithuanian Paladins are probably stronger overall (provided they get relics), but the entire Franks gameplan just seamlessly works together to allow them to do everything FASTER and cheaper.


thats right, but it doesnt mean franks should be 10 times better than x civilization, only 1,00001 times better

1 Like

yeah. this nerf isn’t going to do much to slow down franks strength. but it should at least make other civs a little more appealing.

I disagree with the premise that “a civ has to be the best”. I agree that there will be certain civs that are the best at certain things, but I would argue that the Franks are beyond that threshold and are still in the OP category.

I’m glad though that they aren’t doing major nerfs, this tech swap move is good, though I’d still like to see their castles cost a bit more.

I even agree that Franks don’t need to be nerfed, but that argument is just terrible. You can use that against any proposed change. “Why nerf/buff X, something has to be Y” - then fill in whatever you want. That’s not how balancing (or making things better in general) works.


to be fair - this nerf isn’t going to hurt them that much - its just going to slow them down and hopefully encourage people to play other civs.
and considering how much Franks are played and how streamlined their playstyle is. that’s fine.


Because they are too overpicked in almost every ELO, especially at TG, and you said somewhere that you just played traty games so probably you don’t understand that.
I’m glad that they are nerfed.

1 Like

Lovely to see the frank picker whining that they soon can’t abuse this civ for free elo anymore xD

55+% winrate 1v1 and they are “fine”

God you civ picker don’t make it easy for me that i will ever like you, You ruin the game for random civ’er (=skilled people) and all of you aren’t even aware of that, If I would be in charge civ picking wouldn’t even be possible or a bannable offense

1 Like

I rarely ever pick Franks I just like them and want to see them at the top because they invented knights.

Is literally the 100th complaint about that, if civ picking is “cheating” then why you can pick civs not only in AOE 2 but also the other AOE games.
People just do what they like, that’s it.

1 Like

The nerves of these people to then go on that a Lobby System is unfair because “Uhhh, you can’t get to 2k (orwhatever is above average rn, probably 2800 soon because ladder is inflated af) only by playing BF!!!”

Civ picking IS ruining this game and allows for Noob players to be way above their elo at a place where they don’t belong, that the devs coinflip balance doesnt help either (let alone that there are only buffs for DLC civs and not something like Port is hilarious)

1 Like

Why are you so against people making choices about which civ they want?


Also, it is hard to balance indians (and berbers) when the most picked civ is a camel-victim.

The frank “nerf” (it is a minor nerf imho) will impact in both indians and franks pick rate in team games. Maybe in berber toos, although they can go discounted knight rushes so their effectiveness dont rely as much on having a strong cav civ on the enemy team as indians.

If indians pickrate go down again, maybe devs should start figuring how to fix them.

It’s normal to blame failure on the choices of an opponent and then claim you wouldn’t make the same choices because it’s lame/unfun. It’s not a habit you want to have and it’s a bad mindset, but unfortunately, it’s common.

being good at random civ is a skill, as is being good at any one civ you’ve practiced. calling one skill and calling the other abuse is a portrayal of bias and nothing more.


I’m pretty sure also playing other civs helps you to improve playing franks.
So only picking one civ is in the end only damaging your own game.

They shouldn’t make Chivalry more expensive if they are moving it to Imp.

That’s to assume that a player has a strong grasp of the game to begin with. Otherwise, splitting your attention between multiple civs immediately is going to make it extremely difficult to figure out the proper play, matchups, compositions, and specific build orders that work on that civ. You should start by learning one or two civs, maximum, and really get used to the bonuses so you can apply them maximally. Skipping through civs willy-nilly can be far more detrimental to your progression than sticking to one.

That is, unless you’re conceding that the players who are slaying you with franks so terribly are also all completely solid players that deserved to win and you just want them to expand their horizons. If that’s the case, good on you for admitting your fallibility.

1 Like

Yeah i’m talking about more experienced players. Of course newer players should begin with a easy civ with a clear plan etc.
I’m speaking about when you trying to improve you shouldn’t hanc pick unless you want to try out certain strats.