Worst designed civs of AOE 2?

Well, back before DE we had wonderful Team games, random civ was mandatory and Arabia was actually playable. You didn’t know what to expect, everything was almost viable. DE killed team-games on top of killing the sense of community we had back then, sadly.

What DE added was worth I think. I’m not opposed to random civ mandatory, but ranked lobbies must never come back. I think the sense of community still exists, at least somewhat.

chinese no doubt. They don’t have Gunpowder but they discover it. They are Archer civ but they have no archer bonus. That just eco is stupid, they have no sense as civ. That 50+ hp for Demo ships are really on game? is the most stupid thing i ever see on AoE

Incas, Malay, Vikings for me.

Incas have no identity, Malay are bad in way too many situations and their UU isn’t fitting their tech tree imo, Vikings now have only Champs and SR being fully upgradeable as units and the only thing they have is eco.

The best designed civs are Bohemians, Turks and Teutons imo (the last are missing from here @FurtherLime7936 ).

Clear unique tech trees and civ bonuses made to work around that giving them rather particular playstyles that mix different aspects of lategame strategizing.


Thanks to point out but If I modify the poll we need to re vote again.

You might be able to add a second poll just with Teutons, for those who would vote for it. I don’t think it would break it, but maybe do a test first?

Ok then

  • Teutons

0 voters

If someone thinks it here we go

looks like a german ballot from 1938…
Better vote for it, you know what happens if you not…

1 Like

Where are 50% bonus damage reduction and instant castle on your face?

I saw some Forgotten Empires members voting on the poll. Hahaha self-criticism is all (truth be told, more votes on ES civs)

Yet Burgundians aren’t really a top tier civ. Good yes. S tier? Not usually.

1 Like

Hes talking about Sicilian cavaliers, not Burgundian ones

Neither is Goths. Doesn’t mean they have design faults.

Oops. My bad.

I chose Goths, Burmese and (big surprise) Sicilians.

Goths: their only FU land unit is the Hand Cannoneer. One trick pony civ at its best, they have bad everything. Bad siege, bad archers, bad cavalry, bad infantry (just super cheap) and bad defences.

Burmese…a civ designed around a massive weakness to archers (the most effective units in the game), now with overnerfed useless UU and new useless UT, no surprise it’s bottom tier almost everywhere.

Sicilians, well I’ve said enough in different threads. It’s a mess of a civ right now. Gimmicks everywhere, viable in 1v1 and borderline OP in some matchup, terrible in team games.

Besides some of the obvious ones I hate britons design: Civ bonus archers have more range, UT more range for archers and surprise UU archer with even more range. Has been there like forever but still pretty bad design if you ask me.


I dislike all three meso civ. The eagle warrior as cavalry replacement does not fit in the overall game design. It is after all very similar to the huskarl, but huskarl is in some way the identity of a very unique civ. Making such a cool unit a standard barrack unit for three civs with a better eco and good archer line is bad design. It makes playing goths a bit odd.

1 Like

Bohemians: Trash monk is useless, late game Monk doesn’t worth 100 food, giving 40% speed and +4 PA is better, using Monk as Skirmishing unit is better than this current design. Too much eco bonus, remove +15hp 15% Villagers, Crossbowman and Halberdier. Hussite Wagon is also garbage unit, replacing with heavy pikeman like slow but heavily armored pikeman is pleasant.

My heavy pikeman design is:

  • Cost: 50f 40g
  • 60/80 (elite) hp
  • 6/8 (elite) attack
  • 1 Melee range.
  • RoF: 2.0
  • Attack Bonuses: +6, +8 (elite) vs Cavalry.
  • 3/3, 4/4 (elite) armor
  • Speed: 0.8
  • Training Time: 12, 9 (elite).
  • Armor class: Infantry, Unique

Britons: +1, +2 range is OP. Only give +1 range in Castle Age and give different UT like archers cost -40% gold. In this way, massing archer in Late Imperial would be possible but archers aren’t OP anymore. Give Paladin and Hussar as well.

Cumans: Extra TC on Feudal is stupid and also doesn’t give eco as good as it seems. Remove this bonus and add Feudal Age steppe archer which has 40 hp, 5 attack, 3 range and upgrade Castle Age Cavalry instantly in Castle Age. Give get access to bracer, remove last armor upgrade and Paladin, Steppe Lancer has +3 attack to Cavalries, turn Cuman Mercenaries to infinite but +25 gold more and cavalry archer cost only gold (60 gold).

Poles: Folwark and stone bonus are OP. Stone bonus can be nerfed to 33% but Folwark must be totally removed. Villagers gather food 15% faster around Follwark is more logical bonus. Poles also need early game bonus to survive in Open Maps, give +1/+2/+3 attack to scout-line and remove unnecessary Winged Hussar upgrade. Remove Obuch which has also stupid armor reduction bonus, give Winged Hussar as unique unit. Winged Hussar should be armored Steppe Lancer. My Winged Hussar design:

  • 50f 80g
  • 75/130 hp
  • 10/13 attack
  • 2/2, 3/3 armor
  • 1.5 Melee range.
  • RoF: 1.9
  • Speed: 1.45
  • Attack Bonuses: +8, +10 (elite) vs Gunpowder units.
  • Training Time: 15 seconds.
  • Armor Class: Cavalry Unique.

Byzantines: Worst design ever. No eco bonus, only strategy is waiting enemy to make gold units and kill these units with cheap trash units. It need little eco bonus at least. It has no raiding unit which is also bad design. Good defensive civ must have at least good raiding unit to damage enemy’s eco while defending its base. Cataphract can do this job with change. Give 3, 4 (elite) PA to Cataphract, 100, 125 (elite) hp, 1.25 speed and bonus armor reduction only works against spear-line, Logistica upgrade nerfed from 5 to 4 and also effect Byzantines Knight-line.

Ethiopians: It has totally same gameplay as Britons. It need to be different from playing perspective which is arbalest, halberdier, more radius siege unit (Britons also has radius Trebucket) composition. 18% attack speed is funnily small. Civ only rely on OP 100f 100g eco bonus. Unique unit is also garbage. Glass Cannon raiding unit is not fun to play and easy to stop.

Spanish: No eco bonus, only unit in Castle Age is OP Conquistador. Even OP Conquistador can’t save from being bad. On the other hand, best civ in the late game. Give early eco bonus, buff elite Conquistador, remove Supremacy and give " Grande y Felicísima Armada tech give +50 hp to cannon galleon instead.

Chinese: Civ has no weakness, at least remove Halberdier and heavy camel, in return give full open Siege Workshop and Siege Engineer. Chu Ko Nu is also not enough strong unit. Elite Chu Ko Nu should have 10 attack.

Franks, Tatars: Both has definite gameplay. There is no option other than going Cavalry Archer for Tatars. Keshik is also always better than Steppe Lancer in all circumstances which is also bad design. Why Devs give +1/+1 armor Steppe Lancer to Tatars if this buffed Steppe Lancer is totally useless. Franks also insipid civ. It has literally no unit has bonus (attack, hp, speed etc.) other than +12 hp Paladin. Aztecs also no unit has bonus except Monks. Bonuses and unique units attract players to play civilizations. I can’t say to me friend that In this game, all top tier civ has only eco bonus and they have no unique military units, they have full generic units.

Didn’t expect that. I mean Berbers, Huns Japanese is understandable.
But nobody voting for Bulgarians, Liths and Turks is weird. All of them I consider as Actually very one-dimensional civs that could actually use some “flavour”. I mean they aren’t disbalanced (excpt for lith on hybrid maps), but they are weird. Maybe not as weird as some others, but literally no vote for these civs is irritating.

1 Like

Turks have literally every gold unit except paladins and onagers. Ig they could deserve a vote because unlike other castle age gunpowder units janissaries just outrange everything. The others can be converted or mango’d to death (especially hussite wagon) while janissaries just one tap anything you would try to build. Lithuanians aren’t one dimensonial by any mean with bonuses for 3 unit classes and the ability to be playable on water unlike many civs, and Bulgarians can do everything besides xbow and gunpowder. Like the main reason to vote for these two is if you don’t like their UU gimmick and that’s it.

Eh they dont have arbs either. Tbh I really like Turks and they are a flavourful civ despite their problems, same goes for Bulgarians. Liths I dont enjoy as much since they are kind of too snowbally