Worst designed civs of AOE 2?

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
141

Ornlu just made a Video classifyin the first third of Civs how “complete”, meaning well designed they are in his opinion:

Ornlu’s State of the Civs 2022 part 1

I disagree with a lot of his ratings actually, but I respect his opinions:

  • Aztecs:

I would have placed them in “Somewhat problematic”. The civ is too clearly designed around it’s insane eco bonus. I know there must be top tier eco civs, but lately with players making less and less mistakes versatile eco bonusses like the aztec one are just too powerful. And it’s annoying to play against these civs cause you know your only chance of winning is basically by surprising the opponent if he is at the same level as you. Cause if you play “standard meta” these civs just crush you, they are just better there. Especially aztecs seem to have basically no major weakness except for their high gold demand, but that’s something you can’t tackle until the very lategame. Yeah, Aztecs have no design “flaw”, but that’s actually what makes them problematic imo.

  • Berbers:

Almost there. I would put them in Complete if there wasn’t this odd thing with the genitour that is just not needed with that civ and also off placed there. I think Ornlu’s Idea of making Kasbah the Team bonus is a very nice one. I also think in general the Genitour could be a very interesting general unit if his design flaws are solved at some point. Removing it first from berbers would open up to redesign it and then return it, first for Portuguese and Spanish only but then maybe for most civs.

  • Bohemians:

I would actually place in the same spot. But for different reasons. I think the Hussite Wagon is a genius design concept. Exactly what Ornlu criticizes about them that they are a ranged frontline unit is what makes them so unique, it allows for very unique micro management. The unit is also not that strong as a standalone unit (besides this could possibly be improved), but it pairs very well with some other > FU units Bohemians have access to: HC and Halb. The positioning of the Hussite Wagons is crucial and unique. We don’t have much experience yet how strong good positioning with the Bohemians is in reality, but I like this very unique gameplay and micro. And the greatest thing about it: It feels balanced. Whoever did this balance must put a lot of work into it. Why I think something is off with Bohemians is that they have a very immobile army. But probably the strongest immobile army in the game. That leads to volatile games cause if the opponent manages to make it a game about mobility the bohemians get into trouble and vice versa. That’s my point of critique on this civ.

  • Britons:

Agree mostly with Ornlu. But I think the longbow has it’s place as it can outrange castles. I mean it takes forever, but it’s a unique ability arbs don’t have.

  • Bulgarians:

I don’t see them as problematic. I think it’s just something off with this civ. And it’s fine imo. Bulgarians have very unique strats like the Krepost rush. Their UU is OP but it’s not that easy to get there. It’s weird they have strong cav archers aswell as strong cav and infantry, but they aren’t overpowered… It’s a civ that has a lot of potential but it’s hard to figure out which is the best play as everything has it’s downsides. Besides it feels off, this makes actually for very interesting gameplay, besides the civ doesn’t offers anything “exciting”… I would leave the civ as it is, even if it’s not perfect or complete, that’s actually what makes it interesting besides being “yet another” cav + infantry civ.

  • Burgundians:

Pretty much agree with Ornlu there. But I think the coustilier idea is fine - I just think the charge attack could be lowered slightly but the countdown/recharge reduced heavily in the exchange. This could lead to less “hide in castle, move out and hide again” tactics, that are just annoying for everybody, including the player who has to execute it over and over again.

  • Burmese:

Completely agree. Maybe it needs a major overhaul for that civ. Another idea could be if (their) elephants get a “speed charge” so they could force engagements vs archers, this could possibly solve the burmese issue against archer civs. But until know I didn’t got much response for this idea to make elephants more usable at higher elo by giving them this kind of “utility”.

  • Byzantines:

Don’t think it’s complete. It’s almost there cause of it’s bad teamgame balance. Whilst they are indeed perfectly designed for 1v1s they lack it in the TG department which should be tackled - and also possibly could be quite easily by just swapping their current Team Bonus with one of their civ boni (most likely cheaper trash).

  • Celts:

Ok I think this Civ is controversial. Some really like it’s uniqueness like “Hoang Style”, others hate it. And this makes the civ indeed “almost there”. Controversy isn’t necessarily something bad. The thing is, I still think there is a lot to figure out about that civ still so it’s really hard to make a proper assessment. Though indeed that “Stronghold” tech seems a bit useless And I would like if it was changed to something more appropriate like increasing the (also hidden) armour attributes of towers and castles. Or reduce the amount of bonus damage taken by anti-building attacks by some percentage. This would make more sense.

  • Chinese:

Need major overhaul. The whole design about being a versatile civ AND having a unique start makes them bad at low but OP at high elo. That’s just a major design flaw that needs to be fixed. Also the focus on top eco, again, poses the same problems as with aztecs. You basically can’t beat them with playing meta, they are just better at it.

  • Cumans:

I think there need to be done a lot with this civ. Formerly I discussed about adjusting there 2nd TC bonus, but after the last changes to their archery ranges and stables I just think this whole 2nd TC can be dropped. It’s too volatile - and unnecessary. Instead the civ could have a bonus to their feudal siege, like -75 wood to all military buildings instead of just ranges and stables. With the last changes I also think both UTs could be changed to something else, also steppe husbandry is less useful if you have access to cheaper stables + ranges.

  • Ethiopeans:

They are complete. They have clear strengths and weaknesses, but neither of them are easy to “exploit”. I can’t say anything bad against them. They have some exciting bonusses aswell as lacking on other departments, which is exactly what a civ should offer. A civ with no weaknesses at all is just a bad idea as it doesn’t offers the opponent a good initial strategy and ethiopeans thankfully have weaknesses aswell. Imo not only one of the best balanced but also well designed civs in the game. (EW ofc needs to be adressed though)

  • Franks:

I only have one thing to bother about, and that’s the berry bonus. IMO it’s not necessary for the franks and also has been nerfed recently. I would free this bonus up to give it some other civ and give franks any kind of small compensation like giving their cav +25 % hp in imp. Franks have overall one of the highest winrates and their strong scout rush is a part of their domination. Besides I don’t really like to nerf top tier civs, I think franks are generally too strong, especially for a civ you know what it will play but you have nevertheless problems stopping it, cause they dominate from the beginning of the game. Imo it would be better if the start was a bit slower for franks but their lategame would be a bit stronger. This would open for more “active” counterplay and therefore less repetition in matchups with franks. So I would place Franks currently in the “Something is off” Tier.

In conclusion I see that Ornlu actually placed a lot of his top civs with civs that are considered “a” or even “s” tier in terms of power. And especially civs with strong eco. And I heavily disagree with this assessment. IMO strong eco bonusses only lead to a meta manifestation and make gameplay annoying against these civs, cause you need to look for off-meta strats against these civs. Which becomes increasingly harder the more the meta is figured out. They also don’t bring any flavour from themselves cause these civs tend to play meta all the time and therefore (if the opponent doesn’t plays off-meta to surprise) lead to very repetitive gameplay. A good civ should have clear strengths and weaknesses (though it shouldn’t be designed around weaknesses) to give orientation for the opponent for his gameplay and win conditions. And the “complete” civs of ornlu only have strengths but basically no weaknesses cause of their insane eco. That’s not equilibrated, neither balanced. If this is the measure only the top civs can occupy his “complete” spot. That would also mean, no matter how much devs would try to make all civs “complete” they could never reach it. That’s why I placed Ethiopeans in “complete”, cause they are in a balanced spot, as they have strengths and weaknesses.

2 Likes
142

I think there’s a lot of zealotry towards Franks, because their paladins were the very best until Lithuanian and Teuton ones appeared, people felt upset and is stupid, Franks design wise maybe are fine, but balance wise they are overtuned, specially for TGs, I really hate the whole concept of heavy cavalry spam (which has precedent with the AOE 3 pre nerf French Post Imperial Gendarmes, reason of why the Thoroughbreds card no longer decreasing their training time, only costing less) and it clearly makes Franks soo frustrating to play against in TGs in Imperial Age, that’s why I want that 40% fast working stables just gone, on top of that being such a straight copy of Huns team bonus, but better.

1 Like
143

You’re not wrog with this assessment, but imo this is more associated with the very stale TG meta than anything. You could say the same about Britons aswell.
If TG meta wasn’t that stale we wouldn’t need to discuss that. Unfortunately how TGs are designed including that trading the power units become so much more powerful especially in the lategame that it’s natural the civs with the best bonusses to these units are just the best in TG. But there must be civs which have the best bonusses to them, it’s the nature of the game.
Imo TG needs general overhaul at some point to don’t have that stale meta and then the whole britons/franks thing solves naturally.

1 Like
144

Maybe reducing all sources of TG gold could make the meta betterw

2 Likes
145

Aztecs eco isn’t that powerful. Don’t get me wrong it’s a good eco bonuses but there are plenty of civs with better eco bonuses. Aztec eco is very strong early on (mostly bc of faster farmers) but after wheelbarrow it decreases quite a lot. What makes that civ powerful is a lot due to how well their units complement each other (eagles and monk or eagles and pikes for instance) and the faster military production. When you have cheap units like this being able to spam them faster is a huge deal.

Irrespective if one likes that mechanic or not it’s actually pretty useless atm. There’s no point of having them in front because you put halbs there. And microing wagons is also a bad idea bc you interrupt their shooting process which usually means you won’t get the shot in which actually deals damage. They work best if you get large mass and just sit there while halbs are in front. The most notable effect of the protection mechanism btw is that they protect other wagons. But since buildings or units usually shot the units in front even that’s doesn’t have large impact.

He had aztecs, chinese and franks in their, right? I think all have these do have weaknesses and their own flavor. Azects can struggle against civs with good infantry like malians, bulgarians, teutons or celts. Interestingly these aren’t the civs you’d consider top ones. Also as all meso civs they aren’t great in late game (unless they managed to snag all the relics). And they are unique in their all in eagles play and their eagles monk theme. Chinese have weakness in early feudal and later on against infantry siege civs (although they might use mobility to their advantage here). And why not have a civ that has access to a lot of techs/units and great eco? Especially when one of their bonuses is cheaper techs. That usually leads to more tech switches than other civs which I think is a cool feature that not a lot of other civs have (malians have it early to mid game, indians kinda have it but they lack knights, maybe also something like poles or khmer but they lack stuff). And franks have a clear weakness against arb halb in imp. Also lacking bloodlines as a cav civ can be bad sometimes in extended feudal wars. And they feel unique in their oftentimes not very aggressive way to play knights in castle age. I mean the civ is a rather boring one that’s true but so are a lot of others that mainly use one unit.

2 Likes
146

Would be great if you comment on his video. He usually reads and even replies especially on this type of video. also some of his ideas of changes has been implemented by devs before. Maybe summarize your long post and comment.

2 Likes
147

Is not the 0.2%, RTS is about learn, not only shoot, too much players know how to play Chinese, and its a very good civi, so just learn to play. 11

149

To my knowledge Chinese don’t have a winning record below 1.9 k elo. And only in the hands of like the top 200 it becomes that powerhouse. I know a lot of players of lower elo trying to make Chinese their main, but aren’t really successfull with it.
And then we have the problem that most players actually never played a ranked 1v1.

You can see this in the stats: age-of-statistics
Chinese have losing records under 1900 Elo, but interestingly their playrate is above average between 1700 and 2000, at higher elos where chinese actually have winning records the playrate is just about average.
People overestimate their capacities with this civ, it is really currently only a pro civ. I don’t think it’s a mistake to learn that civ at a certain elo, but you must be aware of this phenomenon. Only because this civ is OP for pros doesn’t mean it’s OP for high elo aswell.
And I’m heavily against pretending this civ would be OP for anybody else but the very best players in the world. And I think it’s a problem. Even SOTL once made a Video about it. I mean he didn’t demanded anything to change there, but imo it’s not a good design if a civ can only shine at pro level. Especially as the civ doesn’t really provides anything exciting gameplaywise. It’s just a really strong eco and a solid tech tree that carries this civ.

And yes, i know many people in high elo overestimate Chinese at their level actually. They should learn they aren’t at that level yet. Don’t say there aren’t good Chinese mains there, that’s for sure. But most overestimate their own capacities with this civ.

1 Like
150

sorry to be blunt but a lot of these posts apply poor logic on how poorly designed a civ is

eg a person might not like goths, goths might not be balanced at certain elos BUT they are fun to play. this is a game. iaw goths are well designed

eg tons of knee jerk over reactions on sicilians’ civ bonuses, but again, they are unique and do provide unique play styles

in contrast koreans are boring AF, rely on almost 1 build. port are boring AF, again very little inspiration, and poor accuracy

at least if the boring AF civs were accurately modelled there would be an excuse, but there isnt they are poorly designed since no imagination was used, on top of being bland AF, compared to civs like burgundians that have some uniqueness to them (a load of which was squashed due to knee jerking players)

4 Likes
151

Damn right the civs without vote: Japanese and Lithuanians
Maybe the best in design? or just that lack something problematic

152

Perhaps their design flaws are kinda minor compared to other civs. Japanese rely on xbow and sometimes even cavalry archers but their infantry still play a role for them. Samurai actually excels at mounted archery so good cavalry archers make sense. For Lithuanians, cant think of a design flaw.

153

It is unfortunate the Burmese had made it to the top of the list.

Actually I even prefer the Burmese design before the last change of the Manipur Cavalry unique tech (from cavarly +5 attack against building, to +5 attacks vs archers instead)

I don’t think they had a particular weakness to archers; they have full upgraded hussars, including bloodlines. Plus have elephants which can tank archer shots. Also they have heavy scorpions

About lack of pierce armor for their skirms it can be comparable to the Turk skirmisher. Sure, definitely not the best. But both civs have other viable options vs archers; both have heavy scorpions and fully upgraded hussars

Now, if someone does not prefer the options the civ have or how the civ should be played. That’s another story. I think Burmese before had a strong identity of being a Map Control Civ.

Now while the change to their Manipur Cavalry unique tech is perhaps appealing to a wider player base, perhaps the civ lost a bit of its map control identity, which I find it a bit unfortunate. Oh well, still a cool civ

4 Likes
154

So far I’ve seen no one say they like this tech, or be happy they won them a game, so I don’t think anyone is happy about this change.

155

Yeah what’s the use of bonus damage vs archers if you can’t catch them? ^^
Funnily Burmese after the patch have become one of the worst closed map civs xD.

2 Likes
156

Most people hate the fact that Lithuanians excel on many maps, while is a good indicator the civ is really balanced, is at the same time a thing that others consider unfair to 99% of other civs and mostly goes for the +150F
Another thing is the relic bonus, while needs work to get rewarded, some people just don’t get used to collect relics and then they are ranting about OP cavalry and how frustrating is (The removal of blast furnace made the relic bonus fallen in power in Imperial Age, which then people no longer get frustrated as Lithuanians now will also fight on the same rate as the opponent, but still will hate 16 attack Knights)
I guess those are the main points of why people hated (or still hate) face Lithuanians in either 1v1 or TGs

2 Likes
157

Ok so here is the part 2:

Japanese and Malians perfect, but still believe Mayans perfect is off, they need some major changes, and Lithuanians need a rework on the +150F.

OHHH man I appeared at YT:

4 Likes
158

I can’t wait to see what he thinks about Poles and Sicilians :rofl:

159

Nice, although technically, a lot of us did, even if only as profile icons.

1 Like
160

imagine what happens if devs remove “The button” in the next patch :smiley:

1 Like
161

I think Ornlu thinks that needing to have some numbers tweaked doesnt mean that a civ isnt complete. Simple as that

Real problem is when bonuses or gimmicks just become too hard to work with

1 Like