State of the Civs 2024 - Part 4 | AoE2: DE

[@AgeofPathing]

State of the Pathing 2024 - 404 Not Found

[@guitar_jero]

Find a new hobby

[@Felix_EN]

Lulwut ​@@guitar_jero

[@Yearofthebows24]

My favorite pathing issue was having only lost 2 mangudai by round 15 and then losing 30 to the onagers

[@naturalbornpatriot6369]

Truly awful. Shift click move orders is the best way to be sure your shit moves where you want it to

[@robchang4533]

Persians show again how fast power creep is rolling off. Back then 5% dark age was op, now they got that plus many more buffs in addition.

[@iwersonsch5131]

Persian nerf idea Current: TCs and docks work 5/10/15/20% faster and have +100% HP New: Villagers and fishing ships create 5/10/15/20% faster, TCs and docks have +100% HP starting in Feudal

[@windwindy5356]

Idk, on land map 5% is nothing to write home about because other civs have better bonus at dark age. On water, it's the 50 wood bonus combo with 5% that make them OP. If you remove early wood bonus then again 5% is nothing.

[@robchang4533]

5% is a lot cause you have 2 vills advantage after dark age and then also get faster feudal

[@OrnLu_AoE]

They feel balanced now, so if we roll back some of the power creep, and fine Persians to be OP again, then I think we could again remove the +5% in Dark Age. With Savars, Caravanserai, Castle Age Parthian Tactics, and Citadels, Persians will still be in a more interesting spot than they've ever been

[@konradpyszniak976]

Not sure if i would call Persians a complete civ. That 100% HP for TC and docks are crazy for hybrid maps. It takes ages to kill the docks with fires then. I wouldnt mind to be 50%. Also i dont mind idea of @iwersonsch5131 to change the bonus to apply to vils and fishing ship only. Extra time to get wheelbarow or age up also makes them a bit better with the timings.

[@quasibrodo923]

I know it'd mean either an extra long fifth video, or a sixth video, but while I love the state of the civs videos, it feels like it's the individual state of 45 civs without some general conclusion. Common themes, overall thoughts. The state of the roster as a whole.

[@inductivegrunt94]

Seeing so many civs in the complete tier is very nice as it shows just how good so many civs are that don't suffer from power creep, single identity with no flexibility, or just being op. Aoe2 in 2024 is looking really good. The civs lower on the tier list really need more to help them stand and not suffer like they are now.

[@stfnknbb]

You should do a "state of the units" video. If scorpions are useless with the Romans (despite 600 buffs) then the unit itself needs to be fixed.

[@WWFanatic0]

That of "they look really cool" hits me hard. I've been an RTS nerd for a long time, did high level SC:II ladder and tournaments. Normally I'm all about game balance and design choices...but there's still that little kid in me that's like "but they're cool!" On Romans, I'd love to see the charge bonus confined to infantry but made better in some way. A preferred thing would be somehow making them throw a javelin first but I imagine that is way beyond what they can make work. The charge "fits" if it's to represent the throwing of pila and then closing in a charge I think but its inclusion on cavalry kind of takes away from that thematically.

[@AntonSlavik111]

The Rome at war mod makes it so you can switch between sword and javelin, shame they never did something like that.

[@TheLeosMind]

And for the Romans, I think you just trash-talked the civ with no reason. The villager bonus is one totally welcomed bonus that allows any type of strategies, making Romans really flexible for the early stages for the game. I don't see why you underestimate that bonus under a "generic" radar and not addressing that Magyars even without any eco bonus are on the Complete Tier. The thing with Romans is that is has a off-meta mid-game and late-game, and it's totally fine. Goths have a off-meta late, Khmer as well, and I don't really see any complains. And I'm definitely not gonna argue about historically belonging to a game where you can see Aztecs and Koreans fighting in Australia. Even more by saying that Huns belong to the same period of time and I don't see anyone arguing about it.

[@jasonsmith1950]

I also like the Roman eco bonus. It's a good buff early game. Late game, the only reason it doesn't fall off is because it affects farms. Romans are missing two-man saw, so their wood cutting is worse than generic in imp, and they're likewise missing the second stone mining tech (though that tech is often skipped). Infantry armor giving double effect is also an interesting bonus, making them tanky.

[@jasonsmith1950]

I also think that the Roman eco bonus is somewhat comparable to the Persian eco bonus, except in that it doesn't (directly) affect fishing ships.

[@KroM234]

Same here, I really don't see any issue with the Roman civ even as it is right now. We even saw it on recent tournaments and it did just fine, not OP either. The civ bonuses are cool and well thought to me. The civ is all about timing, getting in a good spot before it gets destroyed in post-imp. And yeah, if late Romans don't belong in the game, then neither do Goths or Huns. Yet I don't hear anybody ranting against those.

[@felipea1399]

They dont have an off meta mid and late game, they just play like a knight civ because the eco is good and their bonuses have proven to not be generally aplicable most of the time Comparing it to Khmer who have a way more interesting eco set up as well as an actually usable unique unit is silly And Magyars arent super unique, but the trade off of the bad economy is the strong powerspikes. Goth infantry play is off meta, but its meta for the civ. The only thing Goths do in late game is infantry Also, no, Romans dont fit in AoE2 because civs in AoE2 are based on ethnicities and cultural identities, and we already have both Italians and Byzantines to represent the Italian peoples and Byzantines to represent the Roman empire

[@Hilipinapixili]

I absolutely agree that I've yet to see any reasoning as to why the Romans don't belong in the game that doesn't sound confusingly arbitrary for no reason.

[@michaeltaylor8698]

Forgot to mention it last video but maybe giving Huns steppe lancers will address the power creep and bring them back in line with Magyars and Mongols? I've always said Huns should get SLs and they'd be a great combo with tarkans which could also boost that UUs popularity

[@inconemay1441]

With all the nerfs it keeps getting, how are SLs better than Paladins, which they still have?

[@michaeltaylor8698]

@inconemay1441 what do you mean "keeps getting nerfed?" The SL hasn't been nerfed since DE came out. It was buffed in both Lord's and Dawn and the elite was buffed in Dynasties, and the general consensus now is that it's reasonably well balanced and the unit is actually popular again especially in castle age

[@GrandArchPriestOfTheAlgorithm]

I do not think we should have any kind of vanilla Steppe Lancers. If The Hun is gone have SL, they need something to make them special. Before you ask, I'm also against vanilla Eagle Warriors.

[@iwersonsch5131]

Stupid idea for Cumans: Can research TC technologies (except age-ups) in the Mill That would keep their identity of having two buildings doing TC stuff at the same time, but with less of an all-in tradeoff than the current implementation. Balance would probably need a couple patches to get right

[@stfnknbb]

That sounds like a great idea!

[@Jasonwolf1495]

Having a mill do wheelbarrow while I'm still getting vils would be soooo good.

[@konradpyszniak976]

@@Jasonwolf1495kinda like in AoE4 it is currently. Not bad idea

[@SIGNOR-G]

We must also change that "cuman mercenaries" unique tech.

[@fernanzabalalodoli]

I like romans but I think they have a similar problem like sicilians had when hauberk was introduced: playing kts into cav feels really good that the infantry identity and bonuses are forgotten and they just ended up as a generic cav civ.

[@dorbomer8835]

I'm glad you spoke so openly about the Romans. I really dislike that they've implemented them dispite all of the backlash from the community. The whole "people wanted us to add the to ranked" is imo just an made-up excuse to add them in order to make the dlc more attractive to buyers. Honestly the first time I've ever been dissappointed in the devs.

[@michaeltaylor8698]

Romans are a tricky one since they clearly werent designed for ranked. Personally i find them really fun in casual games and i like the scorpion, legionary and Centurion combo. Honestly i dont want them drastically changed and i think the solution would just be to pull them from ranked and have them be a fun pick for non ranked games as seems to be the original intention

[@edmis90]

I was waiting for these M letter civs since the beginning. They all sound so similar, I wish I'll hear something that will make me remember which is which.

[@inconemay1441]

Just like the B letter civs

[@OrnLu_AoE]

Magyars are Europe, Malay are Southeast Asia, Malians are West Africa, and Mayans are Mesoamerica. That's 4 different continents for the "Ma" civs 11

[@konradpyszniak976]

I would love to see some UT like Nomad, Flemish revolution, Cuman Mercenaries being change to be at least some way viable. Not to become civ OP but to allow diverse way of playing a civ.

[@jaggercrue]

Hey I was right about Magyars being complete! Feelsgoodman

[@naturalbornpatriot6369]

I’ve been having a blast as Romans. While yes it is expensive to get to their cream of the crop units, even a couple centurions with a mass longswords and a handful of scorpions can hold their own. They are definitely better in team games than by themselves. You have to sacrifice map control if you want a chance in imperial. A foederati tech would be great, supplement something like light cavalry or CA for gold only after the tech is researched? Supplies is definitely needed, more so for the mere fact that the logistical capability of the Romans was absolutely absurd. So supplies would make sense. They could definitely use something that makes them more viable mid game, especially for 1v1s. I have a blast every time I play them. A dozen scorpions, handful of monks, handful of centurions, and 60 legionaries is so much fun to play with.

[@erikbertram6019]

Wow, we got both Mibbles vs Capoch ánd state of the civs on a monday. Ornlu the grinder.

[@jean-rogernosecondname1281]

Some nerf thoughts about portuguese: - Exception to the team bonus (reasearch faster) should not only apply to aging up, but also extend to all TC researches. It is too strong for a team bonus to have reduced times on loom, wheelB and handcart. This is also a slight 1v1 nerf. - Bonus like poles (stoning generate 33% gold) and portuguese (foraging generate 33% wood), are stronger than working rate increases in general. If you take the Franks, for an example, faster foragers means, your vils have to walk & drop more often and that the berries will expire faster. You don't have any of these problems with poles and portuguese. I don't know for the Poles (complicated case), but Portuguese foraging bonus (according to me) should drop from 33% to 20%. These 2 changes would already make a difference.

[@evanjacob8463]

Hey, Ornlu. I am looking forward to seeing your videos on the new DLC campaigns.

[@deoskipsbasics]

Thanks again Ornluwu for this fun serie. Really appreciate the unique tiering system

[@618Delta]

Missed an opportunity to use footage of the Bari campaign for the Romans' segment.

[@TheLeosMind]

Totally disagree with the Poles changes sudgestion. Why in the world would you take away Arbalest? Then you have a civ with weak but cheap cavalry, an Unique Unit easiely countered by range units and no reliable way to counter mass infantry. Maybe giving them the last armor upgrade to cavalry and the Halberdier technology, as well as reducing the effect on the Castle Age UT for knights cost. Maybe even a small nerf to the Obuch to keep it balance. ANYTHING but removing Arbalest 11

[@windwindy5356]

I have more problem with them having Bombard cannon with siege engineer. They should remove bombard cannon from Pole.

[@jotfohm4644]

So excited to have Saracens as the first civ in the next and final episode.. Please be good to my bois Ornlu!

[@apricanephoto]

I think a 'Remove from Competitive Play' Tier would actually be justified, since Portuguese could fit well in there as well ;) (And it would still be a better civ than the Romans for having an official campaign hehe.)

[@nevets4433]

The Romans situation was messy. The advertising of that DLC wasn’t great, so when players realized there wasn’t really going to be much AoE2 content there was a lot of pushback and people were threatening to not get the DLC. I think this put the devs in a bad spot - I agree the Romans were intended to be almost an “Easter Egg” for unranked play which meant they really didn’t get a ton of high level balancing, but facing the financial threat of AoE2 players not buying the DLC because most don’t really care about AoE1 meant the Romans got reluctantly pushed out in ranked eventually. And the result is what we see.

[@hikatoyshi]

I like the Nomad tech, it saved me once or twice in team game to reboom.

[@GrandArchPriestOfTheAlgorithm]

As much as I agree that Nomad should just be a passive bonus and the castle tech should be something else (I'm keen on a wood discount on land units), I’m not sure make it 30% HP on Steppe Lancer is the best idea. Because to keep it consistent with Steppe Husbandry and Silk Armor, it also has to effect Cavalry Archers, which means it’s a buff to Mangudai.

[@Felix_EN]

I'd argue the portuguese gold bonus should not include monks, then it's more balanced

[@andreassandsmark55]

Portuguese: Jack of all trades, master of some.

[@tommig1995]

Well this was the most polarised ep of the series. Either civs are in a good position or they're near disasters. Admittedly, I was looking forward to this one! I really like your Mongol suggestion, best balance idea I've seen for them (and beats my suggestion to stagger the HP bonus)! I hadn't clocked the removed the Persian gold bonus but thank god because it was awful from the beginning. On Portuguese, I saw a really good suggestion in another comment - get the Fetoria res trickle from garrisoning vills, would certainly help in low pop games. As for the Romans, I think they should have options removed to increase their focus on infantry & siege. Maybe remove access to knights full stop?

[@jasonsmith1950]

Poles: They aren't that strong anymore on closed maps. In 1200+, their winrate on Arena is 51.8% and their winrate on Fortress is 52.74% (admittedly with a wide standard deviation). In any ELO, their winrate on Arena is 51.48% and on Fortress is 48.51%. For contrast, Arabia is 48.32% in 1200+ and Any ELO is 48.29%. Based on these numbers, they're a little strong on open maps and a little weak on closed maps, but not enough in either direction to justify putting them in "Somewhat Problematic". Their cavalry falls off late-game, as missing the last cavalry upgrade is a critical hole in their tech tree. In my experience, Polish Winged Hussars die very quickly (halbs are still an effective counter, and missing 2 PA leaves them vulnerable to archers and other ranged attacks), requiring a large number of farmers to maintain production. I don't particularly like to use Polish Cavaliers in the late game because the Poles have better ways to use their gold (Obuchs are less vulnerable, cost less gold, and pair well with ranged units, making Obuchs a better frontline unit). The Winged Hussar are a bit stronger in melee, but not so much so that I'd be concerned about their Arb/Winged Hussar combo. There are civs with a stronger Arb/Hussar combo - Italians and Magyars are good examples - and Poles are missing both of the final armor upgrades for those units. Also, looking at the stats, Italians are arguably weaker on open maps and possibly stronger on closed maps than Poles are. Which would make Italians a more serious violator of all 3 of Ornlu's 3 main complaints for the Poles (too strong on closed maps, too weak on open maps, and too potent arb/hussar spam) Edit: I don't know how Italians and Poles compare at a super high level, and my personal expectation is that Italians and Poles are roughly equal in terms of late-game strength on land maps. Italians are missing Siege Engineers and have a weaker farming eco, but have better cavalry and archers than Poles do, as well as cheaper Bombard Cannons. But I think that Poles have an easier time getting there. The suggestion that Italians are stronger on closed maps comes mainly from Arena winrates, which isn't exactly strong evidence for this. Romans: Romans are a generally strong civ with several critical weaknesses. In 1v1, an opponent can exploit those weaknesses or be overwhelmed by sheer power (which is why those weaknesses need to exist, and is the practical benefit of their eco and cheaper scorpion bonuses). In team games, those weaknesses still exist but can be covered by an ally. Also, when it comes to the Centurion/Legionary combo, Romans don't need a large number of Centurions to buff the Legionaries (1 is enough on its own, and 5 is more secure), which means the high cost of Centurions isn't a huge factor for the combo unless you want the Centurion as a unit (rather than for its buff).

[@iwersonsch5131]

Agreed about the charge attack from Comitatenses. The tech is a bit similar to Perfusion without it, but that doesn't really justify its existence. For flavor alone already, I feel like Supplies would make more sense on the Legionary than Arson. Idk if the Centurion is still a problem compared to the Knight, but i would decrease the attack and increase the HP and train time to make it more of a support unit. Probably lower its attack speed boost to Legionaries a bit as well if they get Supplies. Instead of infantry armor giving twice the effect, I'd want it to be researchable twice and costing 25% less. Romans didn't just get more out of their technologies, they also spent more research in refining them to get there. Maybe something like +1/2/3/4 melee armor on buildings could make sense for the civ? Might be a bit too strong tho, not sure

[@TheLeosMind]

Legionaries are pretty damn powerful in it's full potencial, even more with just one Centurion in the back. Givin them Supplies is just gonna make a roman player spam Legionaries to the death, so... no thank you.

[@inconemay1441]

I'm always skeptical of Magyars as they lack siege and eco bonuses despite having strong lategame units, but it doesnt affect them much in multiplayer I guess. Wonder what drove the devs to overbuff Persians like this, to the point where they teased it several months ahead (leading to conversations like "did you hear about those "Persian Reworks"?" )

[@juanfisi]

I agree with most things here, but I really like the romans. And I'm happy they added them.

[@Agrarvolution]

What I always wondered: why aren't Feitoria balanced in the way that you need to garrison them with villagers to gather resources? So just building those isn't enough. Would this solve some of the issue or would this be a drop in the bucket?

[@tommig1995]

I really like that. You get a trickle of res proportional to the number of vills garrisoned. Get a lower rate of wood/food but get gold/stone in post imp, maybe a little better than market rates. Plus it reduces the incentive in low pop games where getting a fetoria up is the difference between victory and defeat

[@Edelweiss1102]

Then you'd have to remove the 20 pop cost and really fine tune the gather rate for each garrisoned villager. I do like the idea of being able to adjust the gathering rate via garrisoning villagers and the decision if you want better gathering rates immediately or automatic but slower trickles long term. Feitorias just feel very hard to balance in general. They are either not worth it or op, there is very little inbetween.

[@Agrarvolution]

@@Edelweiss1102Yes exactly. You could also fiddle around making it scale linear or maybe 1/x with the amount of villagers garrisoned - to make it more fair. E.g. that the first villagers contributes the most, and the rest decreases but you have to garrison all 20 to get the full effect back. I don't play competitively but I watch a lot of Pro matches. Plopping a building into existence that instantly gathers you resources feels pretty unfair to compared to all the other hoops you usually have to go through.

[@OrnLu_AoE]

I think the devs like the idea of the Feitoria as an eco replacement in low-pop games. I just don't think that sort of thing fits in AoE2 well

[@Agrarvolution]

@@OrnLu_AoE Yeah, but without a major change, they might never get that building balanced. 🤔

[@mryes413]

I liked it when we were able to use a mod that gave us AOE1 Romans for HD and DE before the introduction of the Romans.

[@epicseadragon1692]

YAY, Magyars in complete!!! 🎉

[@root_squash]

On malay: Where are the war elephants in that mission? I distinctly remember war elephants that one time... And before I forget, we also sell war elephants...

[@zhiz3074]

I actually think Romans is just one step away from being full of flavor. Suggestion: villager work rate +5% in dark age, +0% in feudal age, -5% in castle age and -10% in imperial age.

[@tyranitararmaldo]

I was so put off by the Persian changes. It felt like two steps forward, one step back. It felt like the devs read "civ is boring" as "civ is weak" and decided to do very little actual adjustments. Namely, no tech tree changes AT ALL. Persians have been the "cav variety" civ since AoK, but have since lost that title. It wouldn't have taken much adjustments to put them back on that pedestal through adding the Steppe Lancer and/or Elephant Archer. The Cav Archer changes felt like throwing scraps as well. Cool, early Parthian Tactics (with no easier way to afford it earlier)...but they still lack Bracer. For a people that were so famous for their cavalry archers that a major tech tree tech is named after them...this feels really off. I am happy with the Caravenserai and Savar additions. But the lack of proper attention to their tech tree and keeping the wrong architecture for them just felt really tone-deaf.

[@Crossil]

Whether or not Romans fit AoE2 depends on whether or not Huns fit AoE2. The two had a roughly similar end date to their existence, both in terms of being major military powers, and in terms of cultural leftovers. The only question is of Italians vs Romans, but that's the same as Phoenicians vs Carthaginians.

[@Terry_T_ODST]

This batch had some of my all time favorites, and I'm so happy all of them have high pñacements ❤ I'll always say this when Persians are mentioned: if thry give them the 5% working rate in dark age, they should remove the extra resources at the beginning, opening that bonus for another civ 😅 Also, a thing they could do with portuguese is taking Crossbow away from them. This would make their mid game harder while also making them a bit more similar to spanish, who they share a border with

[@srijitmajumder99]

Historically, the Portuguese were known for their besteiros crossbows though.

[@Mattroid99]

Persians get the the extra res because their TC works faster; so to make the start affordable and not an issue

[@Terry_T_ODST]

@@srijitmajumder99 I actually did not know that 😅 though I do think they should remove at least one of their gold intensive options in some capacity. Another approach would be to make their trash units worse, in a similar vein to Turks

[@Terry_T_ODST]

@@Mattroid99 I thought the +50 on food and wood was a compensarion given in AOK given that they didn't have the 5% work bonus originally. In its current state, it makes their early game too smooth for what's supposed to be a mid to late game focus civ

[@Mattroid99]

@@Terry_T_ODST To me the problem isn't that but rather everything else, although it could definitely be removed. Savars shouldn't murdrer everything, Citadels shouldn't be this stacked; Partian Tactics in Castle kills archers etc.

[@Blooticus]

o man o man to i disagree with that Poles take. solidly balanced civ. The tech tree has enough holes as not to be OP, namely missing halbs. There is plenty to love and an argument to made for the late game, but the idea of removing Arbalest from the Poles is widely overboard

[@Spicy_wiener]

I think Romans should keep the Scorpion/ infantry identity, but something has to be done to encourage the infantry play more. Also should have mentioned that Centurions were historically never on horseback. The Romans had cavalry, but not really heavy cavalry which is why their identity as a heavy cav civ seems so off historically speaking. I think they should lose cavalier and the charge attack and get a new Centurion unit without the horse (maybe buff the movement / attack speed of it and the legionaries?). Could instead buff to the hussar line to reflect the reality of Roman cavalry. Or give them some sort of bonus to reflect their use of mercenaries in the latter stages of the empire

[@CalebBrown228]

Thx!

[@Prawn47]

Well, this is like, your opinion mannnnn.... 😊

[@Haasthefox]

I really wish the Romans could perform a phalanx formation with a group of five or more legionaries, and that the phalanx would perform kind of like a skirmisher and a Kamayuk. The phalanx would move together at the speed of a ram and would automatically fire javelins at units in range and units that come inside Melee range would be hit by kamayuk like attack, and when the legionary comes out of phalanx formation. It returns to being a normal swordsman.

[@dragovern]

Aoe4 stuff

[@Haasthefox]

@@dragovern is there a phalanx in aoe4?

[@dragovern]

not sure, but i've seen spearmen use formations that reminds it. and it's an hability triggered by the player@@Haasthefox

[@Rob-ct4xp]

Another good video! Only one I don't agree with this week is Persians being complete - they are a prime example now of why you needed the Powercrept tier imo! The Savar is too cheap to research, and having the double eco bonus of faster TC/dock and random extra res feels too strong to me. Also I think the Romans really highlight just have crappy the Scorpion is as a unit to me. It takes 3 civ bonuses/techs for them to become half useful...!

[@inconemay1441]

It's why when people suggested Chinese to have stronger scorpions to make up for their lack of cannons/because it looks closer to how they used gunpowder I would question it because it wouldn't help them much

[@florealkopecek1745]

Great video!!!

[@robchang4533]

Wait now you also complain about the Portuguese? I remember when we talked in Hannover and you were surprised I hated them, whilst also being surprised they stared to show they are just good in every setting :D

[@walkermyers3808]

Your bias against the Romans comes through a lot in your discussion of an otherwise balanced and unique civ.

[@Bu11yMagu1re]

I like the Romans civ though. Romans fighting Aztecs is also far less anachronistic than Romans fighting Sumerians in AoE1.

[@Mattroid99]

I think Magyars should still be in "almost complete" tier. The civ is still extremely binary (They are either good because the map is open or they suck) and the Castle Age/early Imp is still very lacking, 25% faster making cav archers isn't really enough for me since is actually not very good (CAs are expensive as is and this actually makes 3 range spam less affordable while not being as good as 2 ranges.) What I would do for Mongols is stagger the HP bonus (15% in Castle, 30% in Imp) and make Nomads affect Castle and TC's pop space. I don't like making the extra HP tied into a UT because Mongols' main weakness is their Imp transition and this makes it worse, I wish for their SL to still see some play I think Malians are in a perfect spot balance wise now. The previous gold bonuls didn't make a lick of sense and now the civ actually feels powerful in Castle Age, where it should be Persians are in somewhat problematic imo. A civ with an economy this good shouldn't get Citadels (I especially dislike the lowered bonus damage), and Savars just shouldn't outperform Paladins in any way possible. I think they should remove the lowered bonus damage and either make the Savar upgrade more expensive or nerf the stats (I propose giving them only 2 melee armor and the same attack speed as Paladins. 4 PA is so much better already) Yeahh that's what I always disliked about Portuguese, this civ has actually no weakness besides "other civs do it better", Feitorias are also a cancer building in terms of design. They feel insanely smooth to play though, which is a big plus im my book, but they need to remove the forage bonus and give them something else (Even improving the gold discout could be fine so to make them more of a crossbow civ) My suggestion for balancing Poles is to remove Crop Rotation, Thumb Ring, make Obuchs slightly more gold intensive (Like +5 gold?) and bring back the 10% Fokwark dropoff. This will fix their insane lategame while making their early game competitive I think the problem with Romans is that the civ REALLY REALLY tries to push you towards garbage units, is not the civ's design fault. If longswords and scorpions were actually good unitd you would see Romans going for them in the mid-game. Same issue you see with Khmer, they specialize on garbage but have great eco so they spam good generic units That being said, especially since their aura nerf you simply need to have 2/3 Centurions around for the boost, you don't need to fully upgrade them. And in TGs they can both go for their unique deathball in closed maps and cavalry on open maps, while having bonuses for both. I think they belong in the "Something is off" tier, the civ design is really cool but the units they specialize on are not

[@erwinwendler4621]

Magyars are like the huns rich cousin 11

[@pioneerAv]

What was the Mayan bug fix Ornlu mentioned? I can't remember

[@OrnLu_AoE]

Fish and Fish Traps now properly benefit from the longer lasting resources bonus. Actually is a nice boost on maps with fish under your TC like El Dorado, or even your regular water maps. But yeah, that's it

[@NoraNoita]

You say Romans don't belong, but I have yet to see Romans actually being played in tournaments, every match I watch it's the standard stuff you see, and romans are usually not included in peoples picks for the actual maps. I personally have no issues with Romans existing, when other civs exist with questionable timelines, but I don't care about that, I just care about how annoying and delete the Feitoria...

[@teddyhaines6613]

Yo used Romans on all his Land Madness games in Warlords II and won most of them.

[@OrnLu_AoE]

Romans are picked occasionally on aggressive maps for their Feudal Age infantry armor and eco. Basically that into cav spam

[@magdakos4690]

Hi Ornlu, very cool video as always, but I think I disagree with you on the Poles. To me it feels like they got nerfed over over over again to the point they're hardly ever picked anymore in pros games. I'm watching Hidden Cup qualifiers right now and I remember maybe 2 Poles games. Instead everyone is just picking the same civs like Georgians, Persians, Byzantines, Japanese or Portuguese. Ive also checked the stats on the website and Poles are doing quite badly in most maps except for Arena, but that's it. The way I see it they should just revert some of the nerfs they've given them (eg to farms or stone mining). Then if they get too strong on closed maps they could take some hits to their defenses (towers/bombards/keeps/buildings hp or armor), but it'd be too much to take away arbs from them, otherwise their cavalry would just fold to halbs or camels like a paper.

[@TheNethertyp]

Still really disagree with putting Mayans as complete, given that they basically only have two or three units and because of how much of a scourge they are in team games.

[@mubashirulmoula1798]

Magyars - "Complete/Almost There". I'm hesitant only because of the wolf bonus. I wish there were 2 wolves for every players just like boars. Wolves could generate at the back edge of wood line so when a villager will go to wall the base it will be attacked. Since that won't happen, I'd suggest to change it to a small aggressive bonus - Stable is built 50% faster. Since Corvinian Army make Magyar Huszar cost completely different, I actually like it contrary to Bearded Axe and Logistica. Malay - "Almost there". The latest addition of free infantry armor gave them a power spike which I don't like. I think they should have been a slow push civ rather. A defensive bonus like all tower upgrades and techs cost -60% would fit better imo. Malians - "Complete." Nothing else to be said. Mayans - "Complete" in term of design. In term of balance, I don't blame El Dorado. Instead the maybe the long lasting eco shouldn't be applied to farms and fish traps. And archer discount should be 10%/15%/20%. Mongols - "Almost there". Nomad UT is the only issue for balance and SL with 30% extra HP in Castle Age is the issue for balance. Let's combine them and lock the extra HP to Castle Age UT. Extra HP should be +30 to compensate. Persians - "Complete". Wonderful redesign. Savar need to lose 1 MA though. And I said in Hindustanis section, it will be great if Caravanserai had different bonuses for different civs. Poles - "Major change needed". Very low gold army but very high gold income just doesn't add up. Obuch single handedly forced all infantry UU to be buffed speak the volume. The stone to gold bonus need to be removed. Get 40% gold discount on knight as a civ bonus in return. Folwark can also be buffed to 10% but lose Crop Rotation. Obuch cost should be up by 10 gold. Lose Siege Engineer, Redemption and Arbalester; get Halberdier. New UT reduces both tower type cost by 20%. Portuguese - "Something is off". New Organ Guns design make sense but HW now has same design. I think HW rather be changed. If Feitoria can not be removed from the game, change its mechanic to villager is required to be garrisoned inside the building to generate resource, the building doesn't take any pop space. And one of the naval bonus can be replaced by something. Both extra HP and armor on ship made the design ugly. I'd change carrack to Genitour +1/+1 armor as I think Iberian trio could all get Genitour. Ship HP can be staggered to 10%/15%/20% HP. Romans - "Something is off". Latest nail to Slavs coffin. IDK why devs thought yet another faster farmer with FU cavalier + siege with good infantry is a good thing to introduce. Ballista UT shouldn't benefit scorpion to make them Celts on turbo. They should absolutely lose Bloodline asap to give Slavs and Khmer a bit more space in uniqueness. Centurion HP can be compensated. One very positive thing about them that I must say is their militia line. They have the most viable Militia line in the game and I wish in 2030 all militia line base stat become closer to Romans.

[@joewest3901]

Portuguese should be hit hard with the nerf bat. Take 1 range away from non-Elite Organs so that Mangonels properly counter them in Castle Age and remove the gold discount from monks, and maybe even siege. They're certainly too good at too much and the clowny all-ins are super unfun to play against. Romans I almost completely disagree with though. Centurion probably does need a rebalance, but aside from that I think the only thing they need is for Sanctity to be added so that their monks are a better answer to lategame siege. They're not that unlike Slavs to me. Romans admittedly trade off Siege Onager and cheap castles for a solid navy, but that just makes them more viable on a wider variety of maps. I like it.

[@olivertate4983]

Didn't the price of eagles change this year? I think that's had a small effect on the Mayans but i still think they are in a great spot

[@OrnLu_AoE]

Yeah it does nerf Mayans more than Aztecs or Incas, but I don't think it makes too much of a difference in the grand scheme of things

[@roman5538]

Calling the rework of Obsidian arrows a bugfix made me chuckle, or did i missunderstand something?

[@OrnLu_AoE]

That was the year before. I was referring to the fix so that Fish and Fish Traps properly lasted longer with Mayans, which does have balance implications, but is still what I would call a bugfix

[@CragHack]

​@@OrnLu_AoEMore like 2-3 years before... 11

[@Spicy_wiener]

Dont you dare suggest nerfing the Gbeto she's a queen

[@darkranger116]

Poles - why does obuch have so much hp? its like that unit in of itself technically makes them an "infantry civ" by association Romans - why does charge attack? like what even is that? dont Legionaries already have an anti-infantry bonus of 4? shouldnt Romans be struggling late game?

[@windwindy5356]

I still don't think Persian is there yet because the dev still refuse to make their CA somewhat interesting to use. It hurt ls even more because they used to generate gold per kill, which was the sole reason anyone would use persian CA at all.

[@inconemay1441]

That feels more like a bonus Huns could use, since they're a raider pillager civ after all. Why would Persians have that in addition to Caravanserai beats me

[@apricanephoto]

Thinking about this, I want to add another rather anal-retentive comment. Seeing as the civs in the "Power Crept" have as only flaw that they've been power crept, wouldn't this make this tier deserving of being higher on the table, just below "Complete", rather than being behind "Almost There"? Just a tiny point about format lol.

[@CptManboobs]

Romaboos... we lost.

[@KroM234]

Roma invicta amicus.

[@robchang4533]

How did they make Malians look more boring by stealing their gold bonus?

[@edmis90]

I asked an AI (Bard) to make a poem that highlights the differences between Magyars, Malay, Malians, Mayans: ---- Upon the fields of Age, where empires clash and rise, Four civilizations stand, with unique flags that fly. Magyars, the horsemen bold, with hussars swift and keen, Their houfnice boom and batter, their raids a fearsome scene. Thermal baths they build, for health and archers strong, Their flanks they micromanage, where battles rage along. Malays, the island kings, with elephants in tow, Their karambit warriors dance, their pikemen strike below. Gold they gather swiftly, their trade routes vast and grand, Their harbors teem with spices, a wealthy, trading band. Malians, the golden kings, with archers fierce and sure, Their Farimba shines with gold, their markets wealth procure. Cavalry archers dance, a deadly aerial rain, Their griots boost their allies, on fields where heroes reign. Mayans, the jungle lords, with obsidian blades so sharp, Their plumed archers pierce the air, their halberdiers don't carp. Castles strong they build, with monks that heal and convert, Their eagles soar above the fray, their jungle power overt. Though all seek victory's crown, their paths are far from one, Each civ a unique puzzle, a strategy outrun. So choose your path, commander, and claim your rightful place, Among the Age of Empires, leave your mark, leave your trace! --- I think it did ok, except for Malians?

[@cvampaul]

This is amazing!

[@riccardocorradini6713]

DEV's last year made a lot of big buffs to decent civs without taking away anithing from them, making them OP by nature. Malay, Incas, portuguese, are all on this lists. They all got a big buff with nothing in return. Meanwhile there are civs that literally suck or are awful boring and generic since years

[@hansoskar1911]

I think Portuguese cant hav the berrie bonus AND also have a diverse(cheaper) army with a great lategame. they are basically squires removed from having everything. while I like their faster researchign techs it makes all their timing just that much moer brutal. so either the berrie bonus or (controversial!) Bloodlines has to go. Otherwise they are just Chinese with monks and gunpowder. maybe (hottake: HC bc Organ Guns do that job *better) while the malay armor bonus is strong and makes karambits a great option to just spam like 10 to answer some random mangonels and archers. but I think that's largely ok as we have seen they really struggle with pop efficiency against the really heavy hitters and the onus is still on the malay player to prove they can use the timing. which is a good place to be for closed(ish) maps. as a fun variation i tought about giving them Siege Elephants instead of rams, changeing a wood for a food unit but with their ele discount is i think and interesting variation. for the other siege ele civs its mostly bad bc oppoents are inclined to go pikes most of the time so their are insta worse. a problem malay dont have. I think we need to slightly tone down some of the top tier hybrid civs all together, especially those with BBCs. getting hammered at the front while you are also behind to BBC feels SO unfair. unless you are byz. otherwise Malians seem pretty fine. with Mayans i thought if we chould allow the Plums to get slightly cheaper again. they were 8 less res in AOC. and they arent the dominant unit they once were. Poles can easily lose Gunpwder and Arbalester. Bracer Xbow is plenty enough to murder Halbs and keeps HCA as a high mobility option. (the lategame nuke would be to remove Crop Rotation, but im not there yet)

[@dominic6634]

Nerf the persian elephant please!

[@botond3141]

Nice❤

[@guidodepietro1017]

I disagree with this list. By a lot

[@tominis4444]

Seeing Romans being massacred like this is pretty sad all things considered, since Rome is so cool and romanticized, but it feels like they took a civ suggestion you'd find on a forum thread and added it wholesale into the game without much consideration how it would fit. I'd be lying if I said I don't enjoy them at all, since I like the cool and thematic champion replacement and scorpion bonuses, because I like using them in spite of them struggling for relevance on most civs. Unfortunately, the Sicilian comparison is painfully accurate, where a civ is reduced to boring knight spam in spite of their entirely unique options. The eco bonus is disgustingly boring and I hope the charge bonus on their unique tech gets launched into the sun for how out of place it is (I hope they take out Coustillers and Urumis along with them to be honest). I'm sure I'd be even more spiteful if I hadn't enjoyed the RoR experience and going through the campaigns there, since buying RoR just for Romans alone would be malpractice.

[@3lancerofficialmaybe871]

Portuguese should lose thumb ring and bloodlines, they really don't need either.

[@davidloureiro7294]

Portuguese are fine, just buff lower tier civs.

[@robchang4533]

Romans belong in the Delete Tier, there is no reason why they should be added except that Devs have a power creep argument for selling the bad ROR dlc.

[@smaoproducts]

Hard disagree. I generally like them, but they do need some changes. They’re literally in the same time period as the Huns, Byzantines, and Goths. It’s quite irritating that everyone keeps pushing this point. 🤦‍♂️

[@Felix_EN]

The only reasons romans should exist: DauT

[@edmis90]

Romans best music. And the 5% bonus feels so good. I like Romans being in the game. AoE2 is not a game for desirers of historic accuracy. It's a 'you problem', not anyone else's. I mean it in a lovely suggestive way to perhaps change your ways.

[@thecharredman8679]

If Roman's warrant deletion for historical reasons, the same can be said of Huns. They should be changed mechanically but the fact that multiple campaigns feature them as a major player is indicative that they belong in the established time frame

[@Ilkkajoel]

@@smaoproductsYou sir are correct.

[@youcanthandlethetruth5433]

Wtf poles need arbalest. What are you going to do vs camel civs? Spam pikemen? Poles actually need more unit options as none of their options are fully upgraded except the obuch. Poles need halberdier You talk about arb and winged hussar, but arbs and hussar both miss thr last Armour making them weaker vs arb/halb civs like Britons Bad take

[@youcanthandlethetruth5433]

Wtf another bad take about Roman's. Roman's are one of the funnest civs