N3O Age Of Empires and Starcraft 2 Clan

The problem in takeing out his army is discs :p

Thats why you need that first shipment of mercs. Swiss pikemen, Landsknecht, they do ok vs disciples. 15 skirmisher or halberds, 1 merc shipment and 6 minutemen can about just break even with a fast chinese fortress attack (handmortars, disciplines, 2 or 3 territorial army).

You know, it's interesting to read these lists and see the civs I've played the most, and enjoyed playing the most. 3 of the 4 are in everyone's bottom 4. Ports, Aztec, India. The only other civ I've played a good number of games with is Dutch.

Well, I am quite new to AOE3 (some of you saw me play as British last night) and am still learning the basics. From everyone's list I can see that Brit are ranked very low. So is this the bad race to start learning and building the AOE3 skills? What race do you suggest? Dutch, Sioux or China?

roger, just learnt he basics with british, then try moving on. likie micro n counters n stuff. then try gettin together a few good BOs

I began with spanish back in 06, and got crushed and lost my first 22 games hehe

[quote=""luukje""]

On topic: if you are my lvl (pr 20-25) balance is another thing than for players lvl 35 +. Games are decided on mistakes more than OP or UP. Ranking civs 1 by 1 is very hard. I like to place them in tiers:

[\quote]
I agree with the tiered ranking of civs and the staged difference in civ ranking due to gameplay ability. I had actually made a 4 tiered list but chose to do the China perspective thing instead.

I find rank a difficult topic due to peoples interpretation.
Rank difference mean less depending on whether you're quickly moving up the rank ladder or not. They also mean less depending on whether you're riding lame strats to rank or you're outplaying to get rank. You don't really get to know this about someone before you start a game. I assume you can typically only lame your way to Captain/Major and then you better have some strong gameplay as well. Just showing up with early troops from a rehearsed Build Order won't cut it at this level.

I never believe something like 'There's no way a 2nd LT can beat a captain without laming' for one thing you'll never move up thinking like that for another captain isn't always a captain and a 2nd LT isn't always a 2nd LT. A statement like this definately doesn't account for things like one or both of the people may currently be one rank but are dramatically moving up or down the rank ladder each time they play.

When looking at various peoples rank when I see 100+ games and Msgt or Captain and they've been a similar rating thier past 20 games that person actually is that rank. When the games played are still low you've really got little idea what rank level this person is going to play at. Ranks like Major and higher seem to have less variability, usually someone has some level of ability if they've achieved the 30+ ranks.

Then there is talking about rank. Like say a statement "That tactic will be a good idea until you play vs. a 2nd LT or Higher" The person saying that will mean a earned/proven 2nd LT. The person reading it may think "I just beat a 1st LT with that tactic!" Hence everyone ends up reading 8+ replies more of debate because they're both actually right! The truth is the 1st LT that was beat was not someone who could sustain that rank on ability. The climbed the rank ladder with a well rehearsed BO the first day NaturepHoenix posted it and since it has been discovered to be counterable. Now the 1st LT is on his leveling out decline.

and I've written too much.....

At Major+ rank you can't just get a strat and do it all the time (except for OP and lame civs, but that's a different story). The key is adapting, and that makes the difference between the players.

[quote=""Roger_The_Rogue""]Well, I am quite new to AOE3 (some of you saw me play as British last night) and am still learning the basics. From everyone's list I can see that Brit are ranked very low. So is this the bad race to start learning and building the AOE3 skills? What race do you suggest? Dutch, Sioux or China?[/quote]

That brings me to the point that is missing from the thread. The lists here are only semi-true in 1v1. I say semi because I like to group the civilizations in tiers as well. The top tier civs according to me are Dutch, China, Sioux, Spain, and possibly Iroquois (not much experience with them in TAD).

In team games, Britain is one of the best civilizations to play. The have a much larger survival rate which will allow their economy to grow. In 1v1, Britain can be rushed hard or a FF can kill them off before the economy gets rolling. Ports and Aztecs are also great in team games but harder to play in 1v1. There are a few civs that are great in 1v1 and team games. These are the civilizations I like to play so I am ready with a deck for any game.

Also in team games, certain civilization combinations are more powerful than others. Fortunately, we have the option of team games and not just 1v1. This makes balancing much harder since the defensive / booming civilizations (i.e. German, Ports, Britain, Aztec) will be to strong in a team game if their 1v1 game is boosted.

A lot of the "experts" will post all kinds of nonsense boosts required for these civilizations and then team games would be out of whack. Perfect balance is not possible. A few tweaks here and there (mostly to China) will make a very balanced game with tons of variety.

Team games and 1v1 will always be different and it's impossible to balance for each, but IMO 1v1 matters more than team.

My primary concern is ESO patch the most balance destroying stuff. It's a small miracle to have so many RTS civs as closely balanced as they are. TAD's release created a dire need for a new patch since 2/3rd of the new civs require a large balance change.

ESO has done a good job balancing with a 1v1>team>treaty>DM and Land>Water priority and hopefully it will stay that way.

I had a good chat with some RTS gamers that don't play AOE3 and the balance problems they have are collasal compared to our AOE3 problems. Tried to sell them on AOE3 but they weren't having it...

*Cough cough DoW cough cough* Necrons KILL EVERYTHING.

I see that Germans are underrated a lot
They are seen as a solid average civ by many experts
they are just a bit less attractive b/c they have no real OP stuff

All I'll say is that on Nav's list Russia is WAY too high.

My list:

1. Dutch (all around strongest and most OP civ...and fairly flexible too)
2. China (disciple FF etc)
3. Sioux (Siege Dance, Wakina FF is all I have to say)
4. Spain (maybe not OP but FF is still very good)
5. France (all around solid civ, not OP but very good especially late game)
6. Iroquois (in some matchups they suck but against certain civs they can't be stopped)
7. Ottoman (suck on non-tp land maps but everywhere else can be quite strong)
8. Japan (has some glaring weaknesses in certain matchups but still very strong if played well, just a bit better than britain in my estimation)
9. Britain (overall balanced civ, most competitive of the lower tier civs)
10. Germany (almost equal with Britain imo)
11. Aztec (sucks sometimes, but rush and lamer strategies allow them to be this high on the list)
12. Russia (they can win if a strong player plays them but generally speaking they are at a disadvantage due to their slow nature and weakness versus cav)
13. Portuguese (great on water maps but at a disadvantage everywhere else, they have a good FF but it's not nearly as good as the stronger civs...has to lame CM in order to survive to Industrial, where they are very strong)
14. India (self explanatory)

[quote=""Navarone_Guy""]Team games and 1v1 will always be different and it's impossible to balance for each, but IMO 1v1 matters more than team.[/quote]

I tend to agree that 1v1 are more important, but I realize that this is just my opinion, and not a fact.


[quote=""KingKaramazov""]All I'll say is that on Nav's list Russia is WAY too high.

My list:

1. Dutch (all around strongest and most OP civ...and fairly flexible too)
2. China (disciple FF etc)
3. Sioux (Siege Dance, Wakina FF is all I have to say)
4. Spain (maybe not OP but FF is still very good)
5. France (all around solid civ, not OP but very good especially late game)
6. Iroquois (in some matchups they suck but against certain civs they can't be stopped)
7. Ottoman (suck on non-tp land maps but everywhere else can be quite strong)
8. Japan (has some glaring weaknesses in certain matchups but still very strong if played well, just a bit better than britain in my estimation)
9. Britain (overall balanced civ, most competitive of the lower tier civs)
10. Germany (almost equal with Britain imo)
11. Aztec (sucks sometimes, but rush and lamer strategies allow them to be this high on the list)
12. Russia (they can win if a strong player plays them but generally speaking they are at a disadvantage due to their slow nature and weakness versus cav)
13. Portuguese (great on water maps but at a disadvantage everywhere else, they have a good FF but it's not nearly as good as the stronger civs...has to lame CM in order to survive to Industrial, where they are very strong)
14. India (self explanatory)[/quote]

This is a good list but I think a few of the civilizations should be equal. I really do not think it is possible to rank them like this. There are 3 tiers in 1v1 play with the majority of the civilizations in tier 2. ES claims the goal of balancing is to make them all tier 1 civilizations but this is not possible unless we get rid of team games.

Cyclo, with your thought on opinion vs. fact and subjectivity vs. objectivity, you seem like a guy I would really like to have a discussion with about the nature of the universe/reality/physics etc.