AOE3 Forums

im usually annoyed by these topics but im seriously tired of play as ottos and losing to civs like japan, india etc. plz balance these problems as they have plauged (spl?) the community and have made this game quite hard to enjoy, i love playing against the older civs, sioux, iro, and china players, but there is no way i can beat japan, india, aztec, and some iro players. plz make it so that the civs all have an even chance to win any game or give map defects like in AOM when u played a guy higher than u. sry if my rant bored u.

Es_mrmilo even siad (he works for es) "treaty will never be balanced)

dude, when the hell did he said that he was talking about treaty...

He was talking about supremacy tard... (he mentioned the OPness of Japan, India and Aztecs as main problems, the main OP civs of supremacy) .

Also, I dont think that MrMilo said that...

I think that the they should make all the civs way more different from each other.  I think that all civs are totally different from each other.  Each civ should have an area were the are way OP in, and another area were they are way UP.  I think that each civ should take a while to get good at.  Like,  basically, all the Europe civs are the same.  There are a little changes, but if you are a captain with one of those civs, you will probably are ganna be a captain in all the other europe civs too. 

 

I do agree that Japan is a little OP, but i can easily beat them with french.   India are not OP.  I have never lost a 1v1 against an Indian Player.  I havn't really ever play aztecs, so i don't know about them.  

 Germans are also pretty good if you know how to use them.   

vancebla:

I think that the they should make all the civs way more different from each other.  I think that all civs are totally different from each other.  Each civ should have an area were the are way OP in, and another area were they are way UP.  I think that each civ should take a while to get good at.  Like,  basically, all the Europe civs are the same.  There are a little changes, but if you are a captain with one of those civs, you will probably are ganna be a captain in all the other europe civs too. 

 

I do agree that Japan is a little OP, but i can easily beat them with french.   India are not OP.  I have never lost a 1v1 against an Indian Player.  I havn't really ever play aztecs, so i don't know about them.  

 Germans are also pretty good if you know how to use them.   

1. Thats how the game already is, however, making it that so each civ its 100% different to each other wont happen, since, 1, they are already different from each others, 2, it would be to hard to be done, 3, it would be unlogic, I admit that the cultures are different, but most of em lived together, and got something of other cultures.

2. As in point 1, thats how the game already is, each civ got something UP and something OP.

3. Japan isnt a little OP, its extremely OP, and everyone complains about em, yet you must play vs corps if you beat japan with french, a colonial mass of ashigarus = a gg for you, even if you ff it will be hard.

4. India its just a hard civ, but actually its OP, in age 2 they got an incredible combination of units, skirmishers, powerfull muskeeters, fast cavalry with bonus to infantry, and even ranged cav with bonus to heavy cav. And incredible age 2 cards, like foreign logging, (its like if you had 4 vills that cant be killed collecting wood all time, but thatnever chop trees or waste a time going to em), dessert terror (the only card that gives a +30% attack boost in colonial to more than 1 unit), and camel attack, which combined with dessert terror its really OP, not couting the agra fort, which gives incredible map control at start of game.

5. Yes, Germans are actually considered the 3rd most OP civ at the moment (followed by japan and India ofc).

Иван Грозный:

vancebla:

I think that the they should make all the civs way more different from each other.  I think that all civs are totally different from each other.  Each civ should have an area were the are way OP in, and another area were they are way UP.  I think that each civ should take a while to get good at.  Like,  basically, all the Europe civs are the same.  There are a little changes, but if you are a captain with one of those civs, you will probably are ganna be a captain in all the other europe civs too. 

 

I do agree that Japan is a little OP, but i can easily beat them with french.   India are not OP.  I have never lost a 1v1 against an Indian Player.  I havn't really ever play aztecs, so i don't know about them.  

 Germans are also pretty good if you know how to use them.   

1. Thats how the game already is, however, making it that so each civ its 100% different to each other wont happen, since, 1, they are already different from each others, 2, it would be to hard to be done, 3, it would be unlogic, I admit that the cultures are different, but most of em lived together, and got something of other cultures.

2. As in point 1, thats how the game already is, each civ got something UP and something OP.

3. Japan isnt a little OP, its extremely OP, and everyone complains about em, yet you must play vs corps if you beat japan with french, a colonial mass of ashigarus = a gg for you, even if you ff it will be hard.

4. India its just a hard civ, but actually its OP, in age 2 they got an incredible combination of units, skirmishers, powerfull muskeeters, fast cavalry with bonus to infantry, and even ranged cav with bonus to heavy cav. And incredible age 2 cards, like foreign logging, (its like if you had 4 vills that cant be killed collecting wood all time, but thatnever chop trees or waste a time going to em), dessert terror (the only card that gives a +30% attack boost in colonial to more than 1 unit), and camel attack, which combined with dessert terror its really OP, not couting the agra fort, which gives incredible map control at start of game.

5. Yes, Germans are actually considered the 3rd most OP civ at the moment (followed by japan and India ofc).

seriously this guy jaja

huh?

What is JaJa?

Ivan n Pleiadian fan/General SupaCrunk:

What is JaJa?

uhhhh maybe he was talking about Jar Jar Binks?

 

 

i think it means "Yeah Yeah" in some gay sounding language

i think jaja means haha. either a different language, a bad joke that noone likes or, more likely, a typo.

but saying 'this guy haha' makes no sense.

what a tool.