AoE3 Tier List (UPDATED APRIL 3)

[MCJim]

1) Iroquois: 9.32
2) Ottoman: 8.81
3) India: 7.68
4) Japan: 7.55
5) British: 7.09
6) Aztec: 6.72
7) Sioux: 6.54
8) France: 6.52
9) Germany: 6.38
10) China: 5.97
11) Russia: 5.70
12) Dutch: 4.71
13) Portugal: 4.01
14) Spain: 3.99

Well, if Blackstar_OP plays Spain it should be #1. Very interesting how he beats (PR 40+ players) French with Spain

[edeholland]

1) Iroquois: 9.32
2) Ottoman: 8.81
3) India: 7.68
4) Japan: 7.55
5) British: 7.09
6) Aztec: 6.72
7) Sioux: 6.54
8) France: 6.52
9) Germany: 6.38
10) China: 5.97
11) Russia: 5.70
12) Dutch: 4.71
13) Portugal: 4.01
14) Spain: 3.99

Well, if Blackstar_OP plays Spain it should be #1. Very interesting how he beats (PR 40+ players) French with Spain

Link? Rec? ^^

[nandoray]

Well, if Blackstar_OP plays Spain it should be #1. Very interesting how he beats (PR 40+ players) French with Spain

Link? Rec? ^^

Exactly. I might have even payed money to see that.

[Good ol Ivan]

I feel sorry for spain, they were a mediocre civ and the last patch killed their ff nerfing their shipments. And spanish FR is easy to counter plus its inferior to the otto one.

[Goodspeed]

1) Iroquois: 9.32
2) Ottoman: 8.81
3) India: 7.68
4) Japan: 7.55
5) British: 7.09
6) Aztec: 6.72
7) Sioux: 6.54
8) France: 6.52
9) Germany: 6.38
10) China: 5.97
11) Russia: 5.70
12) Dutch: 4.71
13) Portugal: 4.01
14) Spain: 3.99

Well, if Blackstar_OP plays Spain it should be #1. Very interesting how he beats (PR 40+ players) French with Spain

Spain is not that bad. Definitely not bottom civ.

[MCJim]

I don't have a rec but you all could have seen the game in Veni's stream a couple days ago. In that stream he casted Nagayumi vs Diarouga together with Blackstar. After that he played a 1v1 vs Black, Spain vs French.

[cowhax]

I really don't think some ppl understand how tier lists work. You'd mark 1 for a civ if Hell had a greater chance at freezing over than for them to win any match up. I'm pretty sure I didn't vote lower than 5 for anybody. I think if the votes were reprocessed so that any votes under 5 instead became votes for 5, the results would seem a little more balanced and reasonable.

[WickedCossack]

I really don''t think some ppl understand how tier lists work. You''d mark 1 for a civ if Hell had a greater chance at freezing over than for them to win any match up. I''m pretty sure I didn''t vote lower than 5 for anybody. I think if the votes were reprocessed so that any votes under 5 instead became votes for 5, the results would seem a little more balanced and reasonable.

Wait, what ? That''s not how a 1-10 scale works. You were given the option to vote how strong you think a civ is, 1 being severely underpowered, 10 being severely overpowered.

Your voting technique would seem to suggest every civ is better than average ? Which is a logical impossibility.

[Goodspeed]

I thought of it as 1 being the worst civ and 10 being the best civ, the rest somewhere in between. Makes sense to make use of the entire scale instead of only half of it, right?

[cowhax]

See that's part of the weakness of this format for determining tiers: different interpretations of how to use it. I saw it more as a scale regarding quality. Like Portuguese and Spain might be the weakest civs, but they're not so bad to the point as being nonviable as a whole for competitive play. I think they have good qualities which made me not rank them as "most underpowered".

[Goodspeed]

Even then it would make more sense to use the entire scale instead of half of it. With your interpretation, you are suggesting that 1 is the worst a civ could possibly be. Which is what, a civ that starts with 0 vills and no TC?

[edeholland]

USA is definitely the most underpowered civ

[cowhax]

Even then it would make more sense to use the entire scale instead of half of it. With your interpretation, you are suggesting that 1 is the worst a civ could possibly be. Which is what, a civ that starts with 0 vills and no TC?

Yeah or like a civ that depended on fishing and couldn''t gather wood for some religious belief or something.

I guess my gripe with the results is it makes certain civs look irredeemable and like there''s no point in playing them. Maybe it''s just my history as a competitive Street Fighter player, when in those sort of games, the worst a match-up could be is 10-0 though the closest any match up really got to that was 8-2. Some argue certain match ups, at least in the more classic games in the series, were 9-1, And this is what leads people to picking top tier characters only because what good is a character if you can''t likely win with them? But there are many factors to determining tiers, that it can''t just be simplified by "underpowered or overpowered". In SF, you''d look at the damage output, frame data, vitality (since the health amounts depend on your character), and most importantly ease of use.

That''s kind of what I''m saying in AoE or any RTS really is there are many factors which should be considered for a civilization''s viability' as I think they are all viable if you play them right.

[nandoray]

I don''t have a rec but you all could have seen the game in Veni''s stream a couple days ago. In that stream he casted Nagayumi vs Diarouga together with Blackstar. After that he played a 1v1 vs Black, Spain vs French.

Was he playing Vanilla? Maybe he recorded them on twitch. I played a decent game vs china with Spain just the other day. I used rods, pikes and lancers and devastated (I had like 5 skirms). I tried it again against another guy though and got my ace handed to me in colonial.

BTW.. i voted no civ below 5. 5 was average to me.

[MCJim]

I dont have a rec but you all could have seen the game in Venis stream a couple days ago. In that stream he casted Nagayumi vs Diarouga together with Blackstar. After that he played a 1v1 vs Black, Spain vs French.

Was he playing Vanilla? Maybe he recorded them on twitch. I played a decent game vs china with Spain just the other day. I used rods, pikes and lancers and devastated (I had like 5 skirms). I tried it again against another guy though and got my ace handed to me in colonial.?

BTW.. i voted no civ below 5. 5 was average to me.?

No they werent playing on Nilla, just on TAD. And that makes it so interesting. Knowing that Spain is better on Nilla then TAD. On TAD Spain is a very underrated civ but he still managed to win. Vs French, which is a very good civ, not OP, but just good.
However, he was streaming so possibly you can rewatch it in his past broadcasts. (Not 100% sure if he saves the streams.) He might upload it on his channel. (But I doubt, because he lost :p )

[nandoray]

I do watch Venis records and live streams a lot. I would love to see the videos just to improve my own game. I will probably ask veni if they could do a demo next time I get the chance. He is pretty cool when it comes to requests.

[Mr. Pecksniff]

It doesn't have to be balanced, but the situation at the moment is just ridiculous.

[iNcog]

edit: wtf wrong thread

[Papist]

Anyone who thinks that Spain is worse that Portugal has played neither one in a very long time. And native civs are broken and therefore need to be put in a different class altogether imo.

[Good ol Ivan]

Anyone who thinks that Spain is worse that Portugal has played neither one in a very long time. And native civs are broken and therefore need to be put in a different class altogether imo.

Aztecs and sioux aren''t OP, maybe above average at most. They are OK, only Iros stand out in rush really.
Also you reminded me how back in 1.00 all TAD civs were fucking broken. Ashigarus with 47 attack in colonial, China with it''s disciples, India''s 10/10...

[Papist]

Anyone who thinks that Spain is worse that Portugal has played neither one in a very long time. And native civs are broken and therefore need to be put in a different class altogether imo.

Aztecs and sioux arent OP, maybe above average at most. They are OK, only Iros stand out in rush really.
Also you reminded me how back in 1.00 all TAD civs were fucking broken. Ashigarus with 47 attack in colonial, China with its disciples, Indias 10/10...

I didnt say OP, I said broken. They have units that defy traditional mechanics of the game and therefore, in my opinion, can not be included in any accurate ranking of the nations. Aztecs less so, but Iroquois and Sioux are broken beyond repair.

[Good ol Ivan]

and therefore, in my opinion, can not be included in any accurate ranking of the nations.

u wot

Aztecs less so, but Iroquois and Sioux are broken beyond repair.

I see.
Which Iro units defy "traditional mechanics of the game" though? WC? light cannon?
But I guess Sioux and Aztecs are fucking weird indeed.
Aztecs are the sole reason the expansions reworked the whole "light infantry" concept, making the counter system more confusing than it already was.

[Garja]

the counter system is pretty simple, coyote = hand cav, egles = goons

[Good ol Ivan]

the counter system is pretty simple, coyote = hand cav, egles = goons

yeah and arrow knights = culvs/mortars, jags... melee pseudomusks? Admit it, they are fucking weird - most of their units are completely unconventional. You can get used to, but still pretty confusing.

[edeholland]

Jags are unique, yeah, but the other units are just the infantry versions of normal units, because Aztecs don't have bombards or siege weapons like in AoE2.

The confusing part for me is that skirm = light inf, coy = light inf and tiger claws = light inf AND heavy inf, afaik.