Good civ for a new player

[grizzgolf]

Looking to get into AOE3. What would be a good civ to learn with and not get crushed a lot online with?

[momuuu]

Probably france, most versatile civ.

[kami_ryu]

It depends if you're going to do the XP mod or not. If you're a heretic like myself, then go India. That way at level 40 you can unlock other civs.

If not, then India anyway. First learn 10/10, then learn normal Indian start up macro, it's not too hard. Their units and eco are good and they can take map control easily, which is very nice on RE maps where there are less resources. Overall a very solid civ and if you're looking to invest yourself in the game, then picking up a civ with some learning curve isn't bad. If you just want to win without regarding to learning about the incredible depth and variety this game has to offer, go Otto.

[Darwin_]

I dont think there is a "best" civ to learn first. If you know a few basic build orders and timings for a civ and practise enough, you'll be fine. However, I do have some recommendations besides France:

Russia is a good civ to learn, especially if you know some of the newer build orders, as they are fairly applicable to other civs, + the macro with russia can be a nice challenge for newer players.

India is a good civ to learn if you are coming from StarCraft or another RTS and your mechanics are quite good. If not, I would probably stray away as you cant just 10/10 every game/matchup sadly.

British is a great civ to learn if you are comfortable with a high-apm. You dont have to actually be that good at the game to play brits decently, you just need to have high apm and be on top of everything, and have a basic knowledge of timings.

[milku3459]

Why do people say Brits have high apm? (is that me because I like brits :O)
France is best to start with. If you start with Ottos (like i did) you'll be horribly screwed over for the harsh realities of ESO

[roiarthurbis]

Why do people say Brits have high apm? (is that me because I like brits :O)
France is best to start with. If you start with Ottos (like i did) you'll be horribly screwed over for the harsh realities of ESO

I would say you need higher apm as they chew through resources quicker and their economy is usually larger and more than likely going to be raided, which requires a lot more apm than say a civ that takes map control and their villagers can easily and safely gather.

[Dsy]

Brit is pretty easy for beginners. You always stay colo just produce units. Ofc you can get some raids, but you dont care losing some vills unlike with other civs. Very strong civ so, basicly top so every matchup winnable with it.

Btw i think every civ is good for beginners. Just try to avoid some weak civs like spain, siux maybe dutch, port on re and thats all.

[Kaiserklein]

OTTO OTTO OTTO

[deleted_user0]

Why do people say Brits have high apm? (is that me because I like brits :O)
France is best to start with. If you start with Ottos (like i did) you'll be horribly screwed over for the harsh realities of ESO

Because people like to pretend there is skill in making vill. But we all know it aint true

[yurashic]

Play what you want.

[Kaiserklein]

Because people like to pretend there is skill in making vill. But we all know it aint true

You should watch more captain-ish streams, you'll see most of them forget to train a lot of vils in early-middle game. So starting with otto won't help on this point.
Also otto micro is super easy, their units are strong, you never get rushed, macro is easy cause you have no eco anyway and no way to boom. It's ofc super easy.

[tedere12]

If exp is a problem, then play british or japan. They have enough card unlocked to do legit age 2 stategies.
Else I guess you can play any civ

[Goodspeed]

Why do people say Brits have high apm? (is that me because I like brits :O)
France is best to start with. If you start with Ottos (like i did) you'll be horribly screwed over for the harsh realities of ESO

Because people like to pretend there is skill in making vill. But we all know it aint true

Can't tell if serious

Starting with Otto won't teach you how to play defensively, won't teach you how to make a proper unit composition and won't teach you how to micro. The civ is just too different, and too straightforward on lower levels. Yes once you reach high PRs they are as hard to win with as the next civ because the easy builds don't cut it any more, but that's not relevant to someone who just started playing.

I'd start with France, by xbow/pike rushing then switching to musk/huss at some point and then eventually moving on to (semi-)FFs.

[deleted_user0]

Why do people say Brits have high apm? (is that me because I like brits :O)
France is best to start with. If you start with Ottos (like i did) you'll be horribly screwed over for the harsh realities of ESO

Because people like to pretend there is skill in making vill. But we all know it aint true

Can't tell if serious

Starting with Otto won't teach you how to play defensively, won't teach you how to make a proper unit composition and won't teach you how to micro. The civ is just too different, and too straightforward on lower levels. Yes once you reach high PRs they are as hard to win with as the next civ because the easy builds don't cut it any more, but that's not relevant to someone who just started playing.

I'd start with France, by xbow/pike rushing then switching to musk/huss at some point and then eventually moving on to (semi-)FFs.

the question and reply to it was about brits. not otto. l2r =_=

also otto FF/FI/FR often requires defensive play, like almost any FF (for example vs spain, iro, otto, sioux sometimes, russia and some other civs depending on how they choose to play the mu). Also why is Jan Abus as a unit comp any easier/harder than musk hussar or bow pike or any other 2 unit combo as a unit comp, in terms of "making a proper unit composition". The anti otto bias is rampant today again, gotta love it.

[Goodspeed]

Notice the distinction between higher and lower levels.

the question and reply to it was about brits. not otto. l2r =_=

That wasn't obvious to me since your reply was about making vills. Otto are unique in the sense that they don't have to.

[deleted_user0]

Notice the distinction between higher and lower levels.

the question and reply to it was about brits. not otto. l2r =_=

That wasn't obvious to me since your reply was about making vills. Otto are unique in the sense that they don't have to.

It's quite obvious since he asked a question about brits and I answered that question. He didnt ask anything about otto's.

[Goodspeed]

I don't think you would be the best person to judge what was obvious about your own post. After all you know exactly what you were saying with it. We have to guess.
In any case it wasn't obvious to me.

[deleted_user0]

I don't think you would be the best person to judge what was obvious about your own post. After all you know exactly what you were saying with it. We have to guess.
In any case it wasn't obvious to me.

ofcourse, people can get confused by anything, but, it's more obvious that it was about brits, than that it would be about otto, if you strictly look at the how language works in general. He asked one question and made a few general remarks, I answered his question (which is implied by the "because", which would make little sense in reply to his statement about otto).

[Goodspeed]

Well for me the reason I assumed it was about Otto is because it was specifically about their civ bonus of not having to make vills. Also Brits are hard for entirely different reasons so I thought that would've been a weird thing to say in reply to his question. Which I suppose it was, then.
What I read the "because" as is you specifying the reason people would get screwed over by the harsh realities of ESO when starting with Otto. It works both ways.

[drsingh]

Btw on the reverse side.
Which civ is considered most difficult to play with?
Wondering if anyone stands apart from others..

[Goodspeed]

Differs per skill level. Generally on the lower levels I think Brits can be hard but on higher levels I'd go with India. Like as soon as their 10/10 doesn't auto win any more they are difficult to win with. Lots of small variations in their build order and in most match ups you have to play adaptively.

[tedere12]

Btw on the reverse side.
Which civ is considered most difficult to play with?
Wondering if anyone stands apart from others..

aztec

[milku3459]

Btw on the reverse side.
Which civ is considered most difficult to play with?
Wondering if anyone stands apart from others..

aztec

RE Spain and Ports

[pecelot]

Well for me the reason I assumed it was about Otto is because it was specifically about their civ bonus of not having to make vills. Also Brits are hard for entirely different reasons so I thought that would've been a weird thing to say in reply to his question. Which I suppose it was, then.
What I read the "because" as is you specifying the reason people would get screwed over by the harsh realities of ESO when starting with Otto. It works both ways.

I also thought umeu was referring to Ottomans as there's that funny verse: „Ain't no skills in making vills"

Because people like to pretend there is skill in making vill. But we all know it aint true

**

Btw on the reverse side.
Which civ is considered most difficult to play with?
Wondering if anyone stands apart from others..

From the civs I play I'd say RE Ports in 1v1, too.

[P i k i l i c]

I'd say Japanese, India and Aztec are the hardest. If you aren't comfortable with defensive play, China too
Ports are challenging and hard to win with but I still think they are less difficult to begin with