Remove a civ

[BrookG]

If you could remove a single civ from all 16 which would it be?

[Lukas_L99]

Puck forts

[aaryngend]

None tbh.

[jesus3]

This shouldn't even be close

(with Garjonians taking it)

[aaryngend]

That said, I miss the "none" option in the poll.

[Kaiserklein]

Harder to answer now that they added sweden. Would need multiple choices...

I guess remove Japan anyway. Regardless of the strength of the civ, its design is just too broken. It doesn't fit this game because of a foot long list of gimmicky features

Sweden could be second, unless they fix it and make mercs strats more viable and 80 iq carolean spam less viable. Right now the civ has like zero point, and will always have either really bad or really good match ups, because of their single unit composition being either trash or unbeatable depending on the MU.

Then you have sioux and otto. Sioux can never get caught and can always catch and crush you, makes for super passive boring games, instead of active games like you'd expect with an aggro civ involved.
Otto is broken for obvious reasons. Plus it will always be too map dependant and low iq / low skill. Can't see a way to fix that civ.

[ssaa22]

Swede, Inca, Japan, india

[Challenger_Marco]

I would add an extra civ than removing tbh.

[look]

Harder to answer now that they added sweden. Would need multiple choices...

I guess remove Japan anyway. Regardless of the strength of the civ, its design is just too broken. It doesn't fit this game because of a foot long list of gimmicky features

Sweden could be second, unless they fix it and make mercs strats more viable and 80 iq carolean spam less viable. Right now the civ has like zero point, and will always have either really bad or really good match ups, because of their single unit composition being either trash or unbeatable depending on the MU.

Then you have sioux and otto. Sioux can never get caught and can always catch and crush you, makes for super passive boring games, instead of active games like you'd expect with an aggro civ involved.
Otto is broken for obvious reasons. Plus it will always be too map dependant and low iq / low skill. Can't see a way to fix that civ.

about otto, replacing the automation of vills could help to get more mechanically good.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Otto.

[deleted_user]

The thinking is too narrow. Rather, one should ask not which, but how many expansions to remove. And the answer is all of them.

[yurashic]

The thinking is too narrow. Rather, one should ask not which, but how many expansions to remove. And the answer is all of them.

Yeah if vanilla maps and hotkeys weren't so bad vanilla would be a perfectly balanced game.

[Le Hussard sur le toit]

Tough choice between Inca, Sweden and Japan honestly.

[randerzbobanderz]

Japan i can sometimes beat, but I have never won against Inca and it always feels like a cheat loss.

[CuCkO0]

buff japan

[SquidTheSid]

Sweden, Japan, Inca, and Ottoman as they currently are on DE.

- Sweden. Yet another house-booming civ with the easiest army composition/unit macro. JuSt MaKe MoRe CaRoLeAnS. You only ever need to make musk + cannon as Sweden. Even though you get the tankiest hussars in the game, your weird shotgun splash damage cav, and royal guard pikemen, you will never make them. Now that Turbo Engelsburg Torps have been nerfed 2+ times, I don't hate them conceptually (powerful but non-sustainable boom), but being able to replete mines via HC shipments shouldn't exist, as that largely mitigates the downside of the civ. But the biggest problem are Sweden's unique units. In the case of Caroleans, they just completely break the counter system, are fairly good against everything, and have stupid upgrades that make them ridiculous lategame (17 range, 2.5x cav, and 30 RR musketeers, great.). Hakkapelita are of questionable use, as they only have 6 range. If we wanted to make Sweden's unit conform better to the existing unit roster (rather than just reworking the entire civ), I'd tone down Caroleans' stupid HC shipment upgrades, rebalance their stats to be more like a conventional musketeer, and give them a bonus vs. heavy infantry (but have lower than normal base damage), so they'd be sort of like ranged JPK (better vs. other musks, but worse vs. cav and skirms). for Hakkapelita, I guess shorter ranged Rifle Riders with splash and a slower ROF? I really don't know if I'm happy with those, as I'd like to go back to the drawing board on these units, especially if the devs want us to actually use melee infantry like they intended.

- Inca. GiMmIcKs. They just feel like Aztec, but with wacky gimmicks out of the wazoo and stupid defensive abilities to compensate. I don't mind the devs trying out new mechanics, but when they dump so many onto one civ with no central unifying mechanic, they lack any sort of cohesive identity. Back when I was starting out to create a civ, I knew that I wanted to focus on one major playstyle/concept with a few bonuses to back it up (USA, for example, focuses on powerful specialist infantry with a hit and run playstyle). Even with the Berbers, who have a lot more mechanics (due to my desire to include many of the revolution mechanics in DE), I tried to show some more restraint while adding in buffs to underutilized mechanics. Anyways, Kancha house booming is a lame, dumb gimmick. At least with Sweden and Japan, you need to have some map control and placement to maximize their usage, whereas you just spam kancha as inca. They're forced to rely on their age 1 kancha BB for a decent age up time (I'm not against alternative age 1 playstyles, but 5 vills with no shipments until age 3 is absolutely painful, so you need to use the BB). Jungle Bowmen have worse stats than a crossbowman and cost more to justify their stupid DOT gimmick. They absolutely lose hard in any decent skirm war as a result. Plumed Spearmen are solid pikeman units...but they're melee infantry, so not very useful past colonial age. Chimu are incredibly strong due to their inability to become snared. They're borderline OP (I'd say they're fine mostly because of their low base armor and inca's underwhelming age 3 units). Bolas are very weird, very clunky units. They have an awful windup, are classified as heavy infantry, have ranged snare, and no melee multipliers vs. cav without an overpriced Age IV temple shipment. Now that they've been buffed, they're not awful units, but they're not great replacements for dragoons. Macemen are jokes, being overpriced slow melee infantry with a slow melee attack.Their low multipliers and lack of snare makes them awful at their one major role (anti-cav) and they get shat on by gendarmes (the one role they'd be useful at in theory). Huaraca are shitty arrow knights, as they can't do their one job (countering artillery from range), without actually entering the firing range of cannons (and they don't have 50% damage resist to cannons like arrow knights). Priestesses still feel like Shitty Warrior priests, military buildings garrisoning units is mostly useless/gimmicky outside of treaty (especially now that Inca no longer gets town dance because of the massive nerfs to the Stronghold). Tambo are still mostly overpriced trading posts, etc. There really is nothing tying this civ together.

- Japan. The fact that they can ignore whatever map they're playing on and sit in their base comfortably, wall up, and counter everything with yumi is an issue. There's no pressure for them to expand out, and the strength of ashigaru and yumi means that they have little incentive to train any other unit besides maybe flaming arrows.

- Ottoman. The free villagers mechanic is dumb. It makes their rush way too strong, and their lategame eco absolute trash. Considering Ensemble designed them to be a boom/turtle civ, they do everything but that.

[NekoBerk]

I want 40+ new civs!!!

[rsy]

No civ as relatively easy as ottoman should be able to win as much as otto does. They need to be removed

[look]

Otto.

dia.

[JKProwler]

None. I like the variety.

[onfiregun17]

I think a civ should just randomly be removed for no reason and with no explanation. This would fall in-line with the current philosophy that the devs are using to patch and update the game. Then when they release a hotfix for the issue, it will remove 3 more civs while adding another civ no one asked for.

[gibson]

Lakota no contest. Most gimmicky bullshit civ.

[Peachrocks]

Japan without question. I feel the other popular choices for this question are not that hard to bring into line at least in theory. Japan though... you can’t change them without fundamentally shattering their identity.

Inca you can tweak with Kancha a fair bit or even make them more dependant on using tambos for either native tps or trade route ones cus they do get a lot of bonuses with nats, like the wc aura nobody cares about. I feel there’s wiggle room here.

Swedens similar. It’s mostly a few problematic things and one or two iffy choices that can be brought into line.

Otto can have auto vill/mosque mechanics removed. Yeah it’s their identity but honestly we’ve tried a lot of things over the years to make this work. It just doesn’t and it ultimately makes them very one dimensional. There’s a few things I’d like to try in this regard but ugh... game doesn’t even work still so there’s that.

[Luciofrancosi]

I would go for Lakota.
Its not that they are op, they are just the most annoying civ you could possibly make on a rts game. From age 1 with their explorer all the way up to imperial, that civ feels like it's designed for trolling.

[Astaroth]

Russia. Boring ass noob civ that basically does the exact same age2/map control/contain power play in almost any MU. No need for age3, adaptation, diverse build orders. Lose a fight, still win with remass.