Worst DLC

General forum about Age of Empires 3 DE. Please post strategy threads, recorded games, user-created content and tech support threads in their respective forum.

Worst DLC

TAD
2
5%
TWC(The Wretched Civs)
4
9%
Knights of the Mediterranean
9
21%
The African Royals
12
28%
Mexico
8
19%
USA
8
19%
 
Total votes: 43

User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13599
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Worst DLC

Post by gibson »

Close one between all of them tbh. There have been times where all the TAD civs have been super good. Times where all TWC civs have been super good. Italy obviously. Africa civs OP. Mexico pretty good. USA OP(historically accurate tho). Close one with TWC taking it imo.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9746
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Worst DLC

Post by Garja »

KOTM DLC and also Mexico. USA design is interesting but all civ features are pumped up. Also not quite the DLC, but Inca design alone is pretty damn terrible.
African DLC was the best one except for the dynamic rof/range mechanic which is dogshit.

At the time, TAD must have been pretty damn terrible, considering they completely shifted the design paradigm introducing civs with basically no constraints.
Image Image Image
France Kaiserklein
Pro Player
Posts: 10284
Joined: Jun 6, 2015
Location: Paris
GameRanger ID: 5529322

Re: Worst DLC

Post by Kaiserklein »

Yea I mean it depends a lot on the context. TAD and TWC release must have felt terrible because people were used to play 8 civs with more or less similar design, while now we're used to DE releasing weird shit every once in a while. But imagine releasing any of the DE civs 15-20 years ago, when the dumbest thing in the game was still otto not having to pay for vils haha, or shrines. The newer DLCs are still just way more retarded by essence.
Image
Image
Image
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
User avatar
Suriname kaister
Lancer
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 716
Joined: Jun 25, 2015
ESO: I Date My Cousin

Re: Worst DLC

  • Quote

Post by kaister »

not exactly a DLC but the Inca/Swe release was really groundbreaking. I was excited about new civs and shit when DE first came out. Inca/Swe set the meta of just broken garbage crap which sucks to play against being released in DLC form
User avatar
United States of America dicktator_
Howdah
EWT
Posts: 1566
Joined: Nov 14, 2015
ESO: Conquerer999

Re: Worst DLC

  • Quote

Post by dicktator_ »

I think the design of the TWC civs are actually fine except for Lakota/Sioux which is and has always been pretty stupid. Iro has been too strong in some metas or on certain maps, especially RE, but the design is fine imo. Meanwhile Aztecs have a couple annoying things about them, like the warchief and free minutemen, but they've never really been too strong (except maybe recently with the jags?)

I actually think the TAD civs had the best design out of all the DLC civs, but they did start the unfortunate trend of civs that don't need as much map control. I think that out of all the DLC civs the TAD civs are the ones where I can most easily recall games I've enjoyed playing as or against them or watching, even though I've always sucked against Japan.

USA was fine I guess just too strong at some points and a few dumb things about them as is the case with all the DE civs.

Mexico is just a kind of annoying gimmick civ, actually weak if you know what's coming and have a good build to counter them, but Mexico can do so many things that it can be hard to know what's coming.

African civs I don't know much about, seems like they actually could be pretty interesting and cool just too strong?

Knights of the Mediterranean are the worst DLC imo. Free buildings will never, ever be balanced, and the Lombards let them camp in base. Malta would have a mostly good and cool design if not for one thing, and that thing is Fixed Guns, which alone are egregious enough to make Malta badly designed in my eyes.

Although it's technically not a DLC, the most unfun and worst designed civ is still Inca though I think.
steniothejonjoe wrote:I can micro better than 99% of the player base and that's 100% objective
:mds:
User avatar
Canada dansil92
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2233
Joined: Nov 3, 2018
ESO: dansil92

Re: Worst DLC

Post by dansil92 »

Inca is the peak dumpster fire to me.

Otherwise, Mexico. just an excessive number of features crammed into a civ with no real clear design or goal. just everything all at once all the time.
Image
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9746
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Worst DLC

  • Quote

Post by Garja »

Imo to judge and eventually rank each DLC you have to analyze it more in depth and compare it to previous and following expansions.

TWC overall design is clear and it's complementary to Vanilla to the point that I'm pretty sure it was planned from the start. The expansion was then released separately only as a mere business decision. Most gameplay features are consistent with the original version of the game and the new features only expand over the existing ones and, in regard to the new civs, are functional to game balance.
American native civs have less early and lategame eco but better units. I'd say a fair dynamic and quite frankly not much of a surprise. They still adhere to the common gameplay mechanics (they require the access to resources on the map and they win by fighting with units) and they still mantain a clear unique identity which defines strenghts and weaknesses: Sioux is the cav low eco/strong unit civ, Aztec is the zerg civ and Iro is the midground infantry/euro civ . Compared to Nilla civs, they have the firepit mechanic to compensate for the lack of arsenal and factories, as well as cheaper unit upgrades to compensate for the lack of steel traps and the fact they start with one less vill.
TWC expansion then includes a bunch of new cards (each Vanilla civ gets a unique unit and eco upgrade) which make the game more complex and consequently deck capacity goes from 20 to 25 cards. So far so good.

TAD on the other hand presents clear discontinuity with the original game. Asian civs have a completely different and less defined design. All 3 civs have access to basically a full roster of unit types since the 2nd age and there are no constraints on how much eco a civ can have based solely on its design. In fact, there isn't anymore a clear distinction between the cheap/weak unit civ (supposedly China) and the expensive/strong unit civ (can't even tell if it's India or Japan). Overall the new civs have little to no limitations and it's only up to the player to decide how to play them.
RNG becomes a real thing with all TAD heroes having a special ability based on probability of happening. New civs have the wonder mechanic for the age ups instead of politician or council (which so far was basically the same thing with different names), they have a new out of thin air resource (exports) which adds on top fo the fact that wonders have special abilities (I guess both arsenal and factories have to be compensated so need more new mechanics). Maps are different too, they are generally bigger and all have berries.

After legacy it is clear that the design of any new civ or feature wasn't as clever as the ones from the original game.
Inca and Sweden have houses that gather resources which is one of the less liked mechanics in the game and for a reason: it is unfair to the other civs that require a harder level of macromanagement and tend to consume more natural resources.
Sweden is not too bad, even tho all the unit and eco values have been completely off scale for quite a while after launch.
Inca design, on the other hand, is all over the place. The civ clearly incorporates too many unique features and it is the definition of overkill. On top of that it has always been too strong (and in part it is due to the design, reason why I mention it). In particular, it introduces the military unit garrison mechanic which was never a thing for a reason: it breaks one of the foundamental mechanics of the game and it is not fair to the other civs.
Also the new big button abilities are a very questionable addition. I mean, heroes and special units like warships I can understand, but common units trained from barracks it doesn't make much sense to have a special button ability.

The African DLC was perhaps the best designed imo. First of all, the new civs are truly unique in the sense that they are not a jumble of existing mechanics (like Inca for example).
The DLC introduces a new resource which, ok, it takes inspiration from exports but it doesn't quite work the same way. The livestock mechanic is a bit gimmicky and overcomplicated at first, but alteast it is based on finite resources and requires some macromanagement up to mid/late game when it eventually becomes a no brainer. The new units are definetely strong (perhaps too strong) but atleast they're interesting and fun to micro (even tho I still don't understand why African outlaws cost food and coin).
African land maps (water ones all have major flaws and are also very similar to each other) also tend to be the best ones among the additional DE DLCs , mostly because they're based on the layout of EP maps.
One thing I really don't like is the dynamic ROF based on range. It barely adds any depth to the game and makes balance more complicate. Also having not rounded values such as 2.78 ROF is simply ugly when the rest of the game is pretty consistent in that sense (and tbf other values could be standardized even more).

USA and Mexico expansion brings mixed feelings. On one hand some new design features, such as the age up by State, are clever and not out of a line. On the other hand, because of all the unique non consistent cards and other features the civs do feel as they came out of a cheap fan based mod. It doesn't help that USA and Mexico are not even supposed to exist in the traditional aoe3 timeframe or atleast they overlap with the existing civs (like seriously Aztecs and Mexico?) There is a disproportionate amount of building wagons and automatic mechanics in this DLC. For example: wagons from capitol, China Immigrants, German Immigrants, Haciendas, revolutions that autotrain units, infinite cards, etc. If those things were downplayed a bit, this DLC could have been good atleast from a gameplay perspective.

Finally KOTM is imo the worst or close to worst DLC. Both new civs feel (in fact they simply are I think) like a rip off from legacy mods and have some features that are completely out of line and therefore deserve the troll status. Malta have fixed cannons, rockets and flamethrowers which are campaign imaginary units. Also Malta irl is literally a reef island in the Mediterran Sea and was never ever close to an empire and in fact always a colony of other in game existing civs. Instead it has been included in the game (for mere content creation reasons) and it's even one of the civs with the strongest eco and army which doesn't make sense at all. They could have given them a limited amount of vills and some very strong imaginary feature based army to compensate but no, they treated it like it was another Brit or French colonial powerhouse, while still including all the campaign gimmicks.
Italy has too many giant ass buildings which preclude it from being considerated a reasonable civ competitively speaking. Civs are not supposed to have this many big buildings. It was already weird with TAD civs having wonders and it's even more unreasonable with Italy. There are situations where the map is completely clogged by lombards and basilicas and the game becomes a nr10 FI simulator.
New units (euro natives and outlaws) are interesting but all overtuned. The mount/dismount mechanic is a complete gimmick and doesn't quite have a place in a competitive game that wants to be taken seriously (spoiler: it doesn't want that, sad reality).
Euro maps tend to be overall meh. It's not they're bad but most of them are clogged with cliffs and rivers. Rivers especially are too thick and the unpassable sections are too long. It's not just a matter of pathing nightmare sometimes when it comes to battles but also the fact that it is easier to stall the game with defensive buildings (or giant ass buildings in general) which doesn't help when best civs in the current meta make consistent use of forts, blockhouses, additional TC, etc.
Image Image Image
User avatar
Canada dansil92
Retired Contributor
Posts: 2233
Joined: Nov 3, 2018
ESO: dansil92

Re: Worst DLC

Post by dansil92 »

i actually don't think i disagree with a single thing garja said
Image
Australia Hazza54321
Pro Player
Winter Champion 2020 x2Donator 01
Posts: 8054
Joined: May 4, 2015
ESO: PrinceofBabu

Re: Worst DLC

  • Quote

Post by Hazza54321 »

Interesting topic.

Tad i do like all 3 civs alot overall and the design of them. Jap with res gathering buildings and orchards in base is abit of a design flaw and like someone said started a bad trend but at least you need map control in order to have them gather efficiently.
India ive always like the design of the civ, you could argue having skirm goon in age 2 is a design flaw but this is compensated by the fact india is very slow setting it up by which point most civs can be age 3.
China hasnt ever been too broken but it has been my least favourite tad even though i still like it. The monk being able to solo armies , old han being op af and meteor hammer range were the big 3 things that annoyed me when facing them but besides that theyre fine imo. Ofc this makes them fun to use however.


Twc ive never really liked this expansion at all for obvious reasons besides aztecs.
Aztec has so many different options in terms of their early game approach as they have alot of shipment’s available. They typically mass alot of cheap units and overwhelm opponents and are rewarded with bonus xp for fighting which i think is a really cool dynamic and should be implemented in more civs imo. Reminds me of norse fighting to get favour in aom. Overall a well designed civ. Here is where it goes to shit. Iro have similar costing units but their units are just way better in general even without the 10% hp buff from wc (was 15 lol). Which was supposed to be compensated for weaker eco ( no steel traps) however they can compensate for this with reliable stagecoach in most mus, dealing alot of damage to opponents whilst also ecoing behind , and free 250w upon age ups. The warchief being able to hold rushes with high base stats and crack shot ability has also been annoying and that shot in age 3 is even more deadly and the cooldown for it is too short. I also think their anti art option in age 3 has been abit of design flaw as against well covered falcs its hard to deal with them late fortress and have to age to deal with it.
And now lakota, the most design flawed, broken civ after inca. Its only 30 seconds in and its such a frustrating experience as you cant take a single treasure safely without him teleporting there. Can even snare your hero just trying to get the first pass tp, either way they can constantly keep tabs on opponents hero whilst also taking treasures without contest especially as hes too afraid to start any. So this advantage can either be huge or just ok depending on the map. Were just gonna ignore the fact a cav civ has become an infantry civ even though their cav units are still strong. Next you have the same thing as iro where your eco is worse but units are better however lakota eco can always get stagecoach and can usually implement spice trade/great hunter early on whilst lightly pressuring opponent (reduces their eco). Your generic euro civ is always behind in military against lakota until your eco finally kicks in, trouble is this is usually after youve ran out of inbase res. Next is that their army is fast and they save so much wood on houses so they can pick and chose any fight they want without being punished so its hard to force a fight when you have a military advantage ( which is rare vs lakota). I also forgot to mention that their high hp 10 speed hero also snares so you can never escape with your army (which is odd because they can run from any fight) or hero in age 1 with guardians and nats behind. They can also have iros civ bonus very early on for just a 50w building which also doubles up as a 10-15% eco boost on all gathering (lol) . This not only buffs their eco at all stages of the game substantially and snowballs out of control but it also makes pushing the wh(s) even more difficult because they randomly have 10% on all their units (which have high base stats already for their cost). And last but not least the firepit with a civ that has insane units already and the ability to take when and where they want randomly getting +20+ % attack also makes winning a fight against them even harder.

Swe and inca. Sweden has just horrible design as they have 1 viable infantry unit that sucks early game and insane lategame, making their army boring and one dimensional and very counterable. Torps at least need map control but the fact they gather all 3 res gives off this auto macro vibe making it just too easy to play in some scenarios. Not really much else to comment on really thats how boring the civ can be, leather cannons was a risky decision but i think its ok, infantry guns need to be slower in age 3 they seem too good vs their counters but besides thst overall ok. Inca i could go on and on, unsnareable units, insane overpeforming forts that can garrison units getting caught and deal even more damage. The speed of the infantry and shock infantry units give a lakota vibe and with big high hp autogathering buildings and defenses it also makes it impossible to punish them (similar to lakota but even worse). Also the fact that houses gather so much food and inca not really needing any mines outside their base leads to no need for much map control at all and therefore making it even harder to punish them. They also have way more random bonuses for no reason at all e.g. wc having 30% melee resist and a multiplier vs cav , or chasquis with rdm shipments or better age up bonuses to their warchief counterparts or chimu having better pathing and an unsnaring big button that makes them move faster or a wh bb that buffs the resist of all wh units for a cheap price and a fast research time when their wc counterparts need a merc shipment + 500c for one unit (was 1k lol) . Also high hp priestesses converting expensive units in what feels like no time at all in fights. You either focus them and get your army deleted by his or let him convert your best units into his. Anyway could go on about inca.


Usa
Honestly dont have too many issues with this civ in terms of design. Some of the revolts are stupid but thats not really the civ specifically. If some of their units had the range reduced by even 1 or 2 it would make it way less obnoxious. My main thing with usa was the introduction of the whole shipment gets more value the more shipments you have sent in the game malarkey which is just not possible to balance at all. The flag ability granting so much los is also abit stupid and the heros building forts seem like another rdm powercreep change but at least they take long to build unlike the inca one.

Mexico is similar to usa but mexico just has too many stupid revolts that also has the shipment thing. Not to mention both civs get an unholy amount of shipments. Mexico is also impossible to read making playing against then super annoying because they can throw literally anything against you as their openings all start the same. Having a cheap fast high siege unit is also quite annoying to deal with but very counterable. I like their base units but the revolt ones seem hella dumb. Being able to get 3 factories (with free factory techs and double the hp) also seems overkill and one of those dlc power creeps

Italy and malta just seems like the most boring dlc ive ever seen. Its not only that its european units but its copying fucking xbows and pikes which are just so uninteresting. Malta has the basic bitch campaign units but just has insane scaling on said units but also has stupid gimmicks to make it somewhat competitive but those gimmicks are insanely annoying to deal with. Depots being built by an unkillable hero that stands up every 3 seconds is annoying to babyshit, also annoying when trying to kite the bow rush. Fixed guns dealing a shit ton of damage and doesnt trade horrible vs their counters also leads to boring dragged out games as it makes it harder to press your advantage and end the game (similar with inca). Notice how the poorly designed civs tend to be ones with stupid buildings and Italy is no exception. With their giant churches and Lombards and constant building because their buildings are free for whatever reason makes them hard to punish. And as they get a vill with every tech and get tcs for free and dont need any map control at all because of Lombards and a free tech switch just makes the whole civ very dull. Their units are also just very boring besides papal lancers (which for some reason they can get in age 2 ). This dlc also introduced ASS which is just an ass unit in terms of balance because its so hard to counter and changes the whole dynamic of the counter system. This was also the dlc that introduced broken nats and nat bbs so yeah this would be one of the worst if not the worst dlc for me

African dlc i actually hated at first because it was way too over-tuned especially with how imba they can be with livestock maps (having a 5.75 hero that snares too also is fucking stupid simialar to lakota and it also has random multipliers vs cav like inca dlc power creep baby). Their age up bonuses are also way too good in general especially ethiopia. Like picture habesha for example , its 300c a warcamp (rax and stable) and a mountain monastery dlc power creep baby. But if you look past all the power creeps with eco bonuses and units i think they have alot of strategic options and wide range of units to chose from which are both big positives for me which is why i think this one is actually ok with some tuning.
France iNcog
Ninja
Posts: 13241
Joined: Mar 7, 2015

Re: Worst DLC

Post by iNcog »

USA made me quit the game.

African civs were overtuned but very well designed.

Inca was good except for their stupid fort.

TAD/TWC are just classics. Lakota a bit broken, other 5 civs good.
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/incog_aoe
Garja wrote:
20 Mar 2020, 21:46
I just hope DE is not going to implement all of the EP changes. Right now it is a big clusterfuck.
User avatar
United States of America Squamiger
Howdah
Posts: 1758
Joined: Dec 25, 2018
ESO: Squamiger

Re: Worst DLC

Post by Squamiger »

Garja wrote:
08 Mar 2024, 04:35

Italy has too many giant ass buildings which preclude it from being considerated a reasonable civ competitively speaking. Civs are not supposed to have this many big buildings. It was already weird with TAD civs having wonders and it's even more unreasonable with Italy. There are situations where the map is completely clogged by lombards and basilicas and the game becomes a nr10 FI simulator.
it's not just the size, its the aesthetic as well. This and also the mexico cathedral, the new european style native embassies, and the euro maps in general, completely fuck up the whole aesthetic of the game. Until these changes, the aesthetic was mostly about being an offshoot colony or military garrison or small outpost of your mother country, in an unfriendly land and making do with what you have. These giant ass marble columned buildings completely ruin that immersion. This probably actually even started with TAD, with the giant wonders feeling really out of place.
User avatar
Tuvalu gibson
Ninja
ECL Reigning Champs
Posts: 13599
Joined: May 4, 2015
Location: USA

Re: Worst DLC

Post by gibson »

Alot of people dont remember the aztec fi 4k hp insta healing explorer. Fast iro rush with insane units and WC. Lakota. There are 3 wretched civs while Africa and KOTM only have 2 which is why TWC will always be the worst.
User avatar
Italy Garja
Retired Contributor
Donator 02
Posts: 9746
Joined: Feb 11, 2015
ESO: Garja

Re: Worst DLC

Post by Garja »

TWC dlc didn't launch with any of those things happening (even tho iro still were OP at launch and Aztec also had couple broken things). In general who cares about the single strat (balance) when there are DLCs whose design is a meme.
Image Image Image
Great Britain Scylla-x
Crossbow
Posts: 49
Joined: May 23, 2021

Re: Worst DLC

Post by Scylla-x »

TAD by far. China have been a nightmare to play since forever just so many cheap and efficient units that just swarm you it is like russia on steroids but china also get wonders generating them free units and a free age 4 imperial upgrade via the old han card. India as well with age 2 skirm/goon long before the african civs did it and a massive fort that makes any aggression almost impossible because even if you had a mass of musks you can't siege it while getting shot and kited by age 2 skirms. Japan is the most reasonable of the civs though it was overtuned in the past and I do not like the daimyo receiving shipments and training units.
User avatar
United States of America alistairpeter
Dragoon
Posts: 231
Joined: Jun 6, 2017
ESO: alistairpeter
Location: NY

Re: Worst DLC

Post by alistairpeter »

What patch made native tps give LOS?
User avatar
Germany Lukas_L99
Pro Player
Donator 01
Posts: 2061
Joined: Nov 15, 2015
ESO: Lukas_L99
Location: Lübeck

Re: Worst DLC

Post by Lukas_L99 »

Macau firstaim
Crossbow
Posts: 48
Joined: Nov 28, 2020

Re: Worst DLC

Post by firstaim »

I want to choose DE but no this choice, bad balance, boring trickle house. Dev insists their failure until now and just keep making it further away.

Others except Malta to me is fine. copy other euro unit, stupid fix gun, but final pike xbow are preferred.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Which top 10 players do you wish to see listed?

All-time

Active last two weeks

Active last month

Supremacy

Treaty

Official

ESOC Patch

Treaty Patch

1v1 Elo

2v2 Elo

3v3 Elo

Power Rating

Which streams do you wish to see listed?

Twitch

Age of Empires III

Age of Empires IV