Official Ne civ tier list

 
   Forum Index -> Balance & Strategies
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
UnstoppableStreletsy
Continental Marine
Continental Marine


Joined: 25 Sep 2015
Posts: 139
Location: United States of Africa

PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 6:47 pm    Post subject: Official Ne civ tier list

So I could not find a official aoe3 ne civ tier list anywhere so there is something I can do to change that. I will present my idea of the current ne tier list and anyone who has a different tier list post yours and then from all the tier lists I can make the official ne tier list.
Tier list 1
Top: Swedish, Swiss, Germans, British
High: Prussians, French, Portuguese, Spain, Aztecs, Iroquois, Chinese, Dutch
Middle: Austrians, Japanese, Indians, Sioux, Americans, Russians, Poland
Low Persians, Italians, Ottomans
NA: Danes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Skype Name ESO
roy1012
Infantry Officer
Infantry Officer


Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Posts: 1279
Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 6:48 pm    Post subject:

Middle: Austrians, Japanese, Indians, Sioux, Americans, Russians, Poland

How many illegal drugs have you been using?[/u][/i]
_________________
Roy1012

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/RoySOTR

Feel free to add me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
UnstoppableStreletsy
Continental Marine
Continental Marine


Joined: 25 Sep 2015
Posts: 139
Location: United States of Africa

PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 6:49 pm    Post subject: tier lists

so whats your tier list? Remember to label list # so I can keep track. Remember Danes are NA until 2.18 is released. Btw I do not feel strong of the americans early game but late game they could be on high category of tier list + none of these gaps are meant to be huge and are on a thin margin.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Skype Name ESO
King of Persia
Fusilier
Fusilier


Joined: 07 Feb 2016
Posts: 289
Location: Berlin/Spandau

PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:15 pm    Post subject:

i don't get it, what does top, high, middle and low means?
it sounds a bit racist like, the top ones are the dominant civs and the low ones are the slaves.

could you please describe what you mean with it?
_________________
Upcoming Game/Level Designer, Digital Artist and Producer in training "-" - Games Academy Berlin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
roy1012
Infantry Officer
Infantry Officer


Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Posts: 1279
Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:29 pm    Post subject:

He means that the top tier are the best civilizations, and the low tier are the worst civilizations.

You say that it is for rush, however the Ottomans are the most overpowered rush civilization over. Ever heard of the abus gun? 40 damage in age 2? You need to have two separate ones, for treaty and for rush.

Your tier list is horridly corrupt and wrong.
_________________
Roy1012

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/RoySOTR

Feel free to add me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
King of Persia
Fusilier
Fusilier


Joined: 07 Feb 2016
Posts: 289
Location: Berlin/Spandau

PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:44 pm    Post subject:

oh so it's something like development stage or what?
_________________
Upcoming Game/Level Designer, Digital Artist and Producer in training "-" - Games Academy Berlin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
roy1012
Infantry Officer
Infantry Officer


Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Posts: 1279
Location: United States

PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:56 pm    Post subject:

No, it's more like saying for example you think Prussia and Russia are the two best cobs. So you put them on the top tier. Then you think ottomans and British are the next best so you put them in the next tier.

Note that's just an example not what I think
_________________
Roy1012

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/RoySOTR

Feel free to add me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
King of Persia
Fusilier
Fusilier


Joined: 07 Feb 2016
Posts: 289
Location: Berlin/Spandau

PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 7:57 pm    Post subject:

oh k yet i got it
_________________
Upcoming Game/Level Designer, Digital Artist and Producer in training "-" - Games Academy Berlin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tilanus Commodor
NE Commander
NE Commander


Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 5078
Location: Berlin, Germany

PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2016 9:33 pm    Post subject:

lol, Ottomans and Italians are low tier? Austrians, Indians and Japs only middle? Do you even play online?
_________________
Napoleonic Era Project Leader


** Support me to support NE **

Test your Age of Empires knowledge in my
Grand Age of Empires quiz! King Green!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
UnstoppableStreletsy
Continental Marine
Continental Marine


Joined: 25 Sep 2015
Posts: 139
Location: United States of Africa

PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:23 am    Post subject: civ choices

I do play online. I did try to use austrians by fast fortressing but it was still a little more delayed than I would like. I did not believe thier inf and cav were enough to be exceptional. I am not too good with india and japan than I would like to be. This why everyone needs to make a tier list and anything that is stupid sounding will be canceled out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Skype Name ESO
Girafarig
French Conscript
French Conscript


Joined: 02 Feb 2016
Posts: 25
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:36 am    Post subject:

I guess it depends on how you play.

I like to boom, so I'd rate the Italians very much near the top, the Swiss and the Spanish near the middle and the poor Sioux at the very bottom. The Brits and the Iroquois are a tad too slow for me I don't play online, but I often get rushed when playing offline and I have a lot of trouble defending with Brits for some reason and the Austrians, while a very interesting civilization, are somewhat underpowered in the late game they neither have strong enough units (except for their hussar, perhaps) nor the economy to spam cheap units and win through sheer force (like the Italians or the Russians).

Also, the Germans seem a bit like a one trick pony to me, in that you'll do just fine spamming Doppelsoldners and their other units are somewhat underpowered in comparison but then again, they're a complex civ and it's likely that I'm just using them wrong.

So, to summarize, I think you'd have to categorize your tier list according to what purpose you're trying to achieve with each civ. Most civs are well balanced in that you can play them in at least one way and be competent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
caveman909
NE Assistant
NE Assistant


Joined: 10 Jun 2010
Posts: 479
Location: Switzerland

PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2016 12:01 pm    Post subject:

Girafarig wrote:
I guess it depends on how you play.

I like to boom, so I'd rate the Italians very much near the top, the Swiss and the Spanish near the middle and the poor Sioux at the very bottom. The Brits and the Iroquois are a tad too slow for me I don't play online, but I often get rushed when playing offline and I have a lot of trouble defending with Brits for some reason and the Austrians, while a very interesting civilization, are somewhat underpowered in the late game they neither have strong enough units (except for their hussar, perhaps) nor the economy to spam cheap units and win through sheer force (like the Italians or the Russians).

Also, the Germans seem a bit like a one trick pony to me, in that you'll do just fine spamming Doppelsoldners and their other units are somewhat underpowered in comparison but then again, they're a complex civ and it's likely that I'm just using them wrong.

So, to summarize, I think you'd have to categorize your tier list according to what purpose you're trying to achieve with each civ. Most civs are well balanced in that you can play them in at least one way and be competent.

Actually it depends so much on your strategy and your opponent...
For ex., italians are maybe good at booming, but get recked against swiss or ottoman.
Would be nice to organize some tournaments actually, so we could figure it out Mr. Green
_________________
You must be the change you wish to see in the world.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
roy1012
Infantry Officer
Infantry Officer


Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Posts: 1279
Location: United States

PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:03 pm    Post subject:

Anyone who says Japanese are in the middle is completely mindless. Japanese are great for rush and even better for treaty.
_________________
Roy1012

Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/RoySOTR

Feel free to add me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stubbo
Austrian Line Infantry
Austrian Line Infantry


Joined: 05 Jan 2015
Posts: 46
Location: United Kingdom

PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:32 am    Post subject:

Purely from playing against my mates in Supremacy (where most attacks are Age 3 onwards, with games generally lasting until late Age 4/Age 5) our experience has been:

Top Tier (Most powerful opponents):
Swiss, Swedish

Second Tier:
French, Prussian, Japanese, American

Third Tier:
Portuguese, German, Austrian, British, Spanish

Fourth Tier:
Russian

Others have rarely been utilised. We don't profess to be overly skilled players, but these have been the observations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum Index -> Balance & Strategies All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group | Page design by Tilanus Commodor & michfrm.