You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

General Discussions
Moderated by Maffia, LordKivlov, JimXIX

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.67 replies
Age of Empires III Heaven » Forums » General Discussions » Brits on the bottom...again!
Bottom
Topic Subject:Brits on the bottom...again!
« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
kilmaim
Skirmisher
posted 02-07-08 08:47 PM EDT (US)         
So, I'm dying to hear from everyone? What's everyone's take on this? Everyone still for the OP Brits or what? Early game...sucks! Middle game...sucks! Late game...sucks!

It says it all...
http://aoe3.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=ct&f=1,35707,0,365

[This message has been edited by kilmaim (edited 02-07-2008 @ 08:49 PM).]

AuthorReplies:
tarheel13
Skirmisher
posted 02-07-08 08:58 PM EDT (US)     1 / 67       
I think Bits are a top 5 civ for lategame/ treaty. They have a strong eco and have great husars muskets and can mass cannons to back it up. But I do agree that their early game (unless some expert is playing them) isnt much.
Silophant
Skirmisher
posted 02-07-08 10:15 PM EDT (US)     2 / 67       
Me, I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!
exc4libulz1022
Skirmisher
posted 02-07-08 10:19 PM EDT (US)     3 / 67       
If someone said brits were OP, then someone did not understand what "OP" means.

"he will have a hard getting banks up"
~rel4xed

"I accidently drop kicked someone once"
~george_uk

ultimitsu
Skirmisher
posted 02-07-08 10:30 PM EDT (US)     4 / 67       
after playing TAD a bit, i think the problem is that TAD civs, just like TWC civs, are too specialised and are too good in colonial, making aoe3 civs that are stuck with generic units worse than before.

hussar for example, would have been OK on their own, but compared to Nagis, they begin to suck. Muskts are OK too until you compare them to Sepoys and Ashis. Same thing goes to xbows.
exc4libulz1022
Skirmisher
posted 02-07-08 10:40 PM EDT (US)     5 / 67       
^ Good point, it seems like ES spent out most of their design ideas in aoe3, they had a little bit of creativity in TWC, but in TAD it seems like they pretty much made new european civs with asian buildings and better units o.O China to russia is a good example of this.

"he will have a hard getting banks up"
~rel4xed

"I accidently drop kicked someone once"
~george_uk

[This message has been edited by exc4libulz1022 (edited 02-07-2008 @ 10:40 PM).]

Silophant
Skirmisher
posted 02-07-08 11:46 PM EDT (US)     6 / 67       
Japan to Britain is another example. Overly powerful muskets, powerful bows that upgrade to skirm levels, expensive houses that boost your economy. What European civ is India most like?
Crusty
Skirmisher
posted 02-08-08 00:15 AM EDT (US)     7 / 67       
The British are not so bad in TAD, you just have to know how to get the most out of them.

expensive houses that boost your economy
Thats what Villager spawn from Houses do for Brits??
That was one thing I thought was great when I use to play Brits. Besides the Eco Boost you where talking about is not that great early game, which is when it is really needed.
For Brits you got to use correct counter units, don't forget mass Grenadier's they are great behind a pack of Skirms.
The British Musket is quiet good, however you have to have it backed up, or someone will counter it.
The Unit's Stats( Hp, Armor make big difference here) & attack Bonus's between Civs determine what units you use it against. Knowing any Civ really well, is great, but knowing the Civs you verse is so helpful.
Like for instance Sioux have great Cav, so when versing Sioux you would do well to pay attention to some kind of anti-cav army.
Theres alot to be gained from experience.

Crusty

[This message has been edited by Crusty (edited 02-08-2008 @ 00:20 AM).]

exc4libulz1022
Skirmisher
posted 02-08-08 00:34 AM EDT (US)     8 / 67       
don't forget mass Grenadier's they are great behind a pack of Skirms.
The British Musket is quiet good, however you have to have it backed up, or someone will counter it.
Sorry, but this is flawed.

Grenadiers are quite bad in almost every situation, and an army of skirms and grenadiers will be badly destroyed by even a fairly small amount of cavalry. A musket army, while far from perfect, would be much more versatile than a skirm/gren army.

"he will have a hard getting banks up"
~rel4xed

"I accidently drop kicked someone once"
~george_uk

schildpad
Skirmisher
posted 02-08-08 02:16 AM EDT (US)     9 / 67       
According to those stats french and japanese are weakest civs. I really think french and japanese arent...

"such a kind fellow!" ~ ķįŋğ_Ćħŗĩš_ĬĬ

Furby killer should be crowned leader of AOE forum ~ [SW_GD]Teutonic

exc4libulz1022
Skirmisher
posted 02-08-08 03:00 AM EDT (US)     10 / 67       
^ I think I mentioned this in the stats thread, but one reason for the japanese being so low is that they were heavily stomped on by the chinese and the dutch were very nearly 2 for 1 against them. Dutch and chinese, 2 of the most played civs in this patch, seem to be counter civs to japs. They also lost, albeit less severely, to the indians.

"he will have a hard getting banks up"
~rel4xed

"I accidently drop kicked someone once"
~george_uk

[This message has been edited by exc4libulz1022 (edited 02-08-2008 @ 03:01 AM).]

Red xerxes
Skirmisher
posted 02-08-08 03:08 AM EDT (US)     11 / 67       
EXcali4z,i thought british grenadiers were great lategame with all the upgrade cards,improved grenades and the upgrade at the arsenal.whatsmore they are upgraded along with muskets[the backbone of the british].i thought musket-gren-hussar made a great combo.i am not a regular brits player,so am i wrong?
Zongo
Skirmisher
posted 02-08-08 04:17 AM EDT (US)     12 / 67       
For Brits you got to use correct counter units, don't forget mass Grenadier's they are great behind a pack of Skirms.
skirms? are you sure we play the same Brits?

I think NaturePhoenix is the only one who can use grenadiers and live to tell about it

Overall Brits are a decent civ, but each game, you're bound to defend while trying to boom until the turning point is reached.

A possible boost could be a reduction of the manor build time, and better age up politicians

Old Indian: Once upon a time, a woman was picking up firewood. She came upon a poisonous snake frozen in the snow. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, "Why have you done this to me?" And the snake answered, "Look, bitch, you knew I was a snake."
JimXIX
Kings Guard
posted 02-08-08 08:55 AM EDT (US)     13 / 67       
Brits aren't the bottom civ on the stats. But it looks like level 20-28 are starting to understand how to play them effectively while struggling to keep up with French and Japanese. France lategame is surely better than Britain's and I would say Britain's is a little ahead of Japan's lategame, while quite behind in the early game. Britain's midgame is pretty decent if you ask me.

You'll remember that four (!) hour game against that crazy Russian that wouldn't give up, not realizing he was playing someone who in real life actually is a crazy Russian, that won't give up either. - Ender_Ward
ultimitsu
Skirmisher
posted 02-08-08 09:37 AM EDT (US)     14 / 67       
what brit need is :

1, a boost to rocket, they were fine in aoe3, but since twc and tad, there are now some super artillery counters, making this already weak artillery even weaker.

2, a boost to upgrade cards, the 4 +15% cards are all pretty weak, mostly because the units they upgrade to are weak units. the two attack cards should combine into one, change the other current attack card to infantry speed + 10%, the two HP card should also combine into one, make the other one an age4 card that reduces hussar cost and train time by 15%

3, manor build time reduction.

[This message has been edited by ultimitsu (edited 02-08-2008 @ 09:40 AM).]

Grottenmolch
Skirmisher
posted 02-08-08 10:19 AM EDT (US)     15 / 67       
Brits are fine the way the are!

The "problem" i see in playing brit is the difference to boom while being able to defend/attack against colonial and especially fortress armies because you stay for a long time in colonial usally. The booming requires more mikro and makro as it is needed compared to other civs!
You should be able to to harass or to turtle while booming.
So skill is needed and the right decision how to spend the res is esential. Further microing your army for fending off an fortress army is vital too.

So players who start with brit or play them wrong get owned by a ff, an otto rush and so on. If they manage to survive this they dont have used the the booming advantage. Then they are screaming: "UP! they need a boost!! They suck in every part of the game!!"
And having stats of players who share the same problem is the ultimate proof for this: "Look its not me its the civ! Others are loosing often too! Now ES do something!"

If balancing is just about making a civ friendlier or easier to play, i recommend hardly to play with an other civ fitting more!

[This message has been edited by Grottenmolch (edited 02-08-2008 @ 10:20 AM).]

MockHamill
Skirmisher
posted 02-08-08 12:22 PM EDT (US)     16 / 67       
I think one of the main problems with Brits is that many people are still massing longbows after colonial.

Longbows have no upgrades to attack or hp and are weak in fortress compared to Dutch skims (industrial age stats in fortress) or Sioux wakina spam with fire pit on attack dance. The range advantage is not as good as people think since you cannot hit and run with longbows due to the set up time.

Their musketeers are good however, but it is more useful to have a strong skirm type unit then a good musketeer unit in most games.

Brits have an advantage vs.: Germans, Ports, Russia, India but are disadvantaged vs. Dutch, very disadvantaged vs. Sioux/Spain and have almost no chance vs. China.

But they are a mid-tier civ and not as bad as the stats show. The best way to play Brits is to do a dual Barrack rush in colonial making musketers/pikes/longbows depending on your opponent. Against Russia you must go hussars first, forget about trying to use longbows vs streelets or streelets/cossaks.

[This message has been edited by MockHamill (edited 02-08-2008 @ 12:24 PM).]

The Jackal
Skirmisher
posted 02-08-08 12:42 PM EDT (US)     17 / 67       
Brits just lack speed, plain and simple. Anyone opposing you knows they have to rush, and playing rush defense is hard. 70% of ESO play is two players trying to bring off a rush faster than the other guy. Most games are over when one enemy wipes out the other enemy's beginning army, and proceeds to head into his town.

Brits also are seriously hampered by the 'noob' problem. The Brits are highly popular, especially by players who are new to the game, or don't spend their time trolling the forums looking for new strats, build orders, unit stats, gathering rates, etc.
randomjack
Skirmisher
posted 02-08-08 01:07 PM EDT (US)     18 / 67       
Ok, I'm not an expert. (lance corporal), but I love the brits, as I tend to turtle and boom. As for manor houses, it is easy to get many many villagers easily if you build houses rapidly. You have.. lets say, three settlers getting wood. You make one house, you have four wood gatherers, making more manors faster. As for the speed problem (dun-dun-tissss), the Brits cant rush well, but can use their great economy to build sufficient fortifications to hold a rush. whenever I start a game, I immediately wall off my starting town, which, with so many wood gatherers, doesnt take long. The wall, with three thousand hitpoints, can hold a rush long enough for you to build up.

Scenario Designing for AOE3 - Try The Aztec Pirate
Also watch my series: The Great Lakes Struggle

Mortars are the Pwnage
kilmaim
Skirmisher
posted 02-08-08 05:29 PM EDT (US)     19 / 67       
@Grottenmolch
Brits are fine the way the are!

The "problem" i see in playing brit is the difference to boom while being able to defend/attack against colonial and especially fortress armies because you stay for a long time in colonial usally. The booming requires more mikro and makro as it is needed compared to other civs!
You should be able to to harass or to turtle while booming. So skill is needed and the right decision how to spend the res is esential. Further microing your army for fending off an fortress army is vital too.

So players who start with brit or play them wrong get owned by a ff, an otto rush and so on. If they manage to survive this they dont have used the the booming advantage. Then they are screaming: "UP! they need a boost!! They suck in every part of the game!!"
And having stats of players who share the same problem is the ultimate proof for this: "Look its not me its the civ! Others are loosing often too! Now ES do something!"

If balancing is just about making a civ friendlier or easier to play, i recommend hardly to play with an other civ fitting more!
The problem with the Brits has nothing to do with booming while being able to attack/defend. Of course, booming requires more micro, but micro has nothing to do with the problems of the Brits. Harassing while both turtle booming and or not booming should be performed in every game because it throws off your opponent...regardless.

I've been playing the Brits exclusively (no other civ - except for Spain once in a great while during team games), since the game was first released, although I did not get a chance to play the v1.06 Brits when the Longbows were apparently "OP". Getting owned due to a FF has nothing to do with being a Brit noob (or "playing them wrong" - whatever that entails). The British booming advantage only comes into play very rarely, moreover, it's easy to boom with the Brits whether in Discovery, Colonial, Fortress (which is made easy by the 8 villagers shipment and TC's) or Industrial. The problem with Brit Booming typically apples to those not familiar with the Brits, which encompasses being able to "micro" effectively and efficiently enough to not over-Boom while producing enough military to compensate for defense/attack - this is certainly NOT the case when I'm playing the Brits.

The British have the potential to have a very nice late game economy. I will concede this point only. One problem with the British is that their early game typically requires being on the defense, hence, "TURTLING". This is a major problem in and of itself, especially if the Brits are required to turtle (which seems to be the case) because they don't have the military to support defending a major rush-onslaught. I'm of the notion that the 6 LB and Musk cards should be changed to 8.

Another problem is that you need to either build a barracks or a stable. If you're required to defend, you need a barracks because Hussars are not worth their cost in resources (or weight in gold - pun intended) so early in Colonial - unless you waste a shipment on the Hussar Hip Point upgrade - still, Hussars may then be a little more resilient, but they are not cost effect unless you're playing against the Russians or you need a few to take out Abus against the Otto's, in whichcase, this is a major problem when you get hunt-screwed. Still, you can't effectively or efficiently get to Fortress (when not hunt screwed) if you're pumping resources into Hussars - which is the Brit's best raiding unit.

So, in order to harrass your opponent, you need something that is both cost effective and will help promote this entire concept. Unforuntately, the Brits CANNOT Fast Fortress even if you boom, they DO NOT have the necessary counter shipments to fend off other civ's Fortress Age shipments. The Blackwatch from the Church and the 9 Highlanders from Harbor used to be able to compensate, but in TAD they are not effective any more because they get eaten alive - Yes! They will get you by and help you (possibly) survive a Fortress Age assualt/raid by just about any civ, but for 1000 food and 2000 gold, they too ARE NOT cost effective in comparison to other's civ's standard units (Plus, this means TWO SHIPMENTS!). Thus and so, you need to either raid with Muskets or Longbows (and possibly some pike thrown into the mix). However, since you have to Turtle (more than ever in TAD) and defend at the same time...even 5 Longbows or 5 Muskets(or 6 if you use the shipments) is typically the difference between GG (not in your favor!) if you choose to raid instead of defending.

The Cherokee allies card really needs to be rethought. I think better would be 6 Highlanders. It was a "nice" concept for TWC, but realistically, this shipments is pretty much a waste of a shipsment. They get slaughtered by anything with 4 legs (regardless of the opposing civ - including camels), and although they do seem to supplement both the 6 longbows and the 6 Musket shipments, this card should be a TWC only shipment. Something definitely, really needs to take its place, such as 6 Highlanders, which would help even 5 Longbows defend against good bumm-rushes, while 5/6 muskets go raiding your opponent.

Grottenmolch, now you can feel free to argue all you want about how wrong "you think" everyone is for wanting a boost to the Brits, but the BOTTOM LINE remains: the statistics, the stats, the hard facts, the calculatable numbers, the body of evidence, whatever you think or feel like calling it DISPROVES without a shadow of a doubt that YOU and YOUR notions about the Brits are absolutely, positively, and with great certainy...WRONG!

The main problem with the Brits will be explained below in response to MockHamill.

@MockHamill
Their musketeers are good however, but it is more useful to have a strong skirm type unit then a good musketeer unit in most games.
MockHamill makes a very good point, however, the thing about the British that is SUPPOSED to make up for their lack of a Skirmisher unit is their Longbows! These guys need some sort of Boost! I do not know what it is, but they require something of a dire necessity. In Colonial, they can be a major force to be wreckoned with - I have been on the end of this from both sides of the fence - playing with mass longbows and playing against them. The problem is that they either come through or they don't - if your opponent successfully defends, you don't stand a chance! Bottom line...

Another problem arises when you can't both mass them and ship Yoeman. In any game you are unable to ship Yoeman, Longbows are simply NOT effective against other units...even and especially skirmishers - or cheap strelets for that matter - and unless you're Nature Phoenix who doesn't need or require Longbows, and can easily SPAM Muskets and Grens and Hussars and flaming bolts of lightening from his arse all while being able to flawlessly MICRO, the Brits simply don't stand a chance... 50 Longbows should be able to do some type of significant damamge to 50 Dutch Halbs, especially since they're LONBOWS and were made to take out everything on a battle field, but in reality, the 50 Halbs eat LB's alive for breakfast.

Turtling and building an economy all the way into Industrial is definitely not a problem...and is actually quite reminiscent of Treaty games, that is, with the exception of a few skirmishes. Longbows need some type of boost that will allow them to be a little more defensive starting in Colonial (and competative with and as skirmishers) - especially since "turtling" seems to be built into the Brit strategy - maybe they require more hitpoints...

AND...ESO really needs to eliminate the Advanced Arsenal CIR (Counter Infantry Rifling) and substitute it with something that wll help enhance the British military. I don't care if it is for Muskets or Longows - I'd personally like to see something here for the Longbows - but a this point, I don't care if it's for "jovial villagers" as long as it applies to the British and can be used in the here and now and not based on some shipment that may never arive due to your TC's and Outposts being destroyed!

@ultimitsu
what brit need is :

1, a boost to rocket, they were fine in aoe3, but since twc and tad, there are now some super artillery counters, making this already weak artillery even weaker.

2, a boost to upgrade cards, the 4 +15% cards are all pretty weak, mostly because the units they upgrade to are weak units. the two attack cards should combine into one, change the other current attack card to infantry speed + 10%, the two HP card should also combine into one, make the other one an age4 card that reduces hussar cost and train time by 15%

3, manor build time reduction.
1. I agree with this.

2. I can see this and maybe agree with this in theory. I like the Hussar idea. On the other, in making these suggestions, I cannot understand why it seems feasible to make these type of modifications and give nothing to the Longbows, which is what seems to be broke. On the other hand, if these are AGE 2 cards for Muskets/Grens, then maybe yes. Still...why nothing to the Longbows?

3. Although, I would really love to see this, I am not certain that this is really needed, although, I do think a reduction in manor cost to 130-wood would be more appropriately fitting.
scriv1984
Skirmisher
posted 02-08-08 06:51 PM EDT (US)     20 / 67       
Longbows are weak in colonial and early fortress yet still OP in lategame. In ages IV and V they beat all their counters when en mass excluding cuirassiers and to less of an extent mahouts. (bearing in mind that halbs aren't strictly a counter)

Brits are fundamentally flawed IMO in that they have no "go-to" unit which you can use to force the game. Think Forest Prowler, Cuirassier, Howdah, Skirmisher, Wakina, Eagle Runner Knight. These are units which will cause concern to your opponent and give reason to FF in order to gain access to them. Brits have nothing like this. Their muskets, while being strong are easily countered. Longbows are paper-maché until lategame.
And having stats of players who share the same problem is the ultimate proof for this: "Look its not me its the civ! Others are loosing often too! Now ES do something!"
I think this is a flawed argument. The only thing that makes them difficult to play with is the lack of unit-choice.

ESO2 - Crashtest

"I don't have 3 hours to break through your 50 layers of walls to kill you.
Real men play without walls." LordKivlov
Grottenmolch
Skirmisher
posted 02-08-08 07:28 PM EDT (US)     21 / 67       
@kilmaim
Long post, but the only things you are describing are your problems with playing brit, that you dont have any clue how to play with them and that you dont have the idea how to use these hussars. Your only solution to this is calling for balance because your obvious solutions to do a ff, having a spammable unit or even to send highlanders failed.
Your only argument in the beginning were the stats from garlef and i already posted something to this.
...the statistics, the stats, the hard facts, the calculatable numbers, the body of evidence,..
LOL you havent mentioned nothing of these!
I think this: klick is also a reason why you are so on fire for balancing the brits and for wacko
L_Clan_Socrates
VIP
posted 02-08-08 07:32 PM EDT (US)     22 / 67       
How to stop an Ottoman rush as British:

All vills on food in Colonial, age up asap with tower + 200 gold.

When aging have 2 vills on gold, 7-8 on wood, rest on food.

Upon aging drop the tower near your TC and build a stable.

Ship 700 wood.

Build Hussars and raid. When 700 wood arrives build houses +1/2 outposts depending on need. Contintually force the Ottoman player to have his villagers garrisoned thus slowing down his unit spam.

If he does push with all Jans be sure to have towers focus fire with the TC shooting and call out minutemen. You can even get villager upgrades and use them as an extra meatshield if needed, this is a bit micro intensive though.

[img]http://www.aoe3-arena.com/sign2/WaCkO,3,0.png[/img]
Brtnboarder495
Skirmisher
posted 02-08-08 11:20 PM EDT (US)     23 / 67       
Yea .. Britain isn't as bad as they used to be, but they are still a little too slow and unspecialized while lacking any strong backbone unit.

Stopping an Otto rush as Brits is also a piece of cake compared to before. I used to dread any Otto player when I was paired up vs them as Brits, it was always an auto loss it seemed.

Gameranger: _NiGhThAwK_
Gomezd
Skirmisher
posted 02-09-08 03:19 AM EDT (US)     24 / 67       
there is a couple of things that really disturbed me about your post kilmaim.
I'm of the notion that the 6 LB and Musk cards should be changed to 8.
This is way way over the top.
The Cherokee allies card really needs to be rethought. I think better would be 6 Highlanders.
This is even MORE out of the top specially if you expect it to stay at a 500 gold cost. 6 high landers in colonial for a shipment and 500 gold is just stupidly insane.

Things like this really make me think that your view on the weakness of brits is over-exaggerated.

It is my opinion that the only reason you think brits are so weak is because you lose games to players that are better than you, and you simply blame your civ.

I read most of what you beleive is wrong with the civ but most of it seem waaay to exaggerated and some stuff is common among many civs.
ultimitsu
Skirmisher
posted 02-09-08 04:21 AM EDT (US)     25 / 67       
8 cherokee is a very weak card, because cherokee is quite weak to start with, and 8 only worth 960 res, cost 1100~1200 to get.

should really be 9 to 10.


as for wacko's strat against otto. i dont know who is the last 2200 otto he had beaten with that, but even a 2000 otto should be able to beat wacko, generally if you leave jan rush uncontested, your outpost is going down fast.

also otto can equally ship silk road boosted 700 + 600 wood and cover his hunting ground with outposts, after all outpost are much stronger against your hussar than his jans.
« Previous Page  1 2 3  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires III Heaven | HeavenGames