Aztecs buff

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

Hi, I’m main Aztecs. I’ve played almost 3000 games with them since the age of empires 2hd, so I know what I’m talking about when it comes to Aztecs, maybe many don’t know, but the Aztecs have been the civ with the most nerfs in the game starting with the

  • eagles warriors in their ap and speed and hp in addition to their development cost
    -jaguar warriors with their hp from 125 to 75 and 2 less damage
    -monks with their hp scaling of 15-10-5 being the current scaling of 5 per tech
    -siege no longer have heavy scorpions as in the beginning
    -Archers no longer have finger tags
    among other minor balances and reworks that have been done to the game
    -one of them would be the damage of the -champions that for the Aztecs had almost 24 damage something huge
    -loom from start replaced by 50 additional gold
    -Villagers carry fewer resources

tmb many will not understand how much these will affect the civ since it is not a civ that is played a lot unless you get enranked when going random

that is why I will expose the following points to buff the Aztecs

-add halberdiers to the tech tree.

The reason for this is simple, the Aztecs have nothing to do against paladins or castle cavalry units, mainly elephants. To kill 1 Persian elephant, you need almost 17 pikemen since their additional damage against cavalry is nil even if you have +4 wars. floral and even with onagers if there are too many elephants it is practically gg if you go against malays khemers or some elephant civ as soon as you lose your siege you will not be able to recover that point on the map no matter how many units you train forcing you to retreat from that point or simply lose the departure.

Something similar happens with the paladins to kill 25 paladins you need a total of 45-50 pikemen to finish 1 single pikeuro as a survivor, which represents an abysmal loss of resources towards the enemy and very rarely you will be able to counteract the paladins with onagers the mix of monks pikemen is a useless waste of resources and you will only have 5 overbreathing pikemen if you trained 10 monks.

while other civs like the Koreans without the full infantry bonuses would need 30-35 Halberdiers to kill the Paladins ending up with a total of 18-20 Survivors giving a resource and unit advantage when countering a threat allowing a quick attack on the enemy

Another possible buff in case the halberdiers are discarded as an option for x reasons such as the supremacy that they would grant in a late game fight of halberdiers and skirimishers and siege would be to add xolot warriors to the Aztec tree

I don't know if many know but currently the only way to get them is by converting an enemy stable and they do not have the cavalry improvements of the blacksmith, however they are still a great option when facing siege cannons, onagers and trebuchets where the eagles warriors do an aberrant job of countering said threat due to all the eagle warriors nerfs

-The xolot warriors

they do a good job against the paladins and siege despite not having the cavalry upgrades having a similar cost to the paladins in terms of food in gold they are more expensive but 25-30 xolots warriors can defeat 25 paladins if they have the +4 flower wars tmb being a viable option against the siege by having more hp than the eagle warriors and a little more speed. These units are balanced by not having the cavalry improvements of the armor smithy and stable technologies

something that they have to give back to the Aztecs, yes or yes, it is the finger tag technology for archers, something that undoubtedly represents a valuable asset when facing units with range

These changes were not proposed without foundation, but have been tested in various scenario games against other players and those changes have been agreed to. Special thanks to Lorelore who has followed me throughout this testing journey.

I hope final words reconsider these changes with which to add one of these, either adding halberdiers or xolot warriors would balance the game.

1 Like
3

Later I will add a video of how these changes would be and the current one because of why they are necessary

4

What? it’s a popular picked/banned civ on 1v1 arabia and other kind of open map tournament.

I’m not against giving them halberdiers but there are some statements i dont agree.

first, Paladins are extremely rare to get on 1v1 due to their huge cost and time upgrade. only a few cavalry civ get them pretty often beside you need to survive to Aztecs oppressive mid-game.
Second, Aztecs have faster creating pikemen + monk extra hp to deal with knights
Last, Persian Elephant are never used unless you play a TG closed map plus they share the same monk weakness but worse.

I wont comment about xolotl warrior since it’s an hard unit to get.

4 Likes
5

Aztec are OP (TBH Mayans are more OP than Aztecs but still)
The Eagles nerf should be OK, the weakness of Aztecs is the late game
Strongest Monks in the game, smooth eco, top infantry (with Eagles) and one of the best TB
If they need something is a buff for their UU

3 Likes
6

They sounded OP before.

They sounded OP before

90hp monks are what you are supposed to use.

No way that is true now. Sounded OP before if xolotl warrior could nearly beat paladins in 1v1.

Not necessarily.

I think you are not playing the civ as it is designed, and therefore it is normal that you feel it is lacking. Many players and pro like the civ as it is now and do not feel any buff is needed. I think you should play another civ, even after 3000 games it is never too late. Maybe you need a bit of fresh air, you can try Incas.

1 Like
7

No

4 Likes
8

they need a buff are shit in late game

9

aztecs are shit against spam palandins or micro asedy halberdiers nothign to do u waste more resuorces than ur enemy thats a great disaventage

10

try play aztecs on michi on 3v3 late game and then talk me im rlly sure u not play aztecs before

11

Where did you get your Numbers from?

Im sure 17pikes is a little overkill

Here im sure 25 Paladin kill the Pikes, If the cav player decides to take the fight

Xolotl warriors are basically just reskinned Knights with the Same stats and costs

And as others already said aztecs are in a fine spot, every civ needs weaknesses and If you pick a civ without FU cav, arbs or halbs on a map like michi that doesnt mean that that civ needs a buff.

5 Likes
12

I’m confused.

When did Jaguar Warriors have 125 HP and 2 more damage? In The Conquerors they had 50 HP (75 for elite), the same damage as they do now. As far as I can tell (from the wiki) they’ve only been buffed, and now have 1 more pierce armour and a shorter training time than they used to.

Again, in The Conquerors they had +5 HP per tech, no scaling. When did this bonus scale? (And how? I don’t actually understand what you’re claiming.)

You mean Thumb Ring? Again, they didn’t have it in The Conquerors.

They have more HP, speed, and pierce armour now than they did in The Conquerors. (Although apparently they did have slightly more speed from The African Kingdoms to Rise of the Rajas.)

As far as I can tell, Champions have never had their attack changed, and Garland Wars has never been changed either.

7 Likes
13

Several of those bonuses were never a thing.

Considering you seem to play mostly non standard games at a relatively low level, playing 3000 matches with Aztecs doesn’t mean you really have an appreciation for Aztecs at higher levels, which is what the game is balanced around.

5 Likes
14

I honestly would think this would have been written by an AI if it were not for the spelling. Of the 8 nerfs you are talking about, only two are real.

Moreover, I agree they fall off quite a bit in the late game, and perhaps one could think of a way to limit this but they are globally much better than what you say. AND they are being buffed by Gambesons.

5 Likes
15

All your old bonuses are merely invented or just wrong, however aztecs are no longer a decent civ, they are bad at everything, only low elo players struggle with the ew spam, but for good players ews are not an issue and the civ is trash on water, team games and now even in 1x1 as they have an awful winrate on hands of pro players, outside arena (1x1) aztecs can do nothing.

The hate towards original meso civs is insane considering all the broken civs introduced took their spot day 1, there was no need to nerf them to the ground, their eco is nothing compared to poles or any new civ honestly.

16

The reason why Aztecs got multiple nerfs over the course of time and why they shouldn’t get anymore buffs is because they are an extremely strong civ and before the +5 to +3, 18% to 11% nerf they were the most broken civ for 1v1.
And that’s why you won how many ever games you did. They have almost no bad matchups. And the balance is about avoiding such civs to be overpowered.

None of this ever happened. Either you played like a custom mod or a campaign but Jaguars never had 125 hp and more damage, there was no monks with 15-10-5 either. Champs never had 24 damage either.

The rest of the changes happened and were a consequence of the 3 p.armor eagle warrior upgrade. In the legacy version, they didn’t have that 3 p.armor eagles, and with keyboard input delay, archer micro was quite difficult. This made them naturally weak and they were given strong eco, early game bonus and extra hp monks to help them defend and hit imp fast. Once the eagle warrior upgrade came through, castle age was no longer a problem, the strong eco and military production made them broken. The presence of equally broken civs like Franks, Obsidian arrow mayans and atleast one new broken civ per expansion kept them off the balance changes but finally they got their nerfs 2 years ago.

The current changes are mixed. Their castle age all-in eagle monk play which is their major strength is getting nerfed while 6 p.armor 21 attack champions along with +1/+1 attack, range skirms will be available in imp.

The goal of an RTS is to provide multiple usable civs and not have players who have played 3000 games with 1 super strong civ.

4 Likes
17

I wonder what kind of game you play with aztecs and on which map because from the look of it you certainly not picking them on right map …

1 Like
18

Off-topic, but I’m continually amazed by this forum’s censorship. It will let people say

but not ######## (people of the Empire of Hattusa) or ####### (semi-nomadic Turkic people beginning with k).

Edit: but it will allow Duchy now. It didn’t used to.

3 Likes
21

Tested and agreed to? Well, that settles it! Of course, I had my concerns at first, but it appears this guy has done his homework. Devs, you’d better do as he says.

2 Likes
22

Wouldn’t be surprised if this is some kind of April Fool’s shitpost

4 Likes
23

Aztects are very strong from early to mid game and fall of only in late game. This is not something problematic in itself as many civs are great in a portion of the game and bad in another.

They have good winrates and are always seen in tournaments, they are just not suited for closed Maps/team games but great for 1vs1, when paladin is non esistente unless you play at low level mostly

Aztects also have the best monk in the game against cav.

I personally have no problem in giving them halberdiers, but halberdiers with Garland wars is scary. That would requie a rebalance of the tech, or maybe a split like militia and eagles infantry get +4 damage and Spears +2 damage. But honestly if we are to give aztects a bit better late game, i would add thumb ring to them, giving them another FU unit in late game outside of champs and eagles

On a more conservative foot, we should just buff Jaguar warriors and maybe expand on the xolotl warriors by giving it and Imperial Age upgrade and make it count as an Eagle Warrior, so it would benefit from Garland wars and be countered by both Spears and champs