I’ve said it before: the Quinametzin, the giant that essentially functions as long-range siege, costs way too much favor, making it almost impossible for the Aztecs to break through Hades’ or Sobek’s fortresses spam.
Choosing between recasting a god power or training your dedicated long-range siege units is a terrible design choice, in my opinion.
I don’t really understand why the Otontin Smasher is a Heroic Age unit either. In almost 90% of situations, you’re better off making Armadillos.
Sure, in very long games the Otontin becomes a good Destroyer replacement, but it costs 4 population when it should cost 3 like other close-range sieges such as Destroyers, Portable Rams, or Eggy Siege Towers. On top of that, it’s very slow, and before all the upgrades kick in, it’s basically a dead unit.
Otontin Smashers are like 1.5 destroyers. They have more HP and more attack while also costing more so it makes sense that they are also 4 population.
It is also the case for other pantheons that Myth units are better at siege then human units. That is part of the identity of AoM. You can choose the minor god that gives you a siege myth unit if you want better siege ability. As Atlanteans you will choose the Behemoth over the Destroyer too.
When you choose the Ayotochtil you don’t get the amazing Obsidian Butterfly so it is a trade off.
Yea but in this case aztecs dont have regular siege. Their range siege costs favor, which aztec struggles with on the late game.
It doesnt help the unit also has less range than its peers, has a myth unit tag that makes it extra vulnerable and theres not draft horses or engineers upgrades for aztecs to improve it, rather only 1 tied to a minor god.
I agree the pop might be fine, my issue with the unit is that human units that siege usually work in numbers, destroyers is less efficient than a ram/ siege tower but you have more of the available. This unit has the cost of a ram and the need to be in numbers as a destroyers, so it feels bad to use early on imo.
But aren’t the Aztecs designed to be worse at siege? It would be pretty strange if they were as good at siege as other civs that have actual siege engines.
So is atty, and they have those upgrades and their siege doesnt cost favor.
Aztecs dont need to have the Best siege by any means, but being locked by favor income to acess a regular unit seems bad.
Imagine if greeks needed 20-30 favor for their mythic age hero. Yea having less heroes is their weakness, but theres no need to kick it down further imo.
Same if norse needed to spend 10 favor per godi, it would feel horrible.
If they remove the favor cost, the Quinametzin would still be worse than an Egyptian Catapult because it has less range, lower attack, doesn’t benefit from Engineers, and heroes can kill it in just a few hits.
However, without Favor, or at least with a reduced favor cost, it could become somewhat usable and fill a useful niche.
Quinametzin are faster then catapults with Draft Horses, they have much higher HP und they cost less population. Oh and they cost less overall resources. If they would cost 0 Favour then Aztecs would just simply have better siege then Egyptians.
Against a pure Hero army they would be worse but against human units they are a lot more tanky.
Though I can kinda see that 20 Favour might be a little too high. 10 might be the better cost. But 0 would be definitely too low.
They dont really need a stats buff, could do a cost reduction on the first one and a cost shift on the other one.
Aztec have by no means the power house early game that atty do, which justifies their weaker siege later on. They also have worse eco, worse favor gain, a myth unit weakness among other things.
It shouldnt be Just removing the favor, could add a wood cost or increase the gold cost as needed, but limiting acess to a key unit is harsh, specially with how aztec favor gain goes down the drain later in the game.
They’re not even that much tankier than a catapult, they have more hp but less hack and pierce armor, sure they can take a few more hits but they die very quickly anyway.