Aztecs small changes

[LKAOE4]

@SMUM15236

Okay. Aztecs have no counter to that many. Unless you can afford sacrificing 10 skirms for 1 BBC and still manage to hold the HC from going to your base.

Thank you ! It’s exactly what Im trying to explain since the begining. That’s why I was suggesting +2 range for skirms instead of +1/+1 (range, attack). With +2 range, Aztecs could have a slightly better chance vs powder canon civs.

@SMUM15236

@LKAOE4

I’m not sure to understand. What do you mean by “Twice as fast” ?

Do the calculation. Skirms deal 1 damage to 6 PA unit (Huusar, LC, Cavalier, Champion+Gambeson). Aztecs with Atlatl does 2. So they can kill them in half number of javelin resulting in killing them 2x faster.

Regarding this, I need to check, Im not sure about your calculation.

[SMUM15236]

@LKAOE4

Thank you ! It’s exactly what Im trying to explain since the begining. That’s why I was suggesting +2 range for skirms instead of +1/+1 (range, attack). With +2 range, Aztecs could have a slightly better chance vs powder canon civs.

Will still be a big nerf.

@LKAOE4

Regarding this, I need to check, Im not sure about your calculation.

Okay, do it. Then tell me.

[LKAOE4]

@SMUM15236

Okay, do it. Then tell me.

I tried Aztecs vs Turks : Post Imperial without Atlatl first, then Post Imperial With Atlatl

Without Atlatl:
VS Hussard : 30 Aztecs Elite Skirms killing a Turks Hussard Post Imperial in 4 shoots
VS Hellabardiers : 30 Aztecs Elite Skirms killing a Turks Hussard Post Imperial in 1 shot

Without Atlatl:
VS Hussard : 30 Aztecs Elite Skirms killing a Turks Hussard Post Imperial in 4 shoots
VS Hellabardiers : 30 Aztecs Elite Skirms killing a Turks Hussard Post Imperial in 1 shot

Conclusion : It’s the same and telling that changing +1 range/+1 atk into +2 range is a nerf is still to be proven. So I still think +2 range is better.

Logically, the less you have skirms, the more you will see the a difference in term of number of shoot. But who fight hussars or hallbardiers with 15 skirms at Imperial Age ?

[SMUM15236]

@LKAOE4

I tried Aztecs vs Turks : Post Imperial without Atlatl first, then Post Imperial With Atlatl

Without Atlatl:
VS Hussard : 30 Aztecs Elite Skirms killing a Turks Hussard Post Imperial in 4 shoots
VS Hellabardiers : 30 Aztecs Elite Skirms killing a Turks Hussard Post Imperial in 1 shot

Without Atlatl:
VS Hussard : 30 Aztecs Elite Skirms killing a Turks Hussard Post Imperial in 4 shoots
VS Hellabardiers : 30 Aztecs Elite Skirms killing a Turks Hussard Post Imperial in 1 shot

Why the hell did you use a civ with extra PA on scout line?

@LKAOE4

Conclusion : It’s the same and telling that changing +1 range/+1 atk into +2 range is a nerf is still to be proven. So I still think +2 range is better.

Conclusion : You either forgot Turks had extra PA on scout line or too arrogant to accept your mistake.

I guess you will use Tatars next time and tell your proposal is better.

Scout line have 2+4 = 6 PA, E.Skirms have 3+4 = 7 attack, with Atlatl 3+5 attack.
7-6=1
8-6=2
Literally don’t know what is there to actually run a scenario to do this simple math.

[LKAOE4]

@SMUM15236

Why the hell did you use a civ with extra PA on scout line?

Because Turks are the best representative of Gunpowder civ.

But for you, I retried with Tatars, as requested. Results = Same. Hussards die in 4 shots in both case.

But Im still curious to know wich number of Skirms you need to find your result of x2 faster with Atlatl.

Im not arrogant, it’s facts.

@SMUM15236

Literally don’t know what is there to actually run a scenario to do this simple math.

So run a scenario to check. I don’t know about your maths, but your conclusion is wrong. Don’t force me to post a video please I’m at work.

Tried vs classical Hindustanis Hussars without Atlatl 4 shoots - with Atlatl - 4 shoots

[SMUM15236]

I can’t take it anymore.

[LKAOE4]

You tell that Atlatl make you kill Hussards 2 times faster than without bruh. Prove it. Im trying to find the situation where it’s true and I cannot find.