Same as Haud Kanya, a group of people are saying this cav is strong, while its status is the worst compared between cav.
When you talk team game/ treaty, he tells you he plays 1v1 sup, when you talk about sup, he starts to talk late game.
You will start feeling annoying to these people. They just come to say something they think and deny your figure comparison and control demonstration from reality.
From I saw the problem even a top player (not me) talks here they just come to deny without any evidence.
Same as here figure comparison is done, control is showed, they just come to say I play Aztec too they are strong and they want their playing civ to be nerfed but even no any record.
Iâd not give to shits about the top players currently as they seem to be embroiled in a grudge drama match between each other attempting to nerf eachothers civs.
Also your own exemple is, questionable as you literally picked the best possible goons, the only way this wouldâve been a more screwed comparison would be when youâd instead have used 1 pop cav like the keshig or ruyter.
Port goon is not stronger than euro goon as default.
Then haters comes to say ERK has 4 cards so I need to apply Port cards for late game too.
The problem for ERK is speed and no anti-artillery, but dev just nerf them due to treaty.
If ruyter HR ERK, ruyter will be same advantage. (Ruyter gets 10% RR and 45f cheaper, I didnât test but may be weaker than goon).
In sup even team game it is not usually to get fully 200 pop unless both team are turtle like treaty, so I apply pop cost 100w for 10 pop in goon cost.
Port goon is literally a royal guard goon. The ONLY royal guard goon. So no. The correct corresponding comparison would be a normal non card goon and a normal non card eagle in the first place.
Port cards are not better though, because they affect preciscly one unit, whilest knight combat cards due to affecting half the roster have lower opportunity cost then the solo port cards, beyond the obvious increase of range for EK, which has a double opportunity cost positive and negative.
Yes, this case is only for ERK, their card also buff other unitsâŠ
For example, I play team game, usually we will not mix units in a team, so I will just spam ERK or JPK, one of them. In this case Port cards will be better choice in team. Sure in 1v1 they are different usage.
the arrow knight problemâą to me is that they have extremely high dps vs artillery but each arrow does only a small amount of damage (to standard artillery, they definitely overperform against 50rr cannon and siege elephants). So they are underwhelming when you desperately need to take out a cannon instantly (the way a culv can do) but really very strong over time.
Comparing just stats on paper doesnât show the whole story, on paper AK might not appear cost efficient compared to a culv but with a culv you need to swap modes and they get shot down easily, AK has 3.75 speed and can kite extremely easily, it is pointless making or sending artillery vs an aztec player with AK. On top of that they can also kite skirms and do decent damage vs them and pretty much any unit which culvs cannot do, they also get boosted by the 10 WP almost every aztec will have on the plaza.
What are you supposed to do vs 2 noble huts with groups of AK and ERK? If you send cav the ERK shred them, artillery melt to AK. All the while AK are kiting and dealing damage to all of your units due to superior range, if you snare and try and rush them down they fight under 2 noble huts and pop out JPK from tc big button and/or shipment.
When a civ is consistently strong/op we see above average win rates across elo ranges and across several patches, both china and sweden had 56%+ win rate for a very long time, aztec are similar in that they have maintained an above average win rate forever, thereâs absolutely no justification in buffing them further not when you have civs like malta and ethiopia with 46% win rates while aztec remains at 53%.
You know port goon combat is extra 5% to cav combat as the whole 4 range thing really upturns most metrics since you can torment your soft counter thr musk and snipe art way easier right?
Although hater changed topic again.
There is another unit in the game called siege elephant from India. Is 4 speed 700hp, only cost 650 resources, 2 seige elephants CAN 1 SHOT a FALC, this is a age3 350 resource card, requires around 1350 resource
You said you can age up with 2 noble, send 7 AK card and train 2 batches AK in noble to 1 shot falcs right? So you are using age up bonus, 1 card and 2 batches AK resources to 1 shot falcs? SO BALANCE and STRONG TO AK.
AK is good to counter skirm? LETS SEE GIVING AZTEC ABUS OR BERSAGLIERI?
Can you see anyone using AK to counter skirm in a team game? Why donât they do so?
Aztec nobles is 200w 100g x 2 = 600 resources and Lakota age up can have 800 w, which wood is harder to gather
Again please go to calculate the pickrate and winrate by deducting these smurf game from 1400~2000 elo rank. To see how large impact to the winrate from these several smurf ONLY.
This figure is only for being found smurf. I know some people is doing the same for natives civs because native rush is fast for them to rank up.
AGAIN I CANâT SEE ANY RELIABLE FROM THE WR DATA. YOU DONâT KNOW HOW IS THE STRONG IMPACT FROM SMURF WITH SO FEW AOE3 PLAYERS. THE DATA YOU INSIST FOR A WEAK ECO WEAK UNIT CIV IS WRONG.
Reminder:
Are you going to say Aztec is so strong that even a newbie can make it easily win for around >80 winrate now?
Can you admit you keep messing the balance now? You even donât know where is Aztec strong only say they have one of highest winrate.
Donât use a 2 pop unit for comparison when you have the 1-pop ruyterâŠ
This is mediocre reasoning,
And by saying every person contradicting you is an « aztec hater «, I believe you merit a special prize for achieving such a high level of mediocrity.
Not every person.
I didnât say this to someone else.
May be until I see another one always speaks something no need do research or just speak without responsibility, may be will have one more.
*for example âI can use age up bonus and send a card and train 2batches this unit to do a general function that normal civs only requires 1 card, so this unit is strong â something such bias opinion.
Just they cost similar resource reason.
If testing unit has higher damage and speed than ERK, result will be the same, just HR ERK.
I donât want to test anymore I feel tired enoughâŠ
if win % is right then aztec is not in a bad spot, if Iâm being real aztec is probably the only civ that is able to stop MOST shenanigans in this game as they dont have any issues against canons, and 90% of players try to do something weird to win games not all play methodically
One example being you could literally play ECO or go water vs ITALY as aztec and not lose to the italy AGE IV play. I donât think there are that many civs that can do that
Keeping it on the topic, you should stop comparing erk to goons, the light infantry unit of aztec destroys goon type units
This situation is similar as if you are facing cuirassier and you donât control goon HR, cuirassier may destroy goon too.
But we are not going to say cuirassier is OP or they break the counter system.
I honestly believe the ERK should be a little bit cheaper. No stat buffs or anything, but being BARELY cheaper than Carbine Cavalry has to be kinda suspect right?
Also giving Aztecs some sort of ranged counter-skirmisher would be nice, maybe a Cuachicqueh unit could fling an atlatl at long range (tagged as Archer and Counter-Skirmisher?) into masses of enemy ranged infantry?
