THERE ARE MORE MAPS THAT ARE FUNNIER TO PLAY THAT HAVE NATIVES TOO, also others with better trade routes for XP…
FOR TREATY PLAYERS: Whats the point of having new maps if you are going to keep playing Upper Andes?
11 Likes
I agree that there needs to be more diversity, however the problem with trade routes is that often it means easy access through the map. It opens up the game to more a running style of play which often frustrates players and ends games early, which no ones wants when they have boomed for 40-60 mins. With andes upper, its straight through the middle in teams games so it doesnt really affect anything.
Space is an issue in most other maps. Civs like Hausa need tons of space, also Sweden wood boom (which is the current meta) significantly reduces base space as you arent chooping any trees in the base. This is basically a problem with the starting positions of the town centers as sometimes in other maps, you are pushed right to the edge or theres physical obstacles like cliffs/mountains/bodies of water etc in the way. General size of the map needs to be correct also as too small of a map means if players lose the first fight, they are on the back foot in their base with no room to build or too big of map caters to “running” and prolongs games as players have a bad habit of wall spamming in treaty games. In andes, this isnt a problem.
Wood sustain is an issue also. With civs that dont have access to factories etc, it really hurts them not to be able to sustain wood throughout a long game. Also, there must be enough trees in base radius for Sweden to be able to play the game. Again andes doesnt have this problem.
The natives. Sure this is flexable, but treaty players have become accustomed to the -15% train times from the natives. Infact, some civs that suffer from poor train time like Ottoman actually completely rely on the train times from natives to even play the treaty game mode.
Theres more key points that a map has to hit to be a “treaty” map like balanced treasures etc, but the above are the main ones.
It takes specific map design to balance treaty and the devs do try and they have done a good job with updating old maps, but it just isnt enough to take away the majority away from andes upper. Alot of us play every night and stream it, they can easily get our feedback if they wanted to and we would certainly love to play test as it does get tiresome playing the same map over and over.
3 Likes
Cool. I think what would be constructive is that if we dedicate some time one night (on stream) and have a group discussion about other maps, maybe that would be the easiest way to let you guys know how we feel about them, what could be improved etc. Ill let the fellas know and see if they would be up for it.
FedSmoker is 100% right in what he says about Upper Andes but I personally prefer playing on Deccan and Orinocco and there are many others that play on these maps
1 Like
Upper Andes is the perfectly balanced map for treaty, thats why we play it.
-You got all the natural ressources to reach imperial/max vills before you need to get on mills/estates
-Enough trees for any civ relying on wood and to be able to spamm natives after 40. Enough trees to torp as Sweden.
-Any playstyle is viable. you got the huge rather unobstructed open area for splits/running. you got the cliffs where the natives are for skill matchups with secured flanks.
-there is a clear objective on the map, taking the enemies natives is almost always the end since its almost 100 free pop. on other map the only objective is to kill their base.
-the incan natives help to reduce training times which is extremely important for civs like iro, otto, india, china and japan.
-the inca natives are also great for the ‘‘skill matchup’’ in cliffs. since you get a lot of free population which you can use as anti cav/skirms you can use more artillery to micro.
-some civs like spain, iro or france become a lot more viable in natives. spain gets enough pop to protect their missionairies/art from flanking, iro gets the much needed anti cav and france can use their insane skirms as the army core instead of ‘‘MEH’’ muskets.
-civs like germany get free pop to protect their heavy cannons since they struggle with pop issues.
-most euro civs get instant cav on this map thus increasing the speed of flanks and decreasing the reaction time. panic spamming 20 huss is fun.
the trade route right through the middle is another mini objective as it secures you a steady trickle of ressources if you manage to push the enemy past that line. thus rewarding the more aggressive players
while the reworked orinocco is great in terms of ressources its a completely different playstyle since its not that hard to hold the river. splits or runs cant really happen. and no train time reduction/the lack of access to ranged anti inf artillery makes it not viable for civs like india. have fun spamming sepoy/gurkha into artillery
great plains is a pain with the trade route and the bad position of trees.
there are other maps with enough ressources or a objective like the natives or with the inca natives but upper andes is the perfect mix of all of the above. thats why we stick to andes.
1 Like
The trade route has always been a problem in the treaty. This poll shows that many people agree with me. In the late game or at least in NR mode you should be able to build gate over the path.
1 Like
just saying but stating “becomes a lot more viable” when 2 of the factions are OP is kind of a questionable argument for the map being good.
france and spain can both fight without natives.
germans should have a 130 pop, you dont see germans ever going natives to begin with.
not sure i think this is good.
1 Like
But its repetitive and boring to play it over and over again. Maps as silwa oasis, atlas, pampas, central plains, silk road, himalayas, deccan (famous on legacy, 0 matches on DE) are perfect too.
I dont think that having all the TP in the same side of the map giving tons of extra units is that good. I would prefer having 1 TP per side as other maps have. Its not fun when you have to switch with an ally to use them and defend his/her base…
Devs removed Gendarme spam and train time reduction from good faith agreements (they didnt want instant hatamotos but with just migrants they train faster than legacy🙃) for some reason, that inca tech becomes the situation worse cause EVERY CIV get it, I prefer wait a bit more to train Sepoys than having
doppels, opris, ashis, africans, militia spamming faster
About wood, I play 3v3 and I think that there are too much trees in the walls place that are annoying to cut.
The trade route in the middle is useless for 40/60minutes, in treaty that XP help a lot in other maps as Darfur does. This is a great map, giving them a bit more trees as Orinoco got would fix it for that requirements.
Finally, a map that would be great can be a Patagonia like map, but without the sea. A trade route on the back of bases next to the end of the map while TC radious allow to wall the front.
2 Likes
China is OP on treaty, Japan is not weak (10units batches). Other 3 have to build tons of barracks to compensate. From that list only Iro have troubles cause being hard wood civ without infinite source of it.
I play India a lot and I can say you that sepoys spamming barracks are your worse nightmare if well used. Their biggest problem is the lack of artillery over train time.
I remember the combination of Russians + Chinese + Ottomans on the Andes map. It was crazy. (In the legacy game).
1 Like
refaz patagônia, sem o mar com aliados mapuches e incas com as 2 rotas comerciais para inimigos totalmente plana com algum penhascos
france hasnt been op for half a year, their eco got nerfed hard, their start is a lot worse due to the gendarme changes. spain out of nats cant do anything. you split them and they have to split their army. either way you have a portion without unction or half and half. suddenly their army isnt strong anymore and lacks 10 pop.
just you saying that already shows me that you dont know how to counter these civs. france without natives is basically a worse portugal.
you never see germans going natives to begin with? excuse me? germany is ONLY viable in natives. without it you cant do anything.
everything i said is from the perspective of a former top 10 treaty player. its not about opinions or anything its just stating facts. and if lower skilled players think that running sepoys is hard to counter or japan training in batches of 10 is OP because they need less barracks thats fine. but dont talk about map balance or anything being boring if you have no idea what youre talking about.
thats like saying russia is OP because they get instant infantry 
3 Likes
nobody forces you on that map, if you dont want to play it just make a lobby. we andes lamers usually dont let anyone in our lobbies we dont know anyway.
having the TPs on the same side gives the clear objective and enables a lot of civs. splitting it and youre suddenly on every map ever instead of a well balanced andes.
the trade route isnt useless, i stated why its useful, nobody cares about the xp tho. its about ressources. like i said earlier, if you think its boring host a lobby for yourself
From that list only Iro have troubles cause being hard wood civ without infinite source of it.
I play India a lot and I can say you that sepoys spamming barracks are your worse nightmare if well used. Their biggest problem is the lack of artillery over train time.
sepoy spamming barracks is easily dealt with if it takes 10 minutes for any unit coming out. youre more than welcome to show me the nightmare off andes 
iro doesnt only have problems because of the lack of wood. iro doesnt have viable anticav vs heavy cav. without the strong humainca you can just spamm gendarme, lancer, swedish huss, mexico lancers and brit huss into them until theyre dead. very exciting right?
China is OP on treaty, Japan is not weak (10units batches)
china off andes is easily dealt with again due to the lack of train time and the lack of trees forcing you into arqebusiers instead of chukonu pikes. which are the better unit.
japan training in abtches of 10 doesnt help them. building a few barracks more or less isnt the difference in a treaty map, its the speed. i understand that lower games have different problems, but as stated earlier, this is a reflection of the higher skilled treaty community.
Yes, the people’s mind does, they only want andes.
In other maps you can get XP for the treaty period, also some civs can get extra wood
Having 20 barracks allows you to train units plus flail elephants taking down enemy buildings. Most enemies cant destroy your rax and kill your mass at the same time. Also they have Peace time, a thing that few players use, fact that I dont understand.
You can train them with standard army. Also the strong point of china is its economy, not their army. Chinese players use the same startegy, build tons of war academies
They have daymios and the shogun with morutarus plus stacking bonus. All they have to do is to train ashis basically.
Andes doesnt fix that problem, so thats not the reason to not play other maps.
Losing that side of the map is an auto defeat not matter what other players do in the other sides. Why do you need the rest of the map if you just need a map with 4 inca TP in the middle?? It would be the same.
That boost to train time is not that good for some civs with economies that are though to restore in that time the resources spent while there are civs like germans, france or chinese that can just spam units for hours.
In andes they lost that bonus cause everyone can do that while their units are worse, there Andes broke the balance.
Before you said that france is a worse portugal, but they have 20 more pop and have HC cards for most units plus 2 team cards. On legacy their economy was ridicoulously strong with most eco cards plus fur trade while other civs have one thing or another.
PD: which button is for hide the text??
they are still considered above average.
or heres an idea, maybe its the ability to fight in a lane thats important? other maps can allow you to do that, its just that you are so meta locked on the map you consider them a “native civ” when really they aren’t, they are a choke civ.
lol, and who are you? certainly not floko.
again you are meta locked, usually even on andes i see other factions than germany on natives. germans are almost always in the open area.
i have no clue who you are, i dont recall you from the top 10 treaty games i’ve been in.
i would never claim that, im fully aware that russia is a cav and fortification civ.
Oh boy do we really need to pull out names to prove a point?
I’m waifu, currently sitting on rank 6 with a 85%wr in ranked across all treaty maps. Ive been up to rank 3
Ranked doesn’t mean ■■■■ which you should know.
I’ve been in top 10 treaty tournaments.
Let me just uno reverse card you; I have never seen you in our lobbies big boy.
You’re more than welcome to show me your “chokepoint” Spain or off nats France. Also I’m curious what Germany is supposed to do out in the open….
This isn’t supposed to be a pissing contest I’m simply stating why we exclusively prefer Andes over other maps
2 Likes
You said that You play upper andes exclusively…
Please dont go offtopic, this isnt about who is better guys. The game has to be funny for everyone and being locked to one map is not good for it.
No I said that upper Andes is the best map. Until recently you had no choice if you play ranked you just played all maps. That’s why I played around 300games off andes
Would you argue that all civs have a fair chance at winning on Andes? Is it that the extra training time given by the inca settlement makes all civs viable on this map? Is this the key to a perfectly balanced late game?
No rhetorical questions, I am genuinely asking.
1 Like
waifu we have played vs eachother, so yes you have.
the points im making is that you are so into the andes meta that you consider factions that would do well in any choke point essentially needing to do natives.
france has a lot of native upgrades but are competitive without playing with natives, the nerfs they received made them more balanced but minus the 6 new civs they would still be in the top 3 easily. gedarme still does the job of tanking well, they still have a good eco with furtrade and 120 pop and they still have 1 of the best skirmishers and artillery in the game, their only real issue is a relatively poor anti cav presence which wasn’t an issue earlier as gendarme could simply overwhelm any enemy cavalry most of the time.
spain as you have kind of admitted yourself relies on being able to buff their units with missionaries, which does indeed also benefit from natives which can also be buffed and which “fixes” the loss of the 10 pop you use on missionaries. but there is nothing about those that rely on andes being the case, you could achieve this on atlas and himalaya just as well.
the problem here is the following:
-
you are so metalocked on to andes that you dont recognize that these are things you can easily find on other maps, the only advantage andes has is the inca natives, everything else you can easily find on other maps.
-
you are using above average civilizations as your argument for why the map is good, instead of using below average ones like ottoman (which do actually gain something valuable from the map). france might not be the strongest faction anymore but that has more to do with the new factions than the fact that the 2 minor nerfs it got ruined the faction from play, gendarmes are still used over hussars despite french hussars being the 2nd strongest hussars in the game.