So 2/2 in Castle and 3/2 in Imperial Age?
That would probably have the intended effect of making them stronger vs. Cavalry and also vs. Infantry too of course.
But I think for historical reasons Aztecs should not have heavily armoured units. That just kinda feels wrong.
I wonder how much the impact of just +1 MA would be. How many hits from other units like Knights in Castle Age or Hussars in Imperial Age?
Knight +1 hit.
Hussar +4 hits.
Not a fan of making them into a buffed Berserk.
I think they’re in a good spot already. They fulfill their role very well. Better than Berserks do for Vikings, actually (which has zero benefits over their Champions aside from a bit of speed).
I previously proposed some ideas related to Jaguar Warrior. Talking about Jaguar Warriors, they are infantry UU with above average HP (65/75). They move quite fast (1.1) like Samurai and Axeman, slightly slower than Huskarl and Berserk (1.16), while foot-archers have 0.96 movement speed. So far, they have received 2 pierce armor buff from 0 to 1 then 1 to 2. Are they good against archers? Not really, that is going to be explained. Surely they perform well against most of infantry, except Samurai, Teutonic Knight, or even Aztecs Champion. Their late game stats seem solid;
However, it is only in late game situation where counter units exist. Jaguar Warriors have “Rate of Fire” of 2.0 similar with most of infantry, BUT they have the “slowest Attack Delay” of 0.8 so that they might always receive one more hit from most of melee units and are worse at hitting microed ranged units like a Boar hitting moving Villager slower than Rhino (Boars have slow Attack Delay while Rhino & Elephant have faster Attack Delay). Furthermore, they require castles when Aztecs have the weakest castle in the game. In addition, Aztecs Champions can also do what Jaguar Warriors can do with less resources produced from Barracks. Lastly, if they already go for Jaguar Warriors, then what? They are specialized against infantry, but still pretty weak against counter units or heavy cavalry.
If Jaguar Warriors really need some changes, here I can propose some:
Not a fan of this, their cost can somewhat be changed weirdly like Ghilman/Ghulams, for example 30f and 45g with fast training time.
Setting aside the civ bonuses, I am also concerned with Atlalt technology. Their skirmishers already lack Ring Archer Armor and Thumb Ring unlike Incas and Mayans which both also have access to Halberdier. Andean Sling and Hul’che Javelineers are also relatively cheaper than Atlatl. It can be an option to add one small bonus to that technology, as follows:
That will actually kill the unit. Since they are late game unit, the lower the gold cost, the better.
I can understand how you feel, even though I support JWs getting a bonus against cavalry.
There are similarities between these two civilizations. Stable units that are not considered (although the Viking ones are still accessible), Champions with fully upgraded and additional improvements, Arbalesters without fully upgraded (although the Viking ones are better), lack of Halberdiers, infantry UUs, etc. I would say that the weaknesses of both civs are similar, and the Berserks make up for it with the anti-cavalry bonus, which means that if the JWs do the same, it must also be effective.
Even if JWs get the bonus, they are still better against infantry than Berserks, who have more survivability due to regeneration. Both will still have their own characteristics.
In fact, I may see JWs far more than Aztec Champions, and I may see Berserks far more often than Viking Champions too. This may be due to problems with the Militia line itself, but when it is improved, the problems of these UUs will really become urgent.
Really? Aztec skirms are a great counter against HCs (+1 range is helpful for that), and monks counter BBC (and Aztec monks are the best in the game). Looking at their best 5 and worst 5 matchups in all games and 1200+, I see they do well against Bengalis, Bohemians, Italians, Koreans, and Vietnamese. They do poorly against Malians, Romans, Georgians, Mongols, Sicilians, Japanese, Vikings, and Spanish. SMUM’s pics of top/bottom 5 civ matchup’s also included Britons and Dravidians as Aztec’s best matchups, and Franks as a worst matchup
Of the civs they do well against, Bohemians, Dravidians, Gurjaras, Italians, and Koreans have both HC and BBC (some with bonuses to them that drastically improve hand cannon and BBC play - sometimes to the point of making it a go-to strategy, especially for Bohemians). The civs that lack one or both are Britons, Vietnamese, and Bengalis.
Of the civs they do poorly against:
These results all have a high degree of uncertainty, so I can’t say that any of these civs are certainly in the top 5 or bottom 5, but they do strongly suggest a good or poor matchup. Based on the number of gunpowder civs that they do well against (notably including Bohemians), I think I can safely say that the stats don’t show a weakness against HC/BBC. If Aztecs had a weakness against those, I’d especially expect Bohemians to do well against Aztecs (given that they often go for hand cannons in castle age and that they have Houfnice). But there also civs that have both in Aztecs worst matchups. It should be noted that HC/BBC can only matter if a game gets to imperial (excluding Bohemians), and Aztecs can try to kill an opponent well before then.
TLDR: stats don’t show that, and Aztecs have a counter to both among their stronger units (namely monks and skirms)
Teutons get +1/2 MA (for infantry and cavalry). It’s nice, but doesn’t address infantry’s weaknesses - cavalry remains the go-to for Teutons.
Those in favour of giving Jaguars bonus damage vs cav, how do you see the fact that eagle warriros, the intended complement of jaguar warriors, already have bonus damage vs cav?
I’m not saying its definitely a bad idea.
With the ‘problem’ of Aztecs having weak castles, it would also make sense to me to make their Elite upgrade super cheap, which could give Jaguars a good window in early Imp, as long as EJW are at least as good as Longswords in most situations.