It has been well known and I think frustrating for everyone when the game has two game modes that requires separate balance that makes it nearly impossible to balance both for treaty and for supremacy while still keeping the base of the game the same.
But with newer game modes now such as empire wars and tycoon and also a few experimentation on the unknown map. I think there is a solution that is able to address “some” treaty problems without causing problems for supremacy.
The change that I kinda want to think about is similar to how empire wars also changes parameters for the overall game like shipment and research time and how on some unknown map you can get access to additional techs. We can implement a set of treaty techs that is only available in treaty mode instead of trying to balance by using shared decks that would also influence supremacy play.
These could be universal techs, they could be civ specific or both. but by keeping it seperate it will be a lot easier to balance rather then trying to change the base civ and so not having to just balance the civ, but also balance the game mode, which only makes things harder to do
I personally havent thought of anything specific, I am mostly a supremacy player, if this was done what kind of techs would be needed in treaty?
the main problem imo are civs that are good in supremacy but need buffs in treaty like Italy, India, or Hausa. The way to address this is to give them bonuses that aren’t viable in supremacy or that are only accessible in imperial age.
I would like that in treaty 40 and 60 cards like wanderlust they have a stacking limit.
jaguar warriors need to be buffed or redesigned to face heavy infantry in imperial (I had thought about jaguars stop being heavy infantry to be just infantry and lose their bonus against cavalry or get a negative bonus against cavalry. ).
I envisioned the Jaguar Warriors becoming the assault infantry version of the Lance Cavalry, removing the counter cavalry and changing the counter heavy infantry to counter infantry. However, such a change in the status of the Coyote Guerrilla would become more awkward, and Aztec’s dependence on the calmecac in treaty mode would be more apparent
It is that the Aztecs already have the anti-cavalry role well covered with the eagles and the pumas. The Aztecs need a strong unit that can take down heavy infantry but won’t die as quickly against skirmishers (Otontin are very fragile). The jaguars’ ability to be anti-heavy infantry and anti-cavalry is a property of little use to Aztecs in treaty. The jaguar would be more useful if it were a kind of urumi.
many problems of the Aztec army would be solved with “captured falconets”. But it is necessary that they can also create them in several buildings. On the other hand, many have the opinion that not having cannons is one of the aspects that makes the Aztecs special. however, there are two options for the Aztecs in treaty: either give them cannons or give them some units that are considerably stronger or more versatile than their European counterparts. otherwise the Aztec player will always play at a disadvantage in treaty games.
There is another much more drastic option: that the Aztec ceremonies have half the effect they currently have, but with the ability to have two different ceremonies active at the same time and the possibility of stacking the same ceremony twice. that way in treaty you could have “Harvest Ceremony” and “War Ceremony” active at the same time and even “Healing Ceremony”. But it could be OP.
The above could be achieved by having two community plazas but with the capacity of half the population of the current community plaza. Historically it can be justified with the great temple of Tenochtitlan.
What do you think of the “Plan of Tuxtepec” card? Do you think it should be nerfed in treaty? It gives a pretty strong initial push.
Agree on this, if we give them several captured canons, captured horses and captured rifles the civ would become flovourless
They had, but we are still nerfing ERKs, JPK, Pumas…
That doesnt solve anything as any good aztec player would use both in each situation. Their conus is to have stronger plazas, after healing wheel card it doesnt feel like one while Ixtilton was nerfed too. Hauds and Lakota shouldnt get healing wheel in first instance.
Which one?? The revolution? I dont use it. There arent slots available to be flexible. Temples, combat, aztec mining, coyote tech, crates…no space for anything.
And like BB, if it fails, is worthless in the long run.
One of the problems with late-game balance is that many people don’t care since most ranked matches don’t go age v. This should be fixed since some matches do go late and there is also a community of treaty players and noobs (noob games tend to go later) that suffer.
There are many occurrences of people making posts about a late-game problem and people say “Just rush”. This is selfish and hurts the player base.
I have two ideas for improve the aztecs.
First, Promotions for aztec units.
I made some tests, somebody helped me as a tester, an is unbalanced for most units if is fully implemented. A solution would be ROF promotion for Otontins and Range (or ROF) Promotion for Arrows. The point is not making the units unvincible, is to desync their attacks to reduce the micro needed to use them.
Second: resources trickle (or free units) for Aztec Trading Posts.
With historical base in the tribute imposed to conquered people, it could be very helpful to aztecs in late game. Maybe unlock it with a tech or a card in later ages