If you nerf a civ buff them someplace else

Do you think they nerf a civ, they need a buff some place else? A perfect example. Take away Indians’ Plate Barding Armor. Give them Arbalest.

Make Inca Tower Rushing weaker in federal, buff them in some way in the late game.

1 Like

Pretty much depends. If a civ is OP, then it dont need another buff.


Burgundians early game is worse than Inca’s late game and they weren’t buffed as far as I know.

They didn’t give arbs to Indian, because they were absolute S-tier when they had it. They won’t give a late game buff to the Incas since their late game is good unlike what people seem to think.


40% WR is good? Vietnamese need a nerf then because they are above 40% at all times and skyrocket in the late game

who is saying 40% winrate is good? and who had a 40% winrate in which situation?

Because people don’t know what to do with this civ outside of the trush. Seriously look at the Inca tech tree and tell me it’s the civ’s fault if people can’t win late game with them.

fully upgraded arbs and skirms with no minimum range.
fully upgraded barracks.
two unique units and eagles with extra armor/pierce armor.
siege engineers with onagers and siege ram
pretty much all the eco upgrades (missing 2h saw).
solid core all around


Incas have 40% winrate in late game, because people always trush with them, which means they are behind in eco when that got defended by the opponent.

So higher winrate in early game due to trush (succeed).
Lower winrate in late game due to trush (failed).

If players would choose another gameplan (booming, MAA into FC, full feudal archers, whatever)
they would have a way higher winrate in lategame because, they are designed for the lategame due to a full tech tree, UUs designed to counter, defensive civ bonuses.

But instead people “abuse” the bonuses for a trush.
With the “nerf” Incas finally play how they are intended, as the defensive late game meso civ.
The statistics will show, that early game winrate will fall and lategame winrate will go up after the “nerf”.

Inca’s lategame but seeing the comments by other people it makes more sense. We will see if their WR goes up

that’s mostly because there games rarely go that long and if they do they are behind because failed early aggression.

much more curious about their future pick rate… will it even reach 1%… :smiley: :smiley:

1 Like

Incas tech tree is amazing. Kamayuk also top-tier UU in my opinion. A mass of Kamayuk needs mass Scorpion to kill effectively. Nothing else aside from UUs does it. They’re incredible in TGs, and you can easily mass them out of one castle due to high production speed. Incas also get good Onager, so Scorp is difficult to use in that situation. The eagles hard-counter archer civs in lategame, Kamayuk kills cav, Slinger is a far better Hand Cannon and it counters all Infantry, while getting good Siege and Arbs themselves; they have no civs at all that “counter” them at most stages of the game, and definitely in late-game, which is rare.

I think the trush being gone will definitely help their case, although I think they could use a better eco bonus. Maybe 2 llamas.

true lol
20 characters

Incas are pretty good on are arena, but maybe alot of people including myself are new to them and haven’t figured out the playstyle yet.

I don’t like their nerf on the cumans team bonus, and now this is going to make unpopular civs much less played.

If every nerf needed to be compensated with a buff. Then what’s even the point of nerfing, could have just left it as it is.

Seeing as old school aoc civs that weren’t considered weak before needs buffs now like byzantine which already got cheaper UU upgrades or Spanish (which have got conqs nerfed but still).

I don’t like power creep (see teutons)

I think nerfing is a henerslly better way of balancing then buffing. Even weak civs can become balance when you nerf the better ones.

Don’t want every, civ to be broken in its own way to strike balance. This isn’t aoe 3. Civ bonuses ought to be moderate, e.g. Lithuanians paladins +8 is for me the primaple of power creep.

1 Like

I’m fine having stronger paladin civs that Franks, which are just picked like 100% of the time in every TG.
IMO I think the new upcoming civs should have really strong paladins, so people stop overrating Franks.
If you cite AOE 3 well you know how people just picked French at every treaty game or even random map because of the just broken Cuirassier was and how poeple picked French 100% of the time just for that until DE came out and introduced Swedes/Incas

It’s not the paladins themselves that make frank paladins so strong.
It’s the berry bonus allowing earlier access to feudal + instant upgraded farms allowing for wood and food savings on farms and farm upgrades + getting to castle with 120 hp knights without any bloodlines cost.

All of these work together to give them a strong Eco and push them towards being able to get there faster and stronger then other civs.

Point blank they may be very narrow focused but all that focus is on one solid strong gameplan that works.

That’s right about the Franks, they are really easy to manage and no matter how many nerfs they get, they still would be popular but not longer that overpicked.
Is just how people feel about Frankish paladin no longer the strongest, buts still holds up the title of the most spammed one with Chivalry.

should delete inca from the TG ‘random civ’ pool until they stop being completely useless