I think it could work nice actually.
I donât think giving cheaper barrack upgrades to the civ that has literally every single barrack upgrade is a good idea.
What about not buffing Incas?
Incas are described as âInfantry Civilizationâ but they literaly dont have any bonus for Infantry at all.
1 Like
Complete barracks + a really good infantry UU. Thatâs your bonus.
2 Likes
I donât like the nerf; I mean, the blacksmith upgrades affecting villagers had 2 roles: 1. Trushing, 2. having more resistant villagers against early rushes like scouts or MAA. This bonus does a lot of sense in feudal, but really doesnât do much against knights or Xbows, or any Castle Age army. So removing it from feudal is pretty much the same as removing it completely. Perhaps it would be better to just do that and buff this civ elsewhere.
I have never TRushed but i think it should be a viable strategy with more than just 1 civilization (meta now is pretty much either MAA to archers, scouts, or DRush to FC, and this almost only changes when against Incas or Persians). Inca villagers with BS upgrades made it too unbalanced for the player defending against the TRush, so nerfing that makes sense, but i think towers should be somewhat stronger overall (which shouldnât be problematic, since the defending player can build his own towers), and incas should get some better eco bonus (i think something affecting their farms would be historically accurate).
3 Likes
Just increase the Slinger stats in Imp by +1PA or +5HP or make them cheaper
Why slingers need buff? they are really strong.
2 Likes
Funny story Last night I was playing an Inca player. I preformed a militia to mma rush faster then he could tower and won. I was Bulgarians. It was ranked hill fort 800elo.
So you just want to make them bad in every age? Youâve just acknowledged that they were being carried by the feudal trush as a major contributor to their winrate, which is a reasonable conclusion. Your solution: Nerf it, without any compensatory buffs, making the strategy as it existed impossible, so theyâll be evenly bad in all ages.
Stats are stats, but it takes a special kind of special to say âhmm, 40% winrate everywhere else⊠You see that spike? Itâd be better for balance if it was down there with the rest of it.â No compensatory buffs for the strongest trush being taken away is a massive oof change.
The stats say over the aggregate, they were strong, but hardly overpowered. They had a window of strength and that window is being shut because people donât like it and they forgot to open another window. This is a bad set of changes.
I would like to see an upgrade for the Slinger in Imp
It is really hard to mass both Slingers and Eagles/Kamayuks because are very gold intensive
And the slinger are really great against infantry but nothing else, HC are a better unit overall
Good point. I find that the Inca tower rush is very low risk compared to other civs tower rush.
If you hit any other tower rushing civ eco with 3 archers, you could get away with a few picks before you lose the archers (assuming a archer vs vill fight). You dont against Inca.
Against other civs you can pull your own villagers and fight them, but against Inca you cant (to a somewhat balanced level). If you needed 15 standard archers to kill 8 Ethiopian archers, you would call it imbalanced too.
So instead you have to go into their game, add towers, walls and hold on until you can mass enough army to finally take him out. It is somewhat dependent on map generation, too. Without a safe gold and stone, its gg.
As shown by the statistics, most players are not successful in pulling this off.
Perhaps there is a middle ground here because I DO like that Incas have this uniqueness to them and as hard as it is to play against, Trush should be viable too for the sake of diversity.
Why? The civ is underwhelming on late imperial while they are just ok on the rest of the ages. Their early imp isnt nearly as impressive as Aztecs or Mayans either
1 Like
are they though? just because the winrates say they win only 40% right now doesnât mean anything - usually if they make it that far they have fallen behind due to a failed tower rush.
let the nerf happen and then evaluate from there with Incas playing traditionally and lets see what happens in their late game.
1 Like
They die to Onagers really hard, are really gold dependant and their trash is pretty bad. They lack a power unit (unlike Mayans who have El Dorado and Plumes and Aztecs who imo still have a far stronger late game than Incas)
1 Like
but are they 40% winrate in the late game bad? i think not.
I mean that they are average and I dont think they have any stage on the game in which they are really strong unlike the other currently average civs (unless talking about Sicilians, but not sure how the buff will really impact their feudal and late game).
average isnât necessarily a bad thing. like i said, i want to see how it goes for Incas without relying on tower rushing every game and see how they do and go from there.
Probably You are right about that, but I Guess devs could want to see how incas behave with no new bonus first. If they donât TR now incas Will have a bunch of extra vills available for their eco.
I donât saying they wonât need compensation, but I wouldnt mind ir they get it in another update
1 Like
exactly. lets see how things shake out. if Incas need love later iâm all for it. but i want to see how they do without relying on tower rushing.
1 Like