Make Aztecs great Again

Age of Empires II: DE II - Discussion
1

Aztecs went from top tiers civ in all map included to last tiers. The civ was number one in Arabia.

Is this a deliberate strategy to weaken the Aztecs? Or is civilization a victim of the arrival of new gunpowder civilizations, cavalry and ranged attack infantry ?

The Aztecs suffer from poor infantry performance, but this is a general problem of militia line.

The Azecs’ archers are neither good nor bad, so they’re not a strong option.

The Aztecs’ problem is their UU, the Jaguars… What’s the point of having a UU that’s very strong against infantry when basic archers and HC do a much better job and for less money?

If Jaguars are strong against infantry, then they should be strong against all infantry including those with ranged attack:

  • Throwing Axeman
  • Gbeto
  • Chakrams

At least it would give us a reason to use them instead of Champions in some cases…

3 Likes
2

Agreed. I think Aztecs have fallen enough at this point to justify a buff to Jaguar Warriors in some way.

I still think it would be great if they got +1 damage per enemy they kill. That way they still need to start out against infantry or trash, but then it synergizes with their monks(since you’ll really want to heal them), and eventually they’ll become really strong!

But because they’ll still be infantry, they’ll still be countered by archers and siege, keeping them from being OP. It even makes sense with the Garland Wars, which was basically about a small set of awesome athletes showing off their mad skills.

4 Likes
3

Give them bonus armour against those UU you mention. Problem solved.

2 Likes
4

A solid bonus armor then. To make them vs these units like Huskarls vs archers.

2 Likes
5

It is a combimatiom of 2 things:

  • First a deliberate to weaken them (production bonus from +18% to +11%, bonus carry capacity from +5 to +3, eagle foof cost from 20 to 25,…). As you said, they were too strong.
  • A desire from the devs to buff the weaker ecos (Koreans got wood discount on nonsiege units, Spanish got gold/upgrade, Portuguese got faster upgrades and wood/berry gathering, Italians got university discounts, Persians got Dark age 5%,…,) So ther civs are catching up, sometimes exceeding.

The arrival of new civs has nothing directly to do wiith that (only indirect as it incintivizes to buff civs with weaker eco,).

Firsty, Slingers arent an infantry unit, buy an archer unit.

Second, the concept “They are supposed to be stromg against infantry hence MUST be strong against ALL infantries” is flawed: it is the Samurai vs Cataphract problem: they cannot both hard counter the other, and one of the 2 civilization player base will complain…

Currently, they are faster (+0.1), more tanky (5hp, 1 MA, free gambesons) and have a big bonus damage vs infantry (+11), so they destroy most infantry, including Goth flood and Vikings infantry. Only ranged infantry, Teutonic knights and Samurais stand a chance.

Their “problem” is that they are a well rounded infantry, so devs are very careful with their recent buffs (more hp, more armor). If they get a too big buff, devs are afraid they wi become impossible to counter for most civs.

By the way, is thereva articular reason why Aztecs must become “great again” ? Arent they fine as an average civ with decent all around options, with a few niches ?

9 Likes
6

Yes, my mistake about Slingers.

Aztecs really miss options in teams games… Yes They have good monks, siege (without heavy scorps) and strong eagles but with this civ, you can often be a in a difficult situation.

In early game they are still strong as they can spam eagles very early at feudal age as you don’t need second military building so you can go double barracks + full villagers on gold (same as Incas or Mayans).

At Castle age, they have nothing special.

At Imperial age you get the siege and you can get profit from your relics but I have the feeling it’s not enough. They lack game changers and identity.

For examples Incas get a UU doing well vs cavalry which helps a lot and the Slingers are also very useful in some cases. Mayans with 100 HP eagles can fight and heal.

Maybe something should be done with there monks then ? I dunno…

1 Like
7

Right.

My proposal -
Military units excluding monk train 11% faster → Military units including monk train 15% faster.
Jaguar Warrior cost 60F/30G → 55F/30G.
Jaguar Warrior speed 1.00 → 1.10.

8

Indeeed, Aztecs should get back their original stats (carry capacity and military production speed) and jags a special armor against infantry units.

9

I disagree heavily. They were very specific before the 1PA buff. And now they are okay but still not well rounded at all.

10

What do you mean ? 11% or 15% ? That’s not clear. Including or excluding monks, we still talk about military units :laughing:

11

Give +1/+2 melee armor to jaguar warrior may help

1 Like
12

Aztec are not bad; Incas are in a better spot right now and it feels weird if you ask me. Aztecs don’t need any buff.
The production bonus and the carry capacity were nerf to the ground because they were too strong.
I don’t mind to tweak those number a little bit but the main problem with Azteca are heavy cavalry civilizations.
If Aztecs didn’t deal enough damage earlier against Cavaliers civilizations they are gg.
Maybe give them something to help them compensate that? I won’t suggest Halberdier but something.

13

Or make GW +5 attack instead of +4.
Or give them back there ressource carry bonus
Or buff Jaguar.

17

Maybe give the jaguar warrior the ability to pick up relics or build military buildings or towers?

18

Maybe the “Atlatl” technology could be renamed to something else in the future so that a new regional unit can be introduced to the game for the Aztecs, Incas and Mayans that could be armed with the atlatl.

This regional unit could be called the [Atlatlist] and function similar to the cavalry archer, where they have a high movement speed. Perhaps this Atlatlist unit could have damage multipliers against cavalry.

A new unique unit for the Aztecs would be nice as well. Maybe they could get the Cuachicqueh (Shorn Ones) as their second unique unit, which can function as a tankier version of the Eagle Warrior that could have the ability to taunt enemy units forcing them to aggro on the Shorn Ones within a certain radius when this ability is in effect, plus them being able to deal AoE damage in melee. The Shorn One unit can be armed with the Tepoztopilli polearm or a Quauholōlli (There was apparently a version of the Quauholōlli club that looked like a Macuahuitl, but with a longer handle, and where the sphere-like mace head was located right below the head of the Macuahuitl. I have Included another image in this post right below the one of the Shorn One that features this respective hybrid weapon, which is supposed to be 150 cm or close to 5 feet in length).

A Tepoztli (Copper or Bronze axe) might work as well as another alternative weapon for the Shorn One.

The Shorn Ones were the most prestigious warriors in the Aztec society and much higher ranked than both the Jaguar warriors and the Eagle warriors. They served as imperial shock troops and took on special tasks as well as battlefield assistance roles when needed. Aztec warriors were apparently known to mock and tease their enemies in battle in order for them to leave their lines to attack.

The Shorn One is the guy with the mohawk like hairstyle.

e60397651cb0d346f9b8cf2926a206e891229b7e_2_662x500

bf68b7ea277cd7045083eed6db5f0c87
bf68b7ea277cd7045083eed6db5f0c87736×988 100 KB

1 Like
19

I wouldn’t support that training time change. Aztecs are not really weak atm; they are just not OP anymore.
Which is why a specific buff just to the Jags is an option. They’re probably one of the worst infantry UUs atm, so we can justify a buff without making the civ OP like before.

My question is, how does extra speed and cheaper cost make them a more interesting option? Feels like it’s basically just moving it towards being a slightly worse Woad or Eagle. I’d really like them to stand alone as a unique and interesting option in their own right.

2 Likes
20

Sorry, I meant they are very well roundrd because they are a heavy infantry, like a champion.

I mean well rounded in the sense that it fights well against most melee units, beats up skirms, and requires a decent mass or micro on the archer/siege side to be countered.

So, like for champions, the devs are probably very cautious with buffs to avoid the unit feeling “unstoppable”, even though the unit stuggles lacks range & mobility.

I think even for aztecs, feudal eagles are produced too slowly. It is 2 mayans/incas barracks for 1 stable scouts.

At castle age they have eagles (special compared to cavalry civs) and buffed monks. Along with goid economy and production speed, we get the all-on-gold-and-spam-eagles-and-monk aztecs speciality.

Well, for black forest they have the siege onager. For Arabia, lacking halbs sucks for sure. Their “late game identity” is to die to hussars spam.

I think monks are good as now. Tankiness make them top 3 monks, only beaten by Teutons/Spanish monks, but better against other units.

Do Aztecs really need something ? It depends whether the community (including devs) wants what was designed to be an “oppressive” mid game civ to have a “late game game changer”.
Aztecs arent the only one, Vikings feel in a similar spot, even with the revent +1 attack on arbalesters (compensating lack of ThumbRing). Celts are dying to skirms like Aztecs are dying to hussars. Maybe Teutons as well.

And according to Hera, Aztecs arent the civ suffering the most from its late game:

Still, “weak civs with strong late game” like Portuguese and Goths got big revent early game buffs to become strong all around civ at all point in the game.
So it may be the time as well to give late game love to civs known for strong early to mid game and ackward late game ?

I dont know, but it would make sense. This would be worthy of a topic on its own.

And I personally dont mind either way, because I choose my civs based on what they offer (and change my civs depending on balance evolution), instead of first picking a civ and then complaining it lacks something…

1 Like
21

How are Aztecs bad I mean 11, pros still pick them on open maps.

1 Like
22

I enjoyed your comments. It’s a pity you ended with a disparaging remark.
All discussions can be interpreted as complaints. I play random too civ and I think we can suggest ideas without it being interpreted as a complaint.

At least agree that there UU is bad.

23

Right now it is 11%. I want to buff it to 15%.
Right now monk doesn’t benefit from this bonus. I wish monk did.

Fair enough. But the monk nerf already hit them hard as expected. I wonder how long you can hold your argument.

Speed is interesting as now they can actually chase infantries and do better at raiding. As for cost, I think they are a bit expensive for their role.

How so? Woad doesn’t have any armor compared to JW. And attack is also lacking by 2 thanks to GW. And Eagle is not even comparable.

Okay. I understand. I won’t say they are good against heavy cavalry though. I think they are just not good at their job because generic champion is still a better Eagle counter for lower cost and being able to train from Barracks.