Aztecs as a whole do not need a buff. They are still a very decent/strong civilization. Their only real weakness is jaguar warriors, and this is an opportunity to buff those, without making the rest of the civilization overpowered.
1 Like
There weakness is not only JW. There real weakness is that they die vs trash units hussars in late gameâŠ
That might be true but the identity of the civ is to win way before then so that should be their weakness and even still champs with +4 damage and better relic gold arent the worst nor are +1 dmg/range eskirms
1 Like
By weakness I donât mean statistically, I mean civ design wise.
The rest of their civ design is good; it has strengths and weaknesses, and is well balanced overall.
Only jags are bad and rarely used. If jags were g̶o̶o̶d̶ more regularly used, then the civ as a whole would be essentially perfect.
1 Like
But even that they donât do the job, itâs what Im trying to explain. I also thought they had a strong early game but in reality they have 44% wine ealy game 1V1 and 48% team.
So in conclusion there is something wrong if there possibility to have more than 50% win rate anywhereâŠ
If you check and high elo 1600+ they get 41% win rate early game.
They became super bad at almost all steps of the game, itâs a fact.
edit : I wanted to answer to @DynasticPlanet5
Suggestion:
(Elite) Atlatl Thrower
- Cost: 50 Wood 30 Gold
- HP: 40 (45)
- Attack: 4 (5)
- vs. Cavalry: +2(+3)
- Reload time: 2
- Range: 4
- Accuracy: 70% (80%)
- Armour: 0/0
- Speed: 1.2
Benefits from Atlatl UT.
Aztecs donât have Ring Archer Armour and no Thumb Ring so it should not be too powerful.
Could be available to Mayans too but that might be too strong.
Maybe Mayans donât get the Elite upgrade. Their discount and full archer techtree might be good enough.
Inca donât need the unit. They are on a different continent and they have a UT that is good against Cavalry.
This unit would be somewhat between a Plumed Archer and a Genoese Crossbowman.
Worse then both but also cheaper.
The attack bonus negates the Pierce Armour of the Knight and Scout lines while the base attack should still be high enough to be decent against Infantry. They struggle against archers though so they pair nicely with Eagle Warriors.
The relatively low Gold cost makes them also more affordable in late game then Arbalesters.
I still think Jaguar Warriors could need a small buff though.
4 Likes
Itâs okay for them to be slightly below 50% WR, as long as itâs not too far down. ATM they have a 47.5% average winrate, with the lowest point being at 1000 ELO. At 1900+ they have an almost perfect 50% WR, after all.
Thatâs within the bounds of acceptable. They could be left exactly as they are; there is simply room to buff jags, if they wanted to. And given thatâs the weakest aspect of the civ(design-wise), thatâs the best place for any changes to go.
I donât think itâs ok. For example the Georgians went from top tiers to last place of the rating and I think they will get buff for next patch as it takes time to balance a new civ. But still they are over 50% Win rate in late game.
If 1600+ Elo representents 1% of the players then imagine 1900+. They represent maybe 0.1% of the player base. Even if pros have the best skills, the game cannot be design only for them.
The reality is at any step of the game, if you get Aztecs, whatever you do, you have more chance to lose than to win at equal level.
And all civs that are below 50% all steps, all Elo should be buff (and opposite the one with 54% should be nerfed). It will take a lot of time, but 50% everywhere should stay the ideal point to reach.
So yes buffing JW seems to be the best thing to do and I hope it will come soon with a militia line re-design.
Itâs not about being above 50% at any point, itâs about being near it overall. Canât just focus on one place.
I know, Im not focusing only on WR :
- WR lower than 50% at early game, mid game, late game
- Last tiers play rate
- Bad UU
- Bad Militia line in general
For me itâs enough to think that they need a buf, especially when you know where they come from. Aztecs were legends !
They were never top-tier, and were always at the bottom or near the bottom in terms of winrates.
3 Likes
It doesnât matter if their winrate never goes over 50%, as long as their average win rate is not too low. If anything, the fact they can have below-50% WRs throughout the game and still not have a terrible overall WR indicates theyâre a very consistent civ.
They are a very decent civ with a bad UU. If anything should be changed, itâs the Jag; Nothing else.
Do that alone, and theyâll be in a perfect state.
2 Likes
I think Aztecs are mostly fine. A mild buff shouldnât be out of the question, but neither should letting top civs fall somewhat from their former glory. Thatâs just part of balance and inevitable if youâre going to buff civs that have long been on the weaker side.
You can definitely argue that theyâve been powercrept though. Considering the restoration of once-OP eco bonuses to Slavs and Persians, +3 carry capacity seems fairly mild. Just a moderate farm and wood bonus that loses a lot of its strength after wheelbarrow/HC anyway.
Thatâs a pretty interesting idea, but in that case I would consider having it apply to fewer units. Say infantry except swordsmen, or just Eagles and Jags (but give them halbs). Disruptive for sure, but I think half of Jagsâ rarity is attributable to how good and accessible GW champs are.
Eh, this is the âno use crying over spilt milkâ of arguments. Itâs true, and useful after something questionable or negative has happened, but itâs not a good reason for choosing to âspill milkâ in the first place.
Fundamentally I donât think Jags need another gimmick. Theyâre still fill their niche better than Samurai, but itâs a moreâŠniche niche. But as it is Jags perform a sufficient role, even if they could be slightly better. Adding more damage, even if its kill-conditioned, to a unit that already has +8 after GW on top of +11 vs infantry just seems silly. If jags need more love, a mild buff of their existing stats, cost reduction, or having GW make them available in barracks are sufficient ways of doing it. I just prefer to improve existing things where possible rather than eating unnecessary design space.
2 Likes
Part of the reason I think adding more damage to them is BECAUSE they already have all that damage. For starters, it means they wonât be excessively OP vs other infantry; each extra damage point is diminished by comparison. For two, it leans deeper into their concept as being a super high damage unit.
I would always rather make a unit more unique and interesting - which is to say, lean deeper into their identity - than make them more bland and uninteresting.
Give to the UT Atlatl something more, similar to the Andean sling for Incas.
It could be something like gold units generate gold when killing military units; or just plain infantry; or just militia line and JW.
Their eagles are standard until imperial, and are the worst of the 3 even with +4 attack.
What if give them the free loom that they just to have?
No, that would just give them a free way to do 5 militia drush without mining gold, is too strong.
1 Like
Well, okay then. Since infantries usually are bad at raiding, I thought it would be interesting.
And -1/-1 armor more than disqualifies.
I actually think you can justify even +5 due to power creep. Though I want to revert the military unit training time bonus.
.
[Atlatl Javelineer] or [Atlatlist] would probably be a better name. Having the name âAtlatl Throwerâ for the unit can be interpreted as them throwing the Atlatl itself rather than the darts or javelins that were used as ammunition for it.
If the Inca possibly gets a third unique unit in the future they could perhaps get a warrior armed with a bolas who will function similar to the Plumed Archer, a ranged unit with high movement speed, but not have damage multipliers against cavalry.
1 Like
5 Likes
Bolas Warrior would be a lot more suited as an anti cavalry unit because they were actually used against cavalry in real life, relatively effectively even.
They could have an effect that slows down the cavalry they attach for example.
1 Like