huaranca needs to be reworked in my opinion, it’s a weird unit makes more sense to do it against infantry than artillery since you have a good multiplier against all infantry and also beat some skirmisher types, huaranca and bolas and some civs have no way to oppose them or yes but with great effort by making 3/4 units against their 2 (civilizations without falconets) (I’m talking about 2v2)
Also bolas is a sort of anti everything except anti artillery and skirmishers another famous hybrid unit that causes budget problems (it doesn’t become a problem because few use inca otherwise if many start using it civilization will be at the forefront of this forum) , bolas also has no multiplier against vills which kills them very easily and quickly, their area attack is 2 so even if they have medium / low damage all attacks are added up because they are area, huaranca should not have a multiplier against infantry because it counters everything except horses but the bolas take care of those, the only solution is to use cannons but civilizations such as china or india cannot do it.
Basically, if you don’t see it as a problem, skip my phrase
This is from the Age of Bison Discord and it uses raw data. So it’s the best evidence we can get at the moment.
If it is the same graph, the discussion can be found on the esoc forum Civ Matchup Data: did you lose because you suck or matchup sucks? - ESOCommunity
You can find every answer there and take Richard’s answer into consideration, in that way you really find favourable, even or unfavorable matches and I have to get the highest players of the moment to do it so you only have to take into consideration an elo range that goes from tot to tot and mainly a narrow band for example such as 2000 elo up to 2300 or 2100 up to 2300 because it is assumed that at those levels the errors are minimal (hopefully) and therefore there are no big build order errors, decision making or horrendous engagements etc.
I didn’t expect someone to still be calling for inca nerfs when it’s a trash tier civ these days. There’s no way to deal with cannons as inca, sure you can sacrifice a bunch of chimu to deal with 2 falcs but once it gets later there is nothing that deals with them cost effectively. Huaraca is your only true anti-artillery unit and it gets out ranged and countered by artillery lol. Bolas are a perfectly average unit too. Huaraca needs making more like an arrow knight.
1 thing with the stats is it’s worth taking into account the low pick rates, inca, port and malta are all low because they are bad civs in desperate need of buffs but there’s also just unpopular civs like the africans and aztecs so the data might not be so accurate with less games played.
If played well in 2v2 and 3v3 it’s not that trash, in 1v1 it can be although I see no reason, they are some sort of Aztec with better eco. Basically they don’t seem to be ops but they can really annoy some civilizations
They can be annoying just like malta which is also in a poor state currently but they’re not good at all. I mained inca most of the time DE has been released but the last batch of nerfs was too much for me to continue playing at a disadvantage. Aztec just have better units like there’s no comparison between arrow knight and eagle runners vs huaraca and bolas, with aztec mining card you can produce them fast as well. Skull knights are also decent whilst macemen remain irrelevant.
All of the constant unnecessary changes is what killed inca, removing the 2 war hut age up and replacing it with 2 builders just made the native rush really op and then they killed that too, the 2 war hut age up allowed you to do a kancha boom easier and now you’re forced to send 2 war hut card first it just slows it down too much. Schooners was removed for no good reason so also worsened the water boom. It’s like anything you can do with inca many other civs can do much easier so why even play them now?
It is just that anyone who wants to use statistics should first add label to their columns and rows >.>
This very much paints my expectation of civilisation balance. Brits are not OP, Japan are average at best. Sweden would still be OP cause their OPness had nothing to do with hakkas. For china nothing really changed and it seems the latest round of nerfs brought india back on the ground. Lakota buffs were welcome
Although I don’t like the design of Huaraca and Bolar too much, I think they are at least at balance level now, compared to Abus + Anti-cav, Malta steel bolts crossbow.
Inca is low tier civ in team game, pickrate also low as Haud/Aztec.
Why do you see it as low level? I saw her quite good in early and mid game with very good eco and strong units and also good at defending
Maltese pikemen and crossbowmen aren’t that great, it’s rubbish at first, it only works if you have more masses than the enemy, but you lose easily against civilizations that have good archers if you’re going to make a rush like against the British and Japanese who play smart
The crossbowman is supposed to be a counter to the musketeer but he loses against him, shooting and running the musketeer has to be from the maximum range limit otherwise the musketeer hits you since the reload animation - shoot is very slow, you have to win by lots of mass and you can, but being limited to only doing that from the beginning is very rubbish with bad matches considering that the other units are too bad to create from the beginning such as the hospital and the sentinel, going cavalry is expensive it can go very well or too bad, it is difficult to make a mix of cav and archaic in the early game because of how expensive the command and its units are, besides that malta does not have any economic bonus, beyond its letters only the hospital since it costs little It can be considered some savings, the start with the German language where it is used as the first shipment if it is strong enough it is only lost in the hands of a good rush or violent ff
I have played a lot of malta in Team and in 1v1, the civ for team games is strong and for 1v1 weak there are things that can be used well with Malta in certain circumstances that are too OP, such as the fixed weapon and artillery with a high life ,
For my malt it is still a bit incomplete, they should add more letters,
If I could balance malt, I’d raise the hospital cost from 100 to 125
I remove the bonus of 2% + life to the artillery and ship
He would make changes to his church to make it unique with their respective bonuses
Falconete is buffed 35% damage with the artillery smelt upgrade at age 4
Improved the cards related to the command with the exception of the cards that give you units
An age 4 card that gives 20% more health to cavalry and reduces creation time by 10%
Since malta does not have a cavalry improvement card
since the 2% bonus does not affect the units of the order, therefore it does not benefit the cavalry that can create malta
Eco is good but not good as top tier civs. Units also not good as others.
Huaracas + Bolar is a combination, Abus + Archer cav/Jan is also a combination. Last patch Sweden Hakk is only single unit, Malta Steel bolts crossbow is only single unit.
I don’t think Huaracas + Bolar is more difficult to counter as other 3 types.
Inca was real OP when Huaracas were with 40 range siege attack, Chimu Runner didn’t get snared with high speed, Chasqui was able to be stealth plus receiving army shipment in opponent base. All these were nerfed so I don’t see how they are able to be strong such as British/Sweden these eco civs.
This situation is simlar to Haud/Az, with much stronger and really strong in TAD before DE, and after suffered so many nerfed, people still complaining they are strong when their eco and units are already much lower than general.
Understood, in comparison with the current top civs I would say well maybe they are nothing that example of sweden, excellent boom I think even better than the inca and hakka excellent as well as mercenaries and the possibility of making many cannons with their economy essentially you are right but they don’t look horrendous I would say more playable than other civilizations. Anyway civilization is strange for me, I tried it several times in various patches but the civ warchiefs don’t amuse me anymore and I’m starting to hate them
1800+ I’d say the elo range is still too variable I’d go from 2000+ or 1950+.
How many games were played with each civilization? What civilizations did they face? is a favorable or unfavorable MU for which civ? Were the two players at or near equal elo? If we don’t see these factors with only percentages, we do very little and often we just get confused. Are these things included in that excel sheet?
Discordo sobre Malta, a civilização já apresenta bastante dificuldade.