I dont see how they will become europeans when they have tipis, movible buildings, high antiartillery bonus. Added to hunting focused economy and unique units as RR and Tashunke.
The most europeans are the Hauds but has been like that for years, not DE fault. Still their mantlets are pretty good. Also, as they are siege focused they are the ones who dont need mortars that much, so they would keep the same.
Aztecs and Incas, how many changes AK/Huaracas have been done?? Now AK will be nerfed vs infantry letting Aztecs weak vs musketeers while Huaracas are mostly useless.
The point about using mortars is that they can damage several pieces of wall, fact that Siege eles, AKs or Huaracas cant do.
The Lakota used to be a cavalry-focused civ that could use a cavalry unit to respond to every situation. Now the cavalry has been hard nerfed too much and the infantry has been buffed and theyāve been given a mortar.
The Lakotaās whole āgimmickā in the game should be as the cavalry-focused civ. Three infantry units is too many for them - Shove them into using cavalry for every possible response to everything.
They used to have cavalry siege that was so strong is was regularly banned in treaty games because it was nearly impossible to defend against. Donāt say āmortars are the bestā when they originally had a strategy that was significantly stronger than mortars.
Give them an army comprised almost solely of cavalry, with 1-2 useful infantry units at best. A cavalry military is strong against cannons inherently and mobile enough to disregard most artillery units. A significant balancing tool to this type of military is to make them weak at a range, which is fine - theyāve got the speed and the health to shrug off an artillery barrage to get close without a problem.
The issue is that the devs didnāt like this style of gameplay for some reason, and now their extensive cavalry is hard-nerfed into the ground so bad that only two of those units are even relevant anymore - thereās no reason to build Tashunke, Tokala are too difficult to get, and Rifle Riders are cost inefficient to build in bulk with the economy changes of the Lakota. With the Warchief only being one unit, this means that the massive and widespread cavalry of the Lakota is getting dumbed down to just using Axe and Bow Riders constantly because thatās all thatās relevant anymore.
It would work. Not gonna say I like it, but I dislike the idea of giving any artillery to the Lakota. A pragmatic nomadic people who didnāt even use wheels because they proved to be too much work out on the prairie arenāt gonna drag a cannon around with them.
I personally prefer the idea of the Arson Prowler. Itād retain the short-range identity the Lakota have had for years and give them a more manageable answer to siege without making their cavalry in general too strong.
It is impossible not to fall into the absurd with the Aztecs; On the one hand, we cannot give them mortars because they never used them. On the other hand, how is it that an empire could prevail from the age of discovery until after the industrial age without having technological progress?
I can think of two possible solutions: the first is to turn a blind eye to these absurdities and enjoy the game, the second is to assume that the Aztec civilization in the game is a hypothetical case in which the Aztec empire managed to survive.
if we go with the first solution, then we can turn a blind eye to the fact that the Aztecs have mortars (as indeed we do to the fact that the Aztecs can hire outlaws armed with shotguns and revolvers). If we opt for the second solution then we can assume that this hypothetical Aztec civilization managed to capture mortars.
So, in both options it is justified that the Aztecs have mortars. Also, if we consider that the Aztecs in AoE 3 are a hypothetical case (which indeed they are), the most logical thing to do would be to assume that the JPKs evolved to be equipped with steel-edged macuahuitls, the pumas with swords, the ERKs with tlacochtli made with steel tips, the AK with arrows smeared with Greek fire whose formula was transmitted to them by the Knights of St. John in the ābloodā campaign, to put an end to the fact that the Aztecs have factories with Mesoamerican aesthetics and rockets with the appearance of feathered serpents.
I think the best solution is to turn a blind eye to some absurd aspects and leave the other options for an AoE 5 or a Rise of Nations 2.
The Aztecs already have enough trouble getting their army to efficiently take out large masses of infantry without cannons and without players complaining Aztec units must be nerfed that they are now asking for the Aztec army to have the same siege capability than other armies but without having mortars. First letās solve the problem of the Aztecs with the infantry and then devise a way to take away their mortars.
Come on, 2 of them are the same role. Not a deal to say they are infantry focused. In some way is kinda a buff as cavalry cost more pop.
Laming doesnt mean unstoppable, and tipis were nerfed, like opris box was fixed. It just was a initial attack of dog soldiers with the WC, if failed you cant mass them again. I aim for infinte shipment of plaza units, if French can get Cuirassiers, why not? Of course with a price.
Good luck attacking canons behind a wall or at close places like atlas eithout a long range siege. That could work on TAD but tipis arent that strong anymore.
It has been demonstrated that melee focused armies are bad in this game: aztecs and indians have been at bottom tier on treaty for years and a long list of topics on the forums say it. Meanwhile Spain got buffs to their range units for the same reason.
Literally their economy is better than ever thanks to default tipi aura while earth wealth boost estates and they get coins from natural resources; and fur trade for treaty. Plus 10 villagers available thanks to healers.
In short, civs without long range siege dont work in this game and always will struggle, specially on treaty
Iām not saying theyāre infantry focused. Iām saying that giving infantry any power takes power away from their cavalry, which is indirectly nerfing their cavalry. The infantry should be cheap units that are spammable for Age 2 + 3 but become moot after that as cavalry outscales them in every way.
What āLamingā means is that it was such a strong strategy that it got removed from the game entirely. It worked if you were competent with the Lakota - and frankly, with the delicate balance that a full-cavalry based civ would have, they should be a difficult civ to play well. They sacrifice a lot for a lot of potential, but itās easy to f*ck up.
Literally zero part of anything I have ever proposed relied on tipis. Tipis are stupid as a military building, especially for the Lakota.
Did it for years. Cavalry are pretty resilient to massed artillery and with a siege trooper cavalry unit like the Itkunyan Prowler, theyāll be just fine. Will they be weak into massed dragoons? Absolutely, but dragoons canāt attack in an AoE and Lakota cavalry units are naturally fairly durable as-is.
This has never been true for anything but European civs. In treaty? One of my favorite strategies is an artillery-less Forbidden Army/Territorial Army spam that just crushes everything in front of it. India? Does just fine, their elephants literally fulfil the exact same purpose Iām proposing that the Itkunyan Prowler be given. Haudenosaunee? The Light Cannon isnāt a mortar and never has been, and itās never been strong against buildings. Hauds kill structures with Mantlets better than anything else, which is an infantry version of exactly what Iām proposing in the Itkunyan Prowler. Aztecs? Play your cards right, Puma Spearmen and Arrow Knights are the highest and most cost-efficient siege machine in the game.
The problem is these all require more skill than most civs, but that is OK. Not everything needs to be easy mode.
Step one would be to redesign the military from the ground-up in a more historical manner. Iāve found that alone solves a fair number of problems.
Step two would have to be decided off Step one, but for now, removing Mortars and restatting Arrow Knights is likely the best approach.
RN:
160 hp
40% ranged resist
3.75 movement speed
32 LoS/30 range
11 ranged damage, x5 artillery
39 siege damage, x2 vs ship/fixed guns, x1.25 walls
To start off, shorten the range. The ridiculous range of the Arrow Knight likely stems from the records of the Aztec tlahhuitolli having a range equal to or larger than the English longbow.
Proposal:
180 hp
30% siege resist
4.25 movement speed
26 LoS/24 range
13 siege damage, x3.5 artillery, 5 DoT/5 sec
25 siege damage, x2 vs ships/fixed guns, x1.25 walls, 5 DoT/5 sec, 2.0 RoF
Additionally, give them a +2 range boost with each upgrade (Champion/Legendary)
a redesign of the entire aztec army could be good.
Trading range for speed might be a fair deal and trading armor would help them do their job of clearing cannons. Although some change should be made in other units since now the AK would be much more vulnerable to arrows, rifles and muskets.
if the Ak now deals siege damage to the units it means that they will ignore the armor of the cannons. That could be very OP, they would go from dealing 14 damage per shot to a falconet to dealing 45 without counting the DoT.
The damage against buildings is somewhat low for me.
The damage into buildings is increased, not lessened. Current siege is 39 at 3.0 RoF. My proposal is 25 (+5) at 2.0 RoF. They gain 12 siege damage every 6 seconds over current design.
That seems reasonable for health, resistance, speed, and base range.
Improving range with promotions rather than upgrades would be a more interesting way to go.
Iād be reluctant to give them siege damage. It doesnāt really make much sense and would make them a little too strong against other units. Just ranged damage with an artillery multiplier would be fine. Poison damage could do the bulk of the work for bypassing ranged armour.
Lowering their rate of fire to 3 would also make sense. It would leave time for poison damage to do work. All the variable RoF archers have a low rate of fire at long distances. Maybe these guys could have variable RoF too.
Another interesting mechanic could be piercing damage like Scorpions. It would show off the giant arrows and kinda mimic the area damage of regular artillery.
In Industrial Age maybe the Aztec slingers can get have a tech available to them to give them range and siege attack (as an aside Ontontin should not be their name, those guys were really high up on the elite noble warrior side of things - they should really be YÄÅquÄ«zqueh - commoners armed for conflict and not even ranked as soldiers).
Heated Sling Stones - would enable their cheap, easy to produce slingers to have a reasonable ranged siege attack in the Industrial Age.
The thinking behind this would be that Aztecs shouldnāt have to access Mortars and made-up units to deal sieging/anti-artillery front. They should have access to weak but spammable masses of slingers with a late-game upgrade to bolster ranged siege.
Historically the commoners and low rank soldiers would rush into skirmish with bows and slings then pull back to allow the noble (not knights!) warriors to engage in melee - in game Aztecs should be all about using the easy to mass, more expendable commoner units to deal with ranged siege as opposed to Arrow Knights who are the shoe-horned artillery. Aztecās thing should be about swamping the enemy with quick-training cannon-fodder units before sending in the melee tough guys.
@M00Z1LLA You must be thinking of the Pass-through damage effect. That is what it is called according to the Age of Empires fandom wiki.
It seems that the pass-through damage effect is already in the game, where some artillery units like the [Falconet], [Heavy Cannon] and their alternatives will fire projectiles that will travel some distance in a straight line after impact on target, dealing pass-through damage to units and buildings alike.
Or they could just give their own cannons to north american natives, and incas. Because they actually used artillery before 1800ās. And maybe aztecs in the form of a falconet card. I donāt see why insist so much on the āprimitiveā theme when letting them train their own cannons is historically accurate.
Aztecs (outdated term) not only represent the mexicas. Aztec means āfrom aztlanā, and it covers the 7 Nahua people. Including Tlaxcalans. Thatās why I said aztecs should get them from a one time card only.
I hadnāt thought of it that way. I remember that there is a Tlaxtalteca rebellion card for the Aztecs, this could unlock falconets, brigantines and even some other Spanish units.