do the math, Mayans bonus is stronger. Also, of course other bonuses help, any bonus even a 1% bonus will help, but the question is what carries the Mayans and it’s the fact that they can produce the best unit in the game for cheaper.
Also, I wrote that with Mayans you can do the transition Archers → Eagles because these 2 units require similar eco setup. Doing Archers → Knights as Portuguese is, in contrast, far harder to the point where often you can’t justify doing the transition in early Castle Age at high level.
To dumb it down to the core I will also add that Portuguese, you can counter their full Archer spam with full Skirm, and Knight transition (on top of very hard) still isn’t great until you get 2nd armor.
Eagle Warriors in contrast are far easier to transition into, and are better out of the gate (3 pierce armor vs 2 of Knights), so going Skirms vs Mayans is dangerous (because Eagle is also a stronger raiding unit than Knight in Castle Age that is also immune to the “last resort” counter that is Monks), while it’s relatively save vs an Archer/Knight civ like Portuguese.
People who think Mayans eco is OP, LOL, I am waiting to hear from you how you justify Malay being bottom of mid-tier on Arabia when before hitting Castle age they get THREE extra vills.
Yes, agree completely. It’s funny you don’t even mention Incas as an option here, because they are not as good as Mayans or Aztecs, and they don’t have a gold bonus to support Eagle production. I think shifting the Eagle cost a little from gold to food would be a good move, since it makes them harder to mass while booming and aging up, but more sustainable as a light cav replacement in post-imperial.
Mayan change sounds good. They literally have 3 eco bonuses now, +1 vil, longer lasting resources (by a ton!), and an archer discount when every single game they play on archers.
I think chinese… I don’t know. Sounds too big. Chinese already are bad on unorthodox maps and struggle against specific openings, but their eco is insane. They are like a more well-rounded viking with a tiny bit worse economy. They have no identity though, besides having an open tech tree, high economy and a lot of options, so nerfing the tech discount will be against that, it’s a no-no.
Aztecs honestly are fine in their current state. They got nerfed a lot. I get that their early game seems strong still, but trust me, once you get to late castle age or imp they fall off so quickly they might as well be the worst civ there, bar eagle spam. And there is only so much gold on the map, plus, the militia line got some pretty huge buffs.
I think the chinese “nerf” is actually a minimal buff for lower elos. They can’t produce vills with them at all times anyways so they would have just +25 wood compared to the current chinese start. I probably would make it also 2 , vills, -125 F, - 25 W. I think that would be better for the civ balance over all elos.
For high elo this would be considered a nerf, for low elos a buff.
Your probably falls flat. Turk/Mayan Siege Ram >> Magyar Capped Ram. Even with SE, Capped Rams have +180 vs buildings while SR have +200. Now add the extra HP and blast radius of SR.
You still cannot see archer discount as a general eco bonus. Then you would just admit that Mayans cannot do anything else - which is even somewhat true. But then you’re just basing the bonus on the existence of a (flexibility) weakness.
If it’s 100% sure that Mayans go archers, than opponent could always make counter units, which - even if archers would be 50% cheaper - would be cost effective.
I’d actually argue that it isn’t sure. Against Meso civs’ eagles or Polish or Turkish scouts or Malian swords, going archers is quite questionable. And in this case Mayan eco is probably under-average
Its the same with Goths. They kinda have the same eco as Mayans besides not having longer lasting resources, and infantry- instead of archer-discount. But Goths are nowhere considered having top tier eco
True. Although it’s funny that Mayan’s archer discount is considered an eco bonus (I agree it is), while most seem to think Goths lack an eco bonus despite their infantry discount.
This is what I’m worried Vikings is about to become. Both Aztecs and Vikings lack fully upgraded Arbs now, and have poor or no cavalry, and are missing Halberdier (although they have strong pikes). Economy + Infantry can only take you so far in the late game, especially for team games. At least Aztecs have good monks and siege onager, and I’d generally take Eagles over Berserks even if Jaguars are underwhelming.
Viking Infantry is naturally stronger in mid game, while the Aztec infantry has the advantage of faster creation. Honestly, for 1vs1, Vikings have better siege than Aztecs because they have Heavy Scorpion (SO doesn’t matter in 1vs1).
Aztecs sure have great monks and Skirmishers though, but Vikings have last archer armor upgrade too.
That’s an interesting point. I never saw much Heavy Scorpion from Vikings since it’s function is similar to archers, maybe we’ll see it more now. I’d still take SO over Heavy Scorpion as a support unit to an infantry civ. Siege Onager can definitely be useful in 1v1 when the opponent fully commits to archers, hand cannons or recently Hussite Wagons. It is expensive and takes a long time to get there.
The thing with Scorpions, Infantry and Cavalry Archers is that you need a strong bonus or a particular situation to justify making them despite many civs having perfectly serviceable units.
Mongols, Cumans and Chinese have perfect Champions for combat. I guess Berbers have Supplies on top of that. None of these 4 civs goes for Sword line except when facing eagles or halb ram pushes.
Chinese, Lithuanians and Bulgarians have perfectly serviceable Cavalry Archers. Vietnamese have even better due to extra HP. Same fate. Only when situation calls for it.
Contrast that to Knights and Crossbowmen. Any civ with wood bonus or Thumb Ring can go for Crossbowmen except Bulgarians and Spanish themselves. it is a staple unit. Unless your civ lacks either Bracer or Arbalester upgrade, there is no reason to tech out of Crossbowmen, even if you have great Cavalry Archers, like Japanese and Saracens.
Idk where you got that from. I have used SO much much more often than heavy scorp in 1v1. In fact, I can count the times I have went for heavy scorps on my fingers.
Mayans: I think removing the last archer armor upgrade would be a nice alternative nerf.
Chinese: start with -2 villagers (down from 3), -150F and -50W (no resource changes). This should basically give the high ELO players +2 villagers lead after clicking feudal instead of 2.5. Chinese do not need a +25W buff, the extra villager should be able to collect ~150 resources in the first 8 minutes of the game, to compensate for the 50F + 25W initial resources deficit (25W are included in the +5pop of TC)
Aztecs: your changes sounds fair. But it is probably also a nerf for open maps, where some players may want to delay loom to produce more milicia.
Yeah, SO just like paladins are rarely seen in 1v1 due to the high cost. SO is even less common due to friendly fire, so you do not really want to combine with champions unless the opponent is making eagles or sicilian cavalry. Until now, Viking had FU archers, so no “need” to tech into something less meta.
Heavy skorpions are rarely seen (except for Khmer and Celts I guess) as they feel like a worse version of archers in imp. Maybe they could get a buff, like +1 PA. But I am not sure of their intended use. It says “good against archers”, but it is only so in castle age (7 PA). in imperial I would rather use them against infantry when my civ has no handcannoners (or when the enemy also produce skirms)
Removing the last archer armor will weaken the late game arbalests much like Vikings and gives a similar feeling like Goth infantry (discount but missing last armor)… But this may be the way for balance.
If the mid game needs to be nerfed, I guess the nerf should be wither decreasing the archer discount or removing the one villager lead. So pretty much what many people here suggested.