Reduce garrison from 50 to 20 or 25.
Equate base ranged damage to what it currently is, to offset damage per garrison.
Remove garrison and equate ranged damage.
With High Ground card or Sacsayhuaman technology enable garrison again.
Reduce range damage from 40 to 20
Add multiplier x2 vs artillery.
Optional: Reduce HP to 120 and add armor vs. Siege. or also reduce speed to 3.75.
Reduce bonus from 7% to 5% (as in TAD)
Bushido Principles: Only applicable to barracks and stables, disable for Daimyo.
Increase Yamabushi cost from 65 to 70 export.
Increase Shinobi cost from 80 to 85 export.
The stronghold has 60 damage 1,5 area, 6000 hp, 24 range. with 50 garrisoned 210 attack.
The regular fort has 9000 hp, 150 attack 3.0 area 26 attack.
The regular fort ungarrisoned does almost 3x as much damage as a stronghold with double area damage. Even max garrisoned the additional damage from the stronghold is 60 extra, though you need to take into account that the area damage is half that of the fort and the hp is 2/3rd of a regular fort.
Another thing worth mentioning is the stronghold has 24 range, so falconets out range the stronghold, the regular fort has the same range as a falconet so can even take out 2 falconets before they destroy it.
The inca are supposed to be a civ good at turtling and playing defensively, the stronghold is 1 of their unique features over other natives.
The huaraca is incas only real answer to artillery and for siege, it’s a very expensive unit with the same HP as a musketeer and same range as a skirmisher. It’s got no siege resist and is out ranged by every other civs artillery despite being an anti-artillery unit, what good is a culverin if out ranged by falconets? Imagine the falconets also had a multiplier against the lower ranged culverin, because that’s how it is for the incan huaracas.
Similarly to aztec the incas also lack a good way to reliably kill skirmisher masses due to their lack of trainable artillery yet people still want them nerfed over and over.
Garrisoning units is what makes it unique, and a much needed feature for the inca that struggle vs massed artillery and skirmishers.
If the huaraca out ranged falconets then I’d have no issue with nerfing it in other ways, you could halve the damage and give it a 2x multiplier vs artillery that way it becomes worse vs other units like infantry but does its job better. Unless it gets at least 30 range though so you can safely take out artillery or potentially similar range to a falconet but with a high siege resist, I’d avoid any nerfs until then just because inca struggle so much vs artillery and skirms as it is.
Why? I mean, i´ve been doing some theoretical kind of rework but not so much, to the consulate bonuses, and i always thought they needed buffs or maybe not needed but at least it would be nice and it wouldnt be unjustified or OP, but i mean a buff, not a nerf, 7% is already not much, but i understand you say this in relation with the early game, maybe because of some rush potential, if it´s because of that, i personally don´t think it should be a problem but i might agree, but it should be buffed in late game at least. I might do a topic of that consulate thing but dk…
I think 25 units or so should be enough. We can then update the damage to be similar to forts around max garnisoning.
I am fine with either way but I would rather put the range around 20 (+1+1) and replace their armor with a 30% siege. That would differenciate huaracas “stomps artillery once in range” to the arrow knight" “outrange artillery and beat it”.
Another idea would be to create a “siege infantry” tag for arrow knights and huaracas (plus maybe grenadiers and abys guns) and give artillery a penalty against them. Currently I think only the arrow knight gets such a feature.
Huaraca HP sucks so hard in late game, they have low range and can be sniped with horse artillery easily, they need the siege resistance for sure, why would neftenya get siege resistance and not Huaraca
Exactly, that was my idea, i didn’t want to put the whole thing and start to explain it in this topic because i don’t want to complicate the discussion here, but now that you mention it…
Yes, mi idea was simply to make the bonuses scale through ages, the exact numbers are subject of change but it generally brings up all bonuses to the same level in late game, not exactly, there should be some better than others.
For example, German ally bonus is one of the best for late game, and making french bonus at the same level would be like 25% or something, depends, it could be lower because it’s more general and it’s available to indian that do not have much eco cards. Although now that they nerfed the German bonus i don’t know if it was really necessary haha but anyway, i might make a topic only for that.
Disable economic shipments to the chasqui, in order to avoid the nasty forward fort sent to the chasqui. In my opinion the chasqui should not have that mechanic, but if you want to keep it just remove the possibility to send the fort because they have 2-3 chasquis and that give to the inca players a lot of possibilities to send the fort.
Remove the hunting lock mechanic, it is ok if the shrines are able to attract animals, but do not lock those, is not fair and unbalanced, specially for near shrines to your base, there should be a punishment if the shrines are so close to your base.
I agree, they need siege resistance, but for God’s sake, their function is to siege and counter artillery, in early and mid game they seem like abus gun.
lol, the garrison is the most broken mechanic in the game atm, and i m not say it, almost all players say it. And yes, we have to reduce the cost of Wamani, the card is until atm, and I’m surprised that they still dont fixed it.
Tbh, shrines hunt could be huntable if they made the gather rate of shrine animal reduce to half. That way you could get hunts in emergency, and there would still be a reason to siege the shrines first.