it is not possible to do brutal damage to a player and kill like 6+ vills pre-castle and this player being able to come back because Eagles literally take no resources to mass.
Make them maybe 35f 50g and +1 attack, atm you don’t need an economy to mass then and it’s cringe to lose to bad players spamming this unit that in early Castle is good vs everything.
Units that beat other units such as Archers and Light Cav can’t possibly cost 20 food, it’s ridiculous.
Eagles are fine and they are not 20 food. They take valuable resource that can be used for villager production or aging up. About being OP, especially in castle age, you can kill them even with crossbows with some micro.
Nerfing Eagles food cost is debatable at best, you can increase it to 35 and could be fine, so this could nerf quite fast Mayans which has 58% winrate at 2k.
But you should think about Aztecs and Incas which are weaker and nerfing Eagles means they would lose more.
No they do not.
Stop using bad statistics as evidence. I already debunked this once, hard to understand why you’d simply ignore it.
I can do the exact same thing with the exact same statistics and argue Mayans need a buff, not a nerf. Of all civs, players at 2k+ have a 50.66 winrate against Mayans in the same sample size. Meaning according to the same data you used to say Mayans have a 58% winrate, the Mayans actually have a 49.34% winrate. So either we agree the data is nonsensical or we must agree that the Mayans must be simultaneously top tier and in need of a buff.
wait til you see how much food crossbows cost
The best thing is increasing their laughable food cost, 20f is just a joke, so making it 30f or even 35f and 45g will be good.
Knights destroy EWs. They kill one in 5 hits and take 18 hits to be killed, while being faster and attacking faster. Basically a knight could take out 3 eagles one by one, or 2 at the same time.
on the other hand eagles are cheaper and more resistant to conversion.
True, but even a light cav with bloodlines can 1v1 EW, so it’s not that overpowered monster.
I know food impacts a lot early castle, but idk… maybe buff them and increase a lot the food cost or don’t even touch them.
Imagine castle age eagles with 70hp and 9 attack, but costing like 60f 50g. It’s a very delicate unit to mess with
If you are How | Green, you have to be more polite. I’m 31, so #### words don’t really affect me, but still : it’s a game.
About our game : Persians vs Mayans.
Persians knights have +2 against archers, so that’s at the start bad news for Mayans, an archer civ… and I made the mistake. I invested into archers at Feudal. So instead of making skirmishers, build a tower and go faster to Castle to destroy me.
At Castle age, I produced only Barrack Units, and a lot of eagles. So I upgraded in the same time Pikes. Going full Knights like you did could not end very well. Finally, my gold was quiet untouched at my back : I produced more eagles and at the end, raids in your eco killed you.
You were right when you said I did not play well. But I wasn’t the only one 
That’s just not true because of different playrates. I guess playrate times winrate accumulated gives a proper 50%. also Mayans winning against Mayans is a factor for the 50.66% winrate against them.
At certain times in the game the cost is offset by other things though.
Example → when you hit castle age and want to play one TC full aggression:
With Berbers you can build 2 extra stables (= 350 wood) and then start producing knights constantly from 3 stables.
To match this production as an Mayan player with eagles (2 eagles for each knight) you would need 6 extra barracks (= 1050 wood) since eagles need 5 more seconds to train. That is quite a difference in upfront cost considering 2 eagles do not even beat 1 knight…
well i’m not sitting here saying to use eagles against knights either. you’d be better served by using pikes.
Yes, I can, because then I’m using the exact same failure to properly analyze data as he is.
I’m not actually making that argument, I’m simply saying that I could if we’re going off the same dataset.
No it’s not, because one Mayan loses against another. Therefore “vs. Mayans” is always 50% if it’s Mayan v Mayan, because one Mayan wins and adds to the winrate and one Mayan loses and deducts from the winrate.
IMO what make the meso civs hard to balance is their Eagle line more than anything. I suggest to increase the Eagle line food cost to 45F and make them affected by supplies, so they will become 30F (give supplies to Mayans since they don’t have it). Or another suggestion which I said it before to increase the food cost to 30. But imo even 30f is laughable cost, Eagles can ez dive under TCs/Castles and kill vills and ez melt archers and skirms and ez be mix with pikes vs knights because the eagle food is 20f and pike food is 35f so both of them didn’t even reach the food cost of 1 militia. I wonder how the devs came up with this?!
So 2 Eagles, that are together weaker then 1 knight, should cost 90food + 100gold ??
No.
Just.
No!
and we have to give Mayans back supplies when it was clearly removed from them for a reason.
I said from the beginning to make the food directly 30F but if we increase it to 45F then make them effected by supplies which will make them 30F. I wonder if you see a unit like Eagle have a food cost 20f is fine?! Because it is not.
yeah because aztec and incan eagles are clearly problematic. oh wait. no they aren’t.
It is about the units itself. The Eagle is a strong unit that play different rules, making its food cost 20f is just laughable. They have mobility, they are tanks vs arrows, they melt buildings, and you can ez mix them with pikes vs knights because pike+eagle=55F cost!!! It is even less than miltia food cost.