Simple alternative to Inca nerf

Revert the villager nerf. Instead, Incans start the game with -25 stone.

This gives a small delay/nerf to their tower rush strategy, but doesn’t rule it out entirely. It also allows them to keep their villager advantage during the age where it (arguably) matters most.

You could even push it further, to say, -50 stone, but then buff their stone discount to 20%. This would put even less emphasis on its rush strength, but would add to the Incan’s power of later game stone defenses.


the problem isn’t so much the towers. its how hard incan villagers are to deal with in early feudal.


Myeah, truth be told I was a bit too conservative probably with the -25s. But I do feel that without the ability to quickly build a follow-up tower, you can nerf the Incan rush strength.

The idea is not to remove this strategy entirely, just to make it a bit weaker.

Unfortunately we’re heading towards the direction of having fun with AoE2 is no longer allowed. Everything needs to be just purely super-competitive and anti-social. I don’t think the change will be reverted, although I agree that it should be.


Exactly. I would prefer to change the BS bonus just giving vils the armor upgrades, not the attack ones


The new civs kind of speak against that. Bad civilizations, with gimmicky features that I hate for competetive gameplay game but almost am tempted to still buy for community games as they can perform fun troll strategies.

Burgundian will now basically be an Arena civ

A lot of players think Sicilians should go for feudal age donjon rush, but it really isn’t worth it, the donjons are worse offensively than towers in terms of a tower rush. The donjon was meant as a building you can construct after taking over a key area on the map to quickly replenish your troops.

1 Like

So based on your post about not making civs more generic, I suppose the purpose of your idea is to only slightly nerf their tower rush as opposed to what is planned, but I don’t think it’s actually good for variety.
I’m baffled by the walls of texts, both on here and Reddit, that claim that Inca trush represents “variety” when it literally wastes the civ’s whole castle and imperial age.

The effort that so many people put into claiming that Incas are a straight downgrade from other meso civs, and that their unique units are bad, does nothing but confirm to me that most people who play Incas never went further than 10 minutes into castle age 11

Making the blacksmith bonus castle age only sure will be bad for people who used it for its intended purpose, but let’s be real same could be said about the good ol’ Teuton deathstar.
Meanwhile just removing some starting stone will just make people adapt by mining stone sooner, but that’s pretty much it, just like making palissades build slower just made people wall earlier.

Do you realise the amount of players wo think this change will cause the exact opposite 11

1 Like

The most common argument is that incas have a diverse tech tree, but sadly there are better civs for diverse tech trees, so there’s no point to prioritize picking this civ for any particular reason with their main strength gone.

Because it does, it’s a strategy that isn’t commonly played by most other civs, so the civ is clearly doing something differently than most other civs, i.e. the literal definition of variety.

Does any other civ get both the best anti-cav infantry unit in the game and a better hand cannoneer that can be produced as soon as you hit castle age? I don’t think so.

You see how you blame Incas for being bad without their towers cuz they aren’t like Mayan or Aztecs? People blamed the Korean, Spanish, Teuton tower rushes for a similar reason: they don’t have the same sheer amount of bonuses aimed at tower rushing, hence they aren’t worth trying over the Inca one.

I didn’t say they are bad, but just not worth prioritizing. Civ is still OK without the feudal bonus, but just that: OK.

Will probably remain a decent choice for TG, because of Kamayuk’s uber efficacy against Paladin, and the slingers that you mentioned.

And I’m telling that they are worth priorizing it if you want a meso civ with a good tech tree, if you like having a smooth start, and/or if you like to play with counter units.

Then we agree to disagree :slight_smile: I think I’d prefer Aztecs in most situations (1v1)

Yeah, I’d like the tower rush to remain an option for the Incans, but not necessarily the option. I do think still having the tower rush as an option would add to variety, as long as it’s not the dominant strategy for the civ (which one could argue it is now).

I think you misunderstand me if you think I want to preserve the tower rush in some capacity because the Incans need it to be a viable civ. I don’t believe this, and if this was indeed the case, I wouldn’t argue for it, as indeed this would be a poor design to maintain. One trick ponies are boring.

(Having said that, they would be the first meso-civ I would target for a small buff, but not because they are ‘useless’.)

1 Like

Is this change already in place? Or is in a upcoming update?


Aww, shucks. Thought you left that open.

Its beta. The change might make it or not.

He means that Incans are an underrated civ in general and are too often just seen as a tower or vill rush all in civ. Srandard and going for eagles is usually countered by maybe massed cav or milita line switch but Incans have the Kamayak which is amazing at killing cav and inf and generally they have the slinger which similarly destroys inf. Their unique tech makes archers a weak counter aswell so they’re probably top 2 maybe best meso civ for late castle into imp situations

1 Like

I was cracking a joke. I didn’t expect to be punished for it >:

What is funny is that the anti cav bonus of the flemish militia is nerfed in the PuP, so that they don’t get the same as elite kamayuks anymore. The lack of range and the insane cost of memish rev makes the flemish militia worse anyway.