technically they can, strangely i see pros still use pikes against knights. and thats even when it requires 2 pikes to kill a knight.
At least you have a trash unit to counter them, but against eagles ONLY knights (60food, 75 gold) are good in chasing them…them( 20food, 50 gold).
And you can kill knights by xbows unlike Eagles they eat xbows so easy, and don’t forget eagles are more easly to mass than knights
and longswords wreck eagles harder then pikes wreck knights. food for thought.
lol what? a knight takes 40 hits from xbows to kill.
an eagle takes 28 hits from xbows to kill. and does 7 damage an attack, vs a knights 10 damage an attack. the knight also trains faster and has more mobility.
Well pikes don’t chase knights either. We should be comparing the same thing, either cost-effective trading or chasing, when we compare two match-ups.
Eagle warriors take 35 seconds to train (30 for knight). And as pointed out a knight is way more tanky than an eagle. So it’s not obvious you could output more power in one unit of time by training eagles vs training knights. It would need some combat simulating (I forgot the website)
Have you ever try trash fight with meso civ? Good luck to raid the enemy Eco without Hussar.
1 Like
There is a thing called Jaguar Warrior. I think it should be very good in this situation 
it’s very healthy that Eagles have counter unit and definitely not a problem
-1 pierce armour would be a huge change. It would for example make Crossbows deal +50% damage against Eagles.
I think Eagles are a very interesting unit and they are strong, but balanced. Clear strenghts and clear weaknesses. Defining meso civs, but not being oppressive. I think it would be a huge mistake to rework them.
Longswords 0.9 Elite-Eagles 1.3 → 0.4 difference
Halbs 1 Knight line 1.35 → 0.35 difference
Anyway, both can run away and that’s why in both of those cases there is room for outplay on both sides. It is all about if the side wanting to fight can force a fight.
It’s a factor, but not as big as you think. Aztecs usually just build some more Barracks. That’s of course an investment too, but you need a barracks in order to build a stable anyway, so 3 rax vs 2 stables should actually be a fair comparison.
Anyway: I think Eagles are in a good spot and balance changes should rather aim at specific civs (Aztecs - that happened in the patch) or techs (El Dorado) rather than the unit itself.
1 Like
Inca are not OP, at least not their eagles. So this unit is not the issue here. With +10 food cost and -1 PA they will trade poorly against both knights and xbows in castle age. 1 knight would be noticeably cheaper and much faster to produce than 2 eagles required to kill said knight, even if we are talking generic knights with no bonuses. The same issue with fighting archers - with relatively low speed and inability to create a huge mass of units they won’t be able to do anything against even generic archer line. With 3 PA they make up for this by being extra tanky against arrows.
The problem is as always the borderline OP Eagle line of units, as @Equalizer938341 has explained very well.They’re just too tanky and too fast for costing next to no food and low gold.
yeah so borderline op they get wrecked by militia line and take less to kill then knights. oh and it takes longer to train them as well. do the same thing against them i told you to do against knights. wall off your base, make choke points. make them go through your army to get to eco. watch them get shredded.
if eagles are so borderline op why are Incas a middle of the road civ?
Eagle warrior is neither too fast, nor tanky, nor does it ‘cost low gold’. We don’t see every player rushing eagles in every single game and winning all the time. Mayans mostly play with archers until imp. Inca usually perform tower rush or archer rush and use xbows in castle age. Aztecs typically train archers in Feudal, and quite often stick to archers for the early Castle Age, and then not necessarily switch to eagles as they get other options (monk+pike+siege).