Thoughts on Incas

On average Incas is the worst mezo civ.


I’d say that depends on the king- they’re harder to control,
they’re less straightforward and
when used properly they’re a pain for even the Teutons to handle

1 Like

For pros, probably.
But if we look on winrates (yes, i know…) Incas outperform both Mayans and Aztecs on all levels except the highest ELO, what is not relevant due to small sample size, and we can see this (Persians bottom 2? Koreans better than Japs?).
So maybe Incas are also more noob-friendly - need for less houses and bonus Llama give them probably the smoothest Dark Age.

1 Like

I’m talking about my level.

You are about 1500, right?

I got 1600 this week.

Incas having one of the highest loses against goths is an example that shows how bad those stats really are.


I also like the Incas and play them daily. The balance is fine, but not top-tier.

The team bonus is weak and they don’t have any really hard-hitting units. But, they soft-counter everything.

They don’t have any cheap fast units (like scouts) for feudal rushing. Villager rushes are not comparable, because of limitations in creation speed from the single town center and because there is a decrease in economic production due to villagers acting as troops. Eagle Scouts are gold intensive and take 60 seconds to train. I believe that’s why there is a dip in win rates vs game length for that time period.

They are very gold intensive. In longer non-team games, the player must be ready to switch to trash. Inca trash is fine, though.

Areas that could be improved:

  1. Team bonus. The real-life Incas didn’t pay taxes but instead contributed their labor to the community. So, maybe 15% faster construction times for the team?

  2. Slingers. Increase their attack or decrease their gold cost. They are situational now (such as playing against infantry civs) and it would be fun to see them used more often like hand cannoneers.

  3. Add +1 melee armor to Fabric Shields would give the Incas a bit more Imperial Age survival.


Very true. But the issue is that the other two are top tier.

So to have a perfect balance (=all the civs similar strength in a 1v1 arabia scenario), we should nerf the other two (and the Chinese)

This should be replaced… maybe farmers carry +1, or towers cost -50%w

1 Like

Thanks for your thoughts :slight_smile:
Very valid points indeed. Yes one cannot deny that Kamayuks and Steppe Lancers are very different situational units with different uses (apart from maybe attacking just beyond a wall). All i’m saying is I personally liked that the +1 range was an Inca thing. In the same way that +12 is a Britons thing, or Infantry doing trample damage is Slavs , or Cataphract trample damage is a Byzantines thing. If you were to give another civs +12 range or trample damage it wouldn’t be a bad thing, but it would make the Byzantines and Slavs less unique. The Incas have lost absolutely nothing in terms of strength, they are better than ever. But I feel they are ever so slightly less unique now.

I agree the team bonus could really be a lot better. If it was changed to a good one it might push the Incas further up the board. Inca villiagers with +1 range on everything would be interesting hahaha Wouldn’t have to walk as far and could also be quite deadly when massed up and attacking :joy:
But as I’ve said before they are a very good civ right now as it is. So i’m not too bothered about balance changes at the moment.

Ye, ye, I agree.
Incas is actually slightly above average in 1v1s thanks to their aggressive potential (usually vill+tower rush followed by eagles).

But it’s a terrible teamgame civ. It HAS to go for towers to compensate no matter the map and position (pocket/flank).

1 Like

They actualy NERF Slingers in DE. What make sence - they were basicly Xbows without need of upgrade and with better accuracy and with bonus against infantry. Keep in mind, this is Castle Age unit. They already are better than HC.

Battle Elephants say hi.


I have issues with them too! :wink: But that’s another topic 11

A fun possibility is to buff Xolotl Warriors, which is the cavalry that Incas and Aztecs can produce if they convert an enemy stable. Presently, Xolotl are too expensive and too weak (due to lack of blacksmith upgrades) to be worth producing.

What if Xolotl Warriors produced Elite Eagles Warriors upon dying, similar to Bulgarian Konniks? That would be worth the trouble of Redemption and targeting enemy stables.


These civs are not supposed to have Xolotl Warriors anyway, and they share the same stats as Knights.

They are an easter egg, not something to actually rely on.


I think Incas are a bit of an underrated civ. Many people think all they are good at is tower rushing and vill rushing, when they are actually a pretty solid civ.

If I could change one thing is how their vill bonus work. I think it would be better if vills get +1/+1 armor each age up for free and get no attack upgrades instead. This way they are still very good at trushing and vill rushing (they don’t have to invest in a blacksmith but on the other end they get not attack upgrade) and at the same time they have the alternative to just sit back and boom, since they have armored vills for free and this makes them much harder to raid.


Incas do everything right, except Cavalry, because they have none.

1 Like

Well, strictly speaking they lack a real eco bonus to truly be top tier. Not saying they need one, as I mentioned before they already are a solid civ, very underrated imo.

1 Like

They have the Stone discount, need less Houses (Wood savings), start with an extra Llama and have raid-resistant Villagers.
They also have their Team bonus of near instant Farms.

All of these bonuses may not seem much in themselves, but they do compound a lot. They all scream Archers and Towers to me.

Specially the Wood savings on Houses and the Stone discount.

1 Like