As commonly said, Aztec possess thr strongest early game and one of the weakest late game due to their lack of defence, lack of two archery upgrades and lack of Halberdier etc. Aztec eco helps alot through out the game due to their Relic 33% bonus and faster villagers working. They have decent seige, strong monks and infantry.
So basically whats there main defect of their poor performance in the Late game? Bad archers? Bad defences? Halberdier lack? And how to improve them as a good Late game civ?
For me they are weak late game in 1v1 because they lack both halberdiers and lightcav, so they die to Hussars spam.
They are one of those civs that really feel underwhelming without gold&relics. I dont think the +3 carry capacity is that impactful anymore after researching hand cart.
I dont know if they are weak in late team game, they have good SO, good champions, eagles, and bracers arbalesters (without TR though). Maybe some Black Forest player can tell us ?
I am not sure what should be done for their late game, and what should be taken from them to compensate. I think they shouldnt get Halberdiers unless they lose Siege Onagers and some castle age power.
Yes. When the new Infantry civ like Burmese and Dravidians have Halberdier, I think it should be the time to review whether Aztecs and Vikings can have Halberdier or not. For Vikings maybe it is fine with the UT. But For Aztecs, their UT is actually comparable to Dravidians one. Having Eagle is good but lacking Halberdier is really bad especially in late game no gold situation
A topic that suggest to buff one of the strongest civs in the game! Such a classic forum topic. It seems the ELO average of people in this forum is below 900. What to do…
All Meso civs have poor lategame due to lacking Stables. They by design want to end games before the game gets to that point, and that’s fine.
Aztec skirms are also one of the best thanks to Atlatl, and Garland Wars pikemen are… okay.
Seeing when they get picked in Black Forest teamgame tournaments is a good way to tell. They are usually picked on the second row of BF drafts. Having the best Monks and Siege Engineer SO puts them at good at the very least for late-game BF games.
I don’t think they need to get changed at all. Not every civ needs to be strong at every side of the game, Meso civs don’t need to get Hussar f.e.
As you can see, the top 2 players in the world rate Aztecs as S-tier and A-tier respectively; they don’t need a buff. What you perceive as their weakness is most likely just your decision making and general skill level. Their optimum composition is Eagles, Atlatl Skirms, Monks + Siege Ram. And Garland Wars pikes are actually pretty decent with all the imp upgrades, not that much worse than halb.
They are intentionally structured to have a difficult late game. In turn they have an extremely powerful interval in Feudal and Castle Age play. They lacks Halbs, their archers are unimpressive, and they cannot train cavalry unless they convert a Stable. You are stuck with Eagles or Champions and some good siege. The lack of cannons can also prove problematic.
why though? if you make them a general unit then whats the point of their garland wars champions?
Aztecs has always been super high wr in Arabia tourns and strong at the pro lvl while having pretty mediocre wrs in lower tiers. Its just kinda how it is. I mean you could make them stronger in the late game while nerfing their early/mid but I kinda feel it’s unnecessary.
You realize that the Jaguar warrior and the garland wars champions already overlap too much, so making the castle unit the stronger unit makes much more sense, as it comes with limitations. If its just a weaker emergency unit, for things the civ can handle already enough, will never see them and the civ is stuck with quite some weaknesses. Jaguars could just get something new than bland bonus damage vs infantry, like bleeding damage vs all unmounted units at least
idk where that logic comes from but i dont really see how it “makes sense” but maybe thats just me .
I mean if you got them a new identity instead of making them “stronger” then sure. I do think they don’t need an infantry counter as enemies dont want to go halb line, and their champs are top tier already, so they win vs most other champs.
I almost missed the edit u added here. Yeah, sure, if you give them a new identity. Although I don’t particularly like this suggestion at all either. Too similar to just a dmg buff to infantry. Bleed in general doesn’t really fit AOE2, as its kinda a status effect. Also, this makes it only matter vs infantry/archers. Archers are hard to get to anyways and die when they are atked anyway (san a few tanky ones) so its just not really it.
Yes, as they should keep the theme to be weak against cavalry, that should remain unchanged, but the change lifts the degeneracy of garland war champs and jaguars
The castle UU is the most flavoured unit a civ can have, so having it be cool and unique is what comes with it. And also need expensive castles implies it should be a strong unit, not a very situational one.
Aztecs easily make up in A and S tierlist for their strong Dark to Feudal age. Actually, it depends a lot of on skills too. Aztecs, in the late game, can punish infantry civs like Goths, Vikings, Malians etc well and fight other civs too who rely upon gold costing units like Teutons.
I don’t really want to see Aztecs becoming an OP late game civ as they are in Early to mid age. I just want them to be improved in late game to avoid from being “below average”. For such aim, i think they should have access to Halberdier to encounter heavy cavalry well atleast. Garland war pikes can beat generic halberiders in fights but they cannot fight cavalry as effecients as Halberdiers too. Nearly every infantry-focused civ gets halberdier, why not the Aztecs? I believe Last Armour upgrade should be added atleast.
Jaguar warriors arn’t popular units too for their weakness against a variety of units. They don’t even cost well. I think their cost should be 50 food and 20 gold to make them more useful; 2/2 amour, 12 attack are decent stats for infantry but i think they deserve a bit more hp, to 90 imo.
For me it all depends on what he is ready to give up on to get a better late game.
I fully agree.
Personally, if I pick a civ based on what it offers, instead of picking a civ for some other reasons and then asking it to offer me what I desire.
It seems many players pick a civ because it looks cool, or because it matches their favorite IRL culture, or because it has bonus to some (potentially non meta) unit, and then complain because the civ doesnt offer what they want.
I would rather say it is mainly about how he wants to play the game. Staling and winning late is a perfectly fine strategy, albeit not the best one in open maps. And it gets really tough when doing it with a civ focused around early game, like Aztecs.
Aztecs late game is a weakness. But like every balanced civ you can avoid having to deal with their weaknesses if you play on their strengths.
And adjusting the decision making to the civ’s design (and play aggressive in early to mid game) is not the only solution when the civ isnt satisfying, one can also choose to play with another civ that matches the desired playstyle (ex Byzantines or Spanish for more 1v1 late game power)
I actually don’t think Mayans and Incas have weak late game especially mayans. Their 15% longer resources remaining and cheaper archers are pretty good bonuses. In trash fights, they have fully upgraded Hul’che UT Skirmishers (not too strong but still it counts) and FU Halberdier. The only obstacle is hussar but it does make them fall too much.
I think you’ve misunderstood what civ balance means. It doesn’t mean balancing the civs to be equal in every age. It means some civs are designed to be stronger early and others later. E.g. Strong late game civs tend to be average or weak in the early to mid game and vice versa. The only way you can buff Aztecs’ late game without making them OP is to also nerf their early to mid game, but that would destroy their civ identity. If all civs were equally strong in every age, the game would be boring, you’d have far more games dragging on and more stalemates where nothing really happens until the late game.
Your entire game strategy in this game should be to figure out what your win condition is, based on the civ matchup. That doesn’t just mean choosing the right army composition based on your opponent’s unit choice, it also means understanding your timings. If you get Aztecs and you’re up against a strong late game civ, your win condition is to put maximum pressure on your opponent in Feudal and try to finish the game in Castle Age, with 1 TC aggression and/or forward castle, siege/monk push if necessary. My guess is you are simply being too passive and scared to engage in the early to mid game, so you end up getting dragged into the late game where your opponent has the advantage. Be more aggressive early and you’ll see appreciate how powerful the Aztecs are and why they’re rated so highly by the pros. Equally, if you’re up against another civ with a weak late game, you can be more defensive and delay the big fights until imperial if you think that is your win condition.
Improving Jaguars doesnt make Aztecs more imbalanced, but it improves design issues the civ has. It is allowed to touch a civ which is in epsilon range of 50% winrate.
.