How the incan card works is that its a locked in choice, so it would be either 20% of Hp or attack or carib which is like you say flat 10% for every unit, so in terms of it being OP I dont think its a big issue. They also were a bit selective with the techs available so we are free to remove some techs but not others (incan carib i think didnt have ambush party or feast warrior)
It should be a sort of choice depending on the game you are playing so I agree that its open to tweaks for purposes of balance and complexity
I crunched some numbers for my shadow tech idea. Noble hut units should shadow tech in age 3 like Inca kallanka units. For example, the AK with a base of 160 hp, 40 siege and 12 siege damage for ranged attack and 1.5 vs artillery, upon reaching the 3rd age, will upgrade to 200 hp, 50 siege, and 15 siege attack (22.5 vs artillery). This would make the AK better in age 3 without having to send in any combat cards, thus leaving spots open for other important age 3 cards. For balance purposes the 2 other combat cards would be removed entirely, even without those cards and just the 1 main combat card, the noble hut units would still be stronger in age 3 and beyond by at least 10% in hp and att which is good for the late game. AK with all upgrades and shadow tech end up with 28.2 siege attack with no benefit from the firepit, while currently the AK can get up to 34.155 attack with all warrior priest and 15 workers on attack dance. Vs skirms at 30% resist, AK deals 23.9 damage. With siege damage, the AK does 28.2 damage vs skirms. Vs artillery they deal 34.155 x5 = 170.775/4 = 42.69 damage per shot. Siege damage AK deal 28.2 attack with 1.5 vs artillery = 43.3 damage per shot. Conclusion is that shadows tech is probably the way to go, it will solve Aztec reliance on cards to make their units viable imo. Thank you I know it’s a long read but trust me I think this probably the best way to go.
AK with 12 siege attack for ranged attack and shadow tech with multipliers 1.5x vs artillery, 1.25x vs heavy infantry is the way to go imo. I did the numbers and the best thing about this is that you don’t have to use attack dance for the AK anymore.
Nah, infantry mass is their problem. Too much infantry is directly countered by cannon+skirm. And they have no anti-mass infantry equivalent either (cannon).
That dansil guy really had a good idea of making the jpk into a lancer type unit similar to the Spanish lancer with multipliers vs infantry. Imo that’s probably the way to go to deal with large masses of infantry and cannons.
The Otontin Slinger is a regular unit, by sending out Temple of Centeotl, it already makes for a very effective and cheap skirmisher. He can take on other skirmishers and win by mass. I don’t know how it performs in treaty, but I guess it will be similar in 1v1. Therefore, above I proposed that the slinger can be recruited 10 to 10, because he will allow you to spam more.
Then you need economy to support spam, you solve that by improving Wise Women, because Aztecs already have too many economic cards (many more than Haudenosaunee and Lakotas, and I think more than Incas.) Maybe increase the collection rate by 5% in Industrial or Imperial age.
I am totally against buffing Aztec units in general, they are already balanced in their cost-efficiency ratio. At least in 1v1, the FF and FI are very powerful, thanks to their military units and the community plaza. Moreover, I think they should nerf Skulls and AKs, they are too powerful.
Since you don’t play treaty you don’t understand how bad they suck. It’s not that I’m a bad player but I’ve notice some things that Aztecs lack in. I stopped playing Aztec treaty and moved to Mexico treaty, boy it’s a worlds of difference in eco and cost effective units. We talking about late game treaty not 1v1
Useless, they are the fastest to be spammed. Again, the aztec issue is killing skirmishers from range. They cant do a lot if they are on walls (no canons while enemies have). All they can do is take down walls with mortars and send coyotes, an expensive strat…
In defense of the azzys, I can only say that I play them a lot in 1v1 (1600 elo and level 100 civilization), and let me say that their units don’t suck at all. As I said, the Aztec FF and FI atm is one of the strongest. If you ask for more buffs to the Aztec units, they will simply create a Japan 2.0.
Finally someone who understands me. That yes, lately I’m doubting too much if the AK needs more buffs, you can mass them faster than culverins, destroy artillery easily and not to mention buildings. They also don’t have an efficient ranged counter, normally other culverins are countered with more culverins, but the AK can only be countered with cavalry, which usually doesn’t come because the ERK (Second or Third best dragon in the game) annihilates them, So yes, I’m doubting whether to leave it as it is or nerf it.
coyotes as well as other shock infantry receive less bonus damage from their counters, so they must be less cost/pop effective as well. having bonus damage or better stats wouldn’t be appropriate for a unit that is harder to counter.
whether counting cost or pop or even raw performance, even steppe riders are more effective. same is true for Cossacks and Hausa raiders. this is a good thing, as these units are also countered by light cavalry and heavy infantry harder.
until shock infantry are converted to normal cavalry, they should not be buffed in any way. they should be nerfed if anything at all.
