So I like Aztecs as a civ, they have some really clear strengths and weaknesses and are 1 of the most interesting designs in the game. But admittedly, on Arabia once they reach Imperial Age, their supposed power spike of Imp of Garland Wars just doesn’t work. Garland Wars Pikeman is just a sick joke, you pay for a tech to get a far worse version of what Burmese get FOR FREE and probably the Vikings more HP is better for Pikeman overall too than +4 attack. It’s a funny joke to see “infantry civilization” as a tag and see them run around with 4 + 8 damage pikeman (you’d think that’s good, 12 damage on a trash unit, too bad that they have lower firerate).
So I’m asking: would giving Aztecs Halberdier be too strong? Clearly, they would be a well-rounded civ at that point, BUT lately we got a lot of civs that are good at… nearly everything on many maps. For example:
Poles are top tier on Arabia AND Arena (rly nice tech tree with big power spikes at basically any stage of the game)
Gurjaras are toward the top on Arabia and top 10 on Arena (weird army comps but overall nice civ with lots of options in any age)
Hindustanis are just an insane civ that can counter everything
Overall, if the devs keep pushing such “well rounded” civs that can do everything at any stage of the game, you wonder where civs that are more niche, like Aztecs, are gonna be left. Sure, technically Aztecs have SO, but it’s not a true 1v1 unit and in 1v1 they have no cavalry, no FU Arbalest, and their Eagles (“cavalry”) are average at best.
extremely bad, competes actually for #1 spot of worst UU in the game. Jaguar warrior more like meme warrior. Even in the theoretical scenario where you actually make these guys, vs a civ that will do ONLY infantry long-term, like Celts or Goths, you are still bottlenecked by making Castles to have them and Aztec Castles are made of sand with lowest HP in the game.
best in Castle age, probably worst in Imp. Overall though Eagle Warriors in Imp aren’t a great unit, only Mayans ones are cuz literally they have cavalry level of HP.
so once we exclude EW and Meme Warriors from units you will actually make in Imp, basically this applies to Pikeman + Champ. Pikeman isn’t a great unit and… Champ is champ.
Arguably all of these civs should be nerfed (mayyyyybe not Gurjaras, but we’ll see). Poles and Hindustanis always make an appearance in this type of thread bc they just have way too much going for them. (When I pick them, it basically has the effect of bumping my elo up by 100-150). You can justify buffing almost any civ if your argument is that there are currently OP civs and that the civ in question should also become OP, but if you’re going to be consistent with that logic, you have an equally robust, if not stronger reason to then buff Japanese, Spanish, Persians, Goths, Malians, and probably dozens of other civs that generally perform as well or worse than Aztecs.
Neh, Samurai is worse (only good against a fraction of UUs and not strong/cheap enough to really be considered an “upgrade” of champion). Everything that Samurai is good against Jag is also good against, and Jag is better vs. generic infantry to boot. Many Imp Infantry UUs should be buffed either with better stats or cheaper cost, and Jags may be a candidate, but Samurai, Woads, Condos and Serjeants should all be in that conversation.
I actually agree with this “race to the top” argument, and I would rather nerf the overperformers. Just, I was curious, because it seems civs like Poles, Burgundians etc. are the new standard. For example, why do Poles have Bombard Cannon? They already can go both cavalry and archers, and have 1 of the best food bonuses in the game (that shines especially on Arena). Do they REALLY need BBC? Probably, because their cav lacks the last armor, a funny meme the devs threw into the civ. But I’d rather Poles be given normal cavalry that they can play long-term and remove Bombard Cannon, than them being strong at… about any stage in the game, rly.
Their UU probably also needs to lose some armor and when such civs are “the new standard” (Poles aren’t even top-top tier, they are like top 8 on most maps, there are civs yet better than them), you wonder how old designs like Aztecs (no good Imp phase in 1v1), Byzantines (no Blast Furnace) etc. compete with such versatile new civs.
yeah Samurai could be worse I guess. I tend to think it’s better cuz Japanese in Imp are better and have a nicer tech tree.
GW is actually better for champions, as the Burmese boost is not enough to make champions kill enemy villagers and Goths champions faster (and probs a bunch of other stuff as well) while the Aztec champion can. It’s also very relevant for their eagles as those have a lower base attack than other infantry.
And so are Aztecs also this civ has no halbs either
And they have almost as many holes in their tech tree as Aztecs
If you ask me they are kinda overhyped and once they get a minor nerf most civs will handle them with their own double gold comp just fine
Also you spent so much time trying to make the Aztecs look bad you forgot they have the absolute best monks in the game. Aztec monks with garland wars halbs would be pretty much unbeatable.
No but seriously, you’re never going to be satisfied if you call both the strenghts of civs you like and the weaknesses of civs you don’t like memes.
Just the Castle Age versions (just like the CA swordsmen line), which makes the Elite Upgrade look worse by comparison. If Elite Samurai was as much better than champ as Samurai is than longsword, Elite Samurai would probably be a good unit.
Yeah, like the problem with OP civs is that it makes everyone else bad comparatively. Like when The Last Khans came out, you were at a big disadvantage if not playing one of the OP steppe lancer civs. A lot of the civs I like (Dravidians, Spanish, even Japanese), I realize I often pick to my own disadvantage relative to the top-performer civs others usually pick.
I mean it’s fun and all to talk about power creep but let’s be real if Aztecs were new everyone would lose their cool over their monks (that are being neglected rn for some reason), same with Byzantine and the fact that no matter your eco bonus you’re hardly every going to reach imp before them, or the amount of HP o their catles, or the absolutely insane infantry-swallowing abilities of cataphracts, absolutely no new infantry unit can do anything against them.
Like really when you see stuff like mangudai sniping trebs guarded by gurjaras camels, you can’t help but wonder what people would think if the civs were released in a different order.
Anyway the OP is forgetting he is talking about a civ that has been nerfed so even if the situation was actually as bad as he thinks it is, reverting those nerfs would be a way more relevant solution.
Aztecs are beautifully designed, strong at early game, and extremely weak in the late-game, having no meaningful eco advantage, no access to Hussars, relying heavily on Gold, Skirms that are just slightly above average (still lose to Hussars), and of course Pikes instead of Halbs.
Their Post-Post-Imp is horrible, and that’s awesome, not all civs should scale in a fixed manner.
Garland Wars mostly supposed to affect their Eagles (and Jaguars), the Pike bonus is just a side product.
Aztecs lose to Poles, Magyar, Bulgarians, and pretty much every Hussar civs at this stage of the game, BUT they clearly have full ability to end the game earlier, that’s a wholistic approach to the game. Aztecs are top tier civ for a reason.
The fact that Poles don’t have last cav armour (but you think it’s a meme for some reason) and the fact the Poles don’t have one bajillion early game bonuses, the latter being what Aztecs do against most civs anyway.
I wouldn’t derail this thread to talk about me, but in short, I was wrong about Gurjaras. Their early game is very good on Arabia due to them almost always getting to be the aggressor (Camel Scout is also better than generic Scout overall I’d say so that’s a buff to early game too) and on Arena you can do some crazy FC builds and you have an advantage in Monk/Scout wars due to extra bonus dmg. Late game is carried mainly by cheap Hussar, Heavy Camel, UU and BBC. Even the Shrivamsha isn’t as bad as anticipated because speed allows you to close the distance faster and surround better vs archers in Castle Age/early Imp not to mention that it’s the most annoying raiding unit in the game so far.
Oh yeah, strongest Siege Elephant in the game too, I like that a Ram-line unit finally gets used, so I’m reluctant to write this but Armored/Siege Elephants might need slight nerfs, right now you basically have no time to react if 5 of these rush down a Castle.
Overall, their armies look weird and are awkward to manage, but are effective. The UU is also very good to the point that in mixed armies/full army compositions, Archer-line is barely a counter and they can counter everything else (mix few Camels vs other main counter which is Knight-line).
Back to Aztecs, I am happy with how Aztecs play out, just I was having a small reflection that 2021-2022 civs seem to be given everything generally. Again refer to Poles, Burgundians, Hindustanis.
Anyway, the common consensus seems to be that at least Poles and Hindustanis need a nerf, with which I agree so let’s keave it at that.
You’re joking right? Why would you want to buff Aztecs that hard? They don’t need any another option against knights. They have by far the best monks in the game. Plus their Pikes win against other Halbs (generic) in trash wars.
Yeah it’s balance from simpler times when garland wars halb was considered op. Aztecs got nerfed a lot since then, no free loom, eagles nerfed like 10 times, eco bonus from +5 to +3 or something, stronger pool of enemy civs to pick from. I don’t think halb to aztecs would compromise the balance too much and they could use it.