AOE-II DE Possible solution to the Inca Affaire

[RecoN]

Is there a reason you can't give them new villager specific blacksmith techs where the cavalry upgrades normally go?

 

[lecracheursagacite]

Is there a reason you can't give them new villager specific blacksmith techs where the cavalry upgrades normally go?

Someone else should correct me if I am wrong but from what I remember of AGE it is technically feasible even for a user made data mod.

 

[RecoN]

For me it makes a lot of sense, one tech in each age that gives +1 damage and +1 armour for villagers, can balance via cost and research time separately from everything else, nerfs their easy follow up into eagles and as much as I hate getting wrecked by Salicum, the strat gets to stay in the game.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

For me it makes a lot of sense, one tech in each age that gives +1 damage and +1 armour for villagers, can balance via cost and research time separately from everything else, nerfs their easy follow up into eagles and as much as I hate getting wrecked by Salicum, the strat gets to stay in the game.

It certainly doesn't seem like a terrible idea. I'm interested to hear what others think.

 

[Qualdrion]

The villager rush typically doesn't make non-villager infantry anyways, so it would leave the villager rush largely unchanged. On the other hand, it would be a pretty big nerf to any inca player who wants to play standard, which already was a bit underwhelming compared to the better civs. So IMO it seems like a terrible idea - keeps the villager rush mostly unchanged (and nerfing that was sort of the point in the first place), while nerfing incas playing standard (which already could use some help).

 

[Kellar]

I like the idea, my only worry is that this might make FC eagle opening kinda broken. Castle age eagles are already unbeatable by feudal units (m@a +2 damage is a joke, it's weaker than the +3 attack eagles get for free). Especially the second armor upgrade is expensive on an FC economy, so getting that for free is a bit yikes, imagine a knight civ getting chain barding for free.

100% agree with this. Can we not have more free armor upgrades pls? Ww with free +2/+4 is already unreasonably strong in some situations.

Better idea would be to change the bonus to only apply defense upgrades to vills, not attack. At least untill castle age.

 

[Mleder]

100% agree with this. Can we not have more free armor upgrades pls? Ww with free +2/+4 is already unreasonably strong in some situations.

Better idea would be to change the bonus to only apply defense upgrades to vills, not attack. At least untill castle age.

huh? The armor upgrade is what makes inca vil rush strong, not the attack.

 

[Degaussed]

Just take them out of the ****ing game.

 

[Lord_patito]

Just take them out of the ****ing game.

Go back to age of kings man

 

[Flow]

The "problem" with Incas is that they are just a worse version of Aztecs and Mayans, economically as well as militarily.
Everything Incas do is done better by those two civs. The only thing they got going for them identity wise are their counter units, however they are kind of gimmicky and you usually won't see them as the backbone of their army. That said, they still have eagles, so they will be more than fine even with the removal of the boxing vills. It just makes them more boring to play.

 

[HyunaOP]

Incas is a perfectly balanced civ with no exploits - The Spiffing Brit

In all seriousness, don't think they need any changes. Sure you can give them +1 carry capacity per farm upgrade/per age but their early options usually don't involve getting immediate horse collar so does it make sense?

Free infantry armour would also break them so not a fan of that.

Cheaper Barrack techs if I'm not mistaken is reserved for a new DLC civ and also would snowball elite eagle spike real hard even if incas are the weaker of the 3 eagle civs, compared to aztecs and mayans they are far more flexible, I definitely wouldn't downplay incas.

Let's see how the new patch plays out and see if incas needs any changes.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

reserved for a new DLC civ

As Burgundians and Sicilians have shown we are in desperate need of more of those. This should not be considered a valid reason for discounting an idea.

Go back to age of kings man

We all can wish.

 

[HyunaOP]

The "problem" with Incas is that they are just a worse version of Aztecs and Mayans, economically as well as militarily.
Everything Incas do is done better by those two civs. The only thing they got going for them identity wise are their counter units, however they are kind of gimmicky and you usually won't see them as the backbone of their army. That said, they still have eagles, so they will be more than fine even with the removal of the boxing vills. It just makes them more boring to play.

While I do agree they are not as good as Aztecs and Mayans when you strictly compare them to Eagle civs. When you compare them to the other civs they have far more flexibility especially in the late game. Aztecs and Mayans are good because of their early game bonuses but Incas shine better the later the game goes on.

In situations where Aztecs and Mayans fall short vs other civs, Incas can still pull through.

Maybe give them a farming bonus that isn't a joke but aside from extra carry capacity per farm upgrade which if you play incas with their ideal opening strat in 1v1 arabia, you really shouldn't be grabbing horse collar so the bonus seems rather redundant.

There aren't many economic bonuses to give out that would fit their civ while also not making them broken.

 

[Faultier321]

Incas are fine, yes they are weaker then the other two meso civs, but let me tell you this:

THERE ARE NON MESO CIVS THAT ARE ACTUALLY WEAKER THEN OTHER NON-MESO CIVS

might be tough for you to hear


No, in all serioussness i think they are fine, the vil rush is kind of entertaining and its a strat to break the meta game, which is always good. Who wants to see acrhers and scouts, xbows and kts every single game? Not me. Only interesting idea i have heard so far is the 2x2 Farms bonus. This is actually really strong, because it boosts the gather rate because of less walking time, makes you able to place many more safe farms around the TC and seems almost OP in situations where you are running out of space, like it can happen on Arena or Nomad or sometimes even Arabia

 

[HyunaOP]

As Burgundians and Sicilians have shown we are in desperate need of more of those. This should not be considered a valid reason for discounting an idea.

I'm not disagreeing with you. But there's no denying the devs have followed a very consistent trait with each DLC released with a new civ added.

Rise of Rajas gave Burmese no 2nd archer armour, Malay no 2nd cav armour.

DE in its final release gave Tatars no second infantry armour up and later Bulgarians get cheaper SW techs.

Then this new DLC civs cavalier in castle age and cheaper stable techs

I really wouldn't be surprised if the next civ gives 2h swordsman in castle age with cheaper barrack techs. It's inevitable

 

[lecracheursagacite]

I'm not disagreeing with you. But there's no denying the devs have followed a very consistent trait with each DLC released with a new civ added.

Rise of Rajas gave Burmese no 2nd archer armour, Malay no 2nd cav armour.

DE in its final release gave Tatars no second infantry armour up and later Bulgarians get cheaper SW techs.

Then this new DLC civs cavalier in castle age and cheaper stable techs

I really wouldn't be surprised if the next civ gives 2h swordsman in castle age with cheaper barrack techs. It's inevitable

I can't believe we even talk about another civ like it is normal. It is an absurdity to me. Burgundians and Sicilians added negative value to the MP experience and it is clear beyond day that the current number of civs is too many rather than too few. Even taking it into account as a given based on what we all expect the developers to do with their dismal track record condones it too much.

 

[Lord_patito]

I can't believe we even talk about another civ like it is normal. It is an absurdity to me. Burgundians and Sicilians added negative value to the MP experience and it is clear beyond day that the current number of civs is too many rather than too few. Even taking it into account as a given based on what we all expect the developers to do with their dismal track record condones it too much.

I can't believe some people keep crying on this stuff. Don't like the civs, don't play them man. And that applies to every cov you don't like. For those AoK purists as well.

There's another DLC comming. And probably, a couple more down the road. Deal with it

 

[lecracheursagacite]

I can't believe some people keep crying on this stuff. Don't like the civs, don't play them man. And that applies to every cov you don't like. For those AoK purists as well.

There's another DLC comming. And probably, a couple more down the road. Deal with it

Is this a serious response?

 

[Lord_patito]

Is this a serious response?

Of course it is. Protest as much as you want, but for me some new civs more interesting that some old ones.

You can always find people to play arabia hun wars. Go for it. Please yourself. And stop winning about the fact that some people might like bulgarians, or Sicilians, or whatever civ you consider unnecessary.

That, or build a time machine and go back to 2003 to play AoC. And if you manage to do that, let me know, I would like to spend a few days in 1975. Wanna see Aerosmith in Toys in the attic era

 

[lecracheursagacite]

Of course it is. Protest as much as you want, but for me some new civs more interesting that some old ones.

You can always find people to play arabia hun wars. Go for it. Please yourself. And stop winning about the fact that some people might like bulgarians, or Sicilians, or whatever civ you consider unnecessary.

That, or build a time machine and go back to 2003 to play AoC. And if you manage to do that, let me know, I would like to spend a few days in 1975. Wanna see Aerosmith in Toys in the attic era

You use such loaded words like "crying" and "whining" to imply that what I say is not valid. Why is you liking the civ more important than me (or others) not?

 

[Lord_patito]

You use such loaded words like "crying" and "whining" to imply that what I say is not valid. Why is you liking the civ more important than me (or others) not?

I'm not saying is valid or not. I'm just saying is useless. Stating that "there are too many civs" won't make devs say "yeah, he's right, let wipe out 15 of them"

Anyway I won't continue to argue with you. The thing that annoys me (and it's not a thing that only you do, but rather a common practice here) is that when some people is discussing about how to cchange a civ, there's always someone who says "let's take them out of the game" as if was something funny/useful/intelligent/plausible to do. Man, if what you're about to say doesn't add anything to the discussion, then don't say anything at all

 

[wAkKo]

huh? The armor upgrade is what makes inca vil rush strong, not the attack.

Yeah, in tower vs tower war, that +1 armor makes a big difference in villagers recieving arrows.

 

[Lord_patito]

Yeah, in tower vs tower war, that +1 armor makes a big difference in villagers recieving arrows.

Yes. And I don't think that vils having more attack is useful for a tower rush (I mean, yeah, somehow useful, but they're sitll dying to archers/towers). So i don't think the bonus can be tweaked that way

 

[lecracheursagacite]

I'm not saying is valid or not. I'm just saying is useless. Stating that "there are too many civs" won't make devs say "yeah, he's right, let wipe out 15 of them"

Anyway I won't continue to argue with you. The thing that annoys me (and it's not a thing that only you do, but rather a common practice here) is that when some people is discussing about how to cchange a civ, there's always someone who says "let's take them out of the game" as if was something funny/useful/intelligent/plausible to do. Man, if what you're about to say doesn't add anything to the discussion, then don't say anything at all

I don't necessarily agree that it adds nothing to the discussion. If there is any plausible doubt to whether the civ should be in the game or not - as exists by default for every civ post-AoK - then there can be value to bringing this up in a discussion. In an ideal design setting it is a completely viable option to discard additions that proved to not to make sense rather than sticking with them because they are there.

 

[Kellar]

huh? The armor upgrade is what makes inca vil rush strong, not the attack.

Yes, you should start with armor, but in vil wars, they double down on each other, meaning they make each other stronger. At least you can fight back with more vills and defenders adventage when they try to dive your tower. After they got both upgrades, NOPE. You are just gg if you cant mine gold for archers.

I think only armor is kinda ok most of the time. It's when they have armor + attack its freaking disgusting as you can't fight his vills with your vills at all, and they destroy scouts.

Maybe make upgrades only 50% affect vills 11.

It's a really gimmicky mechanic and I'm rlly glad we don' have a hoang of inca rushes out there.