Are the Aztecs overbuffed?

The aztec is a great civ, but they are not as good against human as against AI. They're autohealed don't work if you retreat from battle so with two armies you can destroy they're defensive unit. For the horsemen rush at the beginning they are quite good because they don't lose turn on the ennemy capital for healing. But again, against human it's not as effective. Any civ can use the horsemen tactic, but when u see one do, the best defense in the esrly game against that is to yourself buy an army of horsemen and wait for the ennemy army or go near it's last conquest.
Also, when you build an army of horsemen it cost 60 shield that are not put toward science or settler in the early game. Settler crate good city compare to a capital because you decide where you put it.
The temple science bonus is really good, but not that much. The 40 shield in the beginning of the game (where the +3 science is ss changing something) is better use building new cities that will produce at least each +2 science at the beginning and more as the game continue.
So I don't think the Aztec are overpowered at all.
 
I have been playing this game for a while, but I have never played as the Aztecs. Even though auto-healing is great, it doesn't realy appeal to me. I love +50% gold, but I would much rather play as the Spanish. As an A1, they do as poorly as all of the other civ leaders except when at war. But, in the hands of an expert, the Aztecs can be powerful, but I am not sure if they are too powerful compared to the others.
 
I agree that the Aztecs are one of the better Civs. Auto-heal is strong, and 50% gold increase is huge. They are not overpowered though. They may be better in most areas than most civs, but they are not a dominant advantage. People do not win simply because they are the Aztecs. The Aztecs may help them but don't tremendously increase your chances. An overpowered advantage would be one that allow people using it to win 70% of the time, regardless of skill.
 
Sid deliberately made each and every civ overpowered. He said that no matter which civ you picked to play as, he wanted you to feel like there is no way you can possibly lose....

Well, really that's what he wanted to. But take as example mongols or indians, you will NEVER win against a good player if he uses an average or "overpowered" civ, as japanese, romans, aztecs, arabs, zulu.. That's simple, some civs are better than others, you can play how much you want but you can't win a game where the other one has a huge advantage while you don't have.

PS: Aztecs aren't the best, they are simply a good civ and the style of this game changes. For example if 100/200 players play romans, there could be many rushers to beat them, and when many groups of players start using rushers, it would change. Do you know about the tier? The civs are the same, but it depends on the use and other players.
 
That's simple, some civs are better than others, you can play how much you want but you can't win a game where the other one has a huge advantage while you don't have.

No it is not simple, in this case you are simply wrong. Depending on playstyle you can win with any Civilization. The indians are from many persons point-of-view one of the strongest civilizations since they have access to all resources from the beginning (and always start with a resource in their starting location).
 
No it is not simple, in this case you are simply wrong. Depending on playstyle you can win with any Civilization. The indians are from many persons point-of-view one of the strongest civilizations since they have access to all resources from the beginning (and always start with a resource in their starting location).

Well, I would like to know how many times you played ranked games, if you played top players, if you played on deity, etc.. Indians simply aren't one of the strongest civilization, the best civilizations are arabs, romans, chinese, zulu and aztecs. Then other civs come, but these are the best with the best advantage. +1 production in ancient era should be a good bonus? Are you kidding me? If you have the same skill, the best civ will win obviously. Indians aren't a good civ and many players know that. However you can play with them.
 
Well, I would like to know how many times you played ranked games, if you played top players, if you played on deity, etc..

I only play on Deity nowadays. I have all the medals, I've beaten all the leaders, but so far not with all victory conditions with all Civ leaders. I consider myself quite strong in CivRev.

Indians simply aren't one of the strongest civilization, the best civilizations are arabs, romans, chinese, zulu and aztecs.

You may think so, but look at the discussion above and you will see that the views from all players differ regarding which Civ is the strongest, and read the thread on the mongols that is quite active and you will see that some players think it is strong others that it is weak. I just plainly disagree with your statement that some civs are stronger than others, it all depends on how you play them. That is my point. In addition to that, I have nothing else to say, and we obviously think differently on this topic.

Regarding your other strong statements such as "are you kidding me?" and "many players know that" are just plain aggressive. I'm not into those kind of arguments and for me this discussion ends here.
 
I only play on Deity nowadays. I have all the medals, I've beaten all the leaders, but so far not with all victory conditions with all Civ leaders. I consider myself quite strong in CivRev.



You may think so, but look at the discussion above and you will see that the views from all players differ regarding which Civ is the strongest, and read the thread on the mongols that is quite active and you will see that some players think it is strong others that it is weak. I just plainly disagree with your statement that some civs are stronger than others, it all depends on how you play them. That is my point. In addition to that, I have nothing else to say, and we obviously think differently on this topic.

Regarding your other strong statements such as "are you kidding me?" and "many players know that" are just plain aggressive. I'm not into those kind of arguments and for me this discussion ends here.


Maybe here there aren't really good players, or at least top players I mean. Playing online is much harder than playing on deity, and saying that just mongols are as chinese is like saying a rifle is better than a gun that shoots only 1 time with no damage. Maybe you can't understand me because you never tried what I said and I mean, but as I said, two players with the same skill: now let's say they do the same things, in this case, and then many other cases, the winner would be who used the best civ.

Then, don't tell me please mongols are as zulu, arabs, romans, chinese, aztecs, perhaps. Some civs are simply worse then others, and you can't find excuses about it. The only thing that can be in your side is the luck.
 
The Indians and Mongolians, in my opinion, are two of the BEST civs in the game. The amount of production you get as the Indians and Mongolians in the early game is unparalled by any civ. If you have the Xbox 360, please add my gamertag: Mikez Gamertag

I will personally show you how good these two civs are, either in a FFA or Head to Head.
 
The Indians and Mongolians, in my opinion, are two of the BEST civs in the game. The amount of production you get as the Indians and Mongolians in the early game is unparalled by any civ. If you have the Xbox 360, please add my gamertag: Mikez Gamertag

I will personally show you how good these two civs are, either in a FFA or Head to Head.

In fact, in your opinion, because almost everyone in others forum or in x360 (best players I mean) know indians and mongolians are two of the worst civs of the game. Maybe you haven't played enough, maybe you play only these civs, however, I will show you how these civs are the worst, and only with huge luck you can win. I came here to talk about civ but I don't know why you have these weird opinions.
 
In fact, in your opinion, because almost everyone in others forum or in x360 (best players I mean) know indians and mongolians are two of the worst civs of the game. Maybe you haven't played enough, maybe you play only these civs, however, I will show you how these civs are the worst, and only with huge luck you can win. I came here to talk about civ but I don't know why you have these weird opinions.

Yes, you came here to talk about Civ, but actually you are very often just insulting others. Talk Civ and don't insult others. Why do you keep on claiming that others are weird when having another opinion than them. Stop doing that and instead explain why they are bad and we can start talking about facts. Your comments come ungrounded.
 
I'm also going to chime in as a fan of the Indians. I've played as them a couple times and had tremendous success. So my OPINION is that they are a good civ. Just as your OPINION, as well as the OPINIONS of "almost everyone in others forum or in x360" is that they are the worst.

Opinion does not equal fact. You are welcome to your opinions, just like anyone else. But don't insult others because they think differently than you. I like this forum because of how civil everyone is to everybody else, which is a rarity for forums related to video games. And I'd like it to stay that way.
 
Moderator Action: General warning: If the personal bickering doesn't stop, some people may find themselves unable to post for a while....
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Everyone is entitled to try to prove their opinion in rational, civilized manner. Personal attacks don't cut it, and are grounds for disciplinary action.
 
Yes, you came here to talk about Civ, but actually you are very often just insulting others. Talk Civ and don't insult others. Why do you keep on claiming that others are weird when having another opinion than them. Stop doing that and instead explain why they are bad and we can start talking about facts. Your comments come ungrounded.

I don't see where my posts were really insults.

However, simply, indians have only in ancient era +1 production/science/food bonus, that isn't worth to win the game. Then fundamentalism is useful if you are still alive, trying to rush others but maybe this is too late. 1/2 priced settlers is like building them in ancient era, maybe you can do this to settle islands only. 1/2 price corthouse can be useful. But, you should compare it to arabs for example, fundamentalism (+1 culture per city also), mathematics, 2% interest (not worth every time, I know), and +1 attack for knights/horsemen in industrial era, then in the ancient you have +50% gold from caravans that doesn't work.
 
The whole point I see from the Indians, is to settle islands and get good production cities up early. I believe they're good with production, because they have acess to all rescourse. If you settle by Stone or Aluminum on a hill, it's a lot better then just getting the plus 1 production from the hill. The half cost settler is good for catching up in the tech race after you've been mainly at war because of your good production and fundamentalism. To help you out a little bit, you can get the Magna Carta and build courthouses in all of your cities, improving your culture.

As for the Mongolians, it's all about early expansion and production. I may not be getting gold from Barbarian huts, but I'm getting cities that can atleast produce warriors. If my Barb cities are decent enough, I can produce 3x as many warrior units then you can in the early game (Or tech quicker to Horseback Riding) which will win me the early war. After you've established your borders, the extra production from mountains gives you that extra boost to build certain buildings and units a turn sooner.
 
Aztecs has always been my favorite Civ(Not on game0 I'm them all of the time so I'm fine with an advantage
 
Top Bottom