Aztec growth

[Doctor Doom]

Hey guys sorry this my first post so I apologize if I break rules or if this is in the wrong forum!

As you can tell I'm a huge noob I've only won three times on prince (science, diplomatic and domination) but I love playing multiplayer with my friends! Unfortunately the people I mostly play with have twice the hours as me haha. They always give me hard time for playing "tall" but recently my friend said he saw a post on these forums about using the hanging gardens and the floating gardens (plus growth pantheon, growth wonders, tradition, etc) to get ridiculous growth in the capital, now he says this is OP. But I was wondering what was better the Aztec growth vs the incan growth (using the Terrance farms)?

Sorry for the huge back story but I've always wanted to learn the Aztecs but I have no idea how to play them! Thanks so much for the help guys I really appreciate it!

 

[joshua43214]

The floating gardens are very nice, and if you can get both the ToA and the HG (very easy on your level) you can grow some very huge cities.

I find I get bigger and better cities with the Inca though. When you actually manage to get a proper Inca start, Terrace farms beat just about every thing out

 

[budweiser]

Aztec hands down. They are one of my favorites. HG not needed with them though, just use full tradition. Open with a jag or two and tech towards the UB. Find two more good spots for cities and fight early wars to secure those spots.

 

[Arbooz]

Inca will outgrow Aztec most of the times, because of they sweet hill starting bias; couple of 5-7F2H tiles >>> lakes + gardens

 

[Doctor Doom]

Heres another quick question, how should I play Aztecs? Wide? Tall? Warlike? Peaceful?

 

[budweiser]

I cant believe people are saying Inca out grow Aztec. Aztec are all about growth.

You turtle your way to science with Aztec, killing any neighbors early to secure the good lands.

 

[Doctor Doom]

Hmmm... Yeah its sounds like the incans and the aztecs play similar. When I won my science victory I was playing incans but all I did was hide in the mountains and spam Terrence farms and observatories I had some what of a military but I was using "Swords into plowshares" and if I went into war my growth would plummet. I assume as Aztecs I could do sort of the same thing and benefit from war. But you know spam universities hahaha!

 

[budweiser]

Two cities, added one much later. Ten techs ahead and number one in pop by 18 million people. That's how I like to play them. You can finish a science game in about 3 hours.

 

[Plumfairy]

Hmmm... Yeah its sounds like the incans and the aztecs play similar. When I won my science victory I was playing incans but all I did was hide in the mountains and spam Terrence farms and observatories I had some what of a military but I was using "Swords into plowshares" and if I went into war my growth would plummet. I assume as Aztecs I could do sort of the same thing and benefit from war. But you know spam universities hahaha!

Although both civs are masters of growth & science, I don't think they play that similarly. The first big difference is the terrain in which they operate, which is much more than a cosmetic or incidental difference. But more important than that, their basic playstyles are fairly different. With the Inca, you're encouraged to found cities that are often quite far apart in order to create a city that is as perfectly placed as possible; you really really really want those hill tiles surrounded by mountain on 4 sides, and even hills with only 2 or 3 mountains are still pretty nice. And there's not much of a penalty to having a spread-out road network, since their roads are either free or cheap.

The Aztecs, on the other hand, tend to found their cities somewhat close together. (all along the same river, for example) What's more, the Aztecs are encouraged by their UA to keep up constant warfare on their neighbors. The Incas are fairly war-neutral. Their bonuses in hills give them a really nice advantage in that terrain, but they don't have any particular civ-specific reason to constantly make war.

 

[anthropophage]

I think the 'tecs are a bit stronger for growth, their bonuses kick in earlier. You can have a FG in your capital by turn 40, add in the fact that you've got a few Jags out killing barbs to rush you through tradition and it's hard for the Incas to compete through the first 50 to 100 turns.

 

[Light Cleric]

Heres another quick question, how should I play Aztecs? Wide? Tall? Warlike? Peaceful?

If you're talking ONLY about multiplayer(with no AIs), then ignore the following:

Aztecs are one of the civs I would endorse early warmongering with if you enjoy it and possibly even Swordsmen. Normal Swordsmen are bad/mediocre. Jaguar Swordsmen are amazing.

My favorite thing about Monty is being able to say "I really want to finish this policy tree faster. Time to kill someone!". You can blow through Honor as your 2nd tree insanely fast with him as long as you have a steady flow of enemy units(spoilers: this isn't a problem on Deity ).

I cant believe people are saying Inca out grow Aztec. Aztec are all about growth.

You turtle your way to science with Aztec, killing any neighbors early to secure the good lands.

Honestly it depends on the start. There's nothing more annoying than an Inca start that has a ton of amazing Terrace Farm spots...occupied by Sheep.

 

[budweiser]

Honestly it depends on the start. There's nothing more annoying than an Inca start that has a ton of amazing Terrace Farm spots...occupied by Sheep.

I regard Inca as built for wide money making. I just dont see the food growth as all that great, more just to keep you even.

Monty doesnt always get fresh water in the cap, but when he does it takes off early. If he doesnt, then city 2 and city three are easy to get down on fresh water given his UU and UA.

What surprised me about the screen shot game above is how both of those cities are maxed out on specialists a la Korea.