Aztecs

[ElliotS]

Heck No.

As you say, it absolutely steps all over Persia's toes.

Furthermore, It doesn't work with any coherent strategy. You get a GA for winning a war, and then a combat boost AFTER the war is over?? Now you can't even use your combat boost because war is blocked by a 10 turn peace treaty. Persia uses their GA's to kick off a flurry of expansion; Aztec are designed to "bask" in their golden ages, and fight wars to keep up their "high". This is why a peacetime boost like your %/ on FGs suggestion works so well.

Persia's GA combat boost is far more massive than this. 15% CS flat is more CS, and +1 movement is INSANE! They also get longer GAs, though they trigger them naturally. (with a heavy influx of GA points from their UA and UB.)

Aztecs don't just bask in GAs, they chain their wars. You win one war, get your golden age and then declare on another civ near you. Take a city state to extend your GA, finish the war and have another GA. That's currently how you play Aztecs, and this wouldn't change that. This would just make you more effective at it.

Your peace treaty only lasts 10 turns with 1 person. You can fight more than one person. Also there are other ways to get golden ages.

If we decide that any unit boost during golden ages is too much then we can consider just giving culture on city damage, but I think that my first approach is best. Portugal and Ottomans don't cancel the other one out, nor do Austria and Germany.

 

[Napoleon Blownaparte]

All of those changes except the combat bonuses during golden ages seem excellent. Right now I feel bad for my nuold nemesis Monty, learning civ he used to run away with games and I loved playing him but now that I've figured out enough of the basics to win consistently on higher difficulties he feels like a huge pushover and nothing in his kit makes me want to play him.

I think if you want to add more golden age flavor you could try and incorporate an infrastructure style bonus instead of combat style bonus. It would fit thematically with him triggering a GA after a peace and also keep him far enough away from Persia while still focusing on a GA boost.

What would fit best with a domination style civ who wants quick bloody victories followed by future war? Perhaps a production boost towards military units? It might be more thematically appropriate to give them a big faith steroid during a GA instead but I honestly don't know how you could add to his GA stuff without stepping on someone's toes, Persia or no.

As far as the faith and gold part of his UA you guys have basically covered everything about that, it helps you found and fund an early offensive and drops off a cliff. In all actuality that might be okay, you don't want too many steroids and I think it's okay if some stuff is strong early and mostly just gravy later.

 

[CppMaster]

How about food to capital on kills in addition to gold and faith?

 

[Gazebo]

Changes to the Aztecs are on the table. But I'm only looking at the UB.

G

 

[Mad Madigan]

@Gazebo If that's the case, then drop the static from the Floating Gardens (or lower it to just +1 ) and give them the +% Yields During Golden Age modifier, preferably giving bonus and/or . For example, "+X% and in the city during Golden Ages". That way it starts as a small bonus but gives the Civ some scaling yield power in the later game.

 

[pineappledan]

IMO Aztecs should steer clear of culture. There's enough culture civs. Focus on food and production.

 

[ElliotS]

Yeah if we're just going to focus on the UB I'd say to add the following:

+15% / in city during golden ages.

Honestly I really think they need a combat boost. Maybe switch it so that all their units heal for 15 when they get a kill, rather than Jag warriors healing 25. That would be a really good change that would lessen their super, super early power and give them more reach. It's also unique and doesn't step on anyone's toes. (If you do this reduce the floating garden bonus to 10%.)

 

[Paramecium]

In my opinion the Aztec's purpose is to wage war and win it. They will be rewarded if they do it well. But after the short period of the Jaguar, they have NOTHING what will help them to win wars. Sure, Authority is quite obvious, but it is easily countered by other Authority Civs and if you choice another Social Branch, you dont have any advantage in doing war.

So I agree with @ElliotS, beside the early advantage of the Jaguar, the Aztecs have nothing, Greece has bonus CS depending on CS allies, Assyria has the xp bonus from GW, France the bonus vs the same target, Japan extra Promotions, Rome extra GG points etc.

And the woodman promotion is not the good one you want to keep, it is the heal from the kill. Maybe making it a general promotion for Aztec melee units and maybe with a little CS bonus and the Aztec will stay fearsome warmongers throughout the game.

My experience with so very early UU with no further buffs from the civilization is, that you will produce more of that type than you would do normaly, but you will already have unlocked spearmen and swordmen, which are better, but lack those juicy promotions. And after building those already outdated units, you have to spent a lot of gold to upgrade them, during a time of the game when you could use it better.

For other civilizations it is the same, but if you dont play a big warmonger, it doesnt matter that much and unlike the Aztec, other warmonger do have sth which helps to fight wars throughout the game.

Maybe giving that special promotion to floating gardens to buff the UB or make it part of the UA and link it to another building like temple or armory or what else could be fitting.

 

[Heavy Q]

I think the Aztec are overpowered if anything, in the hands of humans. Aztecs are the only civ I can even come close to competing with on Deity, and the early snowball is the reason. Jaguars help establish your pantheon, handle barbarians with ease, and stacked with authority on kill bonuses are probably closer to overpowered than balanced. Free Golden Ages every time you win a war is no laughing matter either, especially considering how easy it is to 'win' a war. IMO they're the 2nd most powerful civ, and definitely don't need any buffs.

 

[pineappledan]

I think one of the most effective means of distinguishing civs from each other is to design civs to be either win-easier or win-more. Win-easier civs have low risk, reliable, constant boosts. Win-more civs have high risk, contextual, uneven boosts. I think that the current Aztec kit is one of the quintessential win-more civs, and I think that is something that good design would promote, rather than smooth over.

The entire Aztec UA is dependent on winning. If you don't win at things, you don't get a UA. It is even more dependent on wins than Assyria, the other Win-More civ, who at least gets a reliable GW bonus.

A general CS boost on the UA is a win-easier mechanic.
More solid scalers, or higher base yields on the UB are a win-easier mechanic.

A % boost during Golden Ages on the UB, however, is a win-more mechanic.

I think more ideas like the latter are what will help Aztec both become stronger, and more engaging

 

[chicorbeef]

People are talking about the early kill yields as the Aztec. Are they really that good?

Religions are usually founded T90ish these days in my games. For the first 50 turns of the game, most kills come from maybe harassing a handful of AI warriors and barbarians. I mean, you'd get +6 gold/faith from killing a barb brute in this period. How many units do you kill in the first 50 turns? 8? 10? The yields you get from that are quite low indeed.

And afterwards, how much do you get? Let's say you begin a real war with an AI on Turn 75 (reasonable). How many units do you kill? 7 warriors and 7 spearmen or something? And what does the Aztec UA give you then? A grand total of 100-150 faith/gold?

I simply don't see how people are racking up lots of yields/body counts in the first 90 turns of the game.

Anyway, why exactly are we locking the Aztec UA, @Gazebo? It was inadvertently nerfed recently.

 

[ElliotS]

I think one of the most effective means of distinguishing civs from each other is to design civs to be either win-easier or win-more. Win-easier civs have low risk, reliable, constant boosts. Win-more civs have high risk, contextual, uneven boosts. I think that the current Aztec kit is one of the quintessential win-more civs, and I think that is something that good design would promote, rather than smooth over.

The entire Aztec UA is dependent on winning. If you don't win at things, you don't get a UA. It is even more dependent on wins than Assyria, the other Win-More civ, who at least gets a reliable GW bonus.

A general CS boost on the UA is a win-easier mechanic.
More solid scalers, or higher base yields on the UB are a win-easier mechanic.

A % boost during Golden Ages on the UB, however, is a win-more mechanic.

I think more ideas like the latter are what will help Aztec both become stronger, and more engaging

I think you'll see a lot of mixed design. Assyria (Who you mentioned as the other win-more civ, emphasis mine.) has a massive military boost in their UB, because expecting a warmonger to win wars consistently with no bonus isn't the best idea, and admitted that their UA also helps them passively.

I think Aztecs UA is probably break-even with Assyria, but their UU and UB are both weaker. I think you recognize their design well, but are too keen on overemphasizing their strengths.

 

[Paramecium]

I seriously think that the Aztec lack some kind of combat bonus which last longer throughout the game. Lets have a look on the other typical warmonger:

• Assyria: XP bonus from GW
• Denmark: Viking Fury and Viking/Longboat Promotion
• France: +10 % CS vs already attacked unit/city
• Greece: + 5 % CS up to +25 % CS for every City State Alliance
• Japan: Bushido Promotion for melee Units from Dojo
• Mongolia: +2 Movement and ignore ZOC for ranged mounted units
• Persia: +15 % CS and +1 Movement during GA
• Songhai: War Canoe + Amphibious Promotion, extra Movement along rivers
• Sweden: +20 % CS for attacking melee units, +1 movement for siege weapons
• Huns: more flanking damage for mounted Units (+ capturing units)
• Iroquois: road movement on forests/jungles and woodsman promotion
• Zulu: melee/gun units cost less maintenance, less experience for promotions, buffalo promotions for melee units from ikanda

Only Rome is comparable, usually a warmonger too, gains sth from conquest, but only has additional GG/GA points from kills, so somehow like Portugal (with extra GG and GA). The only other civilization not mentioned yet who gains sth from wars is china for conquering cities. But unlike those mentioned warmongers above, those civs have boni not directly related to war.
The Aztecs UA can only benefit from wars, a peacefull Aztec just has his floating gardens. The only fighting advantage I can see for the Aztecs later in the game is, that they will have extra faith and gold to purchase units with Zealotry, buying directly (which got nerfed with just half the xp) and better upgrading.
(Yes I know, the iroquois are not that usual warmonger)

I agree that the Aztecs time to shine is the early game to take out one or two neighbours. But then it is the question, you want to stay in something like a permanent war killing units left and right. But to trigger the golden age, you need to conquer cities (and raze them) or you have to pillage your enemy to oblivion.
My problem is just, they lose any advantage beginning with medieval era and if the Aztecs didnt gain a big advantage until that point, they will likely fall behind. In my last games, the Aztec AI didnt perform well. It often stood for a long time with just one city and I have the feeling that the AI gets to much distracted because of hunting barbarians all around the map with its UU.

But how to buff the Aztecs? I dont think they need additional yields from killing. Giving healing to melee units might be sth. Or a slight combat bonus, maybe situational like other. But I highly support any combat bonus for the Aztec which will last throughout the game...

EDIT:
I very like the Idea of @ElliotS to give the Aztec a bonus against wounded units. But I would suggest only a little one, because that kind of bonus can become crazy strong in a good combination of ranged and melee. Maybe only give melee units a combat bonus to wounded.
And if they kill it, give a bit of health back.
That packed as a unique promotion given to units build in a city with floating gardens or maybe the temple.

Might make the original jaguars too strong, so maybe they loose their healing promotion after upgrade and get it back in a nerfed version with the promotion but with enhanced fighting strength. In meantime if you upgrade your units, they can benefit a while on Discipline alone, so the power of the Aztecs is a bit weaker after Jaguars and comes back with Promotión on floating gardens/temples.

 

[Stalker0]

My problem is just, they lose any advantage beginning with medieval era and if the Aztecs didnt gain a big advantage until that point, they will likely fall behind.


But how to buff the Aztecs? I dont think they us against wounded units. But I would suggest only a little one, because that kind of bonus can become crazy strong in a good combination of ranged and melee. Maybe only give melee units a combat bonus to wounded.
And if they kill it, give a bit of health back.
That packed as a unique promotion given to units build in a city with floating gardens or maybe the temple.

Might make the original jaguars too strong, so maybe they loose their healing promotion after upgrade and get it back in a nerfed version with the promotion but with enhanced fighting strength. In meantime if you upgrade your units, they can benefit a while on Discipline alone, so the power of the Aztecs is a bit weaker after Jaguars and comes back with Promotión on floating gardens/temples.

I want to comment on that first paragraph. Isn’t that the point of the Aztecs? They are one of the major rush races in the game. The entire point is to rush and take a major foothold in the area.

If you don’t then you have failed to play the civ correctly. You should fall behind in that case. It would be

 

[Paramecium]

Sure the Aztecs are about early rushing and getting a big advantage. But their UA is all about killing units and winning wars and you will have no advantage in the later eras, only your former jaguars which are your crown jewels. But how many do you will have usually? Sth between 8-12 maximum? Or do you build as many jaguars as possible? And those are melee units, it can happen that you lose one from time to time.
So your future wars will get tougher and tougher. If you have someone peacefull next to you, it is no problem, but if you have a lot of aggressive warmonger around you, you can be at a disadvantage. As a civilization, which is defined by war ...

 

[ElliotS]

I want to comment on that first paragraph. Isn’t that the point of the Aztecs? They are one of the major rush races in the game. The entire point is to rush and take a major foothold in the area.

If you don’t then you have failed to play the civ correctly. You should fall behind in that case. It would be

I don't think going all-in on the feast or famine aspect is good for gameplay. Not to mention that France is objectively a better feast or famine civ rewards-wise and still gets a bonus in fighting.

Literally the only situation Aztecs are best in is in duel maps. Like... Explain to me how Aztecs are better in a real game than Greece? Greece can rush almost as hard/fast as Aztecs, gets a massive boost to economy from tributing, gets an actual bonus to combat, gets alternate win-con synergy, and has one of (the?) best UB in the game. Like, maybe Aztecs can make the guy next to them miserable 20-30 turns sooner than Alexander, but Hoplites are honestly a better UU and can take all the towns the guy planted.

Continuing to echo about how Aztecs are rush or feast and famine is all well and good, but entirely meaningless when the civs you can compare them to are outright better. The only options are to buff their feast aspect (Not a good idea imo) or reduce chances of famine while still encouraging interesting gameplay.

 

[Txurce]

Another option is to accept that maybe the Aztecs aren't the top-dog warmonger, because not everyone can be.

 

[ElliotS]

Another option is to accept that maybe the Aztecs aren't the top-dog warmonger, because not everyone can be.

They only have a mediocre UB without war. Their UA literally only works when fighting wars, which as mentioned they're actually worse than literally every other warmonger as, even the ones who gain passive benefits.

 

[pineappledan]

They only have a mediocre UB without war. Their UA literally only works when fighting wars, which as mentioned they're actually worse than literally every other warmonger as, even the ones who gain passive benefits.

stacking against other warmongers isn’t aztec’s playstyle anyways. Aztecs should be finding the low hanging fruit and bullying them per and over. They aren’t, strictly speaking, a domination civ because they get no rewards for taking cities. In fact, the more intact they can leave a civ’s infrastructure, the better.

If Aztec needs to be tilted more towards a victory condition, maybe it shouldn’t be domination?

The more I look into this, the more I’m convinced that the / on kills should be increased to 150%. It is a good and necessary change, since the Aztec UA stacks up poorly vs the god of war pantheon and the Celtic pantheon. Greece with the god of war pantheon, or celts can basically do Aztec better than Aztec.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

stacking against other warmongers isn’t aztec’s playstyle anyways. Aztecs should be finding the low hanging fruit and bullying them per and over. They aren’t, strictly speaking, a domination civ because they get no rewards for taking cities. In fact, the more intact they can leave a civ’s infrastructure, the better.

If Aztec needs to be tilted more towards a victory condition, maybe it shouldn’t be domination?

The more I look into this, the more I’m convinced that the / on kills should be increased to 150%. It is a good and necessary change, since the Aztec UA stacks up poorly vs the god of war pantheon and the Celtic pantheon. Greece with the god of war pantheon, or celts can basically do Aztec better than Aztec.

You realise "finding the low hanging fruit" can be also done by France, Japan, Songhai, Rome while also receiving a better reward, passive bonus or both? Why play Aztecs to find weaklings, when those same weaklings would be falling apart easier and giving you more if you were Napoleon? There's guys who get better rewards, have better passive benefits and also stack up better against fellow warmongerers which is the problem.