The eagle warrior

[Koven]

I am wondering why the eagle warrior costs so much gold. While I suppose it can be interesting during the early castle age when food is still rare, the longer the game gets, the heavier the gold cost burden gets (I am obviously considering 1vs1 games when no gold can be obtained from market carts).

I find the unit very weak compared to its gold cost, especially due to its low HP. It is supposed to replace the cavalry in some way but it is slower than a light cavalry, has 60 HP instead of 80/95 (depending on the presence of the Hussar/bloodlines upgrades). Some civilizations have a weak light cavalry line with only 60 HP but it's still way better than an eagle warrior considering the speed and the no gold cost.

The eagle warrior is meant to be mainly used to counter archers, right? While most civilizations can use a trash unit (worth 80 food) to counter archers (25 wood, 45 gold), the Aztecs/Mayans/Incas have to spend 50 gold per unit. Considering the horrible pathfinding of this game giving archers a notable advantage, it is needed to produce a significant number of eagle warriors to be able to defeat a reasonably-sized group of archers. So in the end, you have to pay more gold for countering your enemy's units. It's as if a Kamayuk costs more gold than the cavalry unit it's supposed to counter. That does not make sense. This also applies to other situations when your enemy is making onagers or monks. You have to spend a lot of gold to counter these units while most civilizations can utilize a trash unit for doing a better job.

I find the cost of the eagle warrior very unbalanced and I'm curious why I haven't seen people complain about it so far. The problem is that the Aztecs/Mayans/Incas cannot rely on a mobile trash unit and if they are forced to produce eagle warriors, it will have a devastating effect on their economies. I understand that the Aztecs and the Mayans have excellent economies already but 50 gold is just too much when all the gold map is exhausted and that you have to rely on the market exchange rates.

I also find the eagle warrior too weak in the post-imperial age (the Mayan ones are an exception due to their huge HP boost but such an unbalanced unique technology says something about how weak the base unit is). Even with the Aztecs and Incas respective boosts (+4 attack and +1/2 armor/pierce armour), it's just not worth it in my opinion to waste 50 gold for a unit that is weak against almost everything except archers.

I understand that the gameplay should be different with the American civilizations and that the eagle warrior shouldn't be identical to the light cavalry units. That's not what I'm asking for. I am suggesting that the eagle warrior cost should be greatly revised (rather than its stats). Let me know your thoughts about it and whether some things need to be changed about this unit.

[Devang]

Eagles are used in the early Imperial Age. Aztecs and Mayans can rocket to the Imperial Age very quickly and spam these guys. Eagles are almost always used to put a dent in the opponent's economy. Ignore opposing melee units. ignore fortification arrow fire; target villagers, trade carts, siege weapons and monks.

Despite its weak HP, it's notoriously hard to counter efficiently. Other Infantry which do have bonuses vs. the Eagles cannot catch up. Eagles get a reasonable bonus vs. Cavalry. Due to the economic advantages of the Aztecs and Mayans, you can almost always swarm opposing Knights. Eagles have no trash counter, unlike the Scout Cavalry line. FU Hussars can take 24 arrows from FU Arbalests, Eagles with 60 HP and 4 pierce armour take 30. Mayan ones can take 50 from Arbalests or 34 from Longbowmen. Incan ones can take 60 from Arbalests or Longbows! For reference 180 HP Paladins take 60 from Arbalests or 45 from Longbows.

Eagles have no bonus vs. Archers. Only Monks (10), Siege (5), Cavalry (4) and Camels (2). They are still efficient vs. Archers though. Incan ones particularly excel here. Just one point of damage from most Archers.

Edit: I'd give Incas 10% cheaper Eagles, that's about it. 20% in Imperial if you're feeling adventurous.

[CosmicHve]

Not many good counters to them early Imperial is the main reason

[Pantera]

Originally posted by Koven:

The eagle warrior is meant to be mainly used to counter archers, right?

wrong.

[Koven]

Saying "wrong" is useless if you don't develop your answer.

[theworld]

Originally posted by Koven:

Saying "wrong" is useless if you don't develop your answer.

He's right.

See pro games, not much to add.

Aztecs and Mayans are used in pro games for a reason.

[UmiHime]

I play the Incans a lot on African Kingdoms. Ok, so the MesoAmerican civilizations use their eagle warriors a little bit differently than most cavalry is used. The first thing to understand is that Eagle warriors are not weak to halberiders. In fact, if you make halberdiers one on one against mesoamerican civilazations, you're just wasting resources. This forces opposing players to spend gold on things like the champion line instead (eagle warriors have much higher pierce armor than the knight line). The higher gold cost is probably to reflect the fact that they aren't counterable by trash units. (skirms and halb suck period and the eagle warrior has a small bonus against cavalary that makes them able to stand their own against hussars). If I were to guess, this would probably be the reason eagle warriors cost so much gold. A fully upgraded incan eagle warrior has the same pierce armor as a fully upgraded elite huskarl. So you know, that's not nothing. Additionally, all the mesoamerican civs have a bonus that affects skirmishers. The Aztecs get +1 range/+1 attack and bonus creation speed (although lack the last archer armor), Mayans have archers cheaper, and the Incans remove the minimum range on skirmishers. This makes all the mesomarican civs have on point skirmishers which cost no gold at all. So you know, archers might not be your best bet going up against a mesomarican civ. You're better off going champions and knights/onegars. Both of those together are about as costly as eaglewarriror/skirmishers. So late game it all evens out a bit.

[Devang]

Originally posted by NameisTJ:

I play the Incans a lot on African Kingdoms. Ok, so the MesoAmerican civilizations use their eagle warriors a little bit differently than most cavalry is used. The first thing to understand is that Eagle warriors are not weak to halberiders. In fact, if you make halberdiers one on one against mesoamerican civilazations, you're just wasting resources. This forces opposing players to spend gold on things like the champion line instead (eagle warriors have much higher pierce armor than the knight line). The higher gold cost is probably to reflect the fact that they aren't counterable by trash units. (skirms and halb suck period and the eagle warrior has a small bonus against cavalary that makes them able to stand their own against hussars). If I were to guess, this would probably be the reason eagle warriors cost so much gold. A fully upgraded incan eagle warrior has the same pierce armor as a fully upgraded elite huskarl. So you know, that's not nothing. Additionally, all the mesoamerican civs have a bonus that affects skirmishers. The Aztecs get +1 range/+1 attack and bonus creation speed (although lack the last archer armor), Mayans have archers cheaper, and the Incans remove the minimum range on skirmishers. This makes all the mesomarican civs have on point skirmishers which cost no gold at all. So you know, archers might not be your best bet going up against a mesomarican civ. You're better off going champions and knights/onegars. Both of those together are about as costly as eaglewarriror/skirmishers. So late game it all evens out a bit.

I'm pretty sure the Mayan cheap archers bonus doesn't apply to Skirmishers. Other than that, good points.

Edit - Definitely sure it doesn't. Checked just now.

[TheBattler]

If anything, Eagle Warriors' cost helps make them OP.

I am wondering why the eagle warrior costs so much gold. While I suppose it can be interesting during the early castle age when food is still rare, the longer the game gets, the heavier the gold cost burden gets (I am obviously considering 1vs1 games when no gold can be obtained from market carts).

The cost of Eagle Warriors is one of the two factors (the other being their powerful eco bonuses) that allows Aztecs and Mayans to get through Castle Age; they have access to a highly effective army by Imperial and only have to collect enough Food to research Imperial Age and some key unit upgrades, such as Capped and Siege Ram. They don't have to try and support an army of Knights and stay in Castle Age.

Eagles are actually very cheap in a practical, normal 1v1 game.

I find the unit very weak compared to its gold cost, especially due to its low HP. It is supposed to replace the cavalry in some way but it is slower than a light cavalry, has 60 HP instead of 80/95 (depending on the presence of the Hussar/bloodlines upgrades). Some civilizations have a weak light cavalry line with only 60 HP but it's still way better than an eagle warrior considering the speed and the no gold cost.

Elite Eagles also have 4 base pierce armor, and base 9 attack, Aztec Eagles can end up with 17 Atk.

The eagle warrior is meant to be mainly used to counter archers, right? While most civilizations can use a trash unit (worth 80 food) to counter archers (25 wood, 45 gold), the Aztecs/Mayans/Incas have to spend 50 gold per unit. Considering the horrible pathfinding of this game giving archers a notable advantage, it is needed to produce a significant number of eagle warriors to be able to defeat a reasonably-sized group of archers. So in the end, you have to pay more gold for countering your enemy's units. It's as if a Kamayuk costs more gold than the cavalry unit it's supposed to counter. That does not make sense. This also applies to other situations when your enemy is making onagers or monks. You have to spend a lot of gold to counter these units while most civilizations can utilize a trash unit for doing a better job.

They aren't only meant to counter Archers, but let's discuss this: an Aztec Elite Eagle can withstand 30 Arbalest arrows before dying which is more than a Hussar and they furthermore have higher attack than a Hussar along with an attack bonus vs Archers. They only cost 5 more gold than Arbalests.

I'm not sure what tests you're running but slightly outnumbered Elite Eagles completely maul groups of hit and running Arbalests.

I find the cost of the eagle warrior very unbalanced and I'm curious why I haven't seen people complain about it so far. The problem is that the Aztecs/Mayans/Incas cannot rely on a mobile trash unit and if they are forced to produce eagle warriors, it will have a devastating effect on their economies. I understand that the Aztecs and the Mayans have excellent economies already but 50 gold is just too much when all the gold map is exhausted and that you have to rely on the market exchange rates.

Nobody complains about them because they are borderline OP units.

Elite Eagles defeat basically every common unit cost effectively. The only units they don't auto-win against are Paladins and Champions, but on the other hand they defeat Cavaliers and Two-Handed Swordsmen so by the time you've researched Champion or Paladins, your Meso opponent will have probably wrecked your economy.

They are easy to mass up in early Imperial and withstand tons of building fire, and more importantly they have strong enough stats to destroy Town Centers (which Hussars can't do).

The whole point of them is to hit Imperial before your opponent does, mass up Elite Eagles, and send them straight at your enemy's Town Centers and villagers.

[Devang]

Aztec Eagles made me cry yesterday as Mongols.

[Til Bardaga!]

You really overestimate the cost of eagle warriors. They do make you run out of gold quickly, but they are so incredibly easy to mass. Even fully upgraded eagle warriors with no unique technology are amazing, they cost just 20 food and 50 gold. They are about twice as cheap as knights. Just because of this the Aztecs are one of the very best early imperial age civ on open maps like arabia. Aztecs reach imperial age sooner and upgrading eagle warriors is inexpensive as well (compared to knights).

You missed the main use of eagle warriors, they are insanely good raiding units and very hard to stop as well. In aztecs 1v1 games people try to wall up as much as possible, because once a large group of eagles enter your base, you are pretty much dead.

[ExTiNcT_SaNitY]

Eagles are ok for what they do, but overall I think Mayans lack some meaty units like Paladins, they just can't up against gunpowder civs well in late Imp.

[theworld]

Originally posted by ExTiNcT_SaNitY:

Eagles are ok for what they do, but overall I think Mayans lack some meaty units like Paladins, they just can't up against gunpowder civs well in late Imp.

11

[TriRem]

Originally posted by ExTiNcT_SaNitY:

Eagles are ok for what they do, but overall I think Mayans lack some meaty units like Paladins, they just can't up against gunpowder civs well in late Imp.

Just mass the absolutely inexpensive plumed archers and and you will see that gunpowder units are not a problem at all. Mix a few Eagles to take down siege, siege ram in the front to take the arrow fire if you still have the gold to and you have a quite deadly combination.

[TheBattler]

Originally posted by ExTiNcT_SaNitY:

Eagles are ok for what they do, but overall I think Mayans lack some meaty units like Paladins, they just can't up against gunpowder civs well in late Imp.

Gunpowder is not actually a huge factor that you should consider them separate from other unit types. A Hand Cannoneer has the same weaknesses as an Arbalest or a Heavy Scorpion, and a Bombard Cannon is basically a variation on the Trebuchet.

Plumes kill Hand Cannoneers, Eagles kill Conqs and Janns who lack anti-Infantry attack bonuses, as well as Bombard Cannons, and most importantly Eagles + Plumes are cheaper.

[Devang]

Plumes are definitely OP for the cost. HP, speed, faster firing rate and armour. Not to mention their elite upgrade costs no gold.