Best archer civ, Britons or Mayans?

[thesupermarv13]

Which civ does better with their archers? Not just 1v1 against each other but against other civs too.

[Ashur_Arbaces]

Maya is in pretty much every situation/map/civ matchup better then Britons since Mayas get plumed archers (which are easy to mass,cheap,cost effective,fast,accurate,strong and don't need many upgrades to preform well) Elite Eagle warriors with 40 HP extra and 20% more resources bonus wich mostly helps with the fast food sources early game( everything except farms ess.) and in the late game with gold and stone.

Unless your up against Goths then Britons are better or playing on BF/Michi where Briton longbows and the siege engineers tech balance out the extra resources and the Elite Eagle warrior as a pushing unit for maya.

Not really related to the topic but most pros consider mayas the best overall civ in the game since they are in top 5 for almost every map (this includes water maps since you get 20 % more food from fishing and your island won't run out of resources that fast) except BF/michi.

[thesupermarv13]

Yeah I thought so I just wanted to get more opinions on these civs pretty much. They're the two that I use the most. Against goths the mayans are done indeed though. No champs.

[Ashur_Arbaces]

Originally posted by the_blur13:

Yeah I thought so I just wanted to get more opinions on these civs pretty much. They're the two that I use the most. Against goths the mayans are done indeed though. No champs.

In Imperial it ain't THAT bad for mayas in the match up its more the lack of knights in late castle that kills them (since they have nothing else to kill huskarls then unlike Imperial where they at least have heavy scorps and 2HS).

Also want to say that it's pretty generalising what I said because when you analyse it more closely there are certain situations/moments in the game on every map in every age where the britons do better then mayas but overall I think I'm right with what I said above.

[TheBattler]

Neither are the best, the Huns are.

They can win in more situations with their Cavalry Archers than Britons and Mayans can win with their Archer units.

[Ashur_Arbaces]

Originally posted by TheBattler:

Neither are the best, the Huns are.

They can win in more situations with their Cavalry Archers than Britons and Mayans can win with their Archer units.

Nope mayas are better when it comes down to it.

[FE_HockeySam18]

Mayans get cheap archers, which makes their archer flush better. Britons have the upper hand in early Castle Age due to their xbows having +1 range from civ bonus and their TCs having a cheaper wood cost, but will be behind at that point anyway because the Mayan eco is better. Once the plumes come out, even Briton xbows will die. Britons also have a hard time against EEW as the EEW tech + Plate Mail Armor renders all Castle Age archery irrelevant and Britons miss Bloodlines, making their knights less effective at countering EEW. Champs can counter EEW but take longer to tech into. Britons also have a tough time against Plume-EEW-Siege Ram if the game goes that late.

In AoC, the top Arabia civs are Aztecs, then Mayans, then Huns. In AoF, it's Mayans, then Aztecs, then Huns (because the nerfs Mayans got are nothing compared to what Aztecs and Huns got). Vikings and Celts take spots 4 and 5.

[Ashur_Arbaces]

Originally posted by AoF_HockeySam18:

Mayans get cheap archers, which makes their archer flush better. Britons have the upper hand in early Castle Age due to their xbows having +1 range from civ bonus and their TCs having a cheaper wood cost, but will be behind at that point anyway because the Mayan eco is better. Once the plumes come out, even Briton xbows will die. Britons also have a hard time against EEW as the EEW tech + Plate Mail Armor renders all Castle Age archery irrelevant and Britons miss Bloodlines, making their knights less effective at countering EEW. Champs can counter EEW but take longer to tech into. Britons also have a tough time against Plume-EEW-Siege Ram if the game goes that late.

In AoC, the top Arabia civs are Aztecs, then Mayans, then Huns. In AoF, it's Mayans, then Aztecs, then Huns (because the nerfs Mayans got are nothing compared to what Aztecs and Huns got). Vikings and Celts take spots 4 and 5.

With the exception of the removal of free loom how exactly did the Aztecs get nerfed?

[Experienced Noob]

Originally posted by AJ Ashur_Jellal:

With the exception of the removal of free loom how exactly did the Aztecs get nerfed?

Yeah, I'm not sure I'd consider that a big nerf since they got the +50g. Having an extra villager when the other civ looms is nice, but I think the Aztecs being able to drush with 7+ militia if they want makes up for it. Aztec wouldn't need to loom for a long time with the pressure he could put on somebody.

I don't know if some of the Aztec tech tree was removed also though.

[Til Bardaga!]

Originally posted by TheBattler:

Neither are the best, the Huns are.

They can win in more situations with their Cavalry Archers than Britons and Mayans can win with their Archer units.

They aren't. The Mayans are considered to be a better overall civ, but is played much less than the Huns because people find the meta of the Mayans to be very boring, which is drush-fast castle with xbows, or walling up heavily and going straight for plumes. The plumed archer is also much stronger and cost-effective than the cavalry archer

[FE_HockeySam18]

In of itself, replacing the Aztec free loom with +50 gold is a pretty significant nerf. For one thing, it solves the huge balance issue of Aztec villagers winning vill fights in early game nomad. Additionally, on BF (where players regularly send two villagers + scout to the middle to fight for the forward wall and thus always take loom immediately at the start), Aztecs in AoC were able to start building vills immediately instead of researching loom, and the extra vill at the start was a pretty significant advantage. In AoF they must take loom at the start of BF just like the other civs.

Free loom also allowed an extra villager while the other player loomed (as Jimmy already mentioned), whereas that advantage (very significant due to relatively low vill count in Dark, and is thus magnified as the game goes on) is removed now. Sure, you can gamble and try to do a loomless 8 militia drush (after mining 10 extra gold), but those 5 extra militia also cost an extra 300 food, which means you're getting to Feudal later. In many games a drush can be easily denied by quick palisades/good walling and after getting to Feudal first the other player has the initiative. If both players' drushes miss each other and he shows up to harass your loomless vills with his militia then you're in trouble. Of course if your opponent isn't properly prepared then a monster drush can be deadly.

Replacing the starting EW with an Eagle Scout is a nerf to the Aztec early game as well, but that also affects Mayans. Increasing the attack of the sword-line vs Eagles is a nerf to both but more so to Aztecs as the Mayan EEW is stronger than the Aztec EEW (more HP > more attack) and Mayans have an easier time vs Champs because of Plumes. Plume cost was increased, (that was the only other direct nerf Mayans got) but Plumes are still ridiculously cost-effective and the Mayan eco can support them. Mayans still start with an extra villager, btw, which is another advantage (despite being down 50 food you'll still have no idle TC time if you loom at start unless you get really unlucky and can't find your starting sheep).

Hope this helps!

[Ashur_Arbaces]

Originally posted by AoF_HockeySam18:

In of itself, replacing the Aztec free loom with +50 gold is a pretty significant nerf. For one thing, it solves the huge balance issue of Aztec villagers winning vill fights in early game nomad. Additionally, on BF (where players regularly send two villagers + scout to the middle to fight for the forward wall and thus always take loom immediately at the start), Aztecs in AoC were able to start building vills immediately instead of researching loom, and the extra vill at the start was a pretty significant advantage. In AoF they must take loom at the start of BF just like the other civs.

Free loom also allowed an extra villager while the other player loomed (as Jimmy already mentioned), whereas that advantage (very significant due to relatively low vill count in Dark, and is thus magnified as the game goes on) is removed now. Sure, you can gamble and try to do a loomless 8 militia drush (after mining 10 extra gold), but those 5 extra militia also cost an extra 300 food, which means you're getting to Feudal later. In many games a drush can be easily denied by quick palisades/good walling and after getting to Feudal first the other player has the initiative. If both players' drushes miss each other and he shows up to harass your loomless vills with his militia then you're in trouble. Of course if your opponent isn't properly prepared then a monster drush can be deadly.

Replacing the starting EW with an Eagle Scout is a nerf to the Aztec early game as well, but that also affects Mayans. Increasing the attack of the sword-line vs Eagles is a nerf to both but more so to Aztecs as the Mayan EEW is stronger than the Aztec EEW (more HP > more attack) and Mayans have an easier time vs Champs because of Plumes. Plume cost was increased, (that was the only other direct nerf Mayans got) but Plumes are still ridiculously cost-effective and the Mayan eco can support them. Mayans still start with an extra villager, btw, which is another advantage (despite being down 50 food you'll still have no idle TC time if you loom at start unless you get really unlucky and can't find your starting sheep).

Hope this helps!

I completely forgot about the changes to the eagle warriors those are nerfs indeed. But I still think that aztecs are better on arabia when it comes down it though since they still produce faster, have the extra gold and the overall boosted economy.

Regarding the eagle warriors again: maybe the castle age research should be made a little bit cheaper (I take the risk of making the meso civs even stronger here) since it really is too expensive now too make the buffed castle age eagles viable. You practically never see them. researched just like the LS.

[FE_HockeySam18]

Mayans are faster due to the extra starting villager (especially now that Aztec free loom is removed) and resources lasting longer. Cheap archers is a huge bonus as well because meso armies are predominantly archery until Imperial (cheaper is stronger than faster production btw), and the ability to do a cheap stonewall and then drop a castle into plumes is also there. Early plumes present a power spike that most civs have trouble answering effectively without yielding map control, but even without an early castle drop Mayans will still be able to mass more xbows due to reduced cost and their powerful eco. Due to resources lasting longer the Mayan eco make their armies more sustainable in the lategame as well.

Re the eagles, interesting point. I actually don't think the problem is so much the EW upgrade cost (though I'm open to tweaking it if circumstances demand), but rather the OPness of the xbow upgrade and the fact that Castle Age eagles aren't an effective answer to mass xbow, so you only see a few of them made mostly as a counter to siege. I think the answer to this issue (as is the case with most balancing issues) lies in a wider rebalancing of the meta as opposed to individual buffs and nerfs (an approach that, as we saw in AoF, only succeeded in slightly changing the order of the top civs but didn't really do much to address the core issues).

[theworld]

Originally posted by AoF_HockeySam18:

In of itself, replacing the Aztec free loom with +50 gold is a pretty significant nerf. For one thing, it solves the huge balance issue of Aztec villagers winning vill fights in early game nomad.

Haven't played for a year, when I played on Steam very few people will engage in village war in Nomad at < 2000 ELO. Reason being ppl butthurt and leave and then the initiator will get kicked if the game is rehosted.

Has this changed?

[FE_HockeySam18]

There has always been an unspoken rule of sorts against villager wars on nomad, but it's nevertheless part of the game and needed to be balanced (especially due to the possibility of abusing it in ranked games). Chinese are still strong on nomad in this regard with their 6 villager start but the improbable situation of them being able to have enough villagers in a certain area to present an advantage in vill fights makes this far less of an issue than the free loom that guaranteed the Aztec the victory in any vill fight with equal numbers.

[theworld]

Ironically, TC war is still mostly OK though: Chinese, Spanish, Persians and Teutons got the upper hand in TC war.