Aztecs in team, just a bad choice?

[exotic handjob]

I would like to play a civ like Aztecs, but it is clear, some civs are just 'better' than others.

There is usually A way to get to Imp in ~20-22 minutes, but, what does Aztec really have to offer?

Every counter you can do might trade when you micro it more, but it doesn't even offer better economy.

Many units that defeat them like massed skirmishers don't even need any microing. Coyotes are the only counter and even with max upgrades and the card, they are still quite bad..

Even massed musketeers are sortof 'better' even if they will equal out.

It seems even if really good and established in a game, Aztecs struggles to dominate and ultimately loses unless they outplay which , in teamplay too, is not possible if you have todo a 1v2 or 1v3 especially.

I instantly just win more when not playing Aztecs, it's just too much 'extra work' whereas you can just spam superunits and ignore them with most other civs.

Another bad unit for team games is the grenadier spammer or merc spammers which usually fare pretty well against swarms of infantry

In general the game just shows it is all about build orders and stupid things like teaching 'there is power in teamwork' because there might be worse players teaming up (suffering from dunning kruger) to win early without competing with 4v1 or 3v1 rushes.

[sp00ky]

Originally posted by bird of ass:

In general the game just shows it is all about build orders and stupid things like teaching 'there is power in teamwork' because there might be worse players teaming up (suffering from dunning kruger) .

But that is what team games are? I mean if you are playing team games to play individually then you are basically missing the point of what a team game is.

[exotic handjob]

No, teamstack (at least without blaming something, like random teams) is for stupid people. It's only 'fun' if you are relaxed and the game is balanced where at least you acknowledge there was ever a chance from the start.

What do the unintelligent tend to do: the same things over and over, never learning, never adapt, expecting no different result, that's what some teamers do.

Especially on such a game where the balance is so like simplified, you can more easily be stuck just 1 on 1 with one player even if they are a bit worse in skills. That is to say, teamstack is more potent on AoE3 than in the others in the series.

The players are usually somewhat mentally crippled, slow, trying to do some like combination stuff to win, that's so predictable like: "omg you make like counter cavalry, p2 make counter infantry, and p3 make counter something else" and then they just rush and win by knocking a player out early. The chance they win just doing something like that is high. In the past games I feel such players on AoE2 and AoM do exist but, you could still like 1v2 or 1v3 them and defeat bad players who just try to max out spamming early units, by really outplaying, because they tend to be stupid anyway. Here the average low/average elo player can only follow a guide and not be very skilled at things but they'll still remain harder to defeat, which is why AoE2/AoM pros tend to appear many times better.

It's more likely a random on the opposing team just playing for fun will be really new or not do their job somehow, and thus it's not really 'a game' at that point, it's stupider people doing the same pattern for like 10 minutes to get a 3v1 or 4v1 'fake win' (in all ways really, they don't gain much), because they couldn't win anyway in 1v1 or 2v1 for example. so it's boring like 'yes they have like 90% chance to win', but the same players lose most times in 1v1. and you can tell this within a few minuets from scores and such, because there's also high chance there's bad teammates or slow players who won't even do what they have to (e.g. biuld up while not attacked, or at least send some help so its 2v4 or 3v4)

It isn't 'them being skilled' or learning (although if they are little kids, maybe they can learn something the first time that is simple like 'strength in numbers!', but that is also 'false' because in reality a team will not always have random members performing badly). rather it is just avoiding the fact they are 'not skilled' and then thinking they found a way to win more by hiding from doing the work and avoiding the reality (like a 'defense mechanism' that is put up). The fact of this is they can do '1' simple thing that usually doesn't work but when it's teammates helping them they can suddenly do that without learning really anything special, and odds highly favor that they'll win from the beginning anyway. It's equally 'boring' for me to just pick a better civilization and then start to beat them more because the civ allows spamming to do like a 1v3 or 1v4 sometimes, then it's like 'oh well won and got best stats' who cares.

But the point of a game for me isn't always win, it's to have a good actual game; and have fun, acknowledge the stats and appreciate if someone does 1v2 or we win with a comeback or something else. The above is not a 'good game' it's just pre-determined for stupid people (or maybe, teamwork would be new if they are like 13yr teens playing the first time). I'd still be having fun if those weren't some unwinnable 2v4 or 3v4 that is clearly wasting my time to even join. to join a game I don't play much, find teammates lost or didn't do something while not attacked, is a waste of time even if you put effort to be not so efficient yet beat some team and manage to hold them. It's funner to acknowledge like yes we had a chance at least to win, or at least add randomness where you sort of dont know yet if you'll win or not.

Many teamstackers also randoms in aoe3 are dumb people in general. Difference between just enforcing random teams was so high vs when joining some useless match that is 4v teamed up; even if I get in a 1v3 fight, I found I could defeat them early, you could lose the gameanyway because 1 or 2 teammates were mentally children or crippled, it's still a waste of minutes.

[Vemonia]

About the aztecs: I do not think they are that bad in teamgame. They are known for having very good eagle knights (and decent knights in general), so mainly missing anti-skirmishers and having very average anti-cannons. And against rushes, they have warhuts and the ceremony producing military, which should not be that bad. But if you find more success with other civs, it is okay to not play aztecs...

About the 1v4 thing:
- I will ignore your rant and undeserved insults on a part of the community with different minset that yours
- I understand and agree that it is kinda lame to stack on one player to kill him from the get go, as he will probably have a terrible experience, and we want everyone to have fun
- I still think teaming up and rushing is an acceptable strategy. It punishes people who just lay back and boom for 20 minutes, and reward teamwork. If your opponents are 4v1 on you, it is also the fault of your allies who let you die. Why cant they come help you ? If they are just booming and then they cannot win 3v4, it's their fault to let you die and cannot get anything from their boom. Can you send a villager to their base to rebuild a base ? They can give you wood for TC...

I think you (and your teammates) should also try to adapt to counter the enemy strategy. Because you may be better at 1v1, but in supremacy team games you are expected to play as a team. 4v4 is not a tournament like setting of 4 1v1s where the winner take on a winner of the opponent team. When your ally gets 1v4 you can try to help him or to raid all 4 enemies. And if you often get rushed, you can scout, build walls & defenses, or produce colonial army.

[claudioztl]

i think aztecs needs something that can beat skirmisher plus musk, because when any civ uses that strategy you automatically lose the game as you said, even they don´t need to use micro, something similar and worst is when wedes spam their mercenaries, with any other civ you can counter them with good artillery well protected, but if you are playing with aztecs or incas, you will lose always ONLY because their spam is invincible using this kind of civs, i had to play a lot of times vs them in late game and never i was able to do something vs them, they just spam Landsknecht and even using the counter vs them by definition (mace, bow archer, even the jaguars) those units still kill all my units without lose even the half of the initial army

[The Mapmaker]

I got top 200 in Teamgames by spamming azzy. FF into Eagle runners and make arrow knights. thats the combo you use to support your team. Use jaguar knights to move invis and rek thier base like opris if you want. If you have to make melee cav or musks in teamgames your teamcombo is bad!!!
in Teamgames pop effient units perform good, Eagle Runner Knights are one of the most pop effient units in the game.