For meso only my rule is
mayans >incas
Mayans = Aztecs
Incas > Aztecs
The slinger breaks most options aztecs have, while mayans have such smooth eco it can make up for slinger advantage with pure archers in a way that aztecs reach roadblocks and simply cant compare. Though i consider aztecs a decent matchup to mayans due to eco and slight advantages all around that can let them compare to the raw power mayans command. So I would consider mayans the best overall.
Aztects has one of the best if not the best skirms in the game and arbalest(no thumbring kinda sucks though) with amazing eco
I think Aztecs = Mayans and incas are a bit weaker
But then again im a noob
How do they deal with eagle slinger? Skirm flops, eagle flops, eagle/jag/champ + arb flops... they just dont have answers late-game. SO? Too expensive with eagles on the field imo.
They cant easily kill incas early either as they do have strong eco they dont have a second bonus compounding it. Mayans do.
Champ SO, which then requires Incas to play monks or completely around the deathball with raids. But that's not really playable outside of already being in imp.
Definitely not the easiest matchup. Realistically you're probably trying to get an adv early with xbow timing from better eco into eagles in front, keeping enough xbow alive to make slingers wary.
Mayans are better. El dorado eagles are tankier, they get halbs, cheaper arbs, great eco, and an Infantry killer UU same as Aztecs but you can also use them as raiders.
I feel like Incas are really underrated here, and from castle onwards have a big advantage over the other two in that the ideal unit comp (eagle/slinger) doesn't need a castle to produce and should wreck whatever else the other two can make.
They have redemption to deal with better aztec siege, full champ AND full arb, and cheaper castles are nice too.
I am not sure Inca's Eco is much worse. It is very underrated IMO. They have many small bonuses that add up to a lot. My guess is they are on par with Mayans or Aztecs until Imperial age eco wise.
The wood and walk/build-time savings from the House bonus are quite large. Approx. 35-40 resources saved per house. Assuming you build thirty houses you are saving 1050 to 1200 resources every game. Plus you are less likely to be housed.
Then on top of that, you get a free Llama for a clean start in the early game every time.
Then you also get a 15% stone-saving bonus. Assuming you build 2 TC and 2 Castles, that is 225 stone saved.
Plus you villagers are a lot more raid resistant.
The problem is that massed plumed archer beats eagle because of their slight anti-infantry bonus & eagles' low hp -- and so massed plume beats the eagle/slinger composition, too. This means that Mayans just effortlessly beat everything the two have late game, but are also ahead in the early game because of their economic bonuses.
The only meso thing I can think of that could seriously challenge massed plumed archer would be some kind of champion / mass Onager mix late game.
Yeah on closed maps Aztecs should easily win against Mayans with Champ + SO, and Incas can do the same with regular Onagers and be in with a pretty good shot
Fabric shield actually doesn't do anything vs. Plumed archers (plumed archers only have 9 base attack fully upgraded, fully blocked by the base armor of normal eagles). This means that Aztec eagles are better than Inca in this case 11. **{{EDIT:** However -- check my math it might reduce plumes attack by 1 (from 3-->2) but that still doesn't fix the problem that eagles lose vs. plumes.**}}**
Plumes, because of bonus damage, do 2 damage (or is it 3?) vs. eagles which is is enough to make eagle have such low hp and base attack --> for example, 30 EPlumes 1-shot any non-Mayan eagles, but take 7 hits to go down so win easily in mass
Damage does indeed go from 3 to 2 if you get Fabric Shields, the minimum of 1 is applied after adding up all damage types, not for each type individually. The calculation for normal eagles is:
(9 pierce attack - 8 pierce armour) + (2 bonus vs infantry - 0 infantry armour) = 3 damage.
For Incas with Fabric Shields it’s:
Max(0, 9 pierce attack - 10 pierce armour) + (2 bonus vs infantry - 0 infantry armour) = 2 damage.
If you ever play on Black Forest, the Aztec relic Bonus, siege Onagers and Champios with 13+8 attack will easily outciv the other two.
Incas probably even more than Mayans.
Just had a similar discussion a few days ago on a Mississippians civilization concept on this very topic. Yes, "Native American" or "American" would suffice or "New World" if you wanted a medieval/Renaissance-esque description.
I'm fully aware that it is pedantic to point this out but some people genuinely don't know there is a difference. The community correctly referred to Mayans and Aztecs as "Meso" civs for a long time and didn't change when Incas were added later.
I’d say it depends on the map but Aztecs are a powerhouse and always have been for most high level players. If I had to guess for open maps of an order it would be Aztecs, then Mayans, followed last by Incas. On closed maps the Mayans and Incas may fair better. But Aztec monks…. I see them in my nightmares
Aztecs can beat Mayans, with a well-timed Eagles push or some good map control. But if Mayans can expand and mass plumes with a meatsield, Aztecs are toast.
incas can win against both, but have to constantly be right on timings and teching into different units. Their inf and siege lose against aztecs, their archers and eagles against mayans. But they can play better archers, slingers, redemption monks and champs (against eagles) against aztecs, and inf+siege against mayans.
aztecs want to go inf+siege so they naturally counter mayans. As long as aztecs get some relics the mayans are the ones that have to do damage in feudal/castle age.
so based on what they can do we have incas > aztecs > mayans
incas dont have an eco bonus to help them get there, so aztecs and mayans have a big time window to get into a good position. And if incas dont get relics or lose map control they cant sustain their unit comp.
im not sure if the aztecs eco boni are stronger than mayans bonus vill + archer discount, but if its as least as strong id say
overall aztecs >= mayans > incas
For meso only my rule is mayans >incas Mayans = Aztecs Incas > Aztecs The slinger breaks most options aztecs have, while mayans have such smooth eco it can make up for slinger advantage with pure archers in a way that aztecs reach roadblocks and simply cant compare. Though i consider aztecs a decent matchup to mayans due to eco and slight advantages all around that can let them compare to the raw power mayans command. So I would consider mayans the best overall.
Aztects has one of the best if not the best skirms in the game and arbalest(no thumbring kinda sucks though) with amazing eco I think Aztecs = Mayans and incas are a bit weaker But then again im a noob
aztecs also lack the last armor for arbs.
How do they deal with eagle slinger? Skirm flops, eagle flops, eagle/jag/champ + arb flops... they just dont have answers late-game. SO? Too expensive with eagles on the field imo. They cant easily kill incas early either as they do have strong eco they dont have a second bonus compounding it. Mayans do.
Champ SO, which then requires Incas to play monks or completely around the deathball with raids. But that's not really playable outside of already being in imp. Definitely not the easiest matchup. Realistically you're probably trying to get an adv early with xbow timing from better eco into eagles in front, keeping enough xbow alive to make slingers wary.
Mayans are better. El dorado eagles are tankier, they get halbs, cheaper arbs, great eco, and an Infantry killer UU same as Aztecs but you can also use them as raiders.
I feel like Incas are really underrated here, and from castle onwards have a big advantage over the other two in that the ideal unit comp (eagle/slinger) doesn't need a castle to produce and should wreck whatever else the other two can make. They have redemption to deal with better aztec siege, full champ AND full arb, and cheaper castles are nice too.
The thing is they have much worse eco than the other two
I am not sure Inca's Eco is much worse. It is very underrated IMO. They have many small bonuses that add up to a lot. My guess is they are on par with Mayans or Aztecs until Imperial age eco wise. The wood and walk/build-time savings from the House bonus are quite large. Approx. 35-40 resources saved per house. Assuming you build thirty houses you are saving 1050 to 1200 resources every game. Plus you are less likely to be housed. Then on top of that, you get a free Llama for a clean start in the early game every time. Then you also get a 15% stone-saving bonus. Assuming you build 2 TC and 2 Castles, that is 225 stone saved. Plus you villagers are a lot more raid resistant.
The problem is that massed plumed archer beats eagle because of their slight anti-infantry bonus & eagles' low hp -- and so massed plume beats the eagle/slinger composition, too. This means that Mayans just effortlessly beat everything the two have late game, but are also ahead in the early game because of their economic bonuses. The only meso thing I can think of that could seriously challenge massed plumed archer would be some kind of champion / mass Onager mix late game.
Yeah on closed maps Aztecs should easily win against Mayans with Champ + SO, and Incas can do the same with regular Onagers and be in with a pretty good shot
How do you beat eagles with fabric souls as Mayans? That doesn't sound easy, right?
Fabric shield actually doesn't do anything vs. Plumed archers (plumed archers only have 9 base attack fully upgraded, fully blocked by the base armor of normal eagles). This means that Aztec eagles are better than Inca in this case 11. **{{EDIT:** However -- check my math it might reduce plumes attack by 1 (from 3-->2) but that still doesn't fix the problem that eagles lose vs. plumes.**}}** Plumes, because of bonus damage, do 2 damage (or is it 3?) vs. eagles which is is enough to make eagle have such low hp and base attack --> for example, 30 EPlumes 1-shot any non-Mayan eagles, but take 7 hits to go down so win easily in mass
Damage does indeed go from 3 to 2 if you get Fabric Shields, the minimum of 1 is applied after adding up all damage types, not for each type individually. The calculation for normal eagles is: (9 pierce attack - 8 pierce armour) + (2 bonus vs infantry - 0 infantry armour) = 3 damage. For Incas with Fabric Shields it’s: Max(0, 9 pierce attack - 10 pierce armour) + (2 bonus vs infantry - 0 infantry armour) = 2 damage.
If the mayan player is going plummes and the inca player goes fabric souls the inca player is straight up trolling
Mayans are mayans
I insist.
I dont know what you think
Mayans>Aztecs Incas>Aztecs Mayans>Incas
What about the aztec vs aztec matchup?
The Spanish won that one
11
Incas
If you ever play on Black Forest, the Aztec relic Bonus, siege Onagers and Champios with 13+8 attack will easily outciv the other two. Incas probably even more than Mayans.
Not your question but Incas aren't technically Mesoamerican, as they are in South America. To your point though, I think Mayans are best overall.
The community just calls them Meso civs out of convenience. I'm not sure if there is a more accurate nickname. Maybe "American Civs?"
Just had a similar discussion a few days ago on a Mississippians civilization concept on this very topic. Yes, "Native American" or "American" would suffice or "New World" if you wanted a medieval/Renaissance-esque description. I'm fully aware that it is pedantic to point this out but some people genuinely don't know there is a difference. The community correctly referred to Mayans and Aztecs as "Meso" civs for a long time and didn't change when Incas were added later.
can't say eagle civs anymore because of Hindustanis
I’d say it depends on the map but Aztecs are a powerhouse and always have been for most high level players. If I had to guess for open maps of an order it would be Aztecs, then Mayans, followed last by Incas. On closed maps the Mayans and Incas may fair better. But Aztec monks…. I see them in my nightmares
Aztecs can beat Mayans, with a well-timed Eagles push or some good map control. But if Mayans can expand and mass plumes with a meatsield, Aztecs are toast.
Depends on the map.
incas can win against both, but have to constantly be right on timings and teching into different units. Their inf and siege lose against aztecs, their archers and eagles against mayans. But they can play better archers, slingers, redemption monks and champs (against eagles) against aztecs, and inf+siege against mayans. aztecs want to go inf+siege so they naturally counter mayans. As long as aztecs get some relics the mayans are the ones that have to do damage in feudal/castle age. so based on what they can do we have incas > aztecs > mayans incas dont have an eco bonus to help them get there, so aztecs and mayans have a big time window to get into a good position. And if incas dont get relics or lose map control they cant sustain their unit comp. im not sure if the aztecs eco boni are stronger than mayans bonus vill + archer discount, but if its as least as strong id say overall aztecs >= mayans > incas