Jaguars

[Blake]

The main thing I think that would suck about Jag rushing in MP, would be that sinking feeling when your "victim" turns out to have copper... and has chopped some axes.

I mean it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the Aztecs are probably going to do in a MP game, and it's not like grabbing some axes "just in case" is a bad idea. They are very solid units, and an Ironworking beeline is NOT going to conductive to defend against axes, unless you found a city on copper/iron and chop some axes of your own... and lookit that, back to Jaguars being useless compared to axes.


edit: What are musketeer? That UU in the period between Musketmen and Riflemen? WHAT period? Oh that one, must have blinked at the wrong time . They would probably be worth using if riflemen didn't obsolete them...
edit2: Okay, musteteers ARE worth using, but it's hard to get the chance to BUILD the silly things, often. You either need to prioritize Gunpowder at the expense of yummy techs, or delay researching rifling... uh? But they would be wicked strong if upgraded from lvl4-5 macemen...

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Bobby Chicken
Oh, I think musketeers are the worst special unit. Does anybody see any value to them?

They're another one of my favourites... and no, I'm not explaining that either

As to 'having to explain'... I'll explain my thoughts when I want to, thank you very much. It's not that you pay me to do so.

Jaguars are great because you don't need a resource, which opens all kind of paths... I was simply not feeling like explaining some of them (I'm pretty sure I don't know half of them either).

DeepO

[DeepO]

edit2: Okay, musteteers ARE worth using, but it's hard to get the chance to BUILD the silly things, often. You either need to prioritize Gunpowder at the expense of yummy techs, or delay researching rifling... uh? But they would be wicked strong if upgraded from lvl4-5 macemen...

Who needs rifles, when you have cavalry, musketeers for protection, and are only 2 techs away from cannons?

DeepO

[CiverDan]

This is in MP, but I had a game where I was close to someone with Horses in their cap, and was unable to get out spears before horse archers captured the city that I had founded on it. Of course I had made a mistake of not bee-lining for Bronze/Iron. I have learned that If you dont start with Mysticism, forgo early religion and shoot for horses/iron/copper, depending on civ/opponents units.

regarding the topic at hand, I think the jaguar Is a stopgap in case you have no horse/iron/copper and your opponent has on of those too. Since Archers alone simply cannot stand up to axes, sword, or horse archers.

[Dis]

Re: Jaguars

Originally posted by Blake
I'm really disappointed by this UU. What exactly is it meant to do? Be a fallback if you get no copper?

Axeman: 5 strength, 35 hammers. +50% vs melee.

Jaguar: 5 strength, 40 hammers. +10% vs cities. +25% Jungle Defense.

Given the choice, I'm going to build Axes every time.

As far as I can tell, it's only purpose is for a one-dimensional iron working rush, beeline straight to iron working, don't bother with wheel. Build mines, train jaguars and go for the kill...

But somehow every game as Aztecs I manage to get copper, often on a river so I don't even need roads to connect it.

But is my assessment right, Jaguars are only for a 1-diminsional rush or for those unlucky enough to have no copper/iron?

I played my first game as the aztecs. I wasn't very impressed by them either. I was still a long way from catapults, but I was going for a conquest victory (which I later got), so I had to try to take my neighbor- the Malinese. I got all his cities except one before my maintenance costs caused my entire army to abandon me. But I could have done it if the unit was stronger. I lost a lot of time battling their UU which is a decent defender.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake
The main thing I think that would suck about Jag rushing in MP, would be that sinking feeling when your "victim" turns out to have copper... and has chopped some axes.

Compare that to the sinking feeling you get when finding out you have no Horses, Copper, or Iron. No comparison in my experience. In your example, while the Jaguar rush might not end up being viable, at least you know you have a choice to carry out the rush or not. There are other ways to win if you run into Axes. In my example, you've lost if the opponent rushes or chokes intelligently. Being at an opponent's mercy is no fun, and the Aztecs are much less likely to be at an opponent's mercy than resource dependant civs.

In SP, I know I can take out or cripple a Deity neighbor or two with Jaguars. I also know that I stand no chance in hell of taking out a Deity neighbor with Archers/Warriors. Quecha's can work for one. Skirmishers can't so much conquer a Deity AI, but can hem them in very well.

So I know going into any SP game with the Aztecs that I can carve out enough room to be viable in. If I have Horses or Copper/Iron, great, it's a bonus. If not, I can deal with that too. With resource dependant civs, I stand the chance of being hemmed in early and losing the game before it even starts. Mali and Inca are the two other civs which give decent chances in those situations.

Jaguars are not so much about increasing the odds in cases where you can win anyways (though it is a factor), but about avoiding cases where you are at a terrible disadvantage.

I mean it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what the Aztecs are probably going to do in a MP game, and it's not like grabbing some axes "just in case" is a bad idea.

You are assuming Copper and/or Iron for the defender, but not the invader in this case. Aztecs can build Axes too. Resources are not a given though, and even when you have them, they take time and resources to hook up. Jags have a shot at getting to an opponent's source of Iron before it's hooked up, and/or to their Horses before Horse Archers are available. If they do, the game may very well be over. How is that useless?

Also, the assumption that the Aztecs are going to Jaguar rush is something you can use against an opponent.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by DeepO

They're another one of my favourites... and no, I'm not explaining that either

I agree.

[Blake]

Thankyou.

Now, a second question. Does the AI massively under-use axes? They don't seem to value them enough for city defense.

[Aeson]

The AI goes with generally "safe" mixes of units. They under-use axes vs overloaded melee, but also over-use axes vs overloaded mounted and/or bombardment. They just aren't flexible enough to adapt.

Another related problem is they don't see rushes coming, so don't prioritize BW/IW or HBR, or properly defend their resources. Again though, it's a double edged inflexibility. If the AI were to prioritize BW/IW/HBR more to fend off rushes, they would be easier to leave behind economically.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Blake
Thankyou.

Now, a second question. Does the AI massively under-use axes? They don't seem to value them enough for city defense.

It's a constant battle to get the AI build queues balanced, reacting to situations instead of following predescribed paths. In part, I agree with you, however it depends on situation. If an AI will find you have iron, it will come for it using axes when it can. It's a lot harder to predict if a player is going for a sword rush, so that the AI build more of its defenses on axes.

Also, don't underestimate the bonus archers and longbows are getting from city defend I-III: they are the first line of defense. Axemen are best used on mobile defense duty, not on static defense.

DeepO

[SpencerH]

The first time I came against jags I crushed em with axe and swordsmen. I thought they were a souped-up warrior. I had no idea they were the Aztec swordsman replacement. It's not much of a UU (although all UU's seem a little weak compared to civ3).

[DeepO]

Originally posted by SpencerH
(although all UU's seem a little weak compared to civ3).

No... but many UUs will have a more focused play behind them. The jags just like any other: for some things they're simply perfect, and the best unit you can dream off.

At first sight, UUs seem underpowered compared to Civ3, but that's only until you start to understand them better. The classic example being the Indian fast workers. It seems to be a very small benefit to walk 3 tiles instead of 2, but it totally changes how you play the game. If you don't change your playstyle, you're not gaining much (maybe 10% less workers needed for your empire or so), if you use them well they are very nice (meaning about half of the workers needed, and performing better than normal on improvement eta's)

DeepO

[rayw69]

Originally posted by Bobby Chicken
Oh, I think musketeers are the worst special unit. Does anybody see any value to them?

You can pillage the hell out of another Civ with just a few lone musketeers. Two moves means 2x the pillaging potential. Sure, you can pillage with knights for the same effect. But then you're vulnerable to attack from other knights, pikemen, and war elephants. If you are Napolean, pillaging musketeers are, at worst, even odds defensively against any unit of the time period.

Also, until mechanized infantry, musketeers are the only defensive unit capable of keeping up with your mobile attack force.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by DeepO

Also, don't underestimate the bonus archers and longbows are getting from city defend I-III: they are the first line of defense. Axemen are best used on mobile defense duty, not on static defense.

DeepO

In SP yes, but in MP they make nice harassing units whilst fortified too, as they can take the woodsman promotion right out of the door. They are not mobile in this case, just damn annoying.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by DeepO

No... but many UUs will have a more focused play behind them. The jags just like any other: for some things they're simply perfect, and the best unit you can dream off.

At first sight, UUs seem underpowered compared to Civ3, but that's only until you start to understand them better. The classic example being the Indian fast workers. It seems to be a very small benefit to walk 3 tiles instead of 2, but it totally changes how you play the game. If you don't change your playstyle, you're not gaining much (maybe 10% less workers needed for your empire or so), if you use them well they are very nice (meaning about half of the workers needed, and performing better than normal on improvement eta's)

DeepO

I think you are right they are more interesting, strategy wise. However, I think that the best UUs in Civ4 are weaker (relative to their base unit) than the best UUs in Civ3. I don't want to be pedantic, but all the you non-beta testers dont understand the game yet posts are beginning to annoy a lot of posters.