Jaguars

[DeepO]

Originally posted by DrSpike


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.

That was not my intention. However, threads like this one ('the Jag is a worthless UU') can only have one reason: you do not understand the game yet. Jags are not worthless at all. I don't know how I should put that in writing to make it less arrogant, and I can't write a disclaimer each time that I'm aware others have found out this kind of 'advanced' strategies. In this particular case, though, the reason is inexperience, no other way of putting it.

BTW, just so you know: I'm numbering all maps I start. I do not have enough time to play as much as some of the others here, I currently am at game 28 (many starts redone, though). I'm sure that in the time CIV was released, some apolytoners have played a lot more than 28 games... I no longer hold a higher experience with the game per definition, because I am a playtester. And still, too many of these statements need to be rebuffed which are obviously due to inexperience...

DeepO

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by DeepO

That was not my intention. However, threads like this one ('the Jag is a worthless UU') can only have one reason: you do not understand the game yet. Jags are not worthless at all. I don't know how I should put that in writing to make it less arrogant, and I can't write a disclaimer each time that I'm aware others have found out this kind of 'advanced' strategies. In this particular case, though, the reason is inexperience, no other way of putting it.

BTW, just so you know: I'm numbering all maps I start. I do not have enough time to play as much as some of the others here, I currently am at game 28 (many starts redone, though). I'm sure that in the time CIV was released, some apolytoners have played a lot more than 28 games... I no longer hold a higher experience with the game per definition, because I am a playtester. And still, too many of these statements need to be rebuffed which are obviously due to inexperience...

DeepO

Hehe, it's fine, the testers have already made lots of good contributions post release (as well as their efforts testing!). It was just a gentle reproach really. I do honestly feel that if someone posts something dodgy testers can point out it's weaknesses without resorting to opining on the posters lack of understanding. I have been disappointed how many times I've seen this from several testers.

In a way it's mean of me to reproach too - I've never been accused of holding back my true opinions on poor posts. I'd like to think that with such a major advantage I'd be more gentle.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by DrSpike


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.

Plus, this point, which (partially) disagreed with you, stands.

[Blake]

Sometimes I get (semi)deliberately combative like that, taking an extreme viewpoint. "This unit sucks, and I'm going to keep saying that until you prove me wrong".

Ofcourse, what I really want is to understand the UU and why it isn't worthless. Just going about it in any annoying way . (altough unfortunately it does seem that people are much more likely to make a detailed correction when you say something wrong, than a detailed answer to a straightforward question. I dunno if there's a name for that principle but there should be).

I can see that the ironworking beeline and the Jaguar have some nice synergies. Chop and slavery.

Altough I still think the Jaguar should be thrown a bone for actually being weaker in every way (except jungle combat) than the unit it replaces. Cheaper or an attack bonus against something, anything really. (heck, even something like ignoring targets defensive bonus from jungle/forest when attacking, make em proper jungle warriors)

But then again maybe it used to be like that and was found imbalanced in play testing *shrug*. Maybe what I'm saying is they're a bit too balanced, compared to things like those monsterous Praetorians.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by DrSpike
In a way it's mean of me to reproach too - I've never been accused of holding back my true opinions on poor posts. I'd like to think that with such a major advantage I'd be more gentle.

Well, I'm sorry if I have not been gentle. But please understand it can be very frustrating to see the same questions popping up time and time again. 'This doesn't work'. 'This is inbalanced'. 'What's the ##!@# deal with this mechanic then?'. Etc. Questions that start like 'Am I correct in thinking that there is the use of this is limited, but are there ways of improving my play?' type of posts will be a lot easier to reply gently too...

DeepO

[DrSpike]

Yeah. At the moment even with 2 weeks experience I see enough of the first kind that irk me. Give it a few months to settle down.........it's still very early days for most of us.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Plus, this point, which (partially) disagreed with you, stands.

And I can't rebuff it, so I choose not to discuss it too profoundly

You may be right: the best UUs in Civ3 might have been better than the best UUs in CIV. However, was this because there exists a good strategy to use them, or because they are inbalanced, and with little strategy were always winning in comparable situations? I don't have enough experience to post any decisive info on that, maybe Aeson or Fried would be a better source for such overview of balanced stats.

What I do know, is that the UUs of CIV are giving me a lot harder time understanding them, and they are more interesting too: you have to develop specific strategies to deal with each of them. Jaguars are not overpowered, they are 1 strength less than the swordsman they replace. However they don't need resources, which can be a major advantage if played out well. They completely change the game, and can no longer be compared to the swords they replace, they fall in a different category. And this happens to nearly all UUs: the ones I don't know specific strategies of, are to me the less interesting... these can be, in a Civ 3 type of world, the 'best' UUs. (e.g. war chariot: very similar to a Civ3 war chariot, and they look like they get the biggest strength increase (25%!) of all UUs. Also the less 'deep' UU for me so far, you simply use them as glorified chariots)

DeepO

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Blake
But then again maybe it used to be like that and was found imbalanced in play testing *shrug*. Maybe what I'm saying is they're a bit too balanced, compared to things like those monsterous Praetorians.

Maybe... every parameter in the game is under continuous review. A Jag at strength 6 would be overpowering and inbalanced, but that doesn't mean they have evolved to their final form yet. Maybe they need to be tweaked. So far, I'm not seeing any evidence of that, though. I'm more succesful with Jaguars than with other UUs. Maybe because I simply understand Jags better than I understand other UUs...

As to Praetorians: niche UUs, but very nice if you can fit them in. As their counter gets a 50% bonus it was necessary to have these at strength 8, strength 7 wouldn't have worked in this case. When comparing stats, keep in mind that the Jags start with Combat I, praetorians don't. Jags can for instance get a medic promotion from the start, and possibly Medic II after the first battle... you wouldn't say it, but those Aztec are pretty good when it comes to battle medicine

DeepO

[Blake]

but those Aztec are pretty good when it comes to battle medicine

I dunno about that! Jungle magic heheh.

The really interesting thing about Praetorians is that they actually have NO counter unit, until xbows and macemen.

I wonder if I'm being skewed by Epic, which gives so much more time to play with one unit type... getting "stuck" with Jaguars for a long time can make one bitter, on the other hand having free reign with Praetorians for a long time is joy inducing...

[DeepO]

Axes? I thought they countered Praetorians?

As to Epic: it does change the pace, yes. You have less logistic problems, but need to be more careful with your units as well... I like it, but normal and quick games are also nice (quick is less my style though), as there you have no time to lose: research a unit, build it, and use it immediately, or you would better have waited until the next unit comes along.

DeepO

[DeepO]

Come to think of it, Jags might be a bit underpowered on Epic, a bit overpowered on Quick. But you can't get everything perfect for every situation: fast workers also are more or less useful on Epic or Quick.

DeepO

[Blake]

Lets just say there is nothing better than a Praet that romans can build to counter axemen! Praets kill (and defend against) axes better than your own axes would!

Were a Roman to promote his Praets with Combat1 and Shock there would be absolutely nothing any civ could cost-effectively throw at them until xbow men. They are brutally good units, and (as you hinted at) the only reason they aren't overpowered is that the Romans aren't agressive.

[DrSpike]

Axes are decent against praetorians when the axe is defending.

My initial conclusions are that praetorians are a touch strong, but this could also be viewed as swords being a touch too weak.

I don't think Rome as a whole is imbalanced though.

[Krill]

Um, Axe with shock is strength 9.25, right, without taking into account the fort bonus and defensive boni from terrain, right?

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Krill
Um, Axe with shock is strength 9.25, right, without taking into account the fort bonus and defensive boni from terrain, right?

Axe = 5*1.85 = 9.25 indeed.

As to Praetorians being the best counter for Axes: not even near. Bring in the shock - horse archers please!

DeepO