Three-man Chariot = Godly UU

[gunkulator]

Are you kidding? Iroqouis are easily one of the best civs to play. Agr gives a huge advantage for fast growth. And the MW just completely and utterly kicks butt.

I still rate the GS slightly higher, though - only because of the resource. Iron is a must-have. Horses are a nice-to-have. GS have move 2 without horses, so I can do without that resource for a while. No iron means defending yourself with spears against longbows, med inf or worse, knights.

But still my favorite ancient UU is the Dromon. The AI is completely daunted by it. With the Byz's seafaring trait, it's a 4-mover that has a lethal sea bombard of 2 and can carry 2 units. They'll find those other civs across the ocean (only 25% chance of sinking!) for you.

[barbeerhj]

Um.....

No one said the Iroqouis suck, I simply said I have had bad luck with them.

I agree, Agricultural gives you a big advantage if you are fortunate enough to get a big river in nice terrain, maybe even if you get a plains with rivers.

Not to mention the 2 food irrigated desert.

-Ron

[JeffS]

I've been reading this thread with a good deal of interest, and it's made me realize how powerful a large stack of cheap units can be. You can produce Warriors for a third the cost of either Mounted Warriors or Three Man Chariots, which would allow you to produce a stack 3 times as large. Envision a stack of 24 Warriors vs. a stack of 8 Mounted Warriors without fortifications or terrain modifiers for either (to make things simpler). The Mounted Warriors on the attack have a 3 to 1 advantage, and so will probably kill about 6 of the Warriors, and retreat from about 3 of the combats. There are now 16 unwounded Warriors and 2 wounded Warriors facing 6 wounded Mounted Warriors. When the warriors attack they now attack at even odds, and the Mounted Warriors are wounded so they have fewer hit points, and are less likely to be able to retreat. The first 6 Warriors attacking will kill at least 3 of the adjacent Mounted Warriors, and the remaining 3 will be severely wounded, so about 4 more Warrior attacks will finish them off, with the final victorious (wounded) Warrior advancing after combat. The 6 unwounded warriors can then move into that same tile. So there are now 6 fresh Warriors and 1 wounded Warrior facing the 3 Mounted Warriors who retreated from the first combat (as well as 7 wounded Warriors in their original tile). If it's on a road the 6 fresh Warriors should have no trouble finishing of the 3 wounded Mounted Warriors. If there's no road, the remaining Mounted Warriors can still escape, but if they try another attack they will probably lose at least1 unit, and even the 2 "victorious units will be so severely wounded as to be easy prey for the 5 adjacent Warriors, 3 of whom are fresh and the other 2 of whom have only had a single combat. A similar "back of the envelope" calculation gives a similar result for Three Man Chariots vs. 3 times as many Warriors. This is only a rough calculation of course, and doesn't take into account terrain modifiers or fortified units, but it does seem that building overwhelming numbers of cheap warriors could be a very powerful strategy in the ancient age. If I have missed something, or miscalculated significantly, please feel free to correct me.

All My Best,

Jeff Sutro

[Dominae]

Try a "Warriors only" game and tell us what your practical results are. (Yes, I've tried it...all I know is that it's hard on Demigod level!)

[Solomwi]

That assumes, Jeff, that you're playing on a two tile board or against someone who doesn't know how to use fast-movers.

In that situation, I may take some potshots to winnow your stack, but my MWs will still have 1 movement point left (because it would be foolish to attack that stack on the last MP, for just the reasons you mention), so I'm simply going to pull it back out of your range. If you pursue, I'll lather, rinse and repeat until I can get more help or attrit your stack to the point that a full scale charge is possible or you give up the pursuit.

The short of it is that you're unlikely to ever get a chance to attack my MWs with your warriors.

[Modo44]

That's precisely why this is best done with Jaguars, Solomwi.

[gunkulator]

OMG, Are we now making a case that the Jaguar Warrior is the most powerful UU?

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by gunkulator
OMG, Are we now making a case that the Jaguar Warrior is the most powerful UU?

Is this rhetorically for or against such a statement? Cause I would genereally rate the JW as a top-notch UU, at least pre-C3C.

[Dis]

when I first got the game I enjoyed the aztecs. But the jag warrior is no match at higher difficulty levels. combined with a very early golden age =

[punkbass2000]

Tell that to Boogaboo. He holds the HoF record for fastest victory at every level, I believe, and, though he tried a couple other civs (Egypt and Celts, I think) the Aztecs are his mainstay, even with 15-shield JWs.

EDIT: See this thread for more details on Boogaboo's exploits.

[JeffS]

Originally posted by Dominae
Try a "Warriors only" game and tell us what your practical results are. (Yes, I've tried it...all I know is that it's hard on Demigod level!)

Dominae:
I expect that I would lose badly on Demigod, as I am a Monarch level player (at best), and I suspect that the AI's production atvantages on the higher levels would make it difficult to produce overwhelmingly large stacks of Warriors. I am, however, anxious to try it on Monarch and see if what sounds good in theory actually works for me in practice. At the rate I play, I should reach a conclusion sometime in the next 6 months.

[JeffS]

Originally posted by Solomwi
That assumes, Jeff, that you're playing on a two tile board or against someone who doesn't know how to use fast-movers.

In that situation, I may take some potshots to winnow your stack, but my MWs will still have 1 movement point left (because it would be foolish to attack that stack on the last MP, for just the reasons you mention), so I'm simply going to pull it back out of your range. If you pursue, I'll lather, rinse and repeat until I can get more help or attrit your stack to the point that a full scale charge is possible or you give up the pursuit.

The short of it is that you're unlikely to ever get a chance to attack my MWs with your warriors.

Solomwi:
You make a good point, one that I hadn't considered since I've only played single player (due to time constraints, an irregular schedule, and a desire to avoid humuliating defeat). The AI does qualify as someone who doesn't know how to use fast-movers, since they often attack at the end of their move and thereby leave themselves open to a counterattack. Even against a human however the large stacks of Warriors should be cost effective when defending on roaded terrain 2 or more tiles deep in your own territory where the fast-movers speed atvantage is negated. In some other circumstances the Warriors can probably also use terrain to slow down the fast-movers and gain the upper hand. I think though that you are correct that my strategy will really only be effective against the AI, and probably not on the higher levels.

Jeff Sutro

[Solomwi]

You're right that in your own territory, it will be cost effective. For the purposes of the comparison, I was assuming neutral territory, where roads will just enhance the MW's advantage. On the terrain issue, again assuming neutral territory with no roads (not really uncommon in the era we're discussing), I would just forego the potshots and still keep just outside your range even on the roughest territory. You're absolutely right that the AI does a poor job of using fast units, btw. The only point I wanted to make was that it's a very limited strategy in its effective situations, not that it should be abandoned altogether.

For the record, I'm also a SP player. Most UU's are ill-utilized by the AI, though, so the only fair comparison is how a human would use them.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
Tell that to Boogaboo. He holds the HoF record for fastest victory at every level, I believe, and, though he tried a couple other civs (Egypt and Celts, I think) the Aztecs are his mainstay, even with 15-shield JWs.

The HoF is more about what's "possible" than what's "good strategy in general". To tell casual players that they should emulate what the HoFers is bound to cause some confusion, at the very least.

Your average player will not reload until he/she gets the perfect Tiny map for a fastest Conquest victory condition. Nor will he/she exploit the AI's determinism with respect to troop movements.

If the Aztecs really were that powerful in general circumstances, I think we would know about it by now.

[Dis]

and he appeared to be winning by conquest. correct me if I'm wrong. As builders, the aztecs aren't your civ.