AU mod: The Jaguar Warrior

[Dominae]

I was just about to post how Jags are best used as terror units against Workers/Settlers and to pillage improvements (rather than as direct offense versus cities), but Aeson beat me to it.



Nathan, have you played a game as the Aztecs recently, or are your arguments purely theoretical? You speak of "tests" but I assume this just means calculations. The Aztecs force you to play a very different early-game, but this does not make them any less potent.

Oh, and by the way, I never said the Aztecs have three traits (I said they "more or less" copy Expansionist). You seem to be arguing that they should. The fact that we're even speaking in those terms demonstrates the Jag is no slouch.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Earlier in this thread, I posted the results of tests attacking huge numbers of fortified spearmen with archers, horsemen, and Jags. At cost 12, sufficient numbers of Jags could roughly match the cost-effectiveness of archers or horsemen. At cost 15, winning the same battles cost dramatically more shields' worth of Jags.

I hadn't really thought about the unconventional warfare angle, though. Have you guys tried it with the higher cost of Jags in C3C to make sure it's still as powerful as you say it is? With only two thirds as many Jags for the same investment of shields, trying to "essentially win your landmass and even future wonder races within the first 20 turns" would certainly be a good bit harder in C3C than it was in earlier versions.

Regarding the comparison of the Aztecs with Expansionist civs, Dominae, you were the one arguing that the Jag's speed almost makes it as if the Aztecs had the expansionist trait in addition to their two official traits. All I've been trying to do is show that at cost 15, the Jag's advantage in that regard is nowhere near as great as you seemed to be making it out to be.

Nathan

[Risa]

OK, if 15-shield cost is right for non-combat usage but a bit too expansive for direct combat, should we tweak its combat value, instead of changing its cost?

It's time to bring back the third proposal of alexman - giving them +1 bonus hp.

[ducki]

Originally posted by nbarclay
On the other hand, if the first two Jaguar Warriors immediately go off as long-range scouts, that leaves the player with half the cost of a granary spent and still no units dedicated to uncovering good city sites near home.

If you don't have at least _some_ idea of surrounding terrain in 2 directions from those 2 long-range jags(and the ability to infer quite a bit more) from the 2 swaths they uncovered on their way out, then I can see why you'd worry about that. Additionally, if you are using relatively loose spacing, you need to know more about your immediate vicinity, but that's an individual strategy decision, not a unit balance issue. In my opinion. My first settler is usually either 2 or 3 tiles from the capitol - I don't need too much information to place that one. For 4 or 5 tiles away, then you do need more info, but again, we're talking about player choice, personal priorities, and individual strategy.
The fact that one strategy is best served by Option A and another strategy is best served by Option B in your analysis points to balance, interesting choice, and deeper strategy.

If you want the Jag to be the best choice every time, we'll take away those options. For scouting purposes.

For the same investment that gives the Aztecs two high-speed scouting units, a typical expansionist would have four (including the free original), sufficient for long-range scouting in two different directions and very heavy coverage scouting. Further, with one scout free and the rest cheaper, the expansionist civ would get its scouts out a good bit more quickly.

Well, that sounds good to me. The expansionist trait has an advantage. I see no problem with that.

The Incas would have only three, but two of those would be Chasquis with a speed advantage on the high ground that scouting units enjoy looking down from so much.

And the Inca UU has an advantage. Again, this looks like a good thing.

At cost 10, the Jaguar Warrior's superior scouting ability compared with regular warriors is very useful on all map types. But at cost 15, I don't see the scouting advantages as being anywhere near great enough to make up for the UU's being essentially useless militarily.

Aeson has already pointed out their military uses, so I'll skip over that.

What I think has been omitted from the discussion and is only usually glossed over in other discussions of the Aztecs and Jags is this:
Flexibility. The Jag is a flexible unit. Retreatable. Militaristic. Promotion-prone. Fast explorer. Able to serve as MP.

It's a jack-of-all-trades type unit. Flexibility costs, but is often more valuable than sheer brute strength or low cost.

I do appreciate your point of view, I simply disagree with it, and I think a little of your argument is based on personal playstyle which makes the current Jag not worth it - for you - but worth it for others.

Again, that sounds like interesting choices and deeper strategy to me, but maybe my definition is faulty.

[Aeson]

The cost isn't that big a factor. In most situations you just need 1 Jag per AI on your landmass to set the AI's back reasonably. Grab a Worker or two and/or pillage some important tiles, and if the Jag is still alive try to run the AI units around in circles (they always go for military units in their cultural boundaries) until they are ready to make peace. Just don't fight too many concurrent wars or peace comes at a steaper price. Also you probably don't want everyone on your continent lagging either.

That would likely be a grand total of 10-20 extra shields investment (compared to a 10 shield Jag) on standard settings to accomplish your objective. If you are going full bore dumping resources into units to pillage, you lose too much relative to any AI you leave untouched, and the higher cost of Jags doesn't lend itself well to the actual military conquest as noted.

[Aeson]

I think in general (definitely not in all applications though) the + M for UU's tends to be a bigger factor than + A or D. Gallic Swords, Ansars, Riders, Jags, and Impi were some of the more powerful UU's in PtW. Sipahi and Immortals would round out the group of UU's most people would add to their favorite trait combinations to make the ultimate civ.

In C3Cthose units are either paired with an increased cost and the Agricultural trait, or left where they were without the Agricultural trait. Seems pretty balanced to me. The only deviation is the Sipahi, which because of when they show up tend to be the most powerful UU even though their bonus is balanced percentage wise. Not giving them Ag in support, and keeping an incresed cost, is probably a good thing.

[nbarclay]

Of the UUs you listed, only the Gallic Swordsman and the Jag are paired with the agricultural trait. Ironically, in the case of the Gallic Swordsman, the cost actually went down in C3C compared with what it was in PtW. But in that case, the power of the agricultural trait is offset, and likely a bit more than offset, by the loss of synergy between the Gallic Swordsman and the Militaristic trait. (Then again, what leaders the Celts do get with promotions harder to come by can turn into some pretty awesome armies under the new rules.)

How dangerous is sending a Jag in to grab a worker or two and do some pillaging? If an enemy force does reach a player's territory and the player hasn't made a fairly considerable investment (at the expense of REXing) to defend against the possibility, the resulting damage could be rather considerable. That seems like it would be especially true with the free units AIs start with on Emperor and above.

[ducki]

I still think you're talking individual strategy and not unit balance, nbarclay. And I still think that means it's a balanced UU that leaves the player with interesting choices.

That's just my view, though.

[Aeson]

Average AI distance is what... 10+ tiles? That's for the closest neighbors. That gives you enough turns so that when they show up on your doorstep you'll already be able to make peace, if by chance you can't lure them into trying to kill your Jag dancing around their territory. On Deity or Demi-god you might end up paying a little bit (less than you'd pay to buy the Workers) for peace. On lower levels you probably can squeeze a few gold or even a tech from them. On Sid you shouldn't be attacking the AI that early.

The AI in C3C seems more intent on protecting Workers, but you still find them alone. When you find unprotected Workers with a Jag, you should be able to nab them and get away (with the Jag). Then depending on the road network in place, you may be able to freely pillage certain tiles, pillage and hope to retreat, or just escort the Workers back to your homeland.

If you draw all their non-garrison units out on one side, then skip to the other, you can get free pillaging in even right next to their city sometimes. If they happen to produce a unit that turn you'll get hit, but they won't ever empty their city to hit you.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by ducki
I still think you're talking individual strategy and not unit balance, nbarclay. And I still think that means it's a balanced UU that leaves the player with interesting choices.

On the contrary, the reason I'm talking specific strategies is that the unit is not even anywhere close to balanced for conventional fighting, but Aeson and Dominae are arguing that its value in certain unconventional warfare strategies makes up for that so the unit is still a good one. For me to accept that, I need to be convineced that in the process of crippling AIs, the player will not also seriously undercut his own expansion building up the military needed to make the strategy work safely. I probably need to do some experimenting for myself to verify the general viability of the strategy before I'll be fully convinced, but Aeson makes a pretty good case.

[nbarclay]

I tried a test game (standard rules; I didn't think to fire up the AU Mod), and I think using Jags to steal workers and pillage is a bit too esoteric a strategy to make it the centerpiece of the decision of how much Jaguar Warriors shoud cost in the AU Mod. I no longer have any doubt that even at cost 15, the Jag can be a good UU for players who have the skills and experience to judge when and how to use it properly. But if we decide the unit's cost on that basis, we leave less knowledgeable and experienced players with a UU that's only military value requires that they gamble on being able to make a rather esoteric strategy work correctly (assuming they either hear about or figure out the strategy at all). Since the AU Mod is supposed to be usable by players with a wide range of skill and experience, I don't view that as a particularly good thing.

To tell more about how my game went, I started off building two Jags in my capital, and then a settler and a granary. (The city was on a river but had no food bonuses to make it a serious settler pump.) The first Jag found America quickly, and the raid went almost like clockwork. I grabbed two warriors with that Jag, pillaged a tile with my second Jag a little later, and was able to make peace on only slightly unfavorable terms (on Emperor level). Since I was able to combine some tech deals with the peace negotiations, the overall negotiations went well. The only big problem was that I mishandled one of the Jags and ended up getting him killed (which, at least, saved me from having my GA triggered while I still just had one city as would have happened if he won).

Finding the Iroquois took longer because I guessed wrong about where other civs were likely to be. When I struck, I was able to snag a worker and pillage a couple tiles, but by the time the Iroquois were willing to talk peace, they had a warrior approaching an undefended city where I was trying to build a granary. (My second city had wheat on a river and thus has serious pump potential.) Six gold per turn plus Masonry (which the Iroquois had the following turn from either their own research or trading with someone else) wasn't enough to buy peace, so I had to switch from my granary to an archer at a cost of a few wasted shields. Fortunately, I was able to kill the warrior and then win on defense when a second warrior following that one (which I hadn't known about when I built the archer) attacked. After that, the Iroquois were willing to make peace on even terms and would have been willing to give me a little bit of a discount if I'd wanted to buy something from them as part of the deal. (They had no cash for me to ask for, unfortunately.)

Anyhow, the overall strategy seems to have worked out fairly well. I got an advantage over the Iroquois and especially over the Americans, but I think I'm in a little bit weaker position relative to civs farther away than I would have been if I'd focused more on REXing. But if my luck had been a bit different, I could have found myself in pretty serious trouble.

So while unconventional warfare with Jags can certainly be effective, it's not something a newcomer to that kind of strategy can make work without either diverting attention from REXing for defense or taking some fairly serious chances. The new balance in C3C is probably pretty good for people who play the Aztecs a lot and are good at getting the most out of them, but I think it's pretty bad for players who rarely play the Aztecs and haven't studied the literature on the best ways of using Jags effectively.

Oh, one more disclaimer: both America and the Iroquois started a bit on the close side, seven tiles for America and nine for the Iroquois. That made both the risks and the potential rewards of my early raids significantly greater than they would have been with more typical distances between civs. Since my raids worked out, I should be in good shape to claim a little more land REXing than I could if I hadn't hurt my neighbors and, probably a little later, for military operations.



Nathan

[alexman]

Well, I think that since there is a way to take advantage of the stock rules Jaguar Warrior, a change is unnecessary.

I accept the premise that the AU mod should not make changes that will unbalance the game for newer players. But I don’t agree that the AU mod should make a change to balance the game for newer players if there is already a way to balance the game by improving your skill.

For example, many new players don’t realize the power of an early Granary. Should the AU mod lower the price of the Granary because of that? I don’t think that would be wise.

[nbarclay]

Apples and oranges. How often does a lack of knowledge prevent a granary from being worth the shields it cost when one is built? Granted, players whose happiness management skills are lacking might not get nearly as good a return on their investment. But in those cases, the players have a lot bigger problems than just the return on their investment in granaries.

In contrast, a person who builds Jags at cost 15 for use in normal combat operations is throwing away shields. The problem is not just that people do not know that the unit is valuable, but rather that the unit is in fact not valuable in the absence of knowledge of specialized tactics. Further, the tactics involved are highly civ-specific: only the Aztecs, Incas, and Zulus have two-move early units that don't require resources. Unless players specialize in using and/or studying those UUs, their opportunity to work on special skills for using those units is extremely limited. Expecting players to have or develop specialized knowledge that is highly civ-specific is very different from expecting them to have or develop basic skills that are useful with every civ.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
The problem is not just that people do not know that the unit is valuable, but rather that the unit is in fact not valuable in the absence of knowledge of specialized tactics. Further, the tactics involved are highly civ-specific: only the Aztecs, Incas, and Zulus have two-move early units that don't require resources. Unless players specialize in using and/or studying those UUs, their opportunity to work on special skills for using those units is extremely limited. Expecting players to have or develop specialized knowledge that is highly civ-specific is very different from expecting them to have or develop basic skills that are useful with every civ.

I fail to see how any of this is a bad thing.

You're new, you play with Jags a bit because they're cool, you fail miserably because they're not made for pure offense. Then you come to Apolyton and realise that they're best used as terror-units, a strat you had never considered. Eureka! Now you can go back and enjoy those Aztecs again.

The fact that the best use of a unit is not entirely obvious is a good thing (of course, "obvious" is a relative term: the stats guy will figure our right away that the Jag is "obviously" bad at combat, while to the RTS guy it was "obviously" designed for rushes).

Even better is civ-specific knowledge; ideally your civ choice should shape your strategy, not complement it. One of the big problems with Civ3 IMO is that most of the civs play out the same way, in spite of different traits and UUs. The very fact that Granary-REX is used 90% of the time by experienced players (who have a tough time deviating from this plan when the situation calls for it) means there's not much early-game strategy in Civ3. It's a direct consequence of this that all the early-game UUs are considered inferior (apart from the Enkidu, who just lets you REX more comfortably).


Dominae

[ducki]

To add to Dominae's list of plusses, I'd like to say there is a lot of stuff in C3 that is non-obvious and playing in the sandbox is most of the fun for folks like my wife who might occasionally move up in difficulty to Warlord.
She doesn't really care if she knows how to do something intuitively, the play is the thing.

If we're looking for deeper strategy and more meaningful player choices, obviousness is our enemy and - in my opinion - you've made a good case for keeping the Jaggie as is. It provides deeper strategic decisions, causes the player to think about opportunity cost, relative power, etc.

This is precisely one of our goals and Firaxis did the job for us. If it provides deeper strategy and more interesting decisions for the player and doesn't hurt the AI, it's in good shape, I feel.