First Aztec Post.

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS
A-ha! So if, what if, for example, units with a higher movement rating could retreat from combat against units with a lower movement rating if they are losing? That might be an interesting twist...


Dan

Hmm, is this info, or is it just Dan joking?
I hope it is a fun way for Dan to "tell" us about the combat without breaking the Firaxis rules.

[Tventano]

Everybody who played SMAC, knows Dan is right. A little more movement is very powerful.

[Steve Clark]

Just use the example of horse (or any 2 movement unit) attacking a city one tile away on a river. It uses 1/3 to move next to the city, it attacks and defeats a standard warrior and still have 2/3 movements left (if it didn't hurt too badly) to back away from the city (or to conquer it).

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Why in the world do you say that the Aztecs should have their golden age around 1400ad?!?!?! I (or the AI) can build 3 JW in about 12 turns after the first city is founded, can they not?

This is precisely what I mean. That´s is why they are ahistorical. Romans don´t get their Legion in the stone age. Neither do they get it in 1950 AD; they get it (approximately) when they historically should. Not so for Actecs. Actecs should be strong sometime between 1000 and 1500 AD, not in the Stone Age. What is so hard to understand about that?

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Just use the example of horse (or any 2 movement unit) attacking a city one tile away on a river. It uses 1/3 to move next to the city, it attacks and defeats a standard warrior and still have 2/3 movements left (if it didn't hurt too badly) to back away from the city (or to conquer it).

You could, of course, also build a road to your enemy city, then use the same advantage.
And they might also have a bonus in retreating.
I don´t see why anybody should prefer Elephants.

[smellymummy]

this might be very unique to only my own games...


but often when I play I see enemy cities (w/o any units in it), and I want to conquer it desperatly.... yet its still 3000 BC and all I have is this slow slow slow warrior! By the time I get there, the AI rush buys a phalanx or something.

What about barbarian leaders. You can always rush build a chariot or horseman (both expensive early on... $$ better spent on granary for example) to catch the leader I guess... With the jaguar, it wouldn't be much of a problem.

I don't know, but having a warrior with movement of 2 right off the bat == more huts, more of the map explored (for city planning) and more chances at conquering nearby cities.

Some might think the aztec UU makes that civ weak, I think the Aztec's UU gives that civ a clear advantage over everyone else at the begining of the game.

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
they get it (approximately) when they historically should.

Absolutely not! The goal of the game is to win (and have fun doing it). Again, why would you want to limit the game to its approximate history?!? Don't you think that it would be way too predictable (and therefore, un-replayable) in that sense? I have built just one city and launched a spaceship about 1800ad from that one city. According to your example, I needed to wait until the 20th century to at least research the appropriate techs since anything else would be ahistorical. Why am I sitting here arguing with this person? Get a clue, Civ is and should be ahistorical, that's the whole point. You imply that the Aztecs shouldn't be in the world until 1300ad, so no one can even choose them to play or as an AI civ. I'll tell you what. We'll do a comparison game. You play the Aztecs but you must wait until 1300ad to build a JW. In the meantime, I'll play the Aztecs and I'll have tanks rolling through the world by 1300ad.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
I'll tell you what. We'll do a comparison game. You play the Aztecs but you must wait until 1300ad to build a JW. In the meantime, I'll play the Aztecs and I'll have tanks rolling through the world by 1300ad.

I give up on this thread. You obviously lack the basic capacity to understand what I say.

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by Tventano
Everybody who played SMAC, knows Dan is right. A little more movement is very powerful.

Yes, but is the thing about retreating from combat true?
IIRC there were rumors on it a while back, but we haven't heard anything official (until now) that attacking units should stop fighting if they were going to lose and retreat. If that only applies when one unit is faster then the other I understand it.
I hope that was what Dan was speaking about.

[jsw363]

I hope the extra movement point does make a big difference, but honestly I doubt even with increased maneuverability that it will be able to conted with other UUs. Why couldn't they give it an extra attack as well? They WERE fierce warriors...

[ixnay]

You could, of course, also build a road to your enemy city, then use the same advantage.

Check out this thread.

Apparently you cannot gain any benefits from roads in another civs territory, unless you have a Right of Passage with them.

[Dimorier Maximus]

I don't know about you, but when I get my unique unit, I want to roll over my enemies. I don't want to run away if I'm losing the battle. I want to win the battle. So you won't see me playing as the Aztecs very often. Their only advantage, in my opinion, is that they will probably be the first civ to get their Golden Age. That is a good advantage, but I'd rather wait for a Panzer. Roll over 'em!

[ixnay]

Gramphos -

The way it worked in SMAC was:

If a unit with high movement was attacked by a unit with lower movement and started losing, it could retreat one tile and suffer only partial damage instead of being destroyed. Dan is referring to what sounds exactly like this.

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by Kyller
Gramphos -

The way it worked in SMAC was:

If a unit with high movement was attacked by a unit with lower movement and started losing, it could retreat one tile and suffer only partial damage instead of being destroyed. Dan is referring to what sounds exactly like this.

Might be, I've not played SMAC (more then a short time testing it by a friend. I didn't like all the dark graphics, so I stayed to Civ.)

[Steve Clark]

Just because one gets a unique unit, that does NOT mean that it is a superior unit. If you are really behind, a JW or a Panzer really won't mean squat.

Did anyone else interpret Tribune's posts as wanting units to be more in their historical context? I believe the whole point about Civ is to be as ahistorical as possible.