Jaguar Warrior: worthless?

[PGM]

Re: Re: Jaguar Warriors? Are We Playing Age of Empires II Now ?

Originally posted by Melios
There's a reason both Civ3 and AOE2: TC have Jaguar Warriors as a unique unit for Aztecs: The Jaguar Warrior is basically the elite Aztec warrior. How can they be ripping AOK off if both are basing it on historical data?

Well put, totally agree.

BeBro:

[mactbone]

Re: Re: Jaguar Warriors? Are We Playing Age of Empires II Now ?

Originally posted by Melios


There's a reason both Civ3 and AOE2: TC have Jaguar Warriors as a unique unit for Aztecs: The Jaguar Warrior is basically the elite Aztec warrior. How can they be ripping AOK off if both are basing it on historical data?

You beat me to it. I was also going to say that AOK ripped off Knights, I mean they were in Civ, etc., etc. weren't they?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by BeBro
Yes. At the first sign of attack, he can run away very fast

We are talking Aztec UU not Italian?

[Phutnote]

I'm not sure how useful this retreat from combat thing is. If I remember correctly, units that are damaged have their movement rate reduced. So if a unit is losing in combat and retreats, at what point does it call off the attack? If it's weakened enough to have its movement rate reduced, it's a bit of a sitting duck then, isn't it?

And if it stops attacking before it's movement rate is reduced, it doesn't give it much of an attack before giving up, does it?

As for Firaxis ripping off AoE with the Jaguar unit, I think that's absolute nonsense. You might as well claim they ripped of AoK because there are knights in the game.

On the other hand, he does have a point. There are things they have taken from RTS: resources for units (like wood and gold for archers in AoE, now Civ requires iron, say, to build legions).

I don't think Firaxis would have introduced the concept of resources being required for units, considering Sid's Keep It Simple, Stupid, mantra unless it had already become a familiar concept for gamers.

Scouts have strength of 0.1(? or is it 0?).2, so they cannot attack at all. I'm not sure if they can be captured. Like the warrior, scouts are a default technology unit that everyone gets. Expansionists get one already built.

Fast warriors for the aztecs would mean fast expansion at the start, as they are cheap and cost no resources. I think the Egyptians have to wait till they discover the wheel before they get their special unit. and they have to find horses. If they start in North America (random start locations on an Earth map), man are they screwed!

Phutnote

[Saint Marcus]

It's quite logical. A 1-1-2 warrior would make the 1-1-2 chariot obsolete. And rightely so. The Aztecs never invented the wheel, never had horses, therefor never had chariots. It would be rediculous to see the Aztecs use chariots, and this way they won't manufacture any. Quite an elegant solution by Firaxis IMHO.

[monolith94]

Wow! I didn't really think of the effect of essentially making the chariot obsolete. But let's think about this, the chariot may be one of the first attack units a civ has, and maybe this means that having one point for attack will be more then it was in previous games?

I think that overall there have been entirely too many ancient units. I mean, it's tough for them to do considering they have so many ancient civs but what it seems like will happen is a whole bunch of civs reaching golden age in the first 4,000 b.c. to 1 a.d. and after that maybe like 5!

/me worried

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Phutnote
On the other hand, he does have a point. There are things they have taken from RTS: resources for units (like wood and gold for archers in AoE, now Civ requires iron, say, to build legions).

Entirely untrue. In a very early turn-based game, Lords of Conquest, there were from two to five different resources depending on the difficulty level. Even in Civ there were resources. You can consider "shields" as a kind of abstracted resource.

[Saint Marcus]

Wow! I didn't really think of the effect of essentially making the chariot obsolete.

The point is, this was one on purpose. The Aztecs aren't supposed to build chariots, so that's why the Jaguar Warrior is 1-1-2

[The diplomat]

Over at CivFanatics, Dan Magaha FIRAXIS had this to say about the Aztce UU:

Not true. I've seen Jaguar Warriors take out a fortified spearman in a city. Granted, it took more than one JW to do it...but the movement bonus keeps them from dying as quickly, which means faster combat promotion...

and also,

Actually, the Jaguar is a really useful unit, and the Aztecs are almost always still around in games I play, well into the middle ages. Movement actually impacts combat in Civ III, so the movement bonus is more useful than you would think. And, while you're busy scrounging food to generate another pop point so you can build a worker, the Aztecs are Golden Aging and cranking out more and more Jags. They can actually be a very formidable civ, but then again, no one ever gives the Aztecs any respect anyway...

So, it is seems like we are severely underestimating the Aztecs. They are not as week as we assume. Take special note to the part from Dan about how the Aztecs can GA and build tons of Jags while another civ is struggling to build setlers. It seems like Dan is hinting at one possible Aztec strategy: use your GA to build tons of Jag warriors to swarm the enemy.

A single Jag warrior might appear weak, but a swarm of them can probably do some serious damage in the early part of the game against the chariots, archers and spearman of the other civs. Think rover rush in SMAC. OUCH!

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


We are talking Aztec UU not Italian?

Come on, we aren't the most rewarded soldiers in the world, but if you double check a serius history book you will know better who to insult, do you?

But you probably approve the spirit of Japan Kamikaze, right?

Next time what, a big applause to suicide terrorist pilots on last flights attack to Washington and New York?

We builded a social approval for heroism over realism: when Italian (and French, and many others troops in history) had almost decent equipment and good officers they fighted at good level. Top team often prove well during NATO exercise, not to mention recent peacekeeping operations.

Back to Aztec Jaguar, they really seems weak: a decent scout, but nothing more.
They seems really bad on Earth map, IMHO. They must travel so long before to meet Americans, they will probably find them well fortified or with stronger defender...

[Dauphin]

Sorry, it was only a lighthearted comment.

It just stemmed from an old WW2 joke that my grandfater told me. It was believed that because the Italians were retreating so quickly that their tanks must have had 4 gears, 1 forward and 3 for reverse.

No offence inteded.

[mactbone]

Everyone keeps saying that the JW has such weak attack and everything, but look at *all* of the ancient units. Notice a trend?

1.1.1 Warrior
1.1.2 JW
1.2.1 Phalanx
1.3.1 Hoplite
etc., etc.

They *all* look worthless if you try to think of them in terms of Civ2 but when taken in context they aren't as sucky as you think.

Why would a Panzer roll over opponents but a JW not? Wouldn't it make less of a difference with modern units if a/d/m is only changed by one? Take these hypothetical stats -

6.5.2 Tank
7.5.2 Panzer
8.5.2 Modern Tank

Mathematically the difference between 1 and 2 is a LOT more than the difference between 6 and 7.

[PGM]

Originally posted by The diplomat
A single Jag warrior might appear weak, but a swarm of them can probably do some serious damage in the early part of the game against the chariots, archers and spearman of the other civs. OUCH!

Exactly, like I've been saying before. JW1 attacks - JW1 retreats; JW2 attacks - JW2 retreats; JW3 attacks - JW3 retreats;...; JW10 attacks - JW10 retreats... (while scouting, getting huts, capturing workers/settlers that the enemies produced with much effort)...
"Jaguar Warrior: worthless"? I think NOT.

[Stromprophet]

Re: Jaguar Warrior: worthless?

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
1-1-2? That's hard to use it to kill somebody from another civ to start the Golden Age...

Veterans. Besides, only one has to win. Say you have two warriors and run into a single warrior. It will be easy enough.

Besides, some civs like America would have to find another way to start their golden age.

And besides, this unit will be available right away, and cheap. Single row again I suppose. So you will definitely have an exploration advantage.

Early elimination advantage of other civs.

[Urban Ranger]

I don't think a unit can retreat if it's the attacker, only if it's the defender. At least that's the way it is in SMAC, IIRC.