Ancient Times Conquest... 3 times?!

[Windwalker]

Hey all, I was looking to try an ancient victory strategy, so I went for the mad Aztec jag warrior dash on Tiny with 2 enemy civs. Well I noticed that when I wiped out a civ (America), the capitol Washington respawned about 6 squares away! I wiped out Washington again, and it respawned again! It was only when I wiped them out the third time that I got the "Congrats we've committed racial genocide!" screen.

Is that just to make ancient conquest harder? Is there anyway to disable this feature? Having to wipe out America three times basically took the wind out of my early conquest sails. I know this is not the most fun way to enjoy the game but it would be cool to be a viable option!

By the way, the Jaq Warrior rush is insane! If your city is at pop 5+ with a couple of plains or producing grasslands, you can pop those guys one per turn, they're fast, and they rarely die... I had two cities just producing these, and I had 20 jags in the first wave, overcoming spearmen left and right...

- Windwalker

[Skanky Burns]

Do not underestimate the power of the JWs!!

Welcome to the dark side, my friend
Mwuhahahahaha

[notyoueither]

Jags, Smags.

Haven't ever heard of this happening to a Roman.

The Gods are on the side of the Big Legions!

Jag, bounce. Jag, bounce. Jag, bounce. Brutus, KILL. Jag, die.

Salve

PS. On topic. The game respawns civs wiped out early if there are unexplored/unsettled lands of large enough expanse. It would not happen later in the game.

[DrFell]

They don't always respawn though, for some reason. One game I started on a fairly large island with 2 other civs, America and Iroquois, I jag rushed them very early. When I looked at the replay later I noticed there was loads of space for them to restart, but for some reason they didn't.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Jags, Smags.

Jag, bounce. Jag, bounce. Jag, bounce. Brutus, KILL. Jag, die.

Legions require Iron. Iron working takes quite a few turns to research. Jags are only 10 shield each, and are available from the start. Give me jags any day

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DrSpike


Legions require Iron. Iron working takes quite a few turns to research. Jags are only 10 shield each, and are available from the start. Give me jags any day

You have a point about needing Iron.

It is, IMO, a super unit. Has to have weaknesses.

But, give them Iron, and give you death.

Salve

[DrSpike]

The Romans are a hard nut to crack after Iron Working until chivalry, but even so enough horesemen will do the job. I prefer civs with a good two-move UU, like the Aztecs, Iroquois or even the Egyptians (plus they're all religious).

[Skanky Burns]

No way could the Romans defeat Aztecs, assuming both players are equally skilled.

First, Roman legions require iron to build (and therefore need to guard their iron supply AND road network)
They also cannot retreat, so for them its do or die.
Roman legions are fairly expensive compared to JWs, taking IIRC 30 shields to build.

OTOH Aztec JWs do not require any resources, so an Aztec player can get away with NO road network at all.
Also JWs retreat, so even if they are being crushed, after the battle is resolved they will still be alive.
Another advantage is reinforcements. Even the most corrupt city will produce a new warrior every 10 turns, some cities producing one every turn.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
No way could the Romans defeat Aztecs, assuming both players are equally skilled.

As always, it depends heavily on the position. If the two civs are close then the Aztecs have the advantage as they can hope to find and defeat the Romans early. On a larger, more sparcely populated world, the Romans will have the advantage hoping to find horses or iron and so build Horsemen or Legions before encountering the invading Jaguar Warriors.

Impis are cool for early rush, too. In this example the Japanese gave me their last two towns in exchange for a peace treaty. Now their leader lives out his days imprisoned in an Arctic wasteland.

[notyoueither]

Dr. Spike. Yes about the Horsemen, but in all likelihood the Roman will have some too. Hunt and wound with Legions. Kill with Horseman. BTW, do you want to attack his Horsemen when they are stacked with 2 Legions? Fortified? In rough terrain? Next to your Capital?

I concede that Legions are slow and cumbersome to campaign with. However, when they decide to hold some ground, or take some city, they will be near immovable/irresistible. Thanks to the 3.3 rating.

Skany. You're right, IF the Aztec starts very close to the Roman. Thankfully, the AI is not programmed to act on these considerations.

In MP, I believe picking the Romans (or Persians) would be akin to taking cyanide. If Jags or Impis are close that is. But, wouldn't that be the same for anyone next to the Aztecs? The fact is that the Roman would have a better chance than any other of upsetting the Aztec agenda. If not, then who? Opps, forgot the Iroquois. I might pay to see that scrap, except the MW is too brittle.

OTOH. Picking the Aztecs just might result in an Alliance of all against you early.

Oh, and BTW. Patches are wonderful things. No more auto excape for you, Mr Jag. HaHaHaHaHaHa. Come here you little p*cker! Splat, 10 shields. Splat, 10 shields. Splat, 10 shields. Splat, 10 shields...

Salve

[Skanky Burns]

The Zulu's Impi is the Aztecs worst nightmare. Imagine trying to attack a spearman with a stack of warriors.

Charrrrrrrrrrgggggge!!!!! *splat*
Charrrrrrrrrrgggggge!!!!! *hits enemy* *splat*
Charrrrrrrrrrgggggge!!!!! *splat*
Charrrrrrrrrrgggggge!!!!! *hits enemy* *splat*
Charrrrrrrrrrgggggge!!!!! *splat*
Charrrrrrrrrrgggggge!!!!! Victory!!!! (although Im almost dead)

See the mighty hordes of JW crumble as they are unable to retreat. In my first test game with the Aztecs I had the misfortune to start near the Zulus. Although I eventually won, I lost many many JWs per Impi they had, and it was only through constant unrelenting pressure that they eventually were crushed. After that it was the Chinese, who despite having swordsmen and being left alone longer to develop, were easily swept away.

A unit with 2 moves that also defends at twice my attack value?? Evil.

With the new patch, 1 move units will definately become more powerful compared to 2 move units, and the mighty Legion will definately be a thing to be worried about. Even in MP.

[DrSpike]

The chance of disengagement is still unknown. Even at 50% for regular horesmen/kinghts/cav they are still going to be formidable. That is not to say I don't like legions, they are great, and often I would wait till chivalry before attacking the Romans. If they don't have iron though..........................



Start fiddling Nero

[Dom Pedro II]

Anyway, as far as the respawning is concerned, could it just be that they're settling new cities with settlers they might have been using for expansion? Or were there no settlers in those squares?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Anyway, as far as the respawning is concerned, could it just be that they're settling new cities with settlers they might have been using for expansion? Or were there no settlers in those squares?

No. They'll sometimes respawn a continent and a half away, and through 3 other civs.

It's that same old thing we've seen in earlier games.

The AI civ respawns if taken out early. SMAC actually told you this was happening. Not Civ3.

Salve