Triple Threat - The Joys of Being a Bloodthirsty Barbarian

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Civ 3 has a lot a bad starts. I dont see how those bad lands are conducive to learn irrigation, mines, or roads. I always restart, or then head to my friends house to use his PC editor.

[Alkis]

What are we talking about here?

Are we talking about Monarch level? Where almost anything you play leads to victory? Or are we talking about Deity?

If it's a Monarch level game it's easier and better to build your civilization up and attack later (if you like, not absolutely necessary). Just have some Jags in order to trigger your golden age the time you want to.

If it's on Deity this strategy will probably fail. And of course, in order to have a chance to even try you have to choose specific settings. If you play random settings, you may start on an island. An island on Deity is an almost certain defeat.

The strange thing is that the same scenario wins on Emperor. I won almost every game I played alone on an island on Emperor.

So what are we talking about here? That it's fun to attack with Jaguar warriors on Monarch or Regent level? What I can answer to that, is that it isn't necessary.

Of course, if you like that style of play, go for it. But I wasn't convinced that there is any virtue in being a bloodthirsty barb. I used the Aztecs (On Emperor) but I play them differently. I take advantage of their cheap barracks, temples and harbors. The juguar warriors, I only use for exploration and to get a GA at the "right" time. I think Aztecs are good and their special unit is ok because it's cheap and early and can be used for exploration but that's all about it. As soon as I get my golden age I start thinking about disbanding my few juaguar warriors. The only reason I may keep them is to appear stronger in the military screen. What? Keep them till the Industrial age to pillage with them? Oh, come on, you can do that better with cavalry.

-

[Gen.Dragolen]

Alkis,

Vel's strategy to "get there firstest with the mostest" is more than valid, you just need to make sure you are going to attack around 2000 BC, before the other CC's have a chance to get established with more than two cities.

Using the jags in hunting packs has merit in that you maintain security and a presence in an area. Prevents those annoying CC cities at your next buildng site. Knocking off a settler is a major blow to the CC and a nice boost to your workforce. It also forces the CC to produce troops instead of building more settlers.

I'm not sure if the CC's can see what kind of units you have as opposed to all the details. It would be nice if the CC's were as much in the dark when they assault a town as we are. But since they can see what we are using, they will try to attack with stronger units like archers. The jags can be used as an active defense, but again, you better have 10 to 1 numbers, because they only knowhow to do one thing: a human tide in a full frontal assault. No subtlety, just overrun them with numbers.

The level you are playing at will only affect how many units you have made when you start your assault.

[vulture]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
I used to always play Americans, but then yesterday I tried out the Greeks for the first time. All what I can say is "D@mn" Two hoplites in your city will stop anything (even a Schwarm of Fa.. I mean Jag warrios . The only problem I see is slow road construction and hardly any exploration.

1 jag warrior = 10 Shields
Jag Warrior = 1.1.2
1 hoplite = 20 shields
Hoplite = 1.3.1

It will take more than 2 jag warriors to take out a hoplite in a town with barracks. Therefore, it seems that it will cost you more to take the town.

Using my recently finished combat calculator I looked at the odds of Jag warriors trying to take a hoplite-defended town. Using your example of two veteran hoplites (and assuming a size 1-6 town, no city walls and veteran Jag warriors) I find that 8 jags will give you a 50% chance of taking the town, and you only have 3 of them getting killed on average. 10 jags brings the odds up to 2/3, and 12 jags gives you a 78% chance of success (at the average cost of 3.6 Jag warriors). Considering the (AVERAGE) losses for both sides in the 12 Jag warrios scenario, the Aztecs take 36 shield to replace their little monsters, while the Greeks take 31 and have a 78% chance of losing a town (with barracks) into the bargain (78% chance of losing settler plus barracks is another 55 shields, not including anything else in the town and the hard-to-calculate damage you your development and the benefits to the Aztecs of a new city). Yes, Jag warriors have a large initial outlay to get the swarm up and running, but they will make up for it by not requiring many replacements once you have a big enough stack of them.

Or to look at it another way, the Greeks invest 110 shield in a settler, barracks and 2 hoplites. The Aztecs invest 120 in 12 Jaguar warriors. When the dust settles after the first round of combat, there is a 78% chance the Greeks are left with nothing for their investment, while the Aztecs still have 9 Jag warriors, and possibly a town and barracks to boot. That's good odds for the Aztecs.

[Alkis]

Ok I will explain it better (and more politely).

Civ3 has many difficulty levels, right? Something that is true on Monarch may be not true on Emperor. I took the time and loaded a save just before space victory just to see the replay. By 2000 BC the Iroguois had 5 cities, the English, the Chineese and the Persians had 4 cities, the other two had three cities but their next came just a little later. By 2000 BC there was only one Civ with two cities, me.

You see, on Emperor and Deity the computer not only needs less shields to complete a unit or a building, but it needs less food to increase a city in size. Since you compare an AI civ with yours on equal terms, then I have to assume that you are talking about Monarch level. That's my point.

I didn't mean to say that an early juguar rush is invalid on Monarch level, all I said is that it's one of many valid plans. In other words you don't have to play in this way in order to win. There are many other ways to play (and win).

Now, if we talk about Emperor or Deity the computer will build a hoplite in the same number of turns as you build a juguar warrior. Or even faster, because his cities will be bigger in size.

To conclude, on Monarch level, sure you can play like this, but there are many other plans, some of them more attractive. On Deity level well, go ahead and rush the AI with juguar warriors. You won't succeed.

-

[Arrian]

Yikes.

Did your calculation include the chances of a hoplite getting promoted due to killing a jag or two? If 3.6 jags, on average, are killed, at least one hoplite is gonna get promoted once.

-Arrian

[Velociryx]

That's the beauty of strategy games...always more than one way to skin a cat.

Is this the only way the Aztec can be played? Nope. But even on Deity, it can crush the AI (mostly on account of the fact that, even if the AI outpaces your production, you, as the human player, are vastly better in terms of force concentration).

Different strokes for different folks tho...if you're looking for a fast paced, get in there and rend and smash style game, the Aztec are well-suited to stand and deliver....

-=Vel=-

[Nakar Gabab]

Singleminded brute-force production never goes out of style. I think people are missing the point Vel is making... he wants to make Jags. A *lot* of Jags. Think of the biggest number of Jags you can imagine, and make it bigger. At some point that's gonna start hurting.

As to the rapid expansion of the AI on Deity... well, the computer gets to cheat. When MP rolls around, we (human beings, which I presume we all are ) won't have that luxury.

Will a human being lose to a Jag rush as a Monarch AI might? Probably not. But I bet it'll be more effective than the numbers might have us believe. Especially if those jags lay waste to your improvements first - and against a human, THEY WILL.

As to "every path taken on and below will lead to victory," well, no. You're good enough that any path may lead to victory, but a lot of people don't have the patience for bad starts, isolation, or superhuman AI production. If it's the challenge, that's one thing, but I prefer it for the experience. Though admittedly I should probably ramp up the difficulty level I'm playing at soon, myself...

Another side benefit here: Even if you have jags where they have, say, Pikemen, if you have 80 and they have 20, they'll be quite receptive on almost any difficulty level. Suddenly it doesn't look so bad!

[Alkis]

Just a remark, regardless of the quality of the unit you pay the same maintainance. 80 jags have the same upkeep as 80 pikemen. Although jags have their uses I would prefer an army with other units too. Jags would capture workers attack archers etc while horsemen, for instance, would attack cities.

I even played a pacifistic game as the Aztecs on Emperor, taking advantage of their cheap buildings and used jags to get a GA when I was ready.

As Vel said there are many ways to skin a cat (is that a fact? )

-

[King of Rasslin]

If you are playing as an industrious civ, you shouldn't have problems stopping Jags because you will have a road network established by the time they get to you. Your warriors will be a little bit faster than the Jags. Retreating is weaker than before, and they are a dead end tech tree path.

The horseman will upgrade to samurai, and later cavalry. The advantage of the horseman is that it is more useful in most situations. Jags are only good if you start next to a dumb multiplayer opponent or and AI and you get lucky and catch them off guard. Horsemen have more stopping power and they can be upgraded.

A horseman or samurai is going to be useful in more situations than a Jag. I just don't like the gamble you take when you choose Aztecs. They are great sometimes, sometimes they aren't. All civs are like that, actually, but Japan is well rounded and suits my playing style best.

[King of Rasslin]

Another note. Early in the game, Jags are effective because you can have 4 units supported for every city. That's a lot. After you hit monarchy, you can only support 2 units per city less than size 7. And if you are focusing on war, that will lower the amount of units you can support effectively. If you choose republic, unit upkeep will hurt bad. Jags are good units, but they don't have a long life span.

The interesting thing is that an early aggressor in mp is going to be tag teamed. When the early power of the Jags diminishes, he is going to be crushed by the upset people he tried to mess with. Because units cost much more in the upper governments, you need a strong unit. Knights are great because they have a high offence, defence, the benefit of retreat, and they can upgrade to cavalry. They rule the midgame, the most important era in the game. That's why I like China, Japan, and India a lot. Their UU's are at the perfect time in the game. I would really love China if they were only religious.

But I think a cheesy Aztec rusher is going to get punished if he tries something like that in mp.

[vulture]

Originally posted by Arrian
Yikes.

Did your calculation include the chances of a hoplite getting promoted due to killing a jag or two? If 3.6 jags, on average, are killed, at least one hoplite is gonna get promoted once.

-Arrian

It doesn't include promotion chances. As a worst case scenario, consider a swarm of veteran jags attacking elite hoplites (fortified in a size 1-6 town without walls). 14 Jags are needed to give a 75% chance of winning, with 4.5 Jags dead (c.f. 12 vs veteran hoplites). The promotion chance is 1 in 4 for non-milatiristic civs I believe. So assuming one defender gets promoted, we are looking at 13 Jags to give you pretty close to 75% chance of taking the town, and probably 4 of them killed. Work out the shield investment - it still heavily favours the aztecs.

Incidentally, if the cunning Greeks build a town on a hill, or invest in city walls (much maligned by everyone normally), you will need 22 Jags to have a 75% chance of getting the town, and almost 7 of them will be killed on average. It begins to look better for the Greeks.

[Alkis]

Vulture,

In your calculation you don't take into account that the Aztecs have to invest in a barracks too. And a town. You take it as if towns and barracks are free for the Aztecs. Sorry but you are oversimplifying.

Also the part you don't risk losing a town isn't exactly true. You don't risk losing a town in that particular battle only. Suppose there are some AI warriors nearby, normally set to fight barbarians. These warriors, and archers sometimes, will probably attack one of your own towns and you will be the one at risk of losing a town.

The shield investment is also misleading. Suppose you have a town with 3 shields production. It needs 4 turns to produce a jag. That same town will need not 8 but 7 turns to produce a spearman (or hoplite). If a town has 4 shields production then it's 3 and 5 respectively. With more expensive units (or even spearmen) you can rush them sometimes. Don't tell me that you will rush jags too. In all, jags are maybe ok but not devastating.

-

[vulture]

Originally posted by Alkis
Vulture,

In your calculation you don't take into account that the Aztecs have to invest in a barracks too. And a town. You take it as if towns and barracks are free for the Aztecs. Sorry but you are oversimplifying.

Also the part you don't risk losing a town isn't exactly true. You don't risk losing a town in that particular battle only. Suppose there are some AI warriors nearby, normally set to fight barbarians. These warriors, and archers sometimes, will probably attack one of your own towns and you will be the one at risk of losing a town.

Valid points, and I was oversimplifying, but I'm not sure it's as 'bad' as you make out. I was considering the resources needed to get a new town. Okay, lets be fair and assume the existence of a barracks in an older city, which sends out two hoplites and a settler to form a new town. That's 70 shields worth of units. The Aztecs can either build their own town defended by 2 spearmen for that price (or 4 Jaguar warriors to be a more useful comparison), or 7 Jaguar warriors.

At this point I must guiltily admit to having messed up the previous calculations. I foolishly went from '4 Jags have an X% chance of beating a hoplite' to '8 Jags have (approximately) the same chance of beating two hoplites'. This is not true, and not even particularly close most of the time.

Doh!

Anway, my best guess now is that these 7 Jags have about a 33% chance of storming the town. You'd need 10 to have a better than 50% chance, and would lose 3.7 of them (but if you do take the town you have a pretty good garrison in it straight away to defend against other AI units in the area).

14 Jags will give you about 90% chance of taking the town (with 4 warriors killed), and without reinforcements will give you about 50% against a second such town. A quick and dirty calculation suggests that for 140 shields invested on both sides, there is a 5% chance the Greeks end up with two cities, 50% chance that the Greeks and Aztecs have one each, and 45% chance that the Aztecs get both. If the Aztecs build their own cities rather than invading everyone elses, then then both sides up with 2 cities each for the same price. Make of that what you will. The more cities you want to capture, the more the balance tips in favour of the Jags, since each city captured only costs them 4 Jags worth of replacements on average.

The shield investment is also misleading. Suppose you have a town with 3 shields production. It needs 4 turns to produce a jag. That same town will need not 8 but 7 turns to produce a spearman (or hoplite). If a town has 4 shields production then it's 3 and 5 respectively. With more expensive units (or even spearmen) you can rush them sometimes. Don't tell me that you will rush jags too. In all, jags are maybe ok but not devastating.

-

Agreed, producing jags involves more wasted shields. I'm not someone who believes that Jags are an unstoppable force. Two veteran hoplites behind city walls probably have a better than 50% chance of holding off 15 Jaguar warriors. The point is merely that compared to the cost of building your cities, Jaguar warriors can capture them - at a greater cost admittedly - but with the fringe benefits of capturing workers, exploration and denying your opponents cities. It's a sensible stragegy for the Aztecs because their Jags are fast.

If another civ tries it with normal warriors it doesn't work anywhere near as well because, although warriors have a slightly better chance of taking the towns, they take roughly twice as many casualties, and replacing them tips the balance against this strategy. Plus you don't get the rapid exploration.

[Txurce]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
Knights are great because they have a high offence, defence, the benefit of retreat, and they can upgrade to cavalry. They rule the midgame, the most important era in the game.

Did somebody just say there are many ways to skin a cat?

I almost always favor mounted units, and yet tend to skip chivalry altogether in my games. That's because I find the ancient era to be the most important; I build mounted units (or JWs) and take control of the game. In the medieval era, I then build infrastructure for my #1 land-mass in the all-too-brief period before cavalry arrive. I might feel differently if I had the money at 100 AD to upgrade to knights, but... I don't.