Gallic Warrior, Jaguar or Praetorian?

[SamSniped]

The Praetorian is the best replacement for the swordsman. It allows you to have a unit with good strength that can either be the front of the assault or clean up after the grunts. However, the units it is being compared to don't even stand close to it, so this is a rigged poll, in essence

 

[sydhe]

Jags are a helluva lot better than Praets if you can't get iron

I just found out that Impis are next to useless unless you have like 1000 of them

They're pretty good for exploring and founding cities (since they keep up with settlers). Besides, the extra movement is still there when you upgrade.

 

[apocalypse105]

Do people forget that =

The jaguar Does not require access to the Iron resource (but does require Iron Working)

 

[Archbob]

Considering that the other two UU's suck, Praets.

 

[Akbarthegreat]

Do people forget that =

The jaguar Does not require access to the Iron resource (but does require Iron Working)

I know, but 3 extra >>> No iron required

 

[Cort Haus]

I imagine the GW is good fun on a highlands map.

 

[Ormylar]

Really, these different units are all situational. In most cases based on how I play, I would go with Praets, since they are just rediculously strong if you get them really early (3x city raider is for the AI if they don't have good defenses). Again, situational.

Gallic Warrior.... eh I don't really have anything to say because I've never actually played as Celts before so I won't give an opinion on them.

Jaguars.. I've played them a couple times, my friend has played them a lot when we decide to have a 1v1 duel. I think for war (especially in multiplayer), Jaguars are really strong if you rush Iron Working right away and just whip those Jaguars into action. Get a barracks and you have a Str1, and 2 forest promotions right there. Good mobility through forest/jungle with strong defense and if you get them early enough, you can easily crush your opponents.

Again, all of these are situational and it's also based on your play style. For me, praets have worked the best for me, but I have no doubt that I could be just as effective with the other units if I knew how to use them properly. The same goes for praets... I'm probably not using them to their potential either now that I think about it...

 

[Archon_Wing]

Do people forget that =

The jaguar Does not require access to the Iron resource (but does require Iron Working)

Yea, and in a lot of games iron can be placed awkwardly. The Jaguar can always provide you with a resourceless way of taking barb cities easily which is my most frequent reason to even bother with swords.

 

[apocalypse105]

Yea, and in a lot of games iron can be placed awkwardly. The Jaguar can always provide you with a resourceless way of taking barb cities easily which is my most frequent reason to even bother with swords.

ANd montezuma is agressive.

 

[MarigoldRan]

Jaguars has its uses.

Nonetheless, Praets are better in most single player situations.

 

[Akbarthegreat]

ANd montezuma is agressive.

And I hate him.

 

[krikav]

Yea, and in a lot of games iron can be placed awkwardly. The Jaguar can always provide you with a resourceless way of taking barb cities easily which is my most frequent reason to even bother with swords.

I guess pret fans really love having cities with only ICE around them. >_<

 

[apocalypse105]

And I hate him.

I mean his threath extra promotion on the unit but yeah he is a douch

 

[Archon_Wing]

I guess pret fans really love having cities with only ICE around them. >_<

Duh, iron can be found easily there! Ice Archers+ Ice Preat = OP?

 

[MCan]

You could at least give me credit in your sig...

Prats. I cant say that Ive used the guerilla line or Aztecs in general enough to ignore its strength.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I vote for Jaguars cos they are better units for my way of playing, honest

I vote for them following the same logic. They offer potentially more value-over-base, and in the case of the jaguar it is ALWAYS there:

- Resourceless
- Cheaper than swords (same as axe)
- Monty can get them to super-medic healing levels at 10 xp
- They retain the 10% city attack inherent to swords
- Woods II mobility has some MP implications

Prats are good, but you're boned w/o iron and you have to stick your neck out in terms of early econ to go for them. You CAN take cities with them but you also lose cost for cost to axes and will almost always have losing odds attacking axes in cities against competent opponents. They're not a gimme rush unit on the highest levels, and below those you don't need a special UU. The Jaguar retains its utility on all levels.

Gallics roll in 3rd. While OK, they don't offer enough over stock swords to truly turn the corner and don't have the promo utility (and easy guaranteed resourceless barb city capture) of the jags although the optional copper to build them is nice.

 

[username804]

I vote for them following the same logic. They offer potentially more value-over-base, and in the case of the jaguar it is ALWAYS there:

- Resourceless
- Cheaper than swords (same as axe)
- Monty can get them to super-medic healing levels at 10 xp
- They retain the 10% city attack inherent to swords
- Woods II mobility has some MP implications

Prats are good, but you're boned w/o iron and you have to stick your neck out in terms of early econ to go for them. You CAN take cities with them but you also lose cost for cost to axes and will almost always have losing odds attacking axes in cities against competent opponents. They're not a gimme rush unit on the highest levels, and below those you don't need a special UU. The Jaguar retains its utility on all levels.

Gallics roll in 3rd. While OK, they don't offer enough over stock swords to truly turn the corner and don't have the promo utility (and easy guaranteed resourceless barb city capture) of the jags although the optional copper to build them is nice.

According to Sun Tzu, you dont attack enemy cities anyway, you pillage his stuff & make him come to you, besides, hasnt everyone read this yet? http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=144520

 

[Akbarthegreat]

According to Sun Tzu, you dont attack enemy cities anyway, you pillage his stuff & make him come to you, besides, hasn't everyone read this yet?

That is what the AI does. If you sit pillaging, the AI will only get some more protective longbows into their cities with walls and castles.

hasnt everyone read this yet? http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=144520

Praets have +70% votes anyways.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

According to Sun Tzu, you dont attack enemy cities anyway, you pillage his stuff & make him come to you, besides, hasnt everyone read this yet? http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=144520

Hah. I'm not interested in 6+ year old threads while the game has evolved so much. There are deity rome games on S&T where this forum's best are playing right now, to test the unit's utility there.

And if you try to pillage the AI, it will continuously pour massive amounts of units into the nearby city and you will gain very little beyond maintenance costs back in pillaging, falling increasingly behind (humans will eventually get enough axes, or just catapults, and own you using road attack initiative). That, or you're playing on a difficulty level where you could have mopped the world with horse archers and horse archers only.

They're fine as a UU, but they are not consistent and if you wind up w/o iron you're immensely set back for teching IW early on (or you lose much of your window by waiting and trading for it). Also, humans might have other ideas than letting you hook up + retain iron.

 

[NetGear]

I'd check to see if i have horse/iron/copper first then vote.

Sure, i'd prefer raw extra str, if i can have them. but resourceless aspect cant be underestimated though. And woodsman II can be very good at early harass. Its like woodsman II warrior on worker steal duty, but way better. I wouldn't mind having either.