So, the Worst UU was decided to be...

[obsolete]

Jaguar -> My play style is such that I want a good attacking unit.
Who cares if I have a good medic unit, if my units just outright die. I'm fine with UUs that are good stack defenders/defensive units (like the landsknecht), but the Swordsman is meant for taking enemy cities. Lowering the base strength to 5, means I might as well use axemen.
A UU unit that is normally used for city raiding, that has a reduced base strength (and lacks a proportionally higher city attack bonus), is crap IMO. I'd rather have Dog soldiers and Gaelic warriors over Jaguars.

Oh boy.... you REALLY need to go back to military school and learn some of the basics here...

 

[plasmacannon]

Sure, but you're comparing apples and oranges. The jaguar isn't supposed to fight out in the open with other swordsmen. It's also not a power unit like a praetorian that can keep fighting for a long time, with high odds and gain high levels. It has three uses:
1)Early rush, with woodsmen 2
2)Early defense, if you don't have access to metal
3)A healer, with woodsmen 3 and medic after just 10 XP
The jag is better at all those roles than the gallic warrior. Although I agree, you can basically do them with the gallic warrior also. Your rush would come a bit later, but be a bit stronger.

I agree with all of this, in most cases, and on lower levels (below monarch) when Jaguars easily beat warriors.
Early rush depends highly on the empire nearest to you, the game settings, and how many units they have built.

I am playing a Monarch game, Always War, Raging Barbarians as the Celts, this week.
My closest opponent is Sumeria. With 3-5 PRO archers in his Cap, 3 Vultures defending his territory and occasionally attacking me, he became my worst nightmare.
I SIP and built lots or archers and eventually, my 1st city on my closest Iron. As both were on the coast, I can build Gallics in both cities (eventually others on the coast too).
There is a pennisula near me that remains in a fog of war, so, barbs generate there often. I build Gallics, send them over near the shaded area, and then rotate them out after they have 10 xp.
This gives me alot of options for my Gallics.
Some are C1, G3, some are C1, G1, CR2, some are C1, G2, Shock and C1, G1, W1, Shock (both anti-Vulture units), one is C1, G1, Cover, CR1 to attack cities with archers.

The first city I captured was a Sumerian city on a Hill, with 2 PRO archers.
I had a one C2, G3 to attack with that stack.
I'm sure Jaguars would have had a more difficult time with this city, than, my Gallics.

The other thing is player mindset while playing a particular empire.
For any given empire, I might have 10-20% of my cities on a hill, and that is usually by chance, because, I am more focused on my dotmap grid and cities lining up more perfectly.
When, I play Celts, 50-60% of my cities are on hills (usually plains/hills). An active choice.
So, each starts with an additional production over almost every other AI city.
For any given empire, I might have 10-25% of my cities have walls, depending on if it is Spain, or a PRO leader etc.
When, I play Celts, it is usually around 75% have the Dun.
Factor in the natural defense bonus of archers and Gallics on hills, and I don't lose cities, I keep gaining xp. from these barbs or AIs that attack me and go splat.

It is a different strategy, but, on harder difficulty levels (or intentially harder due to raging barbs added), I find Celts fun to play.
They survive most attacks against them (smart placement using defensive terrain and promos).
The phrase, "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger" comes to mind.
It is easy to get the first 13 xp on Gallics using this strategy.
Sometimes patience can benefit you more, than rushing.

 

[stopstopp]

Where is portugal's UU? I never play portugal because of it D:

 

[TheMulattoMaker]

Where is portugal's UU? I never play portugal because of it D:

Shoot, Carracks are awesome, unless you're playing on Great Plains.

...then again, I'm such a nooob I get an extra "o"...

 

[plasmacannon]

Where is portugal's UU? I never play portugal because of it D:

Most people don't like their UBs more.

There are some working on revamping Portugal.
From what I have read, it looks good.
Here is the link to it: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=400494

 

[Dhoomstriker]

PJaguar -> My play style is such that I want a good attacking unit... the Swordsman is meant for taking enemy cities. Lowering the base strength to 5, means I might as well use axemen.

Don't forget that a Jaguar still maintains the Swordsman's +10% City Attack bonus, which an Axeman does not have. So, even at 5 base strength each (a Jaguar and an Axeman), they still aren't equal units when trying to take Cities.

You will find the Jaguars to be particularly powerful when you can rush in with a Woodsman II unit to quickly and efficiently disconnect the enemy's Strategic Resources (although I'd use at least a pair of them for that errand) .


Further, if the enemy has Chariots, your stack of Axemen could be in danger, while the Jaguars will just shrug off the Chariots.


If the enemy has Axemen, you can at least disconnect his Copper or Iron so that he won't build more and then still have equal or favourable odds (favourable if the enemy Leader is not Aggressive) on defence when moving through Forests. So, you can effectively dodge around his empire, getting him to move his units from City to City and then attack a City without any Axemen and that has some recently-moved Archers (aka unfortified Archers) inside of it.

Having this opportunity to strike at the best location at the right time can have a large impact on the result of your war.

The bonus to City Attack makes the Jaguars better than Axeman on attack, since you'll be able to manouver into position to attack a City that is defended by Archers instead of Axemen, a unit trait that even regular Swordsmen do not enjoy.

Meanwhile, the enemy Axemen will slowly suicide themselves on your units as your units travel throughout the AI's Forests and Jungles, with their ever-dying Axemen being an unreplenishable unit since you have been able to move in and pillage the enemy's Strategic Resources.


Add to that the fact that Jaguars cost less than Swordsmen; they actually are an equal-Hammer-cost unit as an Axeman. As Monte, skip the Axemen, build Jags and throw in a couple of Chariots. The Chariots can help to deal with Axemen that venture out of AI Cities while the Jaguars can move fast enough to cover the Chariots.



As for some of your suggested changes to units, you have some pretty good ideas there. Thanks for sharing them! But please, do try to give a little more love to the Jaguar!

 

[Iranon]

Let's see...

The Jaguar Warrior may be a significant drawback to offensive warfare if:
You have access to iron AND your victim doesn't have significant numbers of axemen AND you haven't switched to mostly siege weapons as attackers yet AND the lack of full-strength swordsmen is more significant than easy access to healers and mobility the AI consistently overlooks.

The Dog Soldier may be a significant drawback to offensive warfare if:
You have acces to either metal AND your victim has relevant numbers of archers.

*

Jaguars also synergise with their leader (Medic I Woodsman III made easy, prevents AGG from going to waste if no metal) and get you a persistent promotion that may come in useful even after they obsolete. Dog Soldiers don't get that and have antisynergy with their leader (resourcelessness isn't as big a deal when you have super-archers).

 

[Kid R]

+1 Jag rocks
+1 Dog sucks

I always thought dog soldiers would make more sense as resourceless chariots anyway, not axemen. There are too many axe UUs.

 

[LateGameWarMong]

Don't forget that a Jaguar still maintains the Swordsman's +10% City Attack bonus, which an Axeman does not have. So, even at 5 base strength each (a Jaguar and an Axeman), they still aren't equal units when trying to take Cities.

Ok, they are 10% better than axemen at taking cities, but still 20% worse than Swordsmen - if that 10% was changed to 25%, I'd have no problem with them

You will find the Jaguars to be particularly powerful when you can rush in with a Woodsman II unit to quickly and efficiently disconnect the enemy's Strategic Resources (although I'd use at least a pair of them for that errand) .

Sounds like the same thing one does with 2 movement+mobility Impi -> nearly immune from chariot/HA counter attack. 2 movement points being nice for pillaging as well

Further, if the enemy has Chariots, your stack of Axemen could be in danger, while the Jaguars will just shrug off the Chariots.

So you save a spear.... wow.
Likewise, the Phalanx UU has the same going for it, and its available earlier (if you have copper)
If I had normal Swords, standing in jungle/forest, they'd already have a +50% defense bonus to negate the axemen bonus, and then its simple a matter of 20% higher strength, instead the Jaguars get a promotion for 20% higher defense on that tile.
I am still unimpressed

If the enemy has Axemen, you can at least disconnect his Copper or Iron so that he won't build more and then still have equal or favourable odds (favourable if the enemy Leader is not Aggressive) on defence when moving through Forests.

Wouldn't you already have favorable odds already with swordsmen in forest?
and if he has a few fortified axemen sitting on hilltop copper?

So, you can effectively dodge around his empire, getting him to move his units from City to City and then attack a City without any Axemen and that has some recently-moved Archers (aka unfortified Archers) inside of it.

You can dodge... if you stay in forest, in which case, you could do the same with Swords, which will fare better if caught on open ground, if you have enough to promot the jags to woods 2, which of course comes at the cost of a CR promo

But please, do try to give a little more love to the Jaguar!

Meh... all the arguments seem to work equally well for Gaelic warriors, with hills instead of forest. Except with a gaelic when you get G3, you have a good unit to attack those hilltop archer cities, that can survive and get healed by a medic, whereas with a Jag, you get a super medic, which you can use in a later era, because in its current era, most units will die (city attack units have lower odds than normal sword and no retreat), and your medic promos won't do much good. And the Gaelic has only reduced resource dependence, but still, similar - yet its the Gaelics that don't seem to get any love.
And I do think the Dun synergies with the Gaelic warrior somewhat- you can bring some archers along in your stack with G1, on hills to fend off axemen even better than the Gaelic (and hold any hilltop cities you capture with them).

It seems to me if you already have iron, there is no reason to want Jaguars except for super medics in the medieval/early industrial era.
Considering Jags are obsolete long before the red cross, and super medics are a unit you only need a handful of (so one city is fine to supply them), when you get to the medicine tech, it becomes equally easy for any civ to get a super medic, and its pretty easy for any Agg leader to get super medics already (only a 1 promot difference), pretty easy for charismatic ones too.
Considering you only really need *ONE* super medic, and you can only get a super medic with a GG (although W3 M1 is pretty good still), and pretty much always one GG is used just to get a level 5/6 unit for heroic/west point, so I don't really matter how many free promos that unit gets - one doesn't want it to defend, so its actually better for it to be *weaker* (some even say they don't upgrade their super medics) - I don't think Jags are actually going to make a big difference- any agg/charismatic leader will likely be able to get a super medic with the first GG they pop.

I realize a lot better players than me use them, and like them.... but those players could most likely play better than me using this "barbarian" civ I modded (no UB, no UU, no starting tech, no leader traits), and come up with an argument for why it is better (maybe some BS like financial trait gives you a tech lead and leads to more requests for free tech, reducing relations with other civs, or you give away the tech and other civs have the same tech as you so your financial bonus doesn't actually get you a tech lead).

I don't see the arguments for the Jag as being convincing at all, especially when compared to the celt UU, which seems to get more hate from the good players.

 

[obsolete]

As I understand it, you admit better players than you like the Jag... but at the same time they are blinded by BS and really making a mistake...

I've seen this arguement scenario often over the years, the beginner always argues with the deity players, even trying to argue on how one should play deity, despite they couldn't win one if their life depended on it. But everyone at the lower levels tends to feel they are still the expert nevertheless.

I give up...

 

[LateGameWarMong]

I'm not saying Deity players are wrong, I'm just saying what has been articulated to me, does not make sense.
They also would be experienced in making the best use of the unit, and I don't deny that they could make better use of the leader traits and unique unit than I could.
However, they may be winning despite the UU.
Do diety players really bother with modding the game, or rather do they focus on getting better at the game as is?

For me to be convinced, I'd want to see Deity players play the same scenario, and then alternate facing off vs each other, using Monty with his Spiritual+Agg trait, sacraficial altar, and jaguar, or a modded version that lacks the Jaguar UU, and has a standard swordsman.

I have no doubt the way these players describe using them, is the best way to use them, but I have my doubts they waste their time with "what if" mods.

If someone that wins on Deity is willing to do such a simple mod, and show that jags are actually better than Swordsmen when properly used, I'll have no choice but to accept the game recordings as proof*.

*although I still won't necessarily accept its a good UU, just that its better than Swords - maybe a mod replacing Jags with Gaelic warriors, and a deity level player playing the same map with Jags, and then Gaelics, and doing better with the Jags, would convince me that Jags are better than the oft maligned Gaelics.

btw

An Agg+charismatic leader seems like they could get a super medic as easily as monty could with jaguars, without any UU, although playing unrestricted leaders with Boudica of the Aztecs would make it really really easy to get a super medic

 

[Iranon]

Deity players are wrong about many things... you don't need to be right all the time to do well. Around the time I was taking a shot at Emperor I got very interested in the mechanics of the game, and found that conventional wisdom as supported by higher-level players often had little basis in reality.
Easy to verify with things that can be verified without too many assumptions - combat performance, whipping mechanics, cumulative gains from economic traits and so on.
I'm probabably wrong more often about verifiable things than I was before I got comfortable with Immortal... instead paying more attention to intuition, diplomacy and outright AI abuse. And it seems I'm still rather technical in my approach compared to most veterans.

It also matters what you're playing for and what you're comfortable with. I'm not comfortable squeezing a win out of 4 cities, only 2 of which are any good (well, apart from holy AP cheese)... iirc, obsolete is. I am, however, comfortable warring my way up with equal or inferior units. I also play to win, not to reach a fantastic score once in a while... this means getting me out of a fix is at least as important as pushing me over the top when things go well.
Jaguars can allow several distinct forms of warfare even when resourceless, and the parent unit isn't essential for any plans I'm likely to have. As I pointed out in my last post, they rarely make things worse if you're willing to adjust your playstyle - just different and imo more interesting.

Btw: Single games show very little unless it's a proof-of-concept of some extreme approach that was claimed to be entirely unviable.
Also, for AGG+CHA you'd give up SPI which is arguably the single best trait in the game if you're willing to work diplomacy. Deity makes working diplomacy actually worth the bother.

 

[Farm Boy]

the oft maligned Gaelics.

Have you really read that many people dumping on the Gaelic Warrior? Generally they seem to get off pretty easy. I would rather have Gaelics than many of the other UUs. Reduced resource dependence requires low effort to leverage and is almost always welcome.

What I generally see people layering the hate on is the Dun. I would rather have a forum. Maybe. Perhaps. Or an assembly plant. Possibly.

 

[LateGameWarMong]

I thought forums got hate, because people did the math and they rarely if ever result in getting even 1 more GP per game (there are a lot of analysis on GP thresholds and such, that I don't follow, but I know if one city is making enough GP points, than another city generating only a few GP points will never actually produce a GP)

Anyway, examples of Gaelic disrespect:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=397804&page=5
Post #81
"Thinking about bad UUs from the bottom up:
...
Gallic: Just opens up an upgrade path that is really not nearly as good as going CR/Combat"

#85:
"Oddly enough, nobody's voted for the Gallic Warrior yet. He's certainly a lower-tier UU and I would have expected some vote for him."


#88:
"The celts already win enough of the WORST UB polls, we don`t need to mention their crappy UU also, which is just throwing more salt into the wounds."

#90:
"I agree regarding Gallic Warrior. It's just I'm surprised that no one voted for him, given votes for half the units in the game, several of whom aren't awful. At least there's no downside to him, as there is for some UU's."

Obviously at this point the poll results are not meshing well with the comments...

One person commented:
"It's not as good as a jaguar but I would still rather have Gallic Warriors than standard swords."
Now I wonder.... what about in Warlord before Woodsman 3, when Jags were not a easier way to super medics... did people find some other explanation for why they liked them?
Even though this poster didn't insult the Gallic Warrior, he still preferred the Jag, which I still don't get.

I'd rather have 10 G3 units, with ≈4 winning the combat, and 3 withdrawing, for a total of 7 units healing from a medic1 promotion, than 10 jaguars, with ≈2 winning the combat and healing from a medic1+Woods3 promotion.
Even if units heal 2x as fast, better attack odds and a 50% withdraw chance (from Guerilla 3) mean one is going to have a lot more units to heal, and a lot more units that survive to get more promotions
- additionally right out of the production line, after an attack against a fortified archer in a city, it will often have gained enough experience for another promo- dramatically speeding up healing time, next attack its stronger from the additional promo and takes less damage of average

If I happen to have copper or Iron, I cannot see how jags would be better than gaellic warriors, and if I have Iron, I'd still prefer Swords to jags.

 

[Ataxerxes]

LateGameWarMong: You're quoting me twice from the previous discussion. I only said I was surprised nobody voted for him, not that I thought he was worst or even close to it. There is a lot of dislike for the Celtic UU and UB. IMO I can think of some UU's I would rank below Gallic Warrior offhand (not a complete list) -

Dog Soldier - I hate the lower base.
Panzer - Some deity players may find him useful. By the time he matters, my games are won or lost
SEAL - nice if he didn't come at the same time as tanks. I prefer tanks.
Ballista - I don't agree that he's the worst, but he almost never matters.

Jaguar requires a slightly different use than the standard swordsman. WoodsmanII is great for worker stealing and speed kills in this game - the AI doesn't understand the two moves.

 

[Farm Boy]

One person commented:
"It's not as good as a jaguar but I would still rather have Gallic Warriors than standard swords."
Now I wonder.... what about in Warlord before Woodsman 3, when Jags were not a easier way to super medics... did people find some other explanation for why they liked them?
Even though this poster didn't insult the Gallic Warrior, he still preferred the Jag, which I still don't get.

Now you are just being cute, as I am relatively certain that you are quoting me!

Jags were good in Warlords too, just not as good as they are now with Woods3 available.

Reasoning for preferring Jags to Gallic: resource freedom rather than requirement mitigation, reduction in cost of production also helpful. Any UU that can help pull me up when I am the most hosed by the map is going to be a big plus. Tangential question: do you like skirmishers?

As for the Forum, you are correct, I was being snarky about the Dun!

 

[Dr.Null]

Now I wonder.... what about in Warlord before Woodsman 3, when Jags were not a easier way to super medics... did people find some other explanation for why they liked them?

BtS is such a good expansion that I generally ignore the original.

If Woodsman 3 didn't exist, more than half the value of the Jaguar would disappear.

Even though this poster didn't insult the Gallic Warrior, he still preferred the Jag, which I still don't get.

Gallic Warriors are wussy women who wear skirts.

Do I get a button for insulting the Gallic Warrior?

 

[LateGameWarMong]

Skirmishers are ok to avoid early rapage by barbs and such.

Units with higher base strength, or the same base strength and a free promo, I generally view as pretty good.

Yea I was quoting you.

You gotta admit, stating that non-awful units got votes for worst UU, and then saying due to this you are surprised that the G warrior didn't get a vote, is not complimentary to the UU.
It seems to imply that maybe it belongs with the awful UUs, and if non awfuls got the vote, it should have too - or at least that this UU is just barely above awful.
At best you called it a "non-awful" which is not very flattering.

Considering there is no way a normal sword is better than the G warrior, of course one would rather have it over standard swords.
Same goes for Navy Seals and Marines. That doesn't mean they aren't still viewed as a "waste of a UU" by many people.

 

[Farm Boy]

I can like something and still be surprised if other people are not insulting it(though that particular observation was not me). I like the Gal. War. just fine for a sword UU.

 

[obsolete]

Panzer - Some deity players may find him useful.

They will find tanks useful, but the actual benefit of a Panzer would be very minimal which is the problem.

Especially considering, a Pangaea map on a good day is already over before the industrial age starts, so those late UU's don't even get into play. You're thus playing with no UU at all in those cases.