Monty and his Eagle-Warriors...

[Sascha77]

I just started my first game as Montezuma and I'm really not that impressed.

1. The odds of capturing an enemy unit seem pretty low. I've waged three "recruitment"-wars against CS', killed maybe 14 or 16 of their units and got three builders out of the whole thing. In the last war I killed four or five CS units and didn't get a single worker.
Yes: The three guys I did get were a nice boost to my early district-construction/tile improvement efforts, but it hardly justified the overall hammers I had to put into producing my three or four Eagles (plus an Archer or two).

2. The Eagles are becoming useless pretty fast. I made the mistake of starting my last war without thinking too much (silly me) and didn't pay attention to the fact that I had arrived in the Classical Period. Result: Nearly all other civs started hating on me (Gandhi even said something like "perhaps you should be removed from power", yikes.. please don't nuke me, dude! ). Plus of course once you hit Iron Working you're losing the Eagle's ability altogether anyway. I was thinking about keeping them around a bit longer, but then I ran into a barb camp that spawned a swordsman per turn for four or five turns in a row and quickly changed my mind..


Perhaps if their ability was a unique promotion and carried over once you upgrade? I don't see why it shouldn't since, in the case of the Aztecs, capturing slaves could be seen as a cultural thing and not bound to a specific type of unit. Keep the ability around until you hit a certain civic (like The Enlightenment) and *then* make it obsolete and strip it from any unit that has it.


S.

 

[Promethian]

Eagle Warriors aren't meant to be a long term bonus. The ability to put worker charges into districts, more amenities from luxuries and combat power from luxuries are excellent bonuses that you can rely on for the entire game.

 

[Sascha77]

more amenities from luxuries and combat power from luxuries

It would help if the game actually made sure that I start near luxuries. I think I had to re-roll three times or so because I was handed three starts with no luxuries in range of my capital.

 

[Ryika]

Yeah, Eagle Warriors are pretty bad. They cost too much production for a good rush (10 more production than even a war cart), and they don't add that much "force" to the push. The RNG worker rolls usually don't add up to much either.

Terrible unit.

 

[Karmah]

I don't know ,I still don't have enough time to test everything out like you guys , I just finished my third game , this one in emperor, working my way to deity. I rushed 4 eagle warriors and 3 archers and went conquering my closest AI , not city states. Every single kills from eagle warriors gave him workers , I got so much I had to put them to sleep to save them for later , I m pretty sure I got more than 10 workers fro free and probably close to twenty. I could rush my districts , chop everything. It was such a strong start the rest of the game went full empire .

 

[CaiusDrewart]

Are the odds of getting a builder from a kill the same against CSes and against other Civs? I had the same experience as Karma--every single kill, as far as I could remember, seemed to get a builder against the units of other Civs. I attacked Spain and got like 8 builders. Even with district rushing I had more builders than I could possibly use. I didn't try attacking a CS.

Maybe this is just randomness, or maybe the odds work differently in each case?

Anyway, I'm of mixed opinion about the Aztecs. District rushing is good (and got even better with the nerf to chopping), and free early builders are great. I think you can get more builder charges on an average Deity game from Eagle Warrior captures than China gets from its UA. Sometimes many more. But I'm not that crazy about all the amenity bonuses. As the game is currently balanced those don't seem all that impactful.

 

[Fuccimama]

Eagle Warriors are a good defensive war unit. You build a few of them plus your archers instead of builders. Goad everyone into war with you, and make sure the eagle warriors make the killing blow. You don't have to upgrade them, and promoted eagle warrior corps and armies hold their own finishing off damaged units into renaissance. I didn't produce a builder until modern era in my last game.

 

[chazzycat]

The odds of capturing a worker is 67% IIRC. Sounds like OP had back luck. I found them very powerful in my Aztec playthrough. They should be used super early though, so you can take out an AI before they get walls and encampments. Creating room to expand and develop, with free workers who can rush districts is a great recipe for success.

 

[Aedn]

Eagle warrior are a situationally good unit, but that is true of every non calvary unit early game. With 7 luxury resources they are comparable to swordsman, can spawn builders, and remove the need to upgrade your early melee troops.

The big drawbacks are the same as any other melee unit, they have bad mobility due to movement rules changes,so can really only attack if an opposing civ or city state is close. Sadly, even with a nerf going for chariots and horsemen if you can get the resources is still far superior to other options.

What makes the aztecs strong however is the ability to build any district in the game in 5 turns, and the early game bonus to amenities which make expansion easier.

 

[Lord Yanaek]

They cost too much production for a good rush (10 more production than even a war cart)

They cost the same as the heavy chariot for the same str, slightly less mobility on flat land and a chance to capture workers. I think the issue is that War Cart are underpriced, not that EW are overpriced. The increase in price (compared to a plain Warrior) is refunded very fast if you can get builders.

Like others, when i tested Monty i got a number of workers from my war with an AI but OTOH i got few from CS so not sure what the odds are. I traced the ability in the database to a modifier of type MODIFIER_UNIT_ADJUST_COMBAT_CAPTURE but this one doesn't have odds as arguments so this part might be hard-coded (i found no value in GlobalParameters either). There is obviously some different odds as in my experience barbarians never give you a worker (this could be exploited too easily) so there might be a check for minor/major too.

I think their straighten lies in their ability to let you concentrate on early offense without sacrificing development (you can get both tiles improved and districts built with your captured workers) but you shouldn't play them differently than you would play an early offense with any civilization : you build a few (Eagle) Warriors, some slingers to upgrade into archers and take some (all) cities from your closest neighbor, except Aztecs will get some builders doing this. They are also significantly stronger than a base warrior and with a few promotions and luxuries can hold their ground against horsemen and swordmen, being obsoleted only when knights show up. They will probably upgrade to Muskets if they upgrade at all, staying relevant to defend you from other angry neighbors after your conquest and possibly giving you more workers if you land the killing blow with them.

 

[Ryika]

In exchange for a chance to get Workers you delay your first attacks and invest more into units. Comparing them to Heavy Chariots... nobody every builds them, that should tell you something about their usefulness in combat.

So what you get is extra workers when you finally attack, what you lose is the ability to construct a cheap, well-rounded melee unit, and with it a lot of momentum.
That can work out depending on the map and rng, but I'd rather have an easier, quicker time rolling over opponents than getting a few extra districts in my existing cities.

That last part about holding until Knights show up - okay. You keep your Eagle Warriors, I'll get Horsemen or Swordsmen to continue expanding my territory in a timely fassion.

 

[Aedn]

In exchange for a chance to get Workers you delay your first attacks and invest more into units. Comparing them to Heavy Chariots... nobody every builds them, that should tell you something about their usefulness in combat.

So what you get is extra workers when you finally attack, what you lose is the ability to construct a cheap, well-rounded melee unit, and with it a lot of momentum.
That can work out depending on the map and rng, but I'd rather have an easier, quicker time rolling over opponents than getting a few extra districts in my existing cities.

That last part about holding until Knights show up - okay. You keep your Eagle Warriors, I'll get Horsemen or Swordsmen to continue expanding my territory in a timely fassion.

People build chariots, it's just that they're a second class option to to horseman, which are basically still broken. You do not always have access to horses sadly.

Swordsmen have the same issues as all melee as well as anti-calv units, they are to slow to deal with enemies, and are relegated to being blockers, while ranged units or siege units do the work.

 

[Promethian]

They need to let melee and anti-cav units move according to the old rules. Cav with their 3 moves would still be better but not by such a large margin that melee are near useless.

 

[Lord Yanaek]

In exchange for a chance to get Workers you delay your first attacks and invest more into units.

Not sure. Depends how many warriors you would build for a normal attack. That +8 str is significant and you probably need less of them. I think part of the issue is that players want to spam them as they are their unique unit while they should just build slingers to improve into archers and a single Eagle Warrior (would be interesting to try with only your starting Eagle).

Comparing them to Heavy Chariots

I wanted to compare them to an existing unit rather than an OP unique like the War Cart, nothing more.

I'd rather have an easier, quicker time rolling over opponents than getting a few extra districts in my existing cities

Their usefulness probably depends a lot on how you play. I don't like to totally forget about my development when i go to war, because i never plan to win the game very early with domination rushes (i'm bad at this). They do allow me to wage war without sacrificing my development which i like. Maybe they don't work very well for you because you play differently. I sure hope this game allows different play-styles.

You keep your Eagle Warriors, I'll get Horsemen or Swordsmen to continue expanding my territory in a timely fassion.

If you have horses, which as Aedn pointed isn't guaranteed. Anyway i'm not saying keeping an outdated unit is the best strategy, but someone posted they can't use them for a long time, but they don't obsolete as fast as Warriors. And yes, of course, if i have access to horses i'll build Horsemen. I just won't throw my Eagles away immediately and save some gold by not upgrading them to Swordmen.

Overall, i agree they are not the best Unique Unit and compared to the other early unique, the infamous War Cart, they can be considered "terrible", but i don't think they are terrible. The War Cart is OP while Eagle Warriors are nice units, if a bit pricey.

 

[Victoria]

Every civ has good and bad. The Aztecs are an OK civ because of their other abilities, the eagles did OK on my only play through but I am not that aggressive so ended up binning them later as an expense, a ranged troop was much better for my style of play. Loved playing them.

 

[Ryika]

Swordsmen have the same issues as all melee as well as anti-calv units, they are to slow to deal with enemies, and are relegated to being blockers, while ranged units or siege units do the work.

Swordsmen work just fine in Singleplayer. Very good offensive pusher-unit, what they lack in mobility they make up for in direct strength (partly from promotions gained while being Warriors), and the fact that you don't actually have to buy them and can instead just upgrade your Warriors for a pretty devastating push against any AI.

It's different in Multiplayer of course.

Not sure. Depends how many warriors you would build for a normal attack. That +8 str is significant and you probably need less of them. I think part of the issue is that players want to spam them as they are their unique unit while they should just build slingers to improve into archers and a single Eagle Warrior (would be interesting to try with only your starting Eagle).

I wanted to compare them to an existing unit rather than an OP unique like the War Cart, nothing more.

I usually play 5-6 Warrior Rush into Archers, that may be the reason why they hinder me more than they help. If you only want to build 1-2 Eagle Warriors however that's pretty much another way of saying that they're a pretty weak UU.

Their usefulness probably depends a lot on how you play. I don't like to totally forget about my development when i go to war, because i never plan to win the game very early with domination rushes (i'm bad at this). They do allow me to wage war without sacrificing my development which i like. Maybe they don't work very well for you because you play differently. I sure hope this game allows different play-styles.

Sure, they may work very well with, let's say, non-mainstream strategies, and that's great, not every unit, bonus, or even Civ must be built to work with what is seen as suffer-effective strategies, it's probably quite the opposite - having Civs that allow different strategies, even if they're not super-effective, is great. However, that again doesn't vindicate the unit as being a bad one in a pseudo-objective scenario (which I of course don't claim my opinion is either).

Overall, i agree they are not the best Unique Unit and compared to the other early unique, the infamous War Cart, they can be considered "terrible", but i don't think they are terrible. The War Cart is OP while Eagle Warriors are nice units, if a bit pricey.

Let's call them situational then. In my opinion _too_ situational, because I'd actually prefer to be able to play with the Aztecs WITHOUT the Eagle Warrior.

 

[Lord Yanaek]

Swordsmen work just fine in Singleplayer.

Agreed. I think melee plays better in Civ6 than it did in Civ5. That being said, i find Iron can be hard to get which can delay a Swordman rush more than a horsemen rush (you can see horses from the first turn).

I usually play 5-6 Warrior Rush into Archers, that may be the reason why they hinder me more than they help. If you only want to build 1-2 Eagle Warriors however that's pretty much another way of saying that they're a pretty weak UU.

Maybe, but i think you don't need as many eagle Warriors as you would need normal warriors because of their higher str, more than because they are worse. I'm running a test game as Aztecs (on Immortal) and as always i have a hard time pushing a good early rush as i can't commit toan all out offense but try to balance wars with development so when i was ready to actually attack, Rome had walls in all cities. Well, i've taken his walled capital with 2 Eagles and 3 Archers (i had another eagle on his way, but he was late on the party). Not sure you could do the same with normal warriors. Deity might be different but probably not much, you will kill more units outside cities before taking them and maybe need 3 Eagles rather than 2, but i'm almost sure someone good at early rushes could do a rush with Eagles as he would with Warriors building less to get the same timing, and compensating lower number with higher str.

Let's call them situational then. In my opinion _too_ situational, because I'd actually prefer to be able to play with the Aztecs WITHOUT the Eagle Warrior.

Let's do this. And for the last part i can totally understand as they take quite some time to build early and with many Civ6 uniques being additional units rather than replacement it would have been possible. The only advantage of them being a replacement is that you start with one.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Agreed. I think melee plays better in Civ6 than it did in Civ5. That being said, i find Iron can be hard to get which can delay a Swordman rush more than a horsemen rush (you can see horses from the first turn).

Melee is weaker due to the movement rules. You can bang out a GG to push swords to 3 moves, then they're kind of tolerable. Horses are better though.

The main advantage to swords is the warrior --> sword upgrade path. Iron can be hard to hook up, though usually doable with some pre-planning, but with horses you can't pre-build --> upgrade until knights. Great general + sword + battering ram will pick up cities pretty well in the BCs, but it's a pretty small window.

Great generals stack which is kind of broken, but you have to make two encampments and farm them pretty hard to get two early on. The video filthyrobot posted with stacked gg + legions with oligarchy bonus attacking him was pretty amusing though. 4-5 move swordsmen that can nigh 1-shot classical cities and mow down units as if they're muskets are no joke, though doing that is basically an all-in. I think in MP if you scout encampments vs civ like that you'd almost have to push gg points to get one yourself, which combines to deny the opponent one allowing for ~10 combat strength swing.

Eagle warriors don't bring much to the party though. I guess you could try to fast rush with them, transition into battering ram to kill 2 civs total + a few city states.

 

[trojan13]

Great generals stack which is kind of broken, but you have to make two encampments and farm them pretty hard to get two early on. The video filthyrobot posted with stacked gg + legions with oligarchy bonus attacking him was pretty amusing though. 4-5 move swordsmen that can nigh 1-shot classical cities and mow down units as if they're muskets are no joke, though doing that is basically an all-in. I think in MP if you scout encampments vs civ like that you'd almost have to push gg points to get one yourself, which combines to deny the opponent one allowing for ~10 combat strength swing.

You got the point why it's not broken but it's working as designed. 15 combat strength diffence can be only 5 if you check gg progress screen and grab one for you. 15 is huge but 5 is manageable if played properly.

EDIT : Real beast all-in strategy lies in Spain. Spain was also all-in civ for NW in 5 is kinda funny though.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You got the point why it's not broken but it's working as designed. 15 combat strength diffence can be only 5 if you check gg progress screen and grab one for you. 15 is huge but 5 is manageable if played properly.

EDIT : Real beast all-in strategy lies in Spain. Spain was also all-in civ for NW in 5 is kinda funny though.

I'm missing what makes Spain better at all-ins than Sumeria, Scythia, or even something like massed upgrade heavy chariot --> mamluks from Arabia.