Umm, Jaguar warriors?`This has to be a bug right?

[Thalassicus]

The best way to balance it is to make it strength 6, everything else the same (+25% def, no iron, +10% vs cities). It's the Aztec's UU Swordsman, says so right in the book. Why in the world make it -weaker-?

Wodan

That's the thing: with his swordsmen that powerful he'd quite simply whallop everyone in the ancient age

Versus melee, his Axemen are already strength 8, equal to Praetorians. His swordsmen would be strength 7.2 attacking cities, 8.1 defending in forests or jungle, and require no resources. Plus he starts out with Mysticism (!), and Scouts! It would likely just be a bit too powerful, to say the least.

With the two changes listed earlier (20% vs cities, 25% defending in forests or jungle), he has better axemen and equal swordsmen (that require no Iron) compared to a normal leader, and starts out with Mysticism and Scouts. All together it makes him an excellent choice for an early lead in conquest or religion.

 

[zeeter]

I guess the AI can do math like the rest of us, and decided to build Axes and Swords.

Wodan

heh...the AI it smarter than it's programming

 

[Wodan]

That's the thing: with his swordsmen that powerful he'd quite simply whallop everyone in the ancient age

No, because enemy Axemen would still be able to beat his Str 6 "Swordsmen".

Wodan

 

[onedreamer]

nah guys Shades has it right. UUs are to be balanced indipendently from the leader of a civ. France has 2 leaders and only one of them is aggressive. This argument doesn't hold water.

 

[onedreamer]

With the two changes listed earlier (20% vs cities, 25% defending in forests or jungle), he has better axemen and equal swordsmen (that require no Iron) compared to a normal leader

are you maybe forgetting that axemen get a little insignificant bonus of 50% vs shock troops and jaguars don't ?

 

[Thalassicus]

sigh...yes I know that. I don't think I'm communicating my point across

Anyways, it's still the same point as the thread, which is that Jaguars and Monte are underpowered in their current form.

 

[Oggums]

I don't really see how a (very situational) 25% jungle bonus and resourceless Swordsman would be overpowered, any way you look at it.

You can pretty much discount the jungle bonus entirely, it really is insignificant. So, you're left with a Swordman that doesn't require resources. Sounds about right when compared with most UU's, but underpowered when you compare them with Praets or Cossacks, etc.

I should be strength 6. Or strength 5, but still allow you to build a regular Swordsman.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Another option would be to decrease the cost (say 35-30 hammers) (although the Jungle bonus should definitely be Jungle And Forest)

 

[HeXeD_3010]

I think you guys are forgetting something. The aztecs are very good in MP when you don't have iron or a rush by a civ beside you has already smashed your metal.

Therefore, aztecs are VERY tough to kill off. Not only will smashing their metal not impede their process of developing armies, but they are very tough to kill early game when they hide in a 75% forested hill to stop your production and choke you on their own rush.

I find it funny that most of these posts in this thread only relate to single player.

 

[Efexeye]

I find it funny that most of these posts in this thread only relate to single player.

What makes this thread different from any other thread here?

MP is largely an afterthought for most cIV players, even though to me, it is the best possible way to play. I'd much rather test my wits against Humans than a preprogrammed set of tables and algorithims, tyvm.

 

[Wodan]

Personally I fully intend to get deep into MP. I did with starcraft and had some really enjoyable times online. (Some bad ones too... online seems to attract some real juvenile behaviour.)

Anyway, it's a valid goal to get at least somewhat good at SP before delving into MP. That's my theory anyway.

Wodan

 

[starbolt]

The fact that jags are inferior to comparable units isn't for discussion.

Up to this point, I was open to your arguments and I'm sure that the forum has since beaten this to death (though I've not read the full 7+ pages yet).

The inability of the forum to present a coherent argument that you can accept does not establish facts and yelling louder doesn't make the arguments any stronger.

---

My take on what the forum's argument should be:

In the absence of any resources, what is the best unit a civilization can build in the early era?

For most civs, it's an archer (3/1 FS).
For Mali, it's the skirmisher (4/1 FS, etc).
Montezuma gets the Jaguar (5/1, agg, jungles).

When you pillage up enemy territory, you're not facing swordsmen. You're not facing axemen. You're not facing horse archers. You've got the single strongest unit available.

You may have to kill a couple of units that were produced using those resources but there aren't any more coming. And there's no chance of those resources being restored under your rampaging eye. Without roads, he's unlikely to have a workable trade route with someone who can trade him these resources.

At this point, you have the option to lay siege. Capturing a single town and razing it it pretty much the punctuation mark.

In any event, he's done. Stick a fork in him. You can develop freely in his space and crippled, all he can do is wait for the end.

---

The Praetorian rush simply overpowers everything. The Jag strategy emerges as dominant through raw attrition of resources. And you can pillage with ANYTHING (not just Jags). Feel free to run warriors over there to do the deed (15 hammers). Anything that ventures out from behind city walls gets ambushed by jags in the trees (and then you pillage him anyway).

 

[Wodan]

In the absence of any resources, what is the best unit a civilization can build in the early era?

For most civs, it's an archer (3/1 FS).
For Mali, it's the skirmisher (4/1 FS, etc).
Montezuma gets the Jaguar (5/1, agg, jungles).

Either I'm missing something or there's a logic gap.

Jaguar comes with Iron Working. At that time, all other Civs will have both Axemen and Swordsmen. So, how can we justify comparing the Jaguar to Archers? Shouldn't we be comparing to Axemen and Swords?

Wodan

 

[starbolt]

Either I'm missing something or there's a logic gap.

Jaguar comes with Iron Working. At that time, all other Civs will have both Axemen and Swordsmen. So, how can we justify comparing the Jaguar to Archers? Shouldn't we be comparing to Axemen and Swords?

Wodan

No, because civs won't have these units in quantity and will be unable to maintain them when you pillage the resource OR the roads connecting the resource. In the absence of iron/copper/horses (which jags can enforce), jags are king. Moreover, if you lose the resource for a unit you are building, your production immediately switches to a unit you can produce (so swordsmen in-progress become archers).

One thing that's missed here is the assumption that other civs and the Aztec are equal. They are not. Montezuma is Spiritual and will have bronze working, so he will have Slavery without any interruption of service. Pop-rushing jags does not cost you the shields, so you will have not 1, but 4 or more jags already upon you by the time you've connected your iron/copper and produced a single axeman, swordsman. After killing that unit through attrition, more will be on the way. You'll never see another swordsman/axeman until they're obsolete and you're effectively out of the game.

If your opponent is inexperienced enough to allow you free access to these resources, then he is already suffering from a greater disadvantage than jags vs the world.

 

[Thalassicus]

One thing that's missed here is the assumption that other civs and the Aztec are equal.

This is the point I was trying to convey. You can't compare a unit under an Aggressive and Spiritual leader that starts with Scouts and Mysticism to a better UU under a leader with worse traits; you have to consider overall play balance.

Consider if Montezuma recieved a unit as powerful as a Praetorian with those traits, for example... he'd be insanely powerful. You have to consider the available leaders' traits when balancing UU's, or you end up making leader choices overpowered.

 

[Evie]

And...tada! 1.52 patch is here, and it introduce another difference between Prats and Jags - Prats costs 5 hammer more than standard swords, and Jags 5 hammer less than the same swords.

 

[Thalassicus]

Hmm...it'll be interesting to see how these changes play out. I never thought they'd change resource costs, as all the UU's have an identical cost to their base unit (that I know of). Interesting

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Monty, who wasn't puny before has now just got alot better

Oh-Hell!

 

[warpstorm]

I loved the jag rush opening before. Now that it's cheaper...

 

[The Last Conformist]

Colour me happy that Praetorians were toned down a bit.