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

[Lorteungen]

I think the original poster is on point, the jaguars really aren't that good unless you are in the unlikely situation of not having iron, copper or horses.

I'm not big on aztec history but it seems the jaguars fight with some sort of wooden spanking board, yet you still need iron working to make them. It doesn't make sense. I think the solution would be to make jaguars appear earlier, perhaps with archery or at the most bronze working. That way you would actually be able to make a few before being countered by the much stronger axemen.

 

[Lorteungen]

Not if you undertake what I call "active" defense....that being, station them in a city full of archers and spearmen, ensuring that the city is surrounded with a lot of open space. Then once the enemy is within range, ride out and attack, then retreat back to the city. I did this against a vastly superior Greek force in one game and wiped out their entire army.

Yeah, a 'vastly' superior greek force without phalanx apparently.

 

[Sorceresss]

I'm not big on aztec history but it seems the jaguars fight with some sort of wooden spanking board

Their combats might then look like this :

 

[snipafist]

Aztec warriors fought melee combat with many weapons, but the jaguar warriors are wielding a specialized central American weapon that basically consists of two boards put together with sharp obsidian ringing the outer edges. Think of it as a cross between a sword and a nail bat and you've just about got it.

I think it's unfair to hose the jaguar warriors so much. They should be strength 6 at the very least so that they're comprable to swordsmen. Take a look at the Arabs: they get a better knight (camel archer) that requires no previous resources and I don't exactly see the world collapsing around us for it. Not to mention the jaguar's "bonus" is very situational. Not requiring iron only really matters if you've got no iron. The jungle defense only matters if you're actually in a jungle and your opponent is dumb enough to send troops after you while you're in there (not bloody likely, even with normal swordsmen). Some claim it was done to power down the Aztecs, but their trait combination isn't exactly the best in the world. If you're going to be getting the most out of agressive, you're going to be staying in a more or less heavily militarized civics mode while you pursue your goals of conquering and smashing and demanding things from others. If you're going to get the best out of the spiritual trait, you're going to be changing civics to emphasize immediate goals. These two do not exactly go together like bread and butter.

Frankly, I think something needs to be done to give the jaguar a boost. I'd reccomend either:
A) They remain swordsmen replacements, but get a boost up to strength 6, and perhaps the first woodsman upgrade as well instead of the silly jungle defense.
B) They replace axemen instead of swordsmen, lose their city attack bonus, gain the axeman's melee unit attack bonus (which is quite keeping in line with the jaguar warriors' role in Aztec history anyways), and perhaps the first woodsman upgrade instead of the jungle defense.

 

[romelus]

if you have a iron resource to pillage, it means you can make axemen with no need of copper, since axemen require iron OR copper. This also means that if you have iron, a bunch of pathetic jaguar warriors will never be able to pillage it, unless you want them to do it.

read it again. i'm talking about hooking up the FIRST iron resource, and defending the hooking up process against the first jag that comes in to pillage it. and the essence of what i was talking about was that it only takes 2-3 archers or 1-2 axemen (if i have copper mine already) to stop the so called fast jag pillage. of course once it's hooked up i'll start to churn out axes and swords and jags are screwed.

 

[Thalassicus]

I made two simple changes in my rule files that made Jaguars fun to play:

20% vs cities
+25% in forests

This gives them 6.5 attack power against cities compared to swordsmen's 6.6, and 6.75 base defense in jungles or forests (not counting terrain bonuses). This puts them on a level footing with swordsmen, while being less adept at defending in cities, but more adept while defending in forested or jungle terrain. So they're just about as good, and somewhat different in style. What then makes them advantageous over a normal unit is their lack of a resource requirement.

 

[zeeter]

I just played a game as the Romans where I was close to the Aztecs. As soon as I got IW, I built a little army and went after the Japanese, which were between me and the Aztecs. I built up a bit, then went after the Aztecs. Through two wars with these guys (first one got stopped after lack of funds) I did not see one Jaguar Warrior. The second war, when I finished them off, they had a couple of musketmen, so I'm certain that they had IW at some point.

Why on earth would the Aztecs go through a game where they wouldn't build any of their UU? Especially after I attacked them the first time.

 

[flytyer]

I made two simple changes in my rule files that made Jaguars fun to play:

20% vs cities
+25% in forests

This gives them 6.5 attack power against cities compared to swordsmen's 6.6, and 6.75 base defense in jungles or forests (not counting terrain bonuses). This puts them on a level footing with swordsmen, while being less adept at defending in cities, but more adept while defending in forested or jungle terrain. So they're just about as good, and somewhat different in style. What then makes them advantageous over a normal unit is their lack of a resource requirement.

Nice...this makes much more since to me as well.

 

[Wodan]

Why on earth would the Aztecs go through a game where they wouldn't build any of their UU? Especially after I attacked them the first time.

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

Wodan

 

[Zombie69]

I made two simple changes in my rule files that made Jaguars fun to play:

20% vs cities
+25% in forests

This gives them 6.5 attack power against cities compared to swordsmen's 6.6, and 6.75 base defense in jungles or forests (not counting terrain bonuses). This puts them on a level footing with swordsmen, while being less adept at defending in cities, but more adept while defending in forested or jungle terrain. So they're just about as good, and somewhat different in style. What then makes them advantageous over a normal unit is their lack of a resource requirement.

Actually, this makes them 6.0 vs cities and 6.25 in jungle and forests. I would still take a swordsman over that any day.

I agree with the other poster, make Jaguar Warriors strength 6 and give them woodsman 1 instead of the jungle bonus.

 

[Thalassicus]

Actually, this makes them 6.0 vs cities and 6.25 in jungle and forests. I would still take a swordsman over that any day.

I agree with the other poster, make Jaguar Warriors strength 6 and give them woodsman 1 instead of the jungle bonus.

Their free Combat I brings them up to the 6.5 and 6.75 (Aztecs are Aggressive); equal to or better than swordsmen, depending on the situation.

Jaguar:

6.5 vs Cities (5 * 1.1 * 1.2)
6.75 defending in Forests or Jungle (5 * 1.1 * 1.25)
5 defending in Cities

Swordsman:

6.6 vs Cities (6 * 1.1)
6 defending in Forests or Jungle
6 defending in Cities

I found that giving them Woodsman I actually carries over when the unit upgrades (giving all the units down the line a free Woodsman I) while the defense modifiers apply just to that one unit. I searched for a way to give them Woodsman II's double movement in vegetation, but didn't find anything in the XML files that could do that without using a promotion. Nonetheless the lack of resource requirements makes them very useful in the games I've played, since you know you'll always be able to build your swordsmen.

 

[Covert22]

You don't need iron, since it wasn't much in the Meso American lands, thus it makes sense. Iron is much stronger than bronze and stone. Thus any units using these to fight iron are going to lose.

here I go again...

False.


Bronze is actually stronger than iron AND doesnt rust. the problem is that copper and tin can only be found in large quantities for so long before they run out.

When bronze became expensive Iron working saved civilization even though Iron is an inferior product.

STEEL is the really strong one.

 

[Thalassicus]

Bronze did become very hard to come by... all the officers carried bronze swords while the rank and file "made do" with brittle iron.

Bronze also looks much better, another attraction for officers' swords.

 

[Zombie69]

Their free Combat I brings them up to the 6.5 and 6.75 (Aztecs are Aggressive).

You can't count aggressive in there, unless you're willing to compensate this by saying that your leader has only one trait instead of two, making him weaker in another department. You can't count the bonus as being both part of the unit and part of the trait. It's one or the other.

Besides, other civs can be aggressive too, and then their swordsman still eats your jaguar for breakfast.

 

[zeeter]

here I go again...

False.


Bronze is actually stronger than iron AND doesnt rust. the problem is that copper and tin can only be found in large quantities for so long before they run out.

When bronze became expensive Iron working saved civilization even though Iron is an inferior product.

STEEL is the really strong one.

So true - you must have taken the Out of the Fiery Furness class, too!

Iron takes so much time to turn into any kind of steel weapon - first it has to be smelted, then hammered to hell on an anvil - that just wasn't cost effective until larger civilizations came in to being where it could be mass produced. The Hittites come to mind as having far superior steel. Plus I believe they mixed some nickel in there to make the edge more sharpenable (if that's a word).

While copper is extremely common, tin is not. Nobody really knows where the bronze age workers got their tin. Some say the middle east - but there's never been any archaological evidence of any mass tin mining there.

 

[Thalassicus]

You can't count aggressive in there, unless you're willing to compensate this by saying that [the] leader has only one trait instead of two, making him weaker in another department. You can't count the bonus as being both part of the unit and part of the trait. It's one or the other..

Montezuma is Aggressive and Spiritual, with the starting techs of Hunting (Scouts) and Mysticism (early religion). If he also had a free, resourceless Swordsman with 7.2 strength attacking cities and 8.1 defending in forests or jungle, in addition to Mysticism and Scouts, he'd probably end up overpowered.

Bringing the Jaguar up to the normal strength of a swordsman under him, however (6.5 strength attacking cities, 6.75 defending in forests or jungle), appears to make him an excellent pick in the playtesting I've done. Remember, under him you know you'll always be able to build Swordsmen, regardless of starting location.

Try him with the listed changes, I've found it makes him a very powerful leader. Whether or not you agree is up to you, of course it's possible to even take the Jaguar in an entirely new direction and use them to replace Axemen instead, which would also be a great solution.

 

[Shades]

You have to consider overall leader balance, not just unit balance. A leader, their UU, and their free technologies are all part of one package. It's like the discussion if Organized and Expansive are the worst of the traits: Julias is Organized and Expansive, does that mean he's the worst leader? Not at all, his UU works hand in hand with his traits to produce an overall playing style for that leader. The UU, traits, and techs have to all be considered when evaluating a leader's strength.

You shouldn't be balancing this way in a game where civilizations can have more then one leader choice. Just because the Aztecs only have one leader presently doesn't mean that a second couldn't be added in a later expansion. In fact, Firaxis is already polling on their site questions for Civ IV expansions that include additional leaders. Additional leaders that included more Roman leaders that could very well replace your Julius. What if one of the new leaders is aggressive? Then, balancing the Roman UU based off of Julius not being aggressive will be thrown out of whack. It's the same reason that if you balance based off Monty being aggressive, that you then penalize future Aztec leaders if they are not aggressive. It also devalues the aggressive trait from an overall balancing issue. UU's should be balanced to other UU's.

 

[Reprisal]

You shouldn't be balancing this way in a game where civilizations can have more then one leader choice. Just because the Aztecs only have one leader presently doesn't mean that a second couldn't be added in a later expansion. In fact, Firaxis is already polling on their site questions for Civ IV expansions that include additional leaders. Additional leaders that included more Roman leaders that could very well replace your Julius. What if one of the new leaders is aggressive? Then, balancing the Roman UU based off of Julius not being aggressive will be thrown out of whack. It's the same reason that if you balance based off Monty being aggressive, that you then penalize future Aztec leaders if they are not aggressive. It also devalues the aggressive trait from an overall balancing issue. UU's should be balanced to other UU's.

I'm a bit wary of basing an argument on something that has yet to happen...

 

[Thalassicus]

The expansion is likely at least half a year down the line, the matter is balancing it in the meantime (or until a patch is released)

 

[Wodan]

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