Jaguar Warrior: Would this be balanced?

[Jaguar]

Umm, this thread has no posts. As in not even an opening post. How odd.

[player1]

Strange...


Then I'll repost it:

If Jaguar Warrior (the unit) would keep current stats
1.1.2, cost 15, but added an extra 1hp.

Would it be too much.
Or will it remain balanced?

[ErikM]

Definitely not!

An extra HP is worth a lot, especially on the move-2 unit. And I understand that they will keep their extra HP after upgrading to swordsman, right?

Frankly, I don't see what was wrong with old 10-shield Jags. Good unit, true, but it comes bundled with a very early GA, so I don't think it was overpowering.

[player1]

No, extra hp is not kept of course.


P.S.
Well, if 10shield version is OK, then this one is weak.

[LzPrst]

jaguar warriors are a hopeless UU
by the time you've got a few to attack your enemy with their obsolete cause the enemy spearmen will thump your rear end all the way back to the chichen iza.
not to mention if you end up next to, say... Carthage! or Greece, or sumer, or babylon, or (the list goes on)

[Fried-Psitalon]

The old Jaguar Warrior in the PTW environment was fundamentally unbalanced - in the MP environment (and indeed any "equal start" environment) there was a distinct probability of a mathematically provable unstoppable kill on tiny and small maps. The debate in the Conquests beta RAGED over this topic, however the MP community won out largely because we simply offered repeated clear lessons in why this UU was unbalanced.... by bludgeoning people to death with it repeatedly. Starting with a forest (especially game forest!) and building in the worker meant you could have 10 jags before the other guy had more than 3 warriors, 2 of which were probably out exploring - flatline.

As it stands now, the Aztec civ is still *very* strong in MP - mass numbers of veteran jags can easily overwhelm one opponent if played right - AGR makes the typically smaller number of Aztec cities grow faster, which more than compensates for the 5 shield increase. True, this may seriously jepoardize the Aztec player's future if done wrong, but "being the one the Aztecs pick on" isn't fun either.

If you're talking SP, by all means add the HP to the jag. If you're talking MP mod - leave it alone, it's still one of the most coveted civs around.

The reason the majority of the SP community doesn't view the jag this way is simple: the idea of sacrificing ultra-early growth for military production is bordering on heretical. However, rest assured that the idea DOES work - and Jag rushing is the "archer rush" idea expanded, and done with style.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
The old Jaguar Warrior in the PTW environment was fundamentally unbalanced - in the MP environment (and indeed any "equal start" environment) there was a distinct probability of a mathematically provable unstoppable kill on tiny and small maps.

I would like to see this proof! Link?

How do you get 10 jags before the other guy has 3 warriors? They are the same price and Aztecs never were industrious, so I fail to see what difference a forest would make. Unless you find the other guy very early and pillage him to death, which is of course a possibility but not a certainty (depends on the map size though).

This is not to say that I disagree that Jags were strong in MP. In a competitive MP setting, all other things being equal, a fast unit that can initiate a GA would give an (possibly decisive) advantage.

On Demi+, though, those few JWs one can muster in the early going are not going to dent AIs. One might kill a couple of settler escorts with them, but it comes with a price tag of a ridiculously early despotic GA. Worker hunting is their only strong suit, but again on Demi+ it may or may not be feasible.

Below Demi they are effective - just as pretty much any other unit against the AI.

So I agree that utility of Jags depends on game setting, but on average I don't think they are decisively better than other UUs. At 15 shields they are pretty weak in SP.

[Aeson]

Jags are still very powerful at 15 shields in SP. Small and Tiny Pangaea maps aside, I would rather play the C3C Aztecs with 15 shield Jags and the Agricultural trait than the Civ/PtW Aztecs with 10 shield Jags and no Agricultural trait.

[Aeson]

How do you get 10 jags before the other guy has 3 warriors?

It's not quite 10:3, but close.

It's a gambit where you have 2 tiles that produce 2 shields each. Add the starting Worker, and your city now has 5 shields a turn. At 10 shields, you get a Jag every other turn.

Now you'd almost have to be insane to try this with anyone but the Aztecs (or maybe Sumeria, but they didn't exist in Civ/PtW), so everyone else is doing things normally. Given the same terrain, the other civ is probably producing 2 or 3 shields per turn. They will want to be growing, so probably not use Forests which are the most common 2 shield tiles. They also will want their Worker out improving terrain, so their pop doesn't start out at 2.

The 10 Jags would take 20 turns. In that time the other player's city will grow, and could spit out 4-5 Warriors. 4-5 turns for each of the first two, then 3-4 for the others. Usually a normal build would be 3 and then a Settler though.

If both players add the Worker and get to +5 from turn one, the numbers of units produced are the same, but the Jags should always win in that case.

I think the 10:3 reference is going to assume a Barracks build for both, the other civ non-Militaristic. Then you have:

Aztec Worker gambit Jags:

turn 4 Barracks
turn 24 10 Jags

Non-Mil Non-gambit Warriors:

turn 13+ Barracks (assuming 3 shields at size 1, best case, 4 shields at size 2, average case)
turn 22+ 3 Warriors (assuming 4 shields size 2, average case)

[Solomwi]

Aeson, a word on just how powerful that gambit can be:

After reading your post, I decided to try it, and started a PTW 1.27 tiny pangea game on Emperor (I'm a Monarch player at best). This was easily the shortest game I've ever played. I did get two forest tiles on the first go, though I had to move my settler north one tile to get it, put up a barracks and started cranking out jaggies.

When I had about three in the field, I saw a Viking settler/archer shuttle and bopped it without a second thought. Needless to say, it was their first (and only) one, since they immediately started trying to build up a spear force. Trondheim fell fairly quickly. In the meantime, my exploring jags had found the Japanese on the other side of Trondheim and the Koreans (thank goodness that's what the blue was ) on my other side. As soon as my Viking-killers had healed, I went to work on Japan. While taking Kyoto... boom, great leader. So now I have an army along with my little green monsters,

It was academic after that. Japan crumbled, Korea tried to put up a fight, but felt the Aztec heel crush them, too, and I wound up with a conquest victory in 875 BC, 58 minutes playing time and a score of 14,904.

After seeing how powerful that can be on smaller maps, I am 100% behind upping the cost to 15. I cringe to think of what some of you guys could do with them.

[Solomwi]

And just for those who might be curious, I had 28 jags at the end, several of which came from Teotihuacan (popped a settler from a hut early on, too).

[Fried-Psitalon]

And there, my good man, is your proof.

Unfortunately, the beta board where the proof was posted is gone now, but other interesting statistics, quoted from old memory-

As Vice Admin of the MP ladder, I saw a lot of games go by, many of them tournament games. In the later days of PTW, fully 90+% of tournament games included the Aztecs, and well over 2/3rds of those games included one player being eliminated in the first 20 minutes of the match, with an equally high percentage of those games going to the Aztec team. Check out the finals and you'd hear both teams say "We used the Aztecs on the way here" and far better than half the time, the Aztec team in the finals would be the one who walked away with the crown.

It got to the point that some of our TDs began banning the Aztecs. Now in C3C, much larger Jag Rushes are possible, but not quite as early; now they take *slightly* longer to find you, and you have somewhat more time to build up before the initial Dagger thrust tries to slip in..... and it's amazing what a few archers behind spears working together can do; the archers weaken the first few jags nicely, causing yummy promotions for the spears, and the jags start falling pretty quickly. This isn't to say that Jag Rushes don't still work - they work quite well - but they are counterable and beatable now; something they never were in PTW days.

[player1]

Now, we all know that 10 shields version was overpowered.

But what about 15 shields version with +1hp?



EDIT:
One of the reasons why I would like to add an extra hp, is that I planned Incas Scout with price of 15 shields.

So one is CS is faster and JW is tougher.

[LzPrst]

maybe its just my bad luck that has prevented me from having any success with the aztecs. in order for me to win ANYTHING I must outnumber the enemy at least 2-1, with superior units. that sux. the combat system is defect

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Aeson
It's a gambit where you have 2 tiles that produce 2 shields each. Add the starting Worker, and your city now has 5 shields a turn. At 10 shields, you get a Jag every other turn.

Now you'd almost have to be insane to try this with anyone but the Aztecs <...>

I think the second sentence is the key here. It is a very risky strategy. Sure, if it is a deathmatch between two civs on a tiny Pangea, it might work. For other settings, though... 20 turns into the game you have no workers, no improved tiles, and a single size 2-3 city with no improvements. You have 10 Jags that cost (10-4)=6gp in maintenance. If this gambit works, you get a second city which is likely to be far away from the capital, so it is fairly corrupt. Which you could have at this point using standard REX. You also have a GA, which boosts your capital production from 5 shields to 8, which is hardly helpful.

Sure, 1:1 it does not matter since your opponent is dead, but if there is a third player watching this gambit from the safety of his continent acrooss the sea, he should just chuckle as Aztecs effectively surrendered the game to him.

And if it is a 1:1 deathmatch on a tiny map, than the losing player is to blame for not hitting the space race screen on turn 1 and realizing what he is up against.

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
And there, my good man, is your proof.

It is not a proof, though, it is anecdotal evidence In the same league as "I overrun everything in sight with my 15 mounted warriors, capturing cities chock-full of wonders and improvements" or "Due to my seafaring trait, I obtained all contacts by 2500BC which allowed
me to pull way ahead of the pack technologically".

In the later days of PTW, fully 90+% of tournament games included the Aztecs, and well over 2/3rds of those games included one player being eliminated in the first 20 minutes of the match

I submit it is at least partially due to the type of game setting popular in the MP community. Of course, on a tiny/small pangea map with a few opponents, early fast unit gives an advantage. So maybe they should have been modded/restricted for MP games.

My point though is that in SP games under commonly used settings they are not particularly overpowered. And it is my impression that in Civ 3 SPers outnumber MPers quite substantially. Beyond any doubt, Jags are better than such gems as F-15 or conquistadors, but this rather to the suckiness of the latter UUs.

[Aeson]

ErikM,

Mathmatically 10 shield Jags are overpowered because they are the only civ which can take such a gambit and make it work (and it works a high percentage of the time for them in the situation you'd use it). If the situation is such that you don't want to use the gambit, then you don't. It's rather simple.

As for SP, the Jags aren't as powerful as they were, sure. They cost more. The Aztecs are more powerful though.

15 shields makes Jags less useful as a direct attack unit, but that was never really their strongpoint except for in very specific settings. Their strongpoint is you build a few to target an AI (2 Jags can incapacitate the first target, you need a few more for any subsequent ones), and your neighbor might as well not even exist. They won't be able to expand, won't have any terrain improvements, and you can just run their SOD around in circles until you are built up and ready to take their cities.

The cost at 15 shields isn't prohibitive at all, as you only need a handful of them to effectively destroy an AI, and adding in the Agricultural trait easily makes up for the added expenditure. Making the Aztecs an overall more powerful civ in C3C than they were in Civ/PtW.

[vmxa1]

What if your neighbor is Zulu?

[Aeson]

They are still AI... and all their free Impi can be drawn one way while you pillage another if it comes to that. The additional speed is something you have to take into account, but even if you let them attack you, paying 15 shields for 1 (+terrain) defense against 20 shields for 1 offense is good odds. Also they won't have many cause you hit so fast and they don't start with BW, so they don't get Impi as their free starting units. They'll use their first Impi as defenders for their cities giving you more time.

Then you just lead them around. Since they won't have roads, you move just as fast as they do, and unless you screw up they should never catch you.

[ErikM]

Originally posted by Aeson
Mathmatically 10 shield Jags are overpowered because they are the only civ which can take such a gambit and make it work (and it works a high percentage of the time for them in the situation you'd use it). If the situation is such that you don't want to use the gambit, then you don't. It's rather simple.

If enemy is close, than Sumerians probably can pull it off, too.

Would you conclude that Dromons are overpowered, too? With a rate of fire of 2, they are basically a super-mobile artillery, that also serves as a troop transport and an exploration unit. There is simply no other unit like that.

A mathematic measure of UU usefulness would be something like
(Expected score conditional on UU) - (Expected score without UU).

While it is difficult to calculate these expected values, with a large enough database one might get an estimate by averaging game scores for different civs. Of course Civ game score is a rather poor measurement of a true power, but it is better than nothing.

So if it is true that more than a fair share of top civ scores are obtained using Aztecs, I will readily agree that "There is something about Jags". I, however, doubt that this is the case except for very particular game settings (tiny/small Pangea maps, difficulty<=Demi).

[player1]

If Impi is:
1.2.2, cost 20
and Jaguar Warrior is:
1.1.2, cost 15

I think that extra +1hp for JW would be ok.

[Shades]

Originally posted by ErikM

If enemy is close, than Sumerians probably can pull it off, too.

Or, what if the Sumerians ARE your nearest neighbor? Poor Aztecs are gonna have a heck of a time trying to rush over what are essentially spearmen that cost 10 shields.

So if it is true that more than a fair share of top civ scores are obtained using Aztecs, I will readily agree that "There is something about Jags". I, however, doubt that this is the case except for very particular game settings (tiny/small Pangea maps, difficulty<=Demi). End of the Jag rush if you ask me.

That's the trouble with their test. It used parameters that prejudiced the test. A tiny map. I almost never play on that size map myself. The larger size maps have a great amount of effect on the success of Jag rushing. Target civs are farther away and often bad terrain can help to negate the Jaguar movement advantages. I have often seen a lot of jungle near a Aztec starting location.

[Shades]

Originally posted by player1
If Impi is:
1.2.2, cost 20
and Jaguar Warrior is:
1.1.2, cost 15

I think that extra +1hp for JW would be ok.

Adding something to the Jags sure seems necessary when you look at the cost for the Impi, doesn't it? The Jaguar Warrior simply isn't as good a value of the Impi now with the change in Jaguar costs.

[Shades]

Originally posted by Aeson

Then you just lead them around. Since they won't have roads, you move just as fast as they do, and unless you screw up they should never catch you.

Well, let's say he is a player instead. He doesn't have to catch you since he is simply trying to stop your rush. His Impi only cost 5 more shields and are quite clearly much more effective defending against your efforts. And, being more effective, the Zulus need even less troops to hold you off. Which is all he has to do for a bit since you sacrificed your expansion for a military strike based on quick successes. You would now be facing an enemy that is every bit as mobile as you, but, able to defend better then you. Advantage Zulu.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by ErikM
Would you conclude that Dromons are overpowered, too? With a rate of fire of 2, they are basically a super-mobile artillery, that also serves as a troop transport and an exploration unit. There is simply no other unit like that.

I was actually going to compare the C3C Jags to the Dromon to make my point about them being game changing (breaking in some cases) 'support' units, but didn't want to clutter the discussion any more than necessary. Dromons are very effective units, which aren't ever going to be the hammer that actually take out an AI. Jags are much the same. You can debilitate an AI with them, and then bring the hammer at your leisure.

A mathematic measure of UU usefulness would be something like
(Expected score conditional on UU) - (Expected score without UU).

Score has very little to do with the UU except in small/tiny fastest conquest games. Even then it's about 10% of score at best. In more standard settings, the best UU's are going to mean less than 5% difference in max possible score.

The mathmatics I was referencing were just how fast you could produce Jags in certain conditions, and what you would expect to face at that point.

While it is difficult to calculate these expected values, with a large enough database one might get an estimate by averaging game scores for different civs. Of course Civ game score is a rather poor measurement of a true power, but it is better than nothing.

Experience is the only good measurement. Play the Aztecs, get good with using Jags (as pillagers first and foremost), and then see if they are underpowered.

Even at 15 shields per Jag, no other civ can incapacitate their neighbors as quickly and efficiently as the Aztecs can.

So if it is true that more than a fair share of top civ scores are obtained using Aztecs, I will readily agree that "There is something about Jags". I, however, doubt that this is the case except for very particular game settings (tiny/small Pangea maps, difficulty<=Demi).

No one said otherwise. The Aztecs in Civ/PtW are the penultimate small landmass pangaea civ. Check the HOF over at Civfanatics. The Civ/PtW Aztecs weren't so hot in games that would be expected to play out longer. In C3C the Aztecs more on par with other civs on most settings. They aren't the manic civ anymore. They are balanced quite nicely.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Shades
Well, let's say he is a player instead.

If you want to debate my points on use of the Jags in SP, keep your points dealing with SP. Otherwise your points are pointless.

As for your MP points, I'm not very familiar with MP. From a military standpoint I'd say the Aztecs have a narrow window of opportunity to hit the Zulu early on, using disruption tactics, then the Zulu would have the edge later, using much the same disruption tactics. Economically the Aztecs should always have the edge, but military certainly can disrupt economics.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by player1
If Impi is:
1.2.2, cost 20
and Jaguar Warrior is:
1.1.2, cost 15

I think that extra +1hp for JW would be ok.

In SP speed kills. Not just how fast a unit is, but how fast it can be brought to bear. Impi take a while to get to, you need to get BW first. Impi are also on the defender upgrade path, while Jags are on the attacker path.

Jags can be there very early, disrupting an AI to the point of it being irrelevent. Impi take longer to get there, but are less at risk once they do. Both now play the same role, pillaging and restricting an AI from sending out Settlers or Workers. Jags get a headstart in the business, plus they have the option of being upgraded to Swordsmen for the killing blow. Impi remain disruption or protection units through the Ancient Era, while Jags are disruption units then can be finishers.

When looking at unit stats, it's important to bear in mind the role(s) the unit will be playing. The most important role of the Jags and Impi is reliant on their movement rate, not offense or defense. Optimally, the only fighting would be to take out AI Settler/Escort pairs, where both units are only 1 attack with retreat (Archers would be preferable in this regard in most cases to either). Overall, Impi are less efficient IMO, as you shouldn't be getting attacked and they are slower to get out in the field.

[vmxa1]

Shades a rush was not really what was being talked about. It was really a pillage run and kill any targets of opportunity.