First Aztec Post.

[d_dudy]

a fast unit to start the game off and explore with......like a scout? like a scout that expansionist civs get free off the bat?

1.1.2 sucks-for the war chariot, too

it should be 1.2.1 or 1.2.2

[Skanky Burns]

The movement/retreat thing does sound interesting... suppose you have your a whole pile of JWs near the enemy city. Its defended by 3 hoplites (might as well make it hard ). You order your JWs to attack (one at a time...) JW 1 attacks, takes the hoplite's health down by a third before having its health reduced to half. JW1 retreats. JW2 attacks, takes the hoplite's health down by a third before having its health reduced to half. JW2 retreats. Repeat until done. Capture city. The next turn, move your JWs into the city, and repair.

Conclusion: Enough 1.1.2 JWs can destroy multiple 1.3.1 hoplites without Any losses if done correctly and with enough numbers.

Admittedly, a single 15.8.3 unit could also achieve the same, but the JWs dont require resources, which is a bonus, and are available right at the start.

The Aztecs will be feared at the start of Civ 3 games

[Fiil]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Romans don´t get their Legion in the stone age. Neither do they get it in 1950 AD; they get it (approximately) when they historically should. Not so for Actecs. Actecs should be strong sometime between 1000 and 1500 AD, not in the Stone Age. What is so hard to understand about that?

Remember that the Aztecs were in "the stone age" in 1000 to 1500 AD.
The units in civ do not get obsolete when the dates changes, only if you discover newer technology.

If you really want to translate history into civ2 you could just imagine that the aztecs entered the game in 14?? when another civ was destroyed.

I don't know how this will work in civ3 but I guess civs will still be paired in twos.

[Fiil]

This was just what I was hoping for!

The Aztec warriors shouldn't be stronger than the Roman legionaries eventhough they appear later in history!!

And I don't think the JW is a bad UU for the Aztecs. With a bit of tactic it's easy to win a battle when you have 2 movement points because you decide the battlefield... You choose where to attack or take a last stand. And with UU without any resource requirements and probably costs like a standard warrior you can have swarms of JWs on your continent in no time!
I would choose the JWs over the war chariots and bowmen anytime because of the cost (probably half - maybe a third), they wont be worth their price if the JW attacks! (and that you can assure if you have plenty of units and no rush to get somewhere).

[Melios]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
This is precisely what I mean. That´s is why they are ahistorical. Romans don´t get their Legion in the stone age. Neither do they get it in 1950 AD; they get it (approximately) when they historically should. Not so for Actecs. Actecs should be strong sometime between 1000 and 1500 AD, not in the Stone Age. What is so hard to understand about that?

Then by that logic an Aztec civ shouldn't be allowed to start until 900AD.

If you want them to be historically accurate of course.

[Txurce]

Originally posted by d_dudy
a fast unit to start the game off and explore with......like a scout? like a scout that expansionist civs get free off the bat?

1.1.2 sucks-for the war chariot, too

it should be 1.2.1 or 1.2.2

A scout's attack factor is likely to be zero, wheras the JW have potential as swarm units capable of retreating to fight another day. This could be a meaningful advantage at the start of every game, when you are on even ground technologically with the AI. How often would you need the relatively minor edge of a UU later in the game against the typical AI opponent? (This assumes that all UU edges will be minor - including the fabled Panzer.)

The war chariot is another story, if it comes later in the game, or has higher costs. It's also too bad that two UU's have the same a/d/m factors. Not so unique!

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Melios
Then by that logic an Aztec civ shouldn't be allowed to start until 900AD.

If you want them to be historically accurate of course.

No, what I really mean (but no one seems to understand) is Jaguars shouldn´t replace Warriors at all. They should replace an early medieval unit, such as spearmen, then they would fit into the timeline. They should be more powerful, but come at a later time. Simple, really.

[smellymummy]

remember that aztecs are militaristic. The begining of the game they will be able to produce lots of JW (I'm guessing they will be cheap) and swarm enemies easily ... but most importantly, for each victory they have a greater chance to produce a great leader.

Was there a max to the amount of great leaders a civ can produce? I thought I read somewhere that it was 3, but I might be wrong. Anyway, having a whole bunch of great leaders still in the BC age (maybe even pre 2000BC), I bet the aztecs won't have much trouble pumping out wonders, or decimate neighboors.

As for swarming ("a la tank rush"), that could be a viable tactic, but we would probably be slowed down by support costs. Also, it's my experience with civs, that a well fortified phalanx can easily withstand several warrior attacks. However, how strong will it be against an army of warriors. or rather the Aztec JW.

[jdd2007]

IMO, the jw will help in the begining but will mean nothing in the long run, while fe, the panzer will conquer many cities and will change things considerably

also IMO, the jw would have an attack of two or three, defense of one and TWO hitpoints to represent their toughness

[KrazyHorse]

Comrade Tribune:

Jaguar Warriors appeared at the same military technology level as warriors. They had little in the way of armour, fought with blunt instruments, etc. Just because the Aztec empire passed through this level at 900a.d. doesn't mean that the game should "force" this development to occur at the Medieval Europe tech level. That would just be silly. If the Maori were included, should their UU (probably along the lines of Jag. Warrior, but even less "advanced") replace riflemen?

[Steve Clark]

Comrade, once again, the only timeline in Civ is the one you control. It shouldn't have anything to do with the historical timeline. How do explain all of those challenges that my colleagues and I participate in at the Civ2-Strategy forum where we try many different ways to create challenging games like pre-1000ad spaceships?

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS


A-ha! So if, what if, for example, units with a higher movement rating could retreat from combat against units with a lower movement rating if they are losing? That might be an interesting twist...


Dan

STOP TOYING WITH US DAMMIT!



keep up the good work.

loving the information flow.

you *COULD* open a FTP which *MIGHT* have a copy of Civ3 in it.

more seriously, could you send me the endgame file? the replay thing? i want to make a program to record it (for mp games mostly). [original thread]

if the endgame thing is just stored in the save file, send me a save file

[mactbone]

Everyone keeps saying that the JW has such weak attack and everything, but look at *all* of the ancient units. Notice a trend?

1.1.1 Warrior
1.1.2 JW
1.2.1 Phalanx
1.3.1 Hoplite
etc., etc.

They *all* look worthless if you try to think of them in terms of Civ2 but when taken in context they aren't as sucky as you think.

Why would a Panzer roll over opponents but a JW not? Wouldn't it make less of a difference with modern units if a/d/m is only changed by one? Take these hypothetical stats -

6.5.2 Tank
7.5.2 Panzer
8.5.2 Modern Tank

Mathematically the difference between 1 and 2 is a LOT more than the difference between 6 and 7.

[Mongoloid Cow]

Good point MacTBone

[jdd2007]

lets not get TOO technical but he IS right

[Steve Clark]

Not get too technical?!?! Then I guess you won't feel at home in the Civ3-Strategy forum where a number of us will break EVERYTHING down to their finite elements, as we have been doing for years in Civ2-Strategy. Good thing that there will still be a Civ3-General forum for, ahem, less strategic/technical civers.