Favorite Era of Warfare

Jon Shafer · February 16, 2004, 14:13

What is everyone's favorite time to duke it out with other civs?

For me it's the Medieval Era. To me it seems to be the most balanced and offers the most opportunities for mixed arms warfare.

Your offensive units are Medieval Infantry, Knights and Longbowman. They all come shortly after each other giving a short window where each has preeminance on the battlefield. You have Pikemen for defense, and new bombard units (Trebuchets) for bombardment purposes.

The best aspect is that there is a real decision to be made between your types of offensive units. MIs are 40 shields whereas Knights are 70. There is a balance and not always a clear-cut decision on what units are best to use. Later on, you only have 1 main offensive unit and the high SPT counts means that the difference between one unit and a more expensive one is a turn at most. For MIs and Knights a 10 SPT city has an extra 3 turns to produce. There's a real trade-off.

Well, I guess this would suck if you didn't have iron.

vmxa1 · February 16, 2004, 16:11

I have started to like ancient times for most of my wars. Using swords and horses is a cheap way to go and a few early MGL's can do you a lot of good.

Arrian · February 16, 2004, 17:51

Ancient and Medieval. Both are solid. In the ancient you've got warriors, archers, spears, horsies, swords and cats (not counting the UUs, of course). In the medieval you've got LBs, Med Inf, Pikes, Trebs, Knights... and eventually Muskets and Cav. Plus, it's got a slew of cool UUs.

Some of it depends on my civ choice, because of the UU. If I'm playing as the Iroquois, for instance, how can I not love using the Mounted Warrior?

...

I have been going to war later in Conquests as opposed to PTW. A lot of that is the change to MGLs. I no longer pick fights with archers and try for MGLs to snatch Great Wonders. Some of it is the lessened power of the Forbidden Palace. Sure, rushing it early with a MGL is still useful, but it's not quite what it once was, when it essentially doubled your empire (the optimal situation).

Now I often go hardcore builder early, often running almost zero military, and concentrating on setting up pumps for growth, building my basic economy (markets, libraries), trying for a few key wonders, and gunning for a tech lead (and chances for SGLs, of course). I fight later. Several times this has meant a warrior -> med inf upgrade, followed by a horse -> knight upgrade. Another time it meant a horse -> Cav upgrade.

My style is still in flux, especially since I've finally moved up to Emperor and am still adjusting to that.

-Arrian

UnOrthOdOx · February 16, 2004, 18:00

Wow, I've been going almost near opposite, pinning my ears back and heading full bore warmongering, only to sit back and really go hardcore builder when I'm sure I have Salt Peter.

Usually I'm sticking with the archers and horse, only opting for swords and Med Inf under certain circumstances.

The Knight/Med Inf/Longbow timing of things has to be my favorite right now with Cavs basically ending the game and everything in the Ancient just setting up the knight level units for me.

Then, that all may be somewhat slanted to my recent favoring of Japan and Feudalism specific strategies.

Fried-Psitalon · February 16, 2004, 18:18

I'm sure this is no surprise to Trip, but I vastly prefer the modern era - at least for MP. The changes to bombing and the addition of the TOW and SAMs make all the difference, turning it into a very viable field for a three-theater war, none of which you can neglect without seriously harming one (or both) of the other two.

Jon Shafer · February 16, 2004, 18:32

If there were two changes to the Industrial/Modern era it would be my favorite:

No more RR infinite movement.
Greater variety in attackers.

RRs basically take most of the strategy out of warfare. For PBEM games and MPDGs it's basically a race to see who can take what land before the Industrial Era, because once you got the place RRed defense becomes much much easier than attack. No, it's not impossible, but a duel between two competant players (or teams) will usually be won by the defender with RRs.

On the other topic, the offensive unit upgrade path means that there's really not a variety of attackers... you attack with Tanks or MAs, defend with Infantry or MIs, bombard with Artillery or RAs. With Medieval combat, you have the greater choice and greater balance of attackers with MIs and Knights. Even if there were a slow attacker in the late game, the difference in shield costs and effects of RRs would make the slower attacker obsolete. Along the same vein, the world usually isn't fully developed in the Medieval Era, allowing for attacks to go over rough or unroaded land where the defender will have a tougher time counter-attacking.

All in all, I think the war aspect of the game is much more balanced and fun in the middle part.

Fatwreck · February 16, 2004, 18:36

I couldn´t agree more, the infinite RR movement really spoil wars in the last eras

CrONoS · February 16, 2004, 19:08

Can you change the infinite RR movement in the Civ3Conquest editor???

Thanks!

Jon Shafer · February 16, 2004, 19:16

Quote:

Originally posted by cronos_qc
Can you change the infinite RR movement in the Civ3Conquest editor???

Thanks!

Unfortunately you cannot.

asleepathewheel · February 16, 2004, 19:23

I like the changes to naval warfare myself. I love a fleet of Men o' war rampaging on the high seas. I just wish the ai would do more than 3frigates 1galleon.

well, and I wish they would bombard more than units and cities.

asleepathewheel · February 16, 2004, 19:27

and the infinite rails is ridiculous.

Purple · February 16, 2004, 19:29

My natural tendency is to postpone war as long as possible, emphasizing expansion and development.

But lately, particularly since Conquests came out, I've tried being more agressive in the early game, when I'm more on a parity with the other civs. I always try to wipe out the first one or two civs that I encounter, and that gives me more room to expand.

Later on, my gradually developing tech lag makes me more cautious and selective about my targets.

MartynC · February 17, 2004, 01:05

One Word "NUCLEAR" Nothing like nuking my opposition when they don't yet have ICBM's. But on equestion, in CivII you could say your words are backed by Nuclear weapons - so give me what i want or your next

but in C3C they don't care that i have nukes & they don't fear me

which is stupid as i have NUKES!!!!

Jaguar · February 17, 2004, 01:22

Industrial if my sister and I are playing an SP game together (Monarch or Emperor level)

Ancient if on my own (Demigod, Deity, or Sid)

Favorite in MP is no warfare at all.

Paddy · February 17, 2004, 06:06

Late Ancients

CerberusIV · February 17, 2004, 07:22

I like the late Industrial/early Modern era, mainly because I like using air units and having ships that do more than just ferry ground units. I do tend to play archipelago or continents maps so that gives an excuse to use a wider variety of units than just tanks and mech infantry.

I did make a few changes in the editor. The only units I don't use are subs (until they fix the bug) and paratroopers (who does use paras?).

Cryptor · February 17, 2004, 07:38

I just created a resource called 'Impossible', with 0 occurance rate, which is required for railroads. That eliminates the 'infinite movement of railroads' problem, because you can't build them. And I never saw the point of a production bonus just for spreading railroads everywhere.

Arrian · February 17, 2004, 11:01

Well, RR's should increase movement in some way, and I do think the production bonus is fine.

Ideally, I'd like to see rail transit in CivIV work like this:

You can "load" units at a rail head (city improvement) and transport them to another (similar to an airlift). This happens instantly, but the units will be out of movement points until the next turn. It's not my idea: I've seen it proposed elsewhere, and I like it. I figure then you just need to build 1 rail line between cities (the rails could have an area of influence for the production bonus, say 2 tiles in every direction), not on every tile on the map.

I'd probably also want a couple different types of roads, such that more modern style roads offered bettern movement than roads built in 1000bc.

-Arrian

hexagonian · February 17, 2004, 11:27

Quote:

Originally posted by cronos_qc
Can you change the infinite RR movement in the Civ3Conquest editor???

Can you push it's enable advance to something like 'Stealth' and then bump up the build times of Mines/Farms in the editor? It may not be realistic, and it certainly changes the economic aspect of the game, but you would have to make due with roads for most of the game.

Ideally, it would be nice to have multiple levels of Tile Improvements to offset the economic loss, but there is always the hope that civ4 will fix this.

I tend to build in the Ancient Age, and then try to expand via military in the Medieval age. Getting 'Knights Templar' really helps warmongoring too...

planetfall · February 17, 2004, 12:50

Trippers,

Great question. I used to always wait until the Modern Era, but now rarely am much in the Modern Era. C3C has changed the way I play. I went from Modern Era to Ancient, to a floating style. Lately I have been getting GA too soon, or SGAs in middle of Middle Ages. I hate to waste GA or SGA, so I revert to builder as much as possible during those periods.

Current favorite periods:
Late Ancient to Early Middle
-- good variety of units
-- no one unit is overwhelming
-- no RR effect
-- Ancient era UU's are weakened by tech advances

Late Middle to Early Indust
-- now the fight for luxuries comes intense
-- Cav's are here and that extra movement means both more opportunity for offense and more opportunities for Opps, I missed that enemy unit
-- decision points are more blurred: offense, defense, artillery, or improvement??

Weak periods:
Early Ancient
-- archer attacks don't work
-- land grab is for unclaimed territory
-- no time for offensive units

Industrial
-- if don't build infrastructure, the civs with infrastructure will roll over you in early Modern
-- RR means delay in warfare to build SOD

Modern
-- new air and navy is nice but not yet there yet. Need bomber between stealth and B17. Need fighter between spitfire and F14.
-- TOW is good, but need stronger upgrade unit
-- guerrilla is a bit weak
-- enhanced/cheaper espionnage would add a nice dimension
-- improved marines/paratroopers would add excitement
-- radar art's are too ineffective
-- need a tank between Sherman and Abrams
-- can you say invisible guerrilla with bio weapons?

Enough for now.

== PF

Well almost.

Trip: "What do you see as the strongest strengths of C3C and the weakest links?" Beside RR, what else would you change to make the game more fun?

lethe · February 17, 2004, 13:46

Early industrial is the best period of warfare. It's the only time you truly _need_ artillery for offense at levels below deity. Cavalry trying to take down Riflemen without bombardment is futile.

Cavalry stacks with cannons and riflemen for support. Ironclads harrying his poor frigates and galleons. Meanwhile juggling in factories and railroading every tile you see.

Once the factories are in place it becomes ridiculously easy unless you are missing rubber and/or oil.

Medieval wars are fun. Especially the early ones. Trebuchets, pikes and MI stacks, with knights for harrying. Though the naval game is very, very lacking here.

I'm not very fond of the airpower implementation. It's too abstract compared to the rest of the wargame.

Brundlefly · February 17, 2004, 15:27

Late Medieval/ Early Industrial - Emperor

I play a builder game until this time and then when I get Nationalism I mobilize and overwhelm everyone on my continent with Calvary and Riflemen. I can't play Ottomans anymore because to do this with Sipahi makes the game ridiculously easy.

Once that has been accomplished, I used the last few turns of mobilization to crank out Longbowman. These upgrade to Guerilla (!)

and they are cheap defenive troops for overseas invasion in late industrial/early modern.

PresidentMarcos · February 19, 2004, 21:30

I like Nuclear Wars in Modern Times. Just a nice, huge excange of ICBMs and Tacnukes until almost everything's polluted and your cities have been starved down to 1 or 2 pop...after which you have a giant devastating conventional war.

Nothing like fighthing over a radioactive wasteland, that's for sure.

BTW, HAS anyone here been in a very, very large scale ICBM exchange? One exchange I was in rubbed out a couple of Civs within the first few turns, at which point the strikes had destroyed a lot, including ICBM forces.

Xorbon · February 19, 2004, 22:58

I have to agree with a lot of people here and say that the early middle ages are my favorite era for warfare. Although, the late middle ages are fun with their cavalry and cannons...

About railroads: I like the idea Arrian mentioned, but without the city improvement. I don't think a city improvement would be necessary. As far as providing production boosts, I'd rather have modern farms and modern mines (or something along those lines) do that instead of rails.

bongo · February 20, 2004, 05:45

Anything up to late medevial. All of my games are settled by then anyway...

As much as I love moving my units along railroads...perhaps they should go down to 1/10 of a MP?

Fosse · February 20, 2004, 10:14

Ancient and Medeival are always the most fun and exciting. The reasons why have all been stated!

RRs are BROKEN!

GePap · February 20, 2004, 10:41

RR's are not "broken"- RR's have always been like this, the great change being the attacker can't exploit it as well.

This is what airpower is for: use your bombers to take out railroads and isolate the battlefield. Use defensive units to defend your stack as it tries to navigate the enemy territory, and most importantly, attack from multiple fronts, not just one giant stack going through. This is where parattroppers can come in, drop them in some areas and pillage.

gunkulator · February 20, 2004, 11:27

Another vote for late Ancient/early Medieval. Good selection of units and gov't choices lets you mix up your playing style. A lot of UUs to contend with too.

Once Cavalry comes along, the game goes downhill, warfarewise. The human player tends to gun for Mil Trad quickly. Once you have it, there's little point in building anything but Cavalry and perhaps the occasional Musket for a long time. In addition, there's little point in using any other gov't but Republic once you have Cavalry. Leaving units in AI territory is a major cause of WW, however you can avoid it to a great degree with 3 move Cav.

In the early Ancient era, you must expand or die. Early UUs are mostly a waste.

The Industrial era favors defense for a loooong time until Tanks. Tanks are great but you need lots of them. The tedium of moving around dozens of units drags down gameplay. Also, my Tanks usually outpace the range of my air units and rebasing air units one at a time is excrutiating.

The Modern era? Who makes it that far?

planetfall · February 20, 2004, 11:37

Quote:

Originally posted by PresidentMarcos
BTW, HAS anyone here been in a very, very large scale ICBM exchange? One exchange I was in rubbed out a couple of Civs within the first few turns, at which point the strikes had destroyed a lot, including ICBM forces.

In one game, but it was extremely boring. Down to 2 major civs. I had 20 ICBM's and 10 tacticals, AI had 10 ICBMS and SDI. Other 3 AI's still in the game did not matter.

Lessons learned:
-- ICBM's are darn expensive and are overpriced for value
-- SDI works and makes ICBM's more expensive
-- tacticals reduce cost but do have range limitation
-- Nukes only hit 9 tiles and don't kill everything unlike RL
-- nuking a city does NOT do anything to ICBM there, it may
hit you next turn
-- AI does poor targeting with nukes. It will continue hitting dead cities instead of your more productive cities.
-- other AI's put you at -100 in reputation
-- still need to get unit in city to destroy it
-- easier game if use armor and artillery instead of nukes.
-- it is boring to have nukes when AI's best city has production of 9.
-- dumb ICBM's don't even have a movement of 1 on RR. ?Guess they did not hear of RR nukes.
-- finally, you want to win the game BEFORE SDI is even close to
AI

== PF

TheArsenal · February 20, 2004, 12:19

I like Medieval prior to the appearance of Cavs quite a bit, but my favorite has to be Industrial, I’d say after the ability to build transports through early Modern era and the ability to build MAs (which radically change the game). At this point, I usually have domestic and continent concerns well in hand, and can go adventuring overseas. It is the single point in the game where a variety of naval options are available, and one can use true combined arms - air, sea, artillery, land and amphibious units - all at once in attack.