The pikeman from hades

[Smash]

hehe.Then you ask for peace after your elephants stalled.You neglect to mention the Americans have just completed the war academy and the Canadians have been preparing for years not to mention the safety I will enjoy when The Wall is finished(2 turns).It was just getting interesting.As in previous world wars looks like the Canadians will have to save some American butt.I kept encouraging him to defend heavily but your attack came early on him
Having said all that we'll probably never continue.Excellent attack though.Surprise was beautiful.

Ive been attacking Berzerker in another game and the advantage is definetly with the defender.Those forrested rivers are tough to crack.I do believe there is a defensive bonus for them.I hit some some vet pikes with vet dragoons-result-dead dragoons and hardly a scratch on his pike.I gave up frontal assaults after he had walls.Sabotaging city improvements is brutally effective and should be discussed before hand IMO
[This message has been edited by Smash (edited November 14, 1999).]

[Makeo]

I attacked a walled city with 7 veteran crusaders. Two died taking out the musketeer, but the third killed him. Then i killed two elephants an archer and a settler, but had no more units to take the undefended city (size 12).

So i thought i was dead, but my 5 remaining crusaders survived to the next turn and although mostly in yellow i attacked again. I eventually killed the musketeer that had been built with the last of the crusaders, ie lost four and of course couldn't take the city again. And it got blasted the next turn.

very frustrating.

i think a forrested river square gets +100% defence.

[Matthew]

Since a musketeer has twice the hit points of ancient units they should defend against ancient mobile units as well as a vet pikeman, which defends at (according to the manual) double it's ordinary strength against mobile units. But I must say that it does surprise me that even a vet pikeman would do so well against vet dragoons unless it had a city wall and good defensive terrain.

There is still a place for warmongering, however. First of all sometimes a civ will neglect defense early for growth. Also, a city with Mike's or one or two other important wonders may be worth some sacrifice to take, or at least destroy, but one had best have sufficient force to take the city or all efforts will be wasted.

I don't think that neglecting defense is always a bad strategy. It's a risk, but sometimes it is one's best chance at catching up or gaining a decisive lead, as long as he is ready when the attack comes.

[Matthew]

I'm posting this here because it seems to be relevant to strategy, and noone seems interrested in the tales from the front thread any more.

Perfectionists, such as myself, may rejoice over this.

Last Friday night I was in a 4 player game.
The americans had the misfortune of meeting the Canadians just before they met me. As my ally was quite a ways away, and I was able to find the American capital, I decided that my best chance was a warmongering approach. Most of my efforts
were directed at preparing to attack America. Washington was on grassland with plenty of access from the sea, and that was my primary objective. I built a city on a coastal mountain with access to the American sea. That city was to build boats.

While doing some city maintenance on Ashur one turn I was surprised to see a new city in it's city radius, on a forested river square. I could have easily taken the city at this point, but I didn't want America to be aware of my war preparations or agressive intentions, as my main target was Washington. Ashur and my other northern cities continued preparations to attack washington, but 2 southern cities that had been built primarily to further colonization began instead to builld elephants to attack the river city.

An embassy revealed American knowledge of feudalism, but not masonry, so mobilization continued. Around 1400 BC the forces were ready. Washington was destroyed easily, but unfortunately at some point I had overtaken America as #1 in population, so no empire splitting.

That same turn I attacked the river city. First vet elephant killed a vet archer, which for some reason defended first. Then a non vet pikeman beat off two more vet elephants. My next two elephants were not veterans, and the first was beaten off by a legion, and the second died at the hands of a now vet pikeman. Had I waited a turn to attack I likely would have destroyed the city, as I would have had 2 more elephants availible, and the city was now size 1. But the point is that a (to begin with) non vet pikeman was able to hold off 3 elephants, 2 of them vets, without city walls.

The strategy point here, even without city walls vet pikemen on good defensive terrain can make the cost of taking a city prohibitive. With walls (and I already knew this), forget it. And as one has to spend about 120 shields on enough elephants or crusaders to kill off a 20 shield pikeman, well, a perfectionist who builds on good defensive terrain can easily afford to beat off a war mongerer, and doesn't necessarily need to worry too much about having city walls destroyed, although that does get expensive.

A question for anyone who might have experimented with this: does a forested river square get 50% defense or 100% (both 50% bonuses added in)?

[arii]

Matt/ berzerk/ smash I do want to continue that game. Friday after 8:30ct is good for me. Maybe thursday evening might be a possibility also.
Berz that was a good surprise attack. You couldn't get that small city but by getting the capital you damged matt's civ pretty good. That allowed me to get to mike. I will provide you with the technological support as the game goes on.
Smash is preparing something! I'd better beef up my defense soon.

[Smash]

Actually it was Matthew that attacked Berzerker.Unprovoked I might add.Well sorta.I'm sure that overlapping city was due to lack of exploration
We'll see what happens Friday.I wouldn't mind continuing at all although my ally needs a palace.Got an extra 1000 gold on hand?

oh ya-arii-remember it was the Canadians that agreed to allow peaceful passage for caravans.AND it was the Canadians who were attacked and the new city of Calgary that was destroyed by you.However we have not sought repercussions have we?

[This message has been edited by Smash (edited November 15, 1999).]

[arii]

Yes I did attack that city. The reason is because your ally had attacked me previously.
He he. That was a cheap shot but anything to slow down the opposing alliance.

[Matthew]

So Berz, how's your research on the wheel progressing anyway, now that you have no capital? ha ha ha ha.