Right or Wrong? Judge me!

Carolus Rex · May 31, 2000, 14:43

I have a size 1 city on plains, only defender is a warrior (have a horsie two squares away, though).

After one of my turns a barb archer suddenly pops up out of unexplored black territory south of the city. He's three squares away from the city. The terrain between city and archer is hills.

Since the city is a size one on plains and only is defended by a fortified warrior, I decide to move it out when my turn comes to meet the archer. Meanwhile I rush a second warrior (4 or 5 shields I think).

My turn comes, I move one of the warriors out and I also move the horsie into the city. The second warrior is fortified in the city.

The barb archer moves one step closer, I fortify my warrior on hills between the archer and the city square.

The archer attacks my fortified warrior, wins and is in the yellow. I rush a third warrior, my turn comes and I decide to move out the second warrior although I will not have time to fortify it.

Archer attacks the second, unfortified warrior and wins. He is now in the red. I move my third warrior out and decide to wait with rushing a new warrior, as my opponent moves before me and I have time to rush during his turn should my warrior lose. Archer attacks and wins

I rush yet another warrior (from three shields I think) which I move out when my turn comes...

Archer attacks and loses, phew!

End result: three killed warriors, no barb king though so the rushbuilding has taken a heavy toll on my treasury. City unharmed and because it is very early in the game (only have 4 cities), that was very important.

Question: Any other (better!) way to deal with this? Should I have saved one of the warriors, let the archer move up next to the city (on hills) and attack it with my horse?

FYI, there are no diplo's running around yet.

Edited part: Had to get the rushing sequence right!

Carolus

[This message has been edited by Carolus Rex (edited May 31, 2000).]

rah · May 31, 2000, 16:33

If I read it right, you were right.
If the city was size one, that early in the game, losing it would have hurt you worse than the treasury loss. Later in the game, it's a toss up.
RAH
Been there, done that, usually get luckier on the attacks.

Xin Yu · May 31, 2000, 17:02

Right decision if you can't build phalanx or archer. Otherwise your second warrior should be a phalanx.

Smash · May 31, 2000, 17:19

costly but you fought hard and saved the city

War4ever · May 31, 2000, 17:46

it sucks to lose alot of your treasury early, but thats what its for anyways..... I have noticed those pesky archers can just waltz through warriors even with minute heath left on the bar..... how many times have i not rushed that second or third warrior and poof, city destroyed .....

yes its vitally important for your first five or so cities to not lose any population points, be destroyed or captured by barbs.

As Ming stated, later in the game when you have a dozen plus cities, its almost better to let them capture and then bribe it back and enjoy the free army, (well actually i guess you pay for it)

Sten Sture · May 31, 2000, 18:59

Wrong!! You should have built an SDI to knock the archer arrows out of the sky or used KRC to build a howie.

Hasdrubal · May 31, 2000, 19:24

LOL at SS!

Carolus: Well done, that was some brave fighting.
There is an other option, costly though, but maybe cheaper than buying three warriors. I can't tell from the information you've shared.
Here it goes: empty your city, and have more than (correct me if I'm wrong) 100 gold in your coffers. Try not to have much more. The barbarian will now offer a "If you don't pay us ... amount of gold we will ruthlessly sack this city" deal. He'll request half your treasury. Pay him, and he'll disappear.

------------------
Ceterum censeo Romanem esse delendam.

outerface · May 31, 2000, 20:12

It sounds like you did alright. Once during an OCC game I kept pumping out pikemen for a barbarian to attack, trying to get him to leave the leader for the 150 gold. I wasted far too many turns of production when I would have been better served creating an offensive unit to destroy it and the leader both. Building warriors to save a city is smart, doing it out of greed like me is what's stupid.

Makeo · May 31, 2000, 21:20

Thats the strat i would have used.

Hasdrubals strat is risky because sometimes the barbs take your city

May 31, 2000, 21:43

Unless its very early in the game, I just let the city fall, if you have more than 10 cities, its not worth it.

Carolus Rex · June 1, 2000, 02:37

No phalanx or archer available, next option would be a horse (say no more!)...

LOL @ Sten! I would have, but my cheat-o-matic wouldn't let me?! Maybe I should try reinstalling it?

Hasdrubal, that is a fair strat but as Makeo says sometimes they don't ask and move right in. I would like to know what determines that; have read a couple of suggestions about it but still no definite answer.

Thanks everyone for the input!

Carolus

DaveV · June 1, 2000, 08:11

I usually try to attack barb archers instead of defend against them. They attack at 4.5 with the Deity bonus, and I swear there's something in the code that makes them defend at 1. So it would be a 50/50 proposition to attack the archer on a hill with your horse; if you didn't kill him, you should weaken him enough so he'd lose against a warrior.

vik · June 1, 2000, 09:25

The subject of your thread reads:

"Right or Wrong? Judge Me!"

Unfortunately, according to many of the off-topic forums here, nobody has any right to judge you.

What gives us the right to judge you? What is the basis for determining what is "right" and what is "wrong?" A dubious moral code derived from some "old religeous relics?" I think not.

I'm sorry, but if what you did made you happy, and it caused no harm to any other person, tree, or whale, then we have no right to judge if you acted morally or immorally.

I hope this helps.

[This message has been edited by vik (edited June 01, 2000).]

Oldman · June 1, 2000, 09:28

He's Wrong i tell you!!!! unaquivocally, undoubtably, undeniably and without even the merest possibility of a doubt!!!

hang him!! go on, some one take him out to the barn like old yella and show him the 12-bore!!!

Oldman · June 1, 2000, 09:36

Sorry, some one get him out of the barn!!!! we should give him a meddle a ceremony!!! a crown, King Rex!! sorry, i'm just bored here!!!! almost 5 (Hurray!, but i'm counting the minutes!!!!!!!!!

I would have done something similar, good strategy though!!!! you saved the city, that's the important thing, especially so early in the game! giving you extra trade and growth potential!!! also if you hadn't quelled the archer then, he would've carried on to one of your other cities!!! Good fight!!!!

Andromeda · June 1, 2000, 09:58

I'm curious as to why the Horsie apparently played no role whatever in this little drama.
His strong point was mobility, which the Archer and Warriors lacked. Could he not have got himself into a position where he could inflict some pre-emptive damage on the Archer ?

johnmcd · June 1, 2000, 14:45

I'm with the buy your freedom guy. I would have thought the least of your worries would be your treasury's depletion. You could have probably built a temple or something in the time your city was tied up in superflous warrior production. Even so do you not gain an additional 50% defence bonus for being in a city? If so why not just stack up your dudes in the town and capitalise on that bonus? (clearly the hill is a winning tactic though).

Sten Sture · June 1, 2000, 15:16

I like Xin's idea depending on the exact terrain available.

johnmcd - You don't get +50% for being in the city, though you do if you are fortified. If one of the warriors is killed in the size one city... population declines to zero - which is bad.

I think the barbs will only ask for ransom if the city is undefended and you have more than 50 gold. Anyone experience differently? I thought they did it everytime in that situation...

Makeo · June 1, 2000, 19:04

I use the leaving the city undefended with more than $50 only as the very last resort because sometimes the barbs do just walk in. This is very frustrating.

arii · June 1, 2000, 19:59

I agree that fortifying a warrior on the hill is the 1st line of defense.
I think I would have attack with the horse or rushbuilt a horse after the 1st warior was killed. If the city was on defensive terrain (forest river)I would have taken the chance after the horse attack with a fortified warior.

finbar · June 1, 2000, 20:33

The barb archer's in the hills all the way to the city, isn't he? Presumably it's Raging Hordes, and with the defence bonus of the hills, that just about makes him unassailable. I suspect CR followed the right course.

------------------
finbar
Mono Rules!
#33984591

Hasdrubal · June 1, 2000, 20:37

Here's the rundown of buying your way out of a barbarian invasion.
The following two conditions must be met for a barbarian to offer you a "We shall mercilessly sack the city of Blah unless you pay us BlahBlah amount of gold!"
-The city must be empty
-You must have enough gold in your coffer
The barb will allways demand half of your treasury, with a minimum charge of 50 for a size one or two city, 75 for size 3, 100 for size 4, etc. (So, with a size one city and a treasury of 52, the price is 50; treasury of 87: still 50; treasury 126: 63 gold; treasury of 47: you're dead meat). There's no maximum charge that a barb will settle for. The barbarians will ALWAYS offer you this deal. I've done some extensive research, and checked for: levels of difficulty, capitol or other city, level of barb activity, date, various tech levels (including none and all tech in your position), Wonders in city, type of barb at city gate. If anybody can falsify these findings, please let us know!

BTW, if a barb is heading towards your city and knows where it is going, I don't think that you can lure him away with a horseman. Furthermore, fortifying your unit gives a 50% increase in defense. A warriors defense factor is one: 1+50%= still only 1. No point in fortifying a warrior.
Edit: 1+50%=1 because 1.5 gets rounded down.
------------------
Ceterum censeo Romanem esse delendam.
[This message has been edited by Hasdrubal (edited June 01, 2000).]

Sten Sture · June 2, 2000, 00:07

Andromeda may be on to something here... what about getting the horseman between the Archer and the city and trying to lure him away - always staying just far enough away that he can't get you?

Xin Yu · June 2, 2000, 00:17

I think maybe, just maybe, he should move the horse to a square next to the archer before the first warrior got killed.

If the archer attacked the warrior, then the horse could attack the archer; if the archer attacked the horse, then the warrior had an extra turn to finish fortification.

Venger · June 2, 2000, 23:03

Hasdrubal is entirely correct. Better to move the warrior out of the city, rush build improvements enough to empty your treasury to about 75 or so, and let the barb offer you a deal.

I can only imagine how much money you lost building 3 units like that.

Venger

Carolus Rex · June 3, 2000, 04:25

Hasdrubal,

That strat doesn't always work. Don't ask me when it fails, but I've lost cities when using it. Also, the money limits you post above don't always apply. I once had about 70 gold and they left me with 6. Maybe it's version dependent?

There has been a lot of threads on this strat, I could only find some of them.

http://apolyton.net/forums/Archives/...-3-000241.html

http://apolyton.net/forums/Archives/...-3-000399.html

I read a recent one in the MP forum, but couldn't find it.

Gotta go now, will look more thoroughly later.

Carolus

RichardX · June 6, 2000, 14:10

You shoudn't have built any warriors at all, but you should have quit and started a new game!

Aurelius · June 6, 2000, 14:59

One problem I have with C-Rex's strategy is the facilitation of the barbarians vet status. If you let a warrior fight the archer outside the city, you might be making a vet of the Archer. My early year experience in barbarian archers versus fortified warriors in a city is that the warrior often defends--or rarely loses. But then I remember some thread awhile back that discussed the fighting advantage of attacking from a hill down into plains as is the case with C-Rex's city location ....still don't know the answer to that old question ("attacking from defense enhanced terrains.")

One question leads to another: If I fortify on a turn, does it go into affect immediately or after the the following turn with the appearance of a little tan fortress? (V2.42 doesn't get the immediate graphic like MPgold)

As far as the Bribe situation, I know I've had cities taken without barbarians demanding tribute....just happened the other day. I've always been curious about this question, but know it is not failsafe.

So I would have taken a chance and let the fortified warrior take on the unvetified archer....

later.

geofelt · June 6, 2000, 18:40

Your tactics worked, so the plan was not bad. However, it might not have worked, or you could have expended more treasury to save the city. A warrior can not expect to defend the city, and extinction of the city is worse than having the barbs capture it. It would have cost you less to bribe the city back later when the time was opportune. I would favor exiting the city and spending down to 50-100 gold. If the barbs did not offer a ransom and took the city, then it is still saved for a later dip.

Also, if you pay the tribute, make certain the city is defended properly soon, because that same barb will be back again.

Sten Sture · June 6, 2000, 18:51

geofelt - I think the demanding barb disappears, but the other members of his raiding party stick around to get you in a couple of turns.