Archer Blitz: best civ

Ray K · November 16, 2001, 11:16

OK, I think I've come to a conclusion that runs contrary to what most experts here think. After discussing with a friend who was playing the Babylonians, I think their Bowman may be one of the best UU around. The thing that convinced me is that the Bowman costs as much as a warrior, which is something I didn't know.

Since I have found the "Archer Blitz" strategy to be best for establishing early dominance, a half-price Archer would make this even more effective.

In fact, it seems that the Babylonian civ is all about balance. The bowmen, because they're a 2.2 unit, don't need to escorted by a pikeman when they're laying siege to a city. Plus, they are a good early defender for your cities, meaning that you only have to build one unit in the early part of the game. When you take a city, you can leave one injured archer behind to heal and defend. No more shuffling around offensive and defensive units when you still trying to build your roads!

The Babylonians, on the other hand, are religious and scientific. That means all of your cultural improvements are cheaper to build. And the cheap Bowman should allow you to wage an ancient era military conquest that would put the other civs to shame.

I will be playing them tonight. The "Archer Blitz" strategy spends most of its time waiting for the first 3-4 archers, but no more

Velociryx · November 16, 2001, 11:55

I totally agree with you guy! My very first games were with the Babylonians, and yep....their bowmen rock in the very early game....if you can find the Persians before they get ironworking, they don't have a prayer (and they generally start close to you)....you can kill them off simply by establishing a decent mineral city and devoting it to nothing but the production of bowmen.

5-6 in the REEEEALLY ancient era can pretty much decide the issue in your favor! And, you get a free tech advance with each era you advance into, and as you mention, most of your civ improvements are cheap to build, letting your culture *explode*

Good Civ, and good luck!

-=Vel=-

DaveV · November 16, 2001, 12:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Ray K
The thing that convinced me is that the Bowman costs as much as a warrior, which is something I didn't know.

Your friend is mistaken, or playing with hacked rules: a Bowman costs the same as an archer, or twice as much as a warrior.

Try the Apolyton tournament game if you like the Babylonians!

Jack_www · November 16, 2001, 12:12

The one major problem I see in having a uu in the early game and using it, is that it triggers a golden age at the wrong time. When you are just starting out and you get a golden age that early in the game it is pretty much useless. Since all you cities are small at this time and the extra prodution and trade are not that much. The time when you really benfit form a golden age is when you are under a republic or democracy and your cities are decent size and have build libraies.

Ray K · November 16, 2001, 12:32

Quote:

Originally posted by DaveV

Your friend is mistaken, or playing with hacked rules: a Bowman costs the same as an archer, or twice as much as a warrior.

Try the Apolyton tournament game if you like the Babylonians!

Then he must be mistaken, because I know he hasn't hacked the rules.

Regardless, I will be building archers anyway, so the other advantages would still apply. I thought it seemed too good to be true for them to be so cheap.

Blaupanzer · November 16, 2001, 15:46

Doing Babs ritht now. Bowmwn cost same as spearman but is a 2-2, not a 1-2. Rel/Sci civ is a real advantage as to improvements, but a unit with a 1 movement is not very good for rushing with. Last game, as Aztecs, triggered an early Golden Age. Jack_www is right about the futility of that. However, in this game, I'm into the 1500's with no Age, and it's beginning to wear.

hanZ · November 16, 2001, 16:02

i have to disagree in some points.
first the bowman is good, but too slow too really dominate the early game. golden age or not is not the problem. its some bonus and in my games the game is decided around 300bc(it takes some turns to destroy really everything but the game is decided)

i prefer egypts: war chariots are quick, and when you are not able to take a early city in one turn you make something wrong. later on i ujse swordman to siege citys (2 turn kills mostly) and chariots to destroy/tale the new citys (warriors mostly).

than upgrade to knights and the end is near x-)

industrious rules, cause i build roads under the feet of my attacking forces to get supply as quick as possible.

works very fine on small and tiny worlds. espacially pangea oder normal landshape.

/hanZ

Shiva · November 16, 2001, 17:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack_www
The one major problem I see in having a uu in the early game and using it, is that it triggers a golden age at the wrong time. When you are just starting out and you get a golden age that early in the game it is pretty much useless. Since all you cities are small at this time and the extra prodution and trade are not that much. The time when you really benfit form a golden age is when you are under a republic or democracy and your cities are decent size and have build libraies.

I totally agree. An early GA is useless. Normally I build 2 archers and hold them till im ready to GA then use them to finish some stack thats all ready soft.

Jack_www · November 16, 2001, 18:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
However, in this game, I'm into the 1500's with no Age, and it's beginning to wear.

I am playing as the Americans in my game. I was able to trigger a GA near the end of the Middle Age and I was also under democracy. They way you can trigger a GA without having a UU do it is by building great wonders that match the speical traits of you Civ.