Some miscelaneous thoughts on the game

[Blitzer]

After almost a month of 8 hour a day play I figured I would post some of my observations on the game... feel free to give some feedback. Almost all games were played on Standard Map, 8 civs, random everything, and Monarch. Just turned up the difficulty to Emperor this week, although I do have a Space Race win on Deity.

Civilizations

At first I was drawn to the Greeks, as my style in Civ2 was extreme passive (due to the unreal amount of unhappiness caused by absent units, and the need for shield upkeep). They remain one of my favorite civs, but I have also played a few others extensively.

The Greeks start with two of the best starting techs in the game. Bronze working allows them to build their UU off the bat, and Alphabet is on a direct course for Literacy, which you will want asap to quickly take advantage of your cheap libraries. Hopalites are of course excellent defenders, but if you so choose, iron working and mathematics are quick gets for the Greeks. An attacking mass of catapults, swordsmen, and hopalites are almost unstoppable in the ancient era. I try to crank out a few extra warriors for quick swordsmen upgrades.

Coming in a close second on my favorites are the Persians. You are one tech away from iron working off the bat, and with double speed workers and masonry at the start, you stand a very good chance at grabbing the Pyramids. My standard opening is Warrior, Warrior, Settler, Spearman, Settler, Temple, Pyramids. It varies sometimes... if I have an outstanding food supply in my capitol, I will continue to crank out the settlers with it, and go with Spearman, temple, Pyramids on my second city. As with the Greeks, I find catapults to be highly effective when combined with spearmen and the outstanding Immortals.

The Chinese are an extremely effective civ. Although your starting techs are not as good as with either the Greeks or Persians, and Iron Working is two techs away, the Chinese stand a good chance of grabbing both the Great Library and Pyramids with a little luck. In fact in half my games with this Civ I manage the double due to the high probability of an early leader. The Rider is probably the best UU in the game. Chivalry is usually where I make my play for the continent, and this civ's unit is perfect. No need for defenders except to garrison your conquered cities, and I generally relegate the catapult to defense once the knights and riders arrive on the scene. I don't mind a slow crawl, but the knight's era of dominance is a short one, and there is no time for a plodding, low casualty offensive. I like to overwhelm a few cities, crush the counterattack and then charge for the capitol.

The last of my most played civs is the Babylonians. My current high score and my lone OOC victory were both accomplished with the Babs, the former with a bowman rush and the latter with a 20000 culture city. I've attempted to win through civ-wide culture, but inevitably I end up with a space race win before my culture is high enough. I will probably turn off space race at some point to accomplish this, but as of yet I have not been able to reach 100k culture despite building 5 of the ancient wonders in one game. I feel the Babylonian's hidden strength lies in their weak UU. I don't build a lot of bowmen, as they don't upgrade (I've never owned a longbowman) well, and I haven't been in a position without either horses or iron with them. What I like is that since the UU is so quickly obsolete, you can save it to trigger your golden age during the early middle ages, and help grab as many of those great midgame wonders as you can. The cheap temples and libraries are nice, but I don't think you really need both of them cheaply. The Babs are a nice well balanced civ, but they aren't up there with my big three.

Lately I've been playing the Egyptians, and they are definately solid. Industrious, cheap temples, quick pyramids, and a quick fast army. Although a strong civ (and the one I hit my second highest score with), I don't like them as much for a few reasons. Firstly, your chariot army does not stand up well to two of your most likely neighbors. Hopalites and legionares are not great matches for your chariots, and although I did manage to crush them, the chariots were not as overwhelming as they would have been against 2 defense defenders. I took a lot of losses, and It cost about 120 gold to upgrade them to knights which slowed me down a lot when knights hit the scene. I'll play them again, but I don't think they fit my style.

Wonders

As I stated above, I feel the pyramids are the most important wonder in the game. This is pretty well consensus on these boards so I won't rehash what has already been discussed. In the ancient era, I like to go after the Collosus as my second wonder. The AI does not seem to place a high priority on it, and it's pretty cheap. Stacking the collosus with the two tech wonders in the middle ages can give you an incredible tech city for eons. Although I would like to grab the Library as well, it is almost impossible to get both the Pyramids and Library without a leader. If I get one, I'll build the Pyramids and rush the Library the same turn. Otherwise I won't even bother with any others. Occasionaly I will build the Hanging Gardens, but I don't rush Monarchy anymore, as I've started climbing the currency/construction tree instead as it meshes with my swordsmen-and-catapults strategy better.

In the middle ages I try to build them all . They are all good, but unfortunately the best three are all around the same time. Sistene Chapel is the clear favorite for me, although Sun Tsu's makes upgrading a lot easier. I'll try to get two of Sistene Chapel, JS Bach's, Copernicus' Observatory and Sun Tsu's. If I land three, that's great, but as long as I get the chapel, any one of the other three as my second wonder is fine. I usually head straight for cavalry after researching Astronomy (I always trade for Music Theory), but I will try to get one of the late wonders, preferably Newton's. Any leader I am fortunate enough to get in this era is saved for my Forbidden Palace.

By this time I'm usually well on the way to winning, and get almost all the modern wonders. Occasionally I'll lose out on Suffrage as I like to build my factories first. I never bother with coal plants, as I shoot for Evolution and Electronics after getting Industrialization and Sanitation. If I have a bad corruption problem I will occasionally hit communism early to pop rush out those factories, but usually only if I haven't been able to score a leader for my FP or are generally in a bad position.

Tactics

After Replacable Parts. the cavalry in my army are quickly turned into factories and hospitals. Unlike many posters in this forum, I will absolutely build an army with the first leader I get after my FP is built. The people who complain about armies don't understand how to use them. My armies are used for one thing, and one thing only... escorting my artillery. At this point in your game you should have control of your continent. Assuming you are going to continue warring and not simply sit back and build your spaceship, I believe the most effective weapon in the industrial and early modern age is the artillery. Not only are they great on defense for both repelling those pesky bombarders, but they are great for pounding away at your opponent's cities, units, and infrastructure.

My continental invasion invariably starts by dropping off an army of three infantry and as many artillery as I can manage. Park them on a mountain somewhere and you can start securing your beach-head. Those infantry and artillery are almost invincable sitting there in the mountain (you do have Battlefield Medicine built don't you?). Usually I'm attacking oil or rubber, so once the second wave lands and takes the city with the resource in it's radius, I'll park the army (and a few artillery) along with a worker or two in the resource square to make sure it does not get cut off. Infantry aren't the greatest attackers, but until armor, they are the best you have. Keep landing infantry and artillery (you can never have too many! 20 is good!) and form as many infantry armies as you can crank out of your Military Academy. You are gonna take losses, but unless you are satisfied to sit around waiting for tanks, it's the only way. Cavalry suck. Same attack rating as the infantry and only 3 defense. Once battleships show up, they make great mobile artillery to support your army/artillery combos that are happily destroying infastructure, temples, barracks, and units.

The modern units come quickly. Destroyers show up first, so build a ton of those for defense. As soon as tanks show up, your opponent is so weak from artillery and trying to break up those infantry that you should be able to roll to victory easily. Amuse yourself by building armies of three modern armor and one mech infantry while you roll to conquest victory .

It's getting late so that's all for now. I meant to put a lot more in, but hopefully this helps some... Thanks to everyone in this group, especially Vel for helping me get better.

Blitz
Vancouver, Canada

[notyoueither]

A month of 8 hours a day? I wish.

Interesting take on Cavalry. I find them more useful than that. I keep the Cavalry Corps around the whole game. I find they can cope with Infantry adequately. Then after Tanks they can dart here and there around and about the Tanks, pillaging rail lines to limit the avenues of counter attack on the armour. Then later, I always like to have that last measure of man power to help with garrisonning my own cities, or more importantly, recent conquests to prevent reversion. I find it helps to have some men with guns around that I would never consider commiting to the front lines.

Salve

[Minmaster]

nice strategies there. i got some questions.

how do you upgrade egyptian chariots to knights? aren't UU's not upgradable and can't be upgraded to one?

also you say you build armies of 3 modern armors and one mech inf. but thats 4 units and not 3. do you always build the pentagon or something? also its not possible to have more than 1 army at once right?

i only play diety and im lookin for some diety strategies. it seems like diety requires totally different approach and mentality. it feels like civ3 diety is about 5 times harder than civ2 diety/smac transcendence. for example i basically give up on the wonders. however, one wonder that i think many people overlook is the universal suffrage. especially if you are the democracy type player but need to go to war for whatever reasons. i built it once because i had a spare leader and it made a huge difference because it allowed my democratic nation to wage a successful war w/o the harsh affects of war weariness.

can you give some pointers on ur goverment choices post-monarch era?

[Aeson]

Upgrading and UU's -

UU's can be upgraded if there is a valid upgrade path. They cannot be upgraded to though, which really makes the later UU's less powerful. I dislike playing with the Japanese, Chinese, Russians, and Indians for the simple fact that their UU blocks the horse units upgrade path. Upgrading is such a cheap way of always having a large 'modern' army.

Wonders -

I also play on Deity for the most part, and until the Industrial era, I don't even think about building a wonder unless its an Archipelago map (Lighthouse) or an OCC game (Great Library, whatever else I can get). It's just so much easier to capture wonders than to build them for the most part. I shoot straight for Chivalry, then to Military Tradition in the Middle ages, and that means I don't have a very good chance at building any of the wonders in that Age. I do have a VERY good chance of capturing any wonder I want (or all of them), and usually can conquer the world by the time the AI is first getting into the Industrial era.

Armies -

Building the Military Academy allows the production of as many armies as you want, without needing to use leaders. Only the city that builds the Military Academy can produce armies though. My first leader always is used for an army, and I find the best army to be 1 of my non-elite horse units (usually a Knight by that time). Putting in more units just means that I'll have less upgradable units. One Knight will easily be able to win its battle so that the Heroic Epic can be built. If I don't have Knights yet, I often do put all 3 horsemen into the army, just to make sure that they win their fight. Other than that, I have no use for armies, other than pure amusement of having 4 Mech Infantry Armies defending everywhere.

Civs -

My new favorite Civ is the Zulu's, though I am just starting to use them. Impies are the perfect unit to support horsemen with, and of course, the perfect defense against horsemen. Chosing the Zulu's means that I don't have to fight against the Impies. Also Expansionist is maybe the best trait on anything larger than standard maps. On Pangaea games, it definitely is the best trait as far as I'm concerned. Military is great as well, those extra leaders, fast promotions, and cheap barracks give a nice advantage when at war.

I also like the Egyptians. Cheap, early horsemen (War Chariots) make for very early conquest possibilities, and the extra cost of upgrading isn't a problem, as gold is abundant when everyone else is paying to keep you from attacking again. Though getting the Zulu's for a neighbor really bites. Conquering Impi defended cities with Horsemen/War Chariots is always a bloodbath, so many dead horsies. It's better just to take the Zulu's in my opinion.

The Iroquois are probably the best Civ. Expansionist I already touched on, and Religious is maybe the best overall attribute (it's great on any map). Combine that with the best UU in the game, and it's really not even close. For this reason they are my least favorite Civ, as it's just too easy to play with them.

The Greeks, Persians, and Aztecs are all good Civs. Greek Hoplites make for good horseman support, though it slows down the conquest a bit. Immortals are almost as effective as Mounted Warriors, only they can never be upgraded. The Jag Warriors are real pests, but I'd take 1 Impi over two Jags most of the time.

Deity Strategies -

There are a lot of effective strategies that can be used at Deity level, but almost all of them make extensive use of early military, and pop-rushing. Trying to find a strategy that doesn't require those two components is the real challenge of Deity IMO.

I have been using the Zulu's on large/huge maps. Selling world maps is one way to circumvent the need for early military rushes. Expansionist is good for this, and Impies are even better. In my most recent game, I was getting anywhere from 0 to 300 gold per turn, plus techs, from each of 15 other Civs. That on top of selling luxuries that I found first, techs that I got from Huts first, and residual per turn gold from earlier world map sales. By 500BC I had 3000 gold, and bringing in close to 200 per turn, with Science at 100%. I had built up a 2+ tech lead on every Civ, and all without ever fighting. Of course this is map dependant, as if you are hemmed in early, no one will want your maps. Just make sure to uncover a few more tiles per turn, and your maps will bring a good price. Once all the land is uncovered, get those boats out exploring. If you see a hut or resource, stop and sell your map, as they seem to bring better prices when you first uncover them.

Eventually though, Military action is needed. Having 100% science rate throughout the game means you can beat the AI to most any Middle age or later military Unit you want to use. Once you have that Unit, its first jobs should be to take out the strategic resources that the AI is holding, and the city with Sun Tzu's. That wonder is the only one that makes conquest harder, as the AI very rarely builds barracks on their own.

To get around needing pop-rushing, just build horsemen early on in the game. Get a large standing army, usualy 50 or so is enough, and then just wait till Chivalry or Military Tradition to upgrade, and sweep the oposition away. Having a large standing army also will help with the prices you recieve for techs and maps. Often you can get the weaker Civs to give a city or two for renegotiating peace treaties as well.

I am attaching a save game from my current Deity game. It is played on Marla's world map (a very nice map). It is different than most randomly generated maps though, food is more abundant, though it helps the AI as well. The main difference is that all the European Civ's are quite crowded, and puts them at a disadvantage early on. It's getting quite slow to play though, and 'victory' is for the most part assured, so I'm debating whether or not to finish. I did no pop-rushing except in captured cities, just want to show how well trading maps works if you can keep ahead of the AI in exploration.

[Arrian]

Interesting take(s) on the game, though different than my own. First off, I play Monarch (though I really should move up to Emperor), so my thoughts are influenced by that level of difficulty. I think people who play Diety have adjusted to that level, and thus certain civs become more or less valueable (see Aeson's notes on the Zulu).

First off, I strongly disagree with Blitzer on Cavalry. Cavalry do anything but suck. First off, they crush anything short of riflemen, and with good numbers of Cav, riflemen get run over too. No need for anything but Cav, pre-infantry. They are much, much better than infantry for attacking, though the two have the same attack strength - 6. They can run away, and infantry can't. Sure, escort them with infantry once the enemy has Cav to counterattack with, but they remain my attack force until I have Tanks. Normally, once the AI has infantry, I stop fighting until I have Tanks and Bombers, or even Modern Armor. In order to fight infantry pre-Tanks, you need a bunch of artillery support.

Favorite civs are the Babs and Egyptians, which made the end of Blitz's list. I build more than I conquer (there have been exceptions... even as the Babs).

Wonders: I'm a Great Library guy, though I concede the Pyramids are powerful. I'm generally annoyed if I don't build all of the following:

Great Library
Colossus (though it is acceptable to lose this, because you don't always have a coastal city with decent enough production... sometimes there is nothing you can do)
Sistine
Sun Tzu (if I must choose, clearly the Sistine)
Bach
Copernicus
Newton
---
All industrial & modern wonders.

Good point about a Middle Age golden age. To me, the Middle Age wonders are the key to the game, and thus that is the perfect time for a golden age. I hate wasting a golden age on despotism, and I have never managed to hold off until the industrial or modern ages (wonders trigger it). The later it is, the more poweful it is, but the Middle Ages golden age nails the key wonders for you.

-Arrian

[Skeletal Dragon]

Isn't everyone disagreeing with Blitzer on his opinion on Cavalry? Hey me too! Actually, Cavalry are still great vs Riflemen, even if they are in size 12 cities. Its actually when Infantry shows up that your Cavalry get a bit weaker. A -bit- weaker, but not quite. Cavalry units can escort Artillery backed up with Infantry, so that you can Bombard a city to death and still have enough movement to rush in, attack, and still retreat. I find that Cavalry can beat Infantry about 50% of the time on the open field or within a 5- city as well.

In the Ancient Age to early Modern Age (on Monarch), I tend to just turn off my tech and just go straight commerce and buy the techs instead while I pound my enemys to death. Once I get to Education/Banking/Democracy, I start building and pop-rushing Banks and Universities and make the switch to Demo and start a massive tech lead into the Industrial Era. I always seem to get Suffrage first though, since I always buy off a Factory and Coal Plant in my highest shield city as soon as I can. After that, its Electricity -> Replaceable Parts and then to Medicine and Scientific Method for the Theory of Evolution.

Arrian's correct on his choice of Newton's and Copernicus as "priority" wonders. In Monarch, that's the only way I can keep up in tech (besides attacking the other tech leader, of course). Otherwise, I find myself consistently behind in tech.

But I must disagree with him on the choice of Sistine over Sun Tzu; It really depends on the situation within the game. If you find yourself in an aggressive position in the game, then its more favorable to build the Art of War. If not, then build the Sistine. IMO, they're both great wonders.

[Blitzer]

stupid double post

[Blitzer]

Isn't everyone disagreeing with Blitzer on his opinion on Cavalry? Hey me too! Actually, Cavalry are still great vs Riflemen, even if they are in size 12 cities. Its actually when Infantry shows up that your Cavalry get a bit weaker. A -bit- weaker, but not quite. Cavalry units can escort Artillery backed up with Infantry, so that you can Bombard a city to death and still have enough movement to rush in, attack, and still retreat. I find that Cavalry can beat Infantry about 50% of the time on the open field or within a 5- city as well.

First off, I strongly disagree with Blitzer on Cavalry. Cavalry do anything but suck. First off, they crush anything short of riflemen, and with good numbers of Cav, riflemen get run over too. No need for anything but Cav, pre-infantry. They are much, much better than infantry for attacking, though the two have the same attack strength - 6. They can run away, and infantry can't. Sure, escort them with infantry once the enemy has Cav to counterattack with, but they remain my attack force until I have Tanks. Normally, once the AI has infantry, I stop fighting until I have Tanks and Bombers, or even Modern Armor. In order to fight infantry pre-Tanks, you need a bunch of artillery support.

I think you guys missed the point. My comments on cavalry pertain only to that period between Replacable Parts and Motorized Transportation. In fact Arrian, you state that you choose not to fight in this period. My observations reflect your same observations. To wage war with a mainly cavalry based army in this period only ensures that you will not only lose many cavalry units in such a war, but you will also have a large obsolete army upon the arrival of tanks. There is no finer military unit for it's time than the cavalry, but against modern armor you may as well have a spearman.

Secondly, as to the comments on Deity, I don't play deity for a reason, mainly because standard Civ tactics are thrown out the window and it's a whole new game from my observations. On monarch or emporor you can enter every game and adapt to it. In Deity you must from 4000bc have a plan and stick to it for the most part. I find Deity games, while challenging, not as much fun. I enjoy building wonders, especially the ancient ones. I don't need to be crippled to the point where I must play every move by the book to win.

As for the Sistene vs Sun Tsu argument... they are both great wonders, but if you are going to play the conquest game I feel that you may as well let the AI build the Art of War and take it later. Sistene Chapel is a critical wonder for waging war under Democracy (which is actually possible in sub-deity games), which IMHO makes it more valuable to a warmonger than the barracks. After all by the late industrial age everyone on your continent is dead, and you have railroads everywhere. The benefit of a frontline barracks is gone, as you are fighting on a far off continent. All your cities have a railroad now anyways, so you may as well stop being so lazy and upgrad the old fashioned way .

Conquering Impi defended cities with Horsemen/War Chariots is always a bloodbath, so many dead horsies. It's better just to take the Zulu's in my opinion.

Exactly. Hopalites and Legionares aren't exactly wonderful matchups either, especially in the early game where you may well be fighting around hills or jungle. This is a good reason why I choose swordsmen and catapults. I use my horsemen more often than not to defend against the counterattack. Retreating is nice, but with catapults you really don't lose too many swordsmen anyway.

Thanks for your feedback guys. I stand by my post, but your comments are great.

[Aeson]

I agree that Deity is a completely different game than even Emporer. Any big mistakes mean game over, and even a few small ones can make a huge difference in the final outcome. Also on Deity, building wonders is putting yourself at a disadvantage.

That being said, I usually don't have a coherant strategy entering a Deity game, as it actually takes a lot more adaptation than any other difficulty level. The shape of the landmass, location of luxuries/resources, and location of other Civs all make a big difference in how to play the game. Granted that to win you need to choose the "best" of your options almost every time. The course of a Deity game needs to be determined by about halfway through the Ancient era.

If I had a spare leader to choose between Sun Tzu's and Sistene, I'd choose Sistene every time. Sun Tzu's is actually one I want the AI to build, hopefully on another continent. All my productive cities will have barracks before then anyways, and having free barracks on another continent is more of an advantage. But leader built wonders should be restricted to 3rd or 4th leader priority. First an army so that the Heroic Epic can be built. Second the building of the forbidden palace, and 3rd is the relocation of your palace to a more central location. In about 80% of my games, my empire will be much more productive with a palace relocation, because of nearby coasts. The only wonder I build with a leader is the UN if diplomatic victory is enabled and I think the AI might beat me to it. Usually by then I have enough of a tech lead to guarantee that I can build it first though.

[Aeson]

I think horsemen are actually much better at taking out Hoplites than Swordsmen/Catapults. Granted it might take 10 horsemen to conquer a Greek City, but usually with very little actual losses. To guarantee the same mortality rates with Swordsmen/Catapults, there need to be enough Catapults to take 2 defenders down to 1hp each before the Swordsmen attack. That negates any numbers advantages that would have been had otherwise.

The Romans don't use Legionaries to defend their cities, so Horsemen can just play keepaway while they take Roman Cities. Even if the Legionaries catch up, the horsemen will almost always get away (retreat). It isn't hard to take out the Iron producing cities, and then no more Legionaries.

Overall though, the main reason for Horsemen is they become Knights, and then Calvary. Swordsmen become obsolete, it isn't much of a contest. The cost of upgrading is so much less than rebuilding units that it should never be ignored. Calvary take 80 shields to produce, or 100 gold to upgrade from Horsemen. First of all, gold is something you can store up, shields aren't. Gold can be taken/requested from other Civs, shields cannot. Also, it takes 4 gold to rush one shield, so having a ratio of 80:320 would be more balanced, not the current 80:100. Considering mortality rates (well managed Horsemen, 80% become Calvary on average), upgrade costs, and unit production returns (captured production in the form of workers, cities, territory, tribute), upgrading Horsemen is like being paid for getting free Calvary.

[Qilue]

Two wonders I like but not mentioned.

Smith's trading company - free support for harbours, marketplaces, banks and airports.

Hoover dam - hydro plant in every city on the continent (even those not normally allowed to build one (possible bug))

I'm curious how others feel about them.

[Aeson]

I like Hoover Dam as well. In most games it is possible to get all of the Modern age wonders, so they don't get talked about too much. Smiths is nice to have, but it comes at a time when building Calvary is of most importance in my games. Like most wonders, just let the AI build it for you.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Blitzer

I think you guys missed the point. My comments on cavalry pertain only to that period between Replacable Parts and Motorized Transportation. In fact Arrian, you state that you choose not to fight in this period. My observations reflect your same observations. To wage war with a mainly cavalry based army in this period only ensures that you will not only lose many cavalry units in such a war, but you will also have a large obsolete army upon the arrival of tanks. There is no finer military unit for it's time than the cavalry, but against modern armor you may as well have a spearman.

Oh, I see. I did miss the point, actually Sorry. I assumed (and I'm sure we all know what that does), since you described your army as infantry/artillery based, that you were arguing for footsoldiers against mounted troops (including Cavalry) in general, and Cav vs. Infantry in the specific.

Aeson,

Yeah, the horse unit upgrade cost is way, way too cheap (all other things being equal... if they toy with retreat, this may no longer be the case). 20gold for Knight to Cavalry?? You gotta be kiddin' me!


Wonders: I consider the Sistine more valuable because happiness wonders have always been better than warrior wonders. Think of it this way: show me a wonder that does more vs. war weariness than the Sistine. Sun Tzu is nice, and makes upgrading SOOOO much less tedious, but the human player doesn't need it. It does seriously strengthen an AI civ, though, and that is a good reason to build it. I generally go for both of them. In my last several Monarch games, I've ended up nearly a full AGE ahead of the AI in tech, largely due to the Colossus + Cop's + Newton, and later SETI (not that it matters at that point, as the AI scratches and claws its way to refining), not to mention trading luxuries and some tech for gold/turn.

I also left Adam Smith's off my list, not because I don't consider it key, but because it's so obvious that I forgot it.

The way I approach Wonders is the ONLY part of the game where I haven't adjusted from Civ II. I still want all of them, or at least nearly all of them. That's the main thing keeping me from moving on up to Emperor - I know I won't build them all, plus there is a part of me that absolutely HATES that the AI gets to cheat so outrageously (even though the reasonable and rational side of me accepts that it must in order to compete).

-Arrian

[Skeletal Dragon]

Blitzer: Actually, it is VERY possible to wage a war with an army mainly consisting of Cavalry between Replaceable Parts and Motorized Transportation. You need the following:

40-50 Cavalry (This isn't hard with Mobilization and Factories w/ Power plants)
1-2 Infantry
2-3 Artillery (No Artillery is fine too).

First, select the city that you want to hit.
Second, Rush all of the above units 2 squares away from the city (preferably on some strategic terrain) and end your turn. Your Infantry will protect your Cavalry.
Third, Bombard the city (if you have Artillery) for a chance to weaken it, then send in your Cavalry units. Remember, they have enough movement points to retreat! After about 15 or 25 Cavalry, you should be able to take the city. Send your Infantry up to your damaged Cavalry to protect them and leave your 2nd Infantry to protect your Artillery (if you have them, of course).

Basically, its a brute force method. I had to use this once since I needed Oil, but I didn't have the tech for Motorized Transportation and they had Replaceable Parts. Of course, you don't really need to use Infantry for this strategy, but its more risky.

Oh, if you notice carefully, there is always -one- cavalry unit that can kill an Infantry unit, even fortified in a size 12+ city!

I'm not sure if anyone noticed this, but does anyone notice that Infantry tends to lose more battles attacking than Cavalry when they have the same attack power?

[Blitzer]

You need the following:

40-50 Cavalry (This isn't hard with Mobilization and Factories w/ Power plants)

Whoah heh.

I don't think I've ever had that many units. If I do, the game is already over lol

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Blitzer
Hopalites and Legionares aren't exactly wonderful matchups either, especially in the early game where you may well be fighting around hills or jungle.

I have not found any civ (yet) to be an impediment to Legions. They rule. They go where they want, they attack, they defend. They rule. Yes, having played the ancient era many times as Rome, I have faced Hoplites every time (just about), no problem. The silly Greeks die (sorry Markos).

The thing I haven't seen is the Iroquios or Persians next to Rome in the Ancient age. So... we'll see.

Salve

[notyoueither]

*Zulus? Aztecs? Ptuueee.*

A direct quote from Gaius Conquerous

Salve

[Aeson]

Legionaries have the same problems that all of the Swordsmen line suffer from. They move slow, they can't retreat from battle, and they can't be upgraded. They are still effective in the Ancient era though, especially with bombardment support. With the developement of Chivalry though, Swordsmen become second rate, while Horsemen become Knights.

As far as the Persians starting next to Rome, I've seen it happen 3 times for the AI. All 3 times the Persians came out on top very early on. Usually the AI doesn't go to war so early, maybe they just hate each other, or they can't stop arguing about whether 4.2.1 is better than 3.3.1. Of course there are a lot more factors involved than just UU's, but interesting to note nonetheless. The current Apolyton tournament game is one where they do start next to each other.

As far as the Aztecs and Zulu's are concerned, just remember its hard to build Legionaries when cheap, early two movement troops are running around your empire tearing up iron supply roads. Impies are especially good at this, as they can park on a hill or mountain with iron, and deny the only resource that can make them vulnerable. Jag Warriors need to rely more on hit and run tactics, but with how cheap they are, and how early they come, they are still very effective.

[Arrian]

Romans v. Iroquois? I don't know about an AI vs. AI matchup (the only one of this nature I've seen was looked like a bloody stalemate... until I jumped in and crushed the Iroquois), but I don't fear Legionaries. First off, AI Roman civs have always been weak and horribly lacking in culture in the games I've played. Second, I fear no 1-move unit once I have built my military (generally this means the late ancient/early middle ages... if I get attacked in the ancient era I'm usually toast). If I had the advantage of Mounted Warriors, Legionaries would be no more than a nuisance. Let him come to you with a big stack of 'em, and once they're next to a city of yours, hit the stack with all the MW's you can muster. Bloodbath. If Caesar showed up with a horde of horsemen I'd be worried.

Obviously, a human Roman opponent, who would bring catapults and horsemen along with the Legionaries, could be truely scary.

-Arrian

[Dry]

I disagree with people saying that cavalry becomes obsolete with Infantry.

First, let me say I play on monarch level.

Second, my strategy consist of taking cities in one go. The idea is that if you have to send an army against a city and if you need to camp one turn in the ennemy teritory before you can attack, you need to overpower your task force, not only 'to be sure to take the city', but because it gives also time to the ennemy to react. This means some of your units are uselessly 'not available' for one turn. OTOH, if you can attack the city in one turn, coming from your territory, you can send the exact number of needed units. Those units are more efficiently used.

I would estimate that you need 8-12 vet cavalry to take a standard 12-size city defended by 2 infantry (1vet+ 1reg) and 1 canon/artillery. Usually 8 are enough, but 12 is for sure. If I have to camp in the hills before I take the city, I will stack something like 20 cavalry, because the reinforcement (draft?) in that city is unknown.
I noticed that by being fast, you will find most cities weakly (2 units) defended.

When I face only riflemen, I take 3-4 cities per turn (my best score is 20 cities in 4 turns), when time comes to face infatry, it drops to 2 cities per turn. So what?

Tanks, OK, they are better units, but they are to slow and so you will face better defense.
I have roughly estimate that in wars I loose as many units if I choose tanks over cavalry.
The difference?
Cavalry are cheeper to (re-)build, you only need a few more; but most of all, war is shorter with cavalry, my e-citizens like that.

Now to be really honest, I usually have a mixture of both, because
- some ennemy cities are close enough to be taken in 1 turn by tanks
- some cities are too far to be taken in 1 turn even by cavalry, so tanks are OK.
But there are always a some cities that need to be taken by my elite cavalry (I almost never upgrade an elite mobile units: leader !!!);
So Tanks help, but they are not a NEED for me. Their absence is certainly not a reason to make a pause in my conquests.

[DilithiumDad]

In cavalry matchup against infantry in a city (size 7 or up), I have never seen the valary take off more than one hit point. Three times out of four, the unit retreats without effect on the defender. With one hit point left, the infantry is at its most dangerous because your cavalry will not retreat and you will lose it 7/8 of the time. So I think 40 cavalry and 2 infantry and 2 cannon would be about right. I would swap some of the cavalry for cannon, because they have better odds of taking off a hit point.

[Blitzer]

In cavalry matchup against infantry in a city (size 7 or up), I have never seen the valary take off more than one hit point. Three times out of four, the unit retreats without effect on the defender. With one hit point left, the infantry is at its most dangerous because your cavalry will not retreat and you will lose it 7/8 of the time. So I think 40 cavalry and 2 infantry and 2 cannon would be about right. I would swap some of the cavalry for cannon, because they have better odds of taking off a hit point.

Excellent point. I especially like when you bombard a conscript rifleman to 1hp and then attack only to see your cavalry die. To add insult to injury the conscript is promoted. Next Cavalry does one damage, then loses 5 straight rolls and dies. rifleman promoted to veteran, repeat.

I just completed a domination victory in the 1700's, playing as the Babylonians. I started on an island by myself, and it was a nice size. I colonized it and snagged the pyramids and the lighthouse. I made contact to the south with another island of similar size populated by the aztecs and the Iriquois.

I missed out on all the good middle age wonders as the 5 civs on the main continent were already in the middle ages before we had discovered literacy '. I did manage to be the one to discover it, however and through careful trading of communications and maps was able to bring myself up to speed. Unfortunately my infrastructure was solely lacking (only had temples), so I decided to ignore wonders except for the lighthouse, and spent my time building knights in a few minor cities and improvements in the rest.

I I allied with the Iriquois against the aztecs and crushed them with knights. The iriquois were next with cavalry... got a GL off their last city for my FP in the middle of the second large island. With two large islands with palaces in the center I was in good shape.

The tech leader in the game were the Persians. They and the Zulus were in the best position. The Germans were wiped out, and the English were in a subordinate position with a spread out empire. The Russians were the closest, and were lagging in tech (no cavalry), so they were the target. I built riflemen until getting Replacable Parts, and quickly rushed 10 artillery and upgraded 20 riflemen into infantry. I landed these 30 units (plus a few scrap cavalry) in Russia, and went to war. The Persians were already at was with Russia, but I managed to grab a nice foothold anyway. By this time I was firmly in the tech lead (Theory of Evolution and collosus/observatory/Newton in one city), and reached tanks a full 3 techs before Persia. The Zulus provided the flanking attack while I went after Persia. The English came in on Persia's side, and a 100 year world war ensued. Persia never did get tanks, as the Zulus and myself controled the world's Oil reserves, and I was very helpful to Zululand with gifts of tech up to Motorized Transportation and some rubber.

A quick stab of Zululand after Persia and England fell, and I achieved Domination... I doubt if I had waited for tanks or built more cavlary that I would had been able to achieve domination, as Persia was in the tech lead prior to my invasion of the mainland, and would surely have defeated Russa and become huge had I not come across with infantry and artillery.

[Dry]

Originally posted by DilithiumDad
In cavalry matchup against infantry in a city (size 7 or up), I have never seen the valary take off more than one hit point.

On my computer the typical results are following:
- against vet inf, cavalry either don't hit (80%) or makes 2-3 hits (20%). Very, very rarely they do only 1 hit.
- against reg inf, yes, they sometimes (30%) do only 1 hit, but as soon as the reg inf is promoted, you fall in the vet-inf case.

I think this is due to the random that is not completly random. Once you are on a winning track, you may win 2-3 times in a row.

BTW: I have noticed better results when I use vet cavalry against full health opponents and elite against wounded, maybe this could be a reason...

[vmxa1]

I have played at Diety, Warlord, Chief, and now Monarch and have not had much sucess with Calv attacking cities with infantry. In fact I do not do it. I would use tanks and some form of bombardment, unless the city only had one unit to defend it. As was mentioned, I would fear the 1 hp unit having my Calv stay and fight to the death. I do not like to attack pop 12 cities until I have bombed the defenders down to 1 or 2 HP. Better yet if the size was dropped below 12. If you do not want to lose Calv, you surelyt do not want to lose tanks. A 12 defender with bonuses is a load to kill, too much for horses.

[Arrian]

Cav vs. Infantry is a bloodbath, but it can be done. I've done it, either on Warlord or Regent. I was fighting Persia, I forget who I was, prolly the Babs. I needed oil. And so I build a large stack of Cavalry, with infantry and artillery (lots) support and went off to war. It was ugly, but slowly, EVER SO SLOWLY, I was winning... and I got my oil. But, IIRC, they got Tanks right around the time I took the oil city, and that area turned into a psuedo-Kursk, a Tank junkyard. The city, and oil, changed hands 3 or 4 times in that many turns. I don't recall how that ended... or if I even finished it.

-Arrian

[Aeson]

I find Calvary very useful once Infantry are available to the AI, but not in attacking Infantry. Usually the AI will still have cities defended by outdated units, and those can still be taken by Calvary. Also, once Tanks are available, I use my Calvary as support units, so my Tanks dont have to worry about fighting anything other than Infantry or the occasional Tank on a good defensive square. All other battles are fought with the Calvary.

[vmxa1]

I did not mean to imply that calv are of no value at that stage, they are. I have many uses for them. They are great at finishing off the unit that was bombarded to 1 hp or recapture of workers or to hold a new city until I can get infantry in. I use them to cover tanks that won a battle but are down to 1 or 2 HP so a wandering unit can not try to finish it off. I hate it when an archer comes by and manages to kill a tank that was down to 1 HP. If I can put a calv with it, the archer is going to die or not even attack 95 out of 100 times.

[Ironikinit]

It's nice if you can skip a war in one of the ages. If you do a lot of expansion in the ancient, maybe you can skip knights and cav altogether and have a war once tanks come around. A lot depends on the civ you take. If you're the Germans, you really don't want to build a lot of cavalry if you already got your basic empire. Japan, on the other hand, you want to have a war with your samurai and they can all be upgraded to cavalry. A good Iroquios strategy would be to bypass chivalry and sprint for military tradition. In that case, a Sun Tzu/Leonardo's combo is great. It's tops to capture Leonardo's just before a big horseman to cav upgrade.

The Russians would want to do the same thing as the Japanese.

I should note that I haven't played the Iroquios yet. All in time.

[Arathorn]

Well, I must say I respectfully disagree with the cavalry are worthless against infantry (on higher levels) assessment.

I just persecuted my second successful cavalry-based offensive in Civ3 on the deity level, in the same game. Yeah, it was a fair bit of a bloodbath, but it was quite successful.

With non-superior offensive forces (cavalry vs. infantry, horsemen vs. pikemen/musketmen, knights vs. riflemen), you really need to use combined arms. Shrink the city size, remove those walls, etc. Defend your offensive stack.

I guess if the idea is that a cavalry-only offensive against infantry is suicide, I guess I can agree with that. But the whole idea of tactics is to maximize your strengths. I've found that with semi-comparable military (i.e. not too inferior, no swordsmen vs. infantry battles), it's pretty easy to beat the AI with just tactics.

YMMV, of course,
Arathorn

[Blitzer]

I guess if the idea is that a cavalry-only offensive against infantry is suicide, I guess I can agree with that. But the whole idea of tactics is to maximize your strengths. I've found that with semi-comparable military (i.e. not too inferior, no swordsmen vs. infantry battles), it's pretty easy to beat the AI with just tactics.

I've refined my industrial era tactics somewhat, and I do use cavalry to some extent, but I don't build any new ones that is for sure... I would stand by my assesment that once infantry are available, you may as well build those, as they are upgradable and have the same attack rating and much higher defense. Cavalry can be useful, but infantry are the backbone of my pre-armor assaults