Getting the most out of your Elites

Velociryx · March 11, 2002, 21:09

'k...I've been quiet for a while. I DID reinstall the game post-patch, as I said I would, and I've played it a few times.

No comments on the patch really....and I'll not go into any criticism of the game in this thread...rather, a new strategy, since my bro Arrian made a comment that my input over here was missed....so...a smallish new strategy to further enhance your game. This works best for Militaristic Civs, but can work for anybody:

Continuous training cycle:
Anytime you get the chance to, you should upgrade your Elite soldier to a better troop type (until you reach the end of that troop type's upgrade cycle, obviously!). When Elites are upgraded, they become veterans. Win a couple more fights with them, and they're right back to their elite status, and even more dangerous than ever ('specially if you have elite warriors suddenly upgraded to swordsmen). More Elites = more chances to gain Great Leaders, and the more dangerous (higher attack/defense values) your Elites, the greater their survivability.

Doing this also reduces your need to mass build Barracks (Militaristic Civs need not worry so much about this point, as their barracks are half price anyway)....so the idea is to structure your attacks in such a way that your sacrificial regulars always go first to weaken the enemy troops, with the veterans (either newly trained from barracks or recently upgraded Elites who have been downgraded to veterans) have a greater chance of winning and gaining promotion.

Do this consistently, and you'll find yourself with a larger than average pool of elites, more Great Leaders, and the very best troops your money can buy.

Combat-Wise, this means that you should NOT focus on the cities of your enemy exclusively, but build combat teams (a mixed force of regulars and veterans) who scour the countryside in search of rogue enemy units to bust up and get promotions from.

Your city attack forces should be comprised of regular/elite forces, again, with the regs serving as cannon fodder to weaken city defenders, and your Elites swooping in when the defenders are tattered and picking up the win/possibly generating another GL.

-=Vel=-

Capt Dizle · March 11, 2002, 23:05

Vel, have you given any serious thought to the "research no tech strat"?

Anyway, I generally favor militaristic and I definitely build barracks everywhere. I never upgrade elites...in my current game I got a Leader by using an elite samurai to kill a damaged infantry unit.

In my mind I am not playing Civ3 anymore, its Shogun:Total War, the Firaxis edition.

jt

Velociryx · March 12, 2002, 00:08

Yep...I'm an avid "tech follower" in my games....lol...I don't even try for the tech lead cos the timeframe on having said lead is so short that you generally can't make much use of it. So...I gleefully let the AI get first discovery with their cheat bonuses, and mop up on the cheap techs with my own research capabilities. That has me rolling in the money, even moreso when (since I don't worry about maintaining any sort of tech lead) I sell off every tech I own to whomever is willing to buy.

Even if an aggressive AI starts a war with a marginal tech lead, I can count on being at least even with him before I can build a single unit, so it's never been a problem, and fighting the AI at even tech is...well, somewhat harder than taking candy from a baby, but not by much. The AI (good as it is, and I still stand by my earlier statements that Soren did an outstanding job with the AI), the fact is, they cannot compete with a determined human opponent and a sustained attack....production bonuses or no.

Your plan re: Elites is a good one, given the default state of the HP & A/D/M values, but using the Mod-With-No-Name, I have found that it pays sweet dividends indeed to keep those elites upgraded (of course, I rarely have more than 3-4 barracks in my Empire, so I think we're seeing stylistic differences at work there too).

-=Vel=-

Arrian · March 12, 2002, 11:37

Welcome back, Vel.

My thoughts on your strategy: I think your way is definitely the best for a militaristic civ. For a non-militaristic civ (the ones I play), I think it is best not to upgrade elites (except for warriors... and probably horsemen -> knights, because that's a big jump in power). If you are doing a lot of fighting, and have the promotion advantage given to militaristic civs, then the experience loss that comes with upgrading an elite isn't a big deal - that unit will go right back into action and get promoted.

But what if you are at peace when you discover... Military Tradition? You've got some elite knights lying around. Do you upgrade them? I don't. In the game I am currently playing, I have 6 elite knights in reserve... and I'm building Tanks. I keep those knights around because I know that I will run into an obselete AI unit that they can kill (longbowmen are the best example). The AI upgrades a lot better now, but you still find old units.

There has been some discussion as to whether or not there is a better chance of getting a leader if you use an elite to take down the AI's capitol. What do you think about that? My own observations have been inconclusive.

As for the tech race... well, we've been working on getting Firaxis to address the tech devaluation that allows a backwards, dirt poor nation to catch up in tech in 1 turn. However, under the right circumstances, it is still possible to gain and hold a tech lead. I originally thought that 1.17 removed that as a possibility, but I was wrong. It just made it really hard. As you know, I'm practically obsessed with being in the tech lead, and building what I consider to be important wonders (which boils down to 4/5 of them, lol). It's a narrow strategy, but one I enjoy. If it works out, and I also gain a good chunk of territory during the middle ages, I can vault 4 to 5 techs ahead in industrial times. That being said, I'm sure tech following is more effiecient. I just can't stomach it.

-Arrian

rpodos · March 12, 2002, 14:16

re mixed forces and tech leads

Interesting that these two topics got mixed together.

I find that my whole gamestyle has changed over the last few months, from a fundamentally Civ2-builder approach (with tech lead implicit) to being an absolutely psychotic warmonger from hell.

I don;t care about the tech lead anymore... what I MUST MUST have are the good Wonders. And that's all about GL's.

Typically, I set research to 0, and buy all of the techs I need. I go to war as soon as feasible, sometimes even with just warriors. I use the oscillating strategy, going round-robin against whoever is strongest, or has resources I want, or GW's I want, or just interferes with the aesthetics of my growing empire.

I do follow Vel's idea of upgrading as quickly as possible, but I generally do not use regulars as cannon fodder, as when they die they often provide upgrades to the enemy. So, barracks everywhere for vets and upgrades, lots of cash even early for the upgrades. Massive numbers of elite fighting units, many GL's.

Speaking of which... due to the above, I have been playing militaristic more often. If you are militaristic AND you build the Heroic Epic, what are your chances of a GL? One out of six, or better?

R

Arrian · March 12, 2002, 14:34

There are two lines of thought on leader generation for militaristic civs:

1) Militaristic civs increase this opportunity, much like they get more promotions (reg/vet/elite), and the heroic epic further increases the chances of spawning a GL.

2) Militaristic civs get no specific bonus toward leader generation, but of course the bonus they do get, promotions, makes it easier for them to get GL's.

I don't think this has ever been satisfactorily settled, but I could be wrong. I think it's #2, but then again, I don't often play as a militaristic civ.

I really should try being a warmonger from hell once... but I just can't bring myself to do it. My empire grows in stages: 1) peaceful expansion; 2) AI sneak attack, I take some or all of that AI empire (usually middle ages); 3) I either finish off the civ from #2 or wheel on one of my other neighbors - wiping them out; 4) Tank attack on AI island nation to gain more luxuries. Somewhere during stages 2 or 3, I put down my forbidden palace.

Now, I recognize that if I could control an entire continent from very early on, I would end up more powerful, but I would have to forego building libraries/marketplaces and instead build units, and I would have to accept a very early golden age, because the civs I like best have ancient UU's. For some reason, I have real trouble accepting those conditions.

-Arrian

rpodos · March 12, 2002, 14:52

I didn't that there had been a clear resolution to date; I suspect that Arrian's #2 is correct.

Couple of things:

Agreed timing the golden age is important. If my UU is very early (ie, bowman), I just won't use it until I am big and developed enough.

I basically reverse Arrian's order: military expansion from the get-go, up until maybe democracy, by when I like to have accomplished the following:
- geographic boundaries to my liking
- a lot of resouces and luxuries
- temples and barracks almost everywhere, with one more building, dependent on civ-typ, in all core cities
- most of the GW's through at least the middle ages if not early industrial
- weakened neigbors and vassals

At this point, I am ready for democracy, but I am suffering war-weariness. Make friends with everyone, build marketplaces and cathedrals, flesh out the laggard cities, do my upgrades to infantry and cavalry if I haven't already, and get ready to build hospitals, factories, and TANKS.

I may get in one more major campaign, just to use my TANKS. Usually I have game-winning momentum clearly established by now, and start a new game.

I've been having a lot of fun with Civ this way... some real hair-raising points when you're fighting with too many other civs. Back to Vel's core issue, this extends the "balanced" portion of the game, and thus the fun, for a long time for me.

R

rpodos · March 12, 2002, 14:56

I also find that I am building my FP later than I used to. It's at the end of my multi-millenia oscillating war, when I have established my geography and am ready to build. It's usually my last GL from the war.

R

AJ Corp. The FAIR · March 12, 2002, 17:07

I al(l?)ways build barracks everywhere:

--> can't be prepared enough for various surprise attacks to one of your coast cities, very important to defensive border cities, very important for upgrading, very important for having better combat possibilities (veterans) and easier promotions.

My elite allways go after the wounded, though not too deep in enemy territory: wouldn't want it to become like a red flag to a bull ...

In a big stack attack, 1/2 of my elites strike first, 1/2 of them last
--> call it a form of superstition if you like, but I usually generate enough leaders throughout a compet(it?)ive game.

In early gaming I try to create 'bab plunder towns', only possible in a non colonized area only you (not the AI) can get to:

--> raize the town, return from the spot (6 spaces), wait a couple of turns (4) and return. Usually the bab camp has spawned again.
Repeat, repeat, ... --> battle promotions, extra money.

I allways upgrade all units:

--> you'll just need them ...

Fortify veteran defensive elite units on strategic, yet defensive bonus positions the AI civ definitely wants to remove you from. Its consistent attacks can lead to promotions. Have some fast offensive units along to hunt the wounded.

That's the road I follow.

AJ

Arrian · March 12, 2002, 17:13

Quote:

Originally posted by AJ Corp. The FAIR
I al(l?)ways build barracks everywhere:

In early gaming I try to create 'bab plunder towns', only possible in a non colonized area only you (not the AI) can get to:

--> raize the town, return from the spot (6 spaces), wait a couple of turns (4) and return. Usually the bab camp has spawned again.
Repeat, repeat, ... --> battle promotions, extra money.

AJ

1) Always.

2) Definitely a good idea (barb encampments will respawn only in areas covered by the "fog of war." So you have to move away for them to pop up again). The only problem is that empty land doesn't tend to stay empty for long, at least in my experience. The AI comes after empty land like a heat seeking missle. Sometimes I've tried this approach to gain money and elite units, but then I see the dreaded AI galley approaching... you just *know* there is a settler onboard.

-Arrian

AJ Corp. The FAIR · March 12, 2002, 19:49

Thanks Arrian.

Always feel free to correct my spelling.

I appreciate that!

AJ

Velociryx · March 12, 2002, 20:16

I must admit to having somewhat of a "take it or leave it" attitude regarding barracks. I like having 3-4 at my core, but as for the rest, I find "regulars" to be adequate defenders, and more often than not (when backed up by higher morale troops) decent enough attackers as well. The time and production saved by not building barracks everywhere (I seldom play Militaristic civs, and so must pay full price for barracks) gives me all the more time to build either more city improvements more quickly and/or a larger standing army (generally focusing on troops from the few cities WITH barracks, while my fringe cities build cultural enhancements early, pop rushing despite the new unhappiness formula as needed for speed). The end result is that I can usually quite easily build all relevant infrastructure pretty quickly, and focus on troops (which can either be upgraded thru the ages or scrapped selectively when new builds become available).

Given my fondness for the occasional pop-rush under the new rules, it probably comes as no great surprise that I don't care much for granaries in the early game....I find that with them, my cities grow faster than I can control them in any case, and so those are rarely high on my list either. Essentially then, the early game sees me focusing on Temples, Libraries, and troops (with markets slightly later). Keeps things nice and simple....

-=Vel=-

Jack_www · March 12, 2002, 20:29

What I do is try to get Sun Tuzs wonder and thus I dont have to build any barracks, and all my cities get free barracks. In all the games I have played so far I have been able to get this wonder, and if I didn't get it I think I would go out and take it form whoever has it. Before this I ahve two or three cities were i build a barracks and have them build defensive units for all the other cities, that way I can get vet defending units in all my cities.

Velociryx · March 12, 2002, 20:37

I usually gun for it, but it's not something I knock myself out for...still, I DO enjoy getting any wonder that comes with free city builds, so I gotta agree with your assessment....'tis a good plan....

-=Vel=-

rpodos · March 12, 2002, 21:03

Again, as a warmonger, and an expansion-hungry ruler, my priorities are slightly different. Not only do I depend on barracks to avoid cannon-fodder and get elites faster, I also depend on them to heal up very quickly, especially if I've just captured a city.

Thus Sun Tzu is very high on my list. If I can't build it, I will capture it ASAP, if possible.

BTW, if any Firaxians are watching (or dozing under a sombrero), I'd love some clarification on the combined effect of militaristic with the Heroic Epic, if there is any.

R

Capt Dizle · March 12, 2002, 21:29

Am I hearing about different play styles? I thought we had concluded that there was only one way to play the game and every game is the same?

We must test immediately. I propose twin succession games with predefined styles from one save file and regular comparisons.

Wait, ugh, that would require actually playing the game.

Forget it.

Velociryx · March 12, 2002, 22:06

You got me there....perhaps I should say...shades of grey....

-=Vel=-

rpodos · March 12, 2002, 23:19

OK, I started a game tonight with the express purpose of playing "builder."

I played Indian, since they and Babs seem "naturally" best with that approach (at least the AI acts so). Large world, restless barbs, 3rd continents (most land), normal climate, temp, and age. Emperor, and 9 random civs.

I ended up in the middle of an almost Pangaea, fairly isolated, which supported the builder strategy.

YUUUUCCCKKK!!!

I've been totally outpaced in everything... number of cities (obviously), and thus tech, military units, GWs, you name it.

I'm still isolated, and can build out the geography I want, with decent resouces / luxuries.

BUT:

1. I feel emotionally drained. I don't like being the loser; even if I know I'll catch up due to my superior AI (years of programming went into it, and my dad's name is not Soren), it's not fun to just play catch up, as Vel and others have pointed out.

2. I'm missing out on all of the early GWs, which p*sses me off to no end.

3. I very much LIKE combat. Even though I'm just getting to my UU, I missed seeing my warriors get big, my archers more accurate, my horsies get strong.

AND, having missed out on my favs (Colossus, Pyramids, Great Library, and Sun Tzu), my general civ is suffering... poor, starving, stupid, and untrained.

So, jt, if you are asking if I have my own strat, the answer is a resounding yes. Somebody else already said it (reference to Shogun: Total War), but I have come to realize that Civ3 as it is is a wargame as much as anything. Kill'em all, and I'll sort out my GLs along the way.

R

ps: Commercial is useless.

rpodos · March 12, 2002, 23:22

OK, that sucked.

I'm starting a new game, and I'm going to war with the first civ I see.

Elite, here I come.

R

Barchan · March 13, 2002, 04:08

Quote:

Originally posted by rpodos

I'm starting a new game, and I'm going to war with the first civ I see.

R

Shoot first, talk afterwards

philler · March 13, 2002, 05:51

Vel, you seem to imply that formerly elite troops which have been upgraded (and thus are back to veteran status) have a better chance of becoming elite again than newly built veteran troops...

is that just an assumption? (or have I simply misunderstood something?)

Arrian · March 13, 2002, 10:49

rpodos,

The way you describe your civ (poor, starving, stupid), is how I have felt in the past when I've occasionally tried warmongering early on. What level were you trying "builder" on, btw? I assure you it can do much better on Monarch, but if you were in Emperor or Diety, I cannot advise. I will say this, though, commercial does suck - use the Babs or Egyptians if you try again.

I, for the heck of it, decided to finally take another stab at early warmongering. I picked the Japanese. I love mounted troops, and I'm always raving about them, so I figured a civ that can see horses from turn 1 is the way to go for me.

I built 4-5 cities and starting pumping out horsemen (vets, of course). Then I attacked and utterly crushed my neighbor, the Indians. I beat them so soundly that I only got two horsies to elite, and no leaders. Room to grow, of course, but not exactly the payoff I was looking for. So, I wheeled south, after building up my army a bit more, and took on China. 3 great leaders later, I allowed them to keep their 2 pitiful remaining cities (I wiped them out later). At this point, I owned my own continent, 3 luxury monopolies, the Great Library (built myself), the Colossus (built), the Great Lighthouse (rushed w/leader), the Pyramids (captured) and a nicely placed Forbidden Palace. Since then the ONLY wonder I didn't get was Leo's.

So, ok, I admit, well-executed warmongering can be... pretty darn effective. Since then, I (with some help from my... friend Bismarck) have wiped out France, gaining two more luxuries. I haven't had this big of a tech lead since 1.16 (the AI hit the Industrial Age when I was just about done with Hoover). I will have Tanks before they have infantry. It's... awesome. I'm a baaaaaaad man.

-Arrian

Arrian · March 13, 2002, 17:40

A few more thoughts about whether or not to upgrade elite units:

The larger the map, the more units you have, and the more battles you fight. Better chances for leaders, no? Also, if you upgrade your elite units, and are fighting, they will get back to elite pretty quick (or die).

On small and tiny maps, I would think it may be a better idea to hang on to elites instead of upgrading them. Especially if you aren't a raging warmonger.

-Arrian

Velociryx · March 13, 2002, 17:54

Agreed, Arrian....smaller maps = more incentive to hang on to those existing elites! Outstanding observation!

And, to the question about whether elites upgraded in weapons (downgraded to veteran status) tend to bounce back to Elites faster....they *seem* to in my games, tho I couldn't swear to it...but yeah...they sure seem to!

-=Vel=-

Arrian · March 13, 2002, 18:03

Vel,

I doubt that's anything other than circumstance. I don't know for sure, obviously, but it doesn't make sense that Firaxis would have taken the time to code in a + to the chances of promotion for units that were upgraded from elites. That strikes me as a lot of work for a fairly small feature.

-Arrian

Unregistered · March 13, 2002, 18:48

Well, I'd have to agree w/ Vel. Upgraded elites seem to get back to elite status more quickly than a newly minted vetern does. That's my observation anyway.

Cheers,

Arrian · March 13, 2002, 19:00

Hmm... well, maybe you guys are right. Soren? Dan? Anybody, care to comment?

-Arrian

Barchan · March 14, 2002, 04:26

This may be one of those selective "I only remember the bad things" observations, but it seems as though the AI assigns a priority to taking out Elite offensive units. I've seen the AI target my full-strength Elite tanks while leaving nearby damaged Veteran tanks alone. Anyone else seen any evidence of the AI assigning a higher target value to Elite units?

Arrian · March 14, 2002, 11:07

Well... not really, but if it does, it's smart.

Here's a good example of only remembering the bad stuff:

I could SWEAR that those "bad" random numbers show up most often for my elites. It's like they're complacent. Struttin' around, callin' themselves "elite" and promptly getting their asses kicked when I tell them to actually fight. I know, I know, it's perception, not fact, but the ubiquitous AI "uber spearman" seems to pop up whenever I use an elite horsie. Elite Samurai finally downing regular spearmen with 1hp remaining. Stuff like that.

Then again, a crucial battle in my present game was resolved by me (crossing my fingers and saying "f-it") attacking the last defending spearman in a very important town with a musketman... and actually winning, 1hp left. I have also had regular swordsmen of mine take out conscript riflemen.

-Arrian

Tingkai · March 14, 2002, 12:04

Vel: your strategy made some sense before 1.17, but not now.

1.17 included a change where "Mobile units now have to make a die roll to determine if they withdraw. Success is also modified by their experience level."

So by attacking with regulars you have less chance of winning and you run the risk of creating elite AIs. So it is better to attack with veterans where you gain an advantage from their experience level.

Using regulars to attack AI units in territory that does not have a significant defence bonus could work, or at least the chance or losing is obviously reduced.