The Wheels of War

[Strakorfsky]

Good day! Feels good to finaly be back in America, and I can yet again send a new thread out. Well anyways, thank you for reading my thread, I hope both you and I can share knowledge and ready ourselves for when PTW comes out.

Now, to start off...

Quote By Persus: " For if a man can reach thy foe faster, victory will be as a running horse down to strike thy enemy."

This quote was by Persus, and literaly, speed makes the man, or war to say here. In Civ3, it is simply that the faster enemy wins, people using slow moving units will take twice as long to reach the enemy, and faster units will make suey out of thier slow moving counter parts. Also, the benefit of fast movers goes beyond simply being able to move several times a turn- the retreat factor. This is often for many people what makes their militarty campaigns so successful. This will give them the advantage of having about a 50% chance of retreating*. (Factors on retreating are based on the veterancy factor"e.g. conscript, regular, veteran, elite", the higehr the level, the higher chance for retreat.) So, lets sum this up, fast moving units give three distinct advantages, retreating from loses, faster movement, and ability to run from a large, slow moving defence/attack force.

Now, the world of fast moving units vary considerably, so much, that one might wonder on what units are best for certain situations. This being, I have used my own PERSONAL thoughts as a outline, and to you critiques out there, keep your comments for later, eh? Now, horsemen... They are a good early attack unit, but I find them a bit too late for their purpos to be fully used. The only problem with them is, they will often lose to an A.I. that already has two spearman, and unless you build a factor to where you have 3 to 1 spearman, they will often lose. But their speed is an extremly useful object, that is what makes the effective scouts as well as assualt units. Personaly, I just build a road and go for swordsman. Lets sum this up shall we- Horsemen are effective if you do not want to make a road or go for swordsman, either way might take 2 advances so it is just a matter of opinion, if you need speed, horesmen, if you need power, go swordsman, that is for you to decide.

So, lets say you made it to Knights- let the culling of the Civilizations begine! Knights, all around, these units dominate till' the Calvary, they are fast, they can take out spearman/pikeman*,and they can retreat!( Spearman often are not upgraded by the A.I. until a while after they discover feudalism, thus giving you an extra advantage in war.) Over-all, Knights are a pretty straigt forward unit, fast, deadly, powerful. I would recommend going directly for these power house units.

John Noffork- "Ah, the graceful Calvary, glorious in stride, always riding with honour, and unduanted by the troubles that await!"

Yes, the Calvary, perhaps one of the most useful units in the game itself! Most have probably said that ounce Rifleman have been made, calvary are useless, not quite so! Clvary, en mas, can over come rifleman defenders, even more so with about 14-9 cannon to weaken them. The calvary speed also make them better then tanks, where as tanks can move two tiles, the calvary can move three*, an obvious plus. (as you all know, this is obviously not true for the German Panzer, which has an astonishing blitze use, which I find very appealing myself.) Overall, the calvary is perhaps one of the best units in the game, speed, decent attack, and a long line of uses. Also, ounce infatry become avaible, the use of the honorable end!

Albert Glukenstoup- " The tank, a mettal monster, rattly in making, clunky in design, but by-golly, it sure does get the job done!


Tanks, tanks, and more tanks. These machines have that 16 attack that goes in and kicks the ass out of those infatry! The tank is king over the battlefield until Modern Amore, of course. Though the tank is a great offense unit, often the game will already be decided with calvary, if not knights. SOmetimes, I make these war machines just for fun, to terrorize the very unadvance A.I.'s spearman/pikeman in Monarch. In addition, the tank is is a great offense unit, its defence has something to be desired, but it was not made for that, it was, as Glukenstoup put it, to get the job done.

Modern Armor, the greatest Offense unit of the game! But, sadly, the less used offense unit of the game. The reasn is, most experts have already dominated the A.I. into complete submission, making its use unnedded. But, perhaps, in close games, this would eb the ultimate way to settle your differences with the A.I. it's 24 offensive power easly counters the Mech Infantries deffence in mass, that is. And its movement allows blitze assualts deep into enemy territory. One thing that irritates me about Modern Armor is that you must research Rockets and Synthetic in order to start producing them, a BIG waste of time if you ask me, but, what can I do? Over all, the Modern Armor is a powerful war machine, capable of destroying the enemy civs with them in mass.

SO, we are still not done, and my hands are hurting, time to look at the special Offense UU units...

Jagaur Infantry These units easly give the Aztecs a large advantage, with their 2 movement, they can easly reach enemy civs befor 3000BC. The advantage in this is that the A.I. will not start making spearman till' 1500-2000BC, and warrior V. jagaur, the jagaurs are almost assured a win about 3/4 times. Also, they have more uses then just killing enemy warriors, capturing workers, pilliging improvements, destroying colonies, all very effective uses.

Mounted Warrior SOme have claimed this to be the besst UU unit of this game, and I would believe it too! This unit gives you a three attack for a rellativly cheap price. This will easly be able to be spearman 3/4 of the time. And their retreat and faster moving gives them even more a boost, don't under estamate an A.I. that is Iroqouis, cut off their horse supply at all cost!

Rider This unit of the Chinese is extremly effective. With its three move point, and 4 attack, cutting deep into A.I. territory is a breeze. The speed also gives you retreat, and 4 attack is an plus also. This units, like the Knight, is great until Calvary, so, prize it for what it was ment.

Samuri These are very useful units by the Japanesse. This unit is great both on offense and defense. Also, only needing iron, you can make it if you lack horses! Overall, they are the knights equal, except that their 4 defence makes them great until, you guessed it, calavary.


Panzer One of my personal favorites, this unit by the Germans is a very good industrial age unit. The combination of three speed makes it extremly good for blitze assualts. This machine will allow you to strike deep into your enemy civ, letting you strike their cities quickly, and without having to wait and be attacked.

War Elephant This unit is an India special unit. It is the exact same as the knight, except that you do not need any resources to build. I have never really used it, so I am a bit foreign to why it is needed but, I guess it has certain advantages.

Well, I am getting a bit tired, and I think my wrist has a cramp... Please feel free to add any in comments, questions, or just plain intrigue, all are welcome.

-Ronnie

[Thrawn05]

That's a lot for me to chew on. I see you took Coracle's advice on paragraphs .


Let me chime in and say that since I always play as Rome, and I use Legionaries as my main offensive unit based on the fact that it can defend itself from counter attacks better then ANY other anchient era unit.

I B-Line to Cavalry, and pickup musketmen on the way.


I really feel bad for India's UU IMHO. Only once in a blue moon have I come accross a game where I wasn't able in any way to get Iron.


With the Panzer, I suck up to germany through out the game. The reward of this is an MPP with German Panzers. THis gives me, a Roman, a second chance.

[Strakorfsky]

Well, that is a good point about the legionary. I never really used them, I am more for Aztecs or Germans. The legionary, as you said, is a pwerful all around unit. Making it difficult to make a counter attack against and win.

yes, the paraghraph will really boost my ratings, yea!

Well, the Indian special unit was not very well planed out, every game I can secure at least one source of iron and horses, unless you play a map void of them.

Thanks for the reply, I am thinking about doing more testing stratagies. As you all know, multiplayer on PTW will ber very interesting considering all the stratagies people know.

-Ronnie

[Tuberski]

Hey, where is Coracle anyway?

[Carver]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
That's a lot for me to chew on. I see you took Coracle's advice on paragraphs .

I can imagine what that would have looked like without paragraphs ....ahem...back button.

[Arrian]

I use horsemen a LOT. It is very similar to the Cavalry vs. Riflemen matchup (even attack vs. defense), except that horsmen attacks are usually pulled off before the AI's cities are above size 6, so you don't have the city defense bonus to worry about. Additionally, the gains you can make with them come a lot earlier, so much the better.

The key is building up a large force of horsemen. On a standard map (monarch level) I typically aim for 20-25 of them before I cut loose. I build chariots, avoiding horseback riding until I have the numbers I want, and then upgrading them at 20gold per. This saves shields, which saves time.

Concentrating them in 1-2 stacks originally, and then fanning out once the AI's core cities are taken, they can make mincemeat of an empire. Swordsmen can be used as escorts and "finishers."

I have been using swordsmen more than I used to, simly because they can kill archers and spearmen pretty easily on open ground, and take cities pretty reliably if you have a numerical advantage. Using a militaristic civ, you can march to the enemy's capitol, take it, and then use your swords to cut down the archer counterattack (clearly, this requires cutting any horse and iron resource connections, which isn't all that difficult unless they've built a city on one). The swords will go elite, and you have a good chance of generating a leader while you are still building up your horseman force.

As for the rest, clearly knights are awesome, particularly if you practice iron denial. [Soup nazi voice] NO PIKEMEN FOR YOU![/Soup nazi voice].

Cavalry rule, particularly if you get them pre-nationalism. Even if you don't, as mentioned, they can still take down cities defended by riflemen if you have the numbers.

Tanks are great pre-computers, after which they aren't nearly as good. Mech Infantry fortified in metropoli does bad things to tanks, even with bombard support... unless you have an insane number of artillery or bombers.

-Arrian

[Strakorfsky]

Oh yes, one more thing to add...

When playing as the Aztecs, their special UU unit, Jagaur Infantry, should be your top building concern if you are going to use the stratagy CORRECTLY that is. Also, building a barracks is often not needed if you emply that, because, two can easly overwhelm the one, poor little warrior.

Also, when being the Germans (which I am almost always), it is sometimes a smart idea to be a builder at first and make friends, and when you get panzers, revoke CERTAIN alliances, and destroy each A.I. with your mighty Panzers systematicly. With alliance with your neihbors to divert the fire of course. This can often be a very useful skill on higher end difficulties, ecspecialy when you have still not established your dominance.

Like almost all of my stratagies, speed is the most important factor. Being able to quickly backstab the A.I. and get their capital, and sue for peace is intrigal if they out number you in SLOW MOVING units, it is what Panzers did historicly, LIGHTENING WAR.

Also, Thrawn, your thoughts on the Legionaries is good, given one more factor- roads. Legionaries are powerful units, 3/3/1, but, their speed leaves something to be desired. If you can get three workers to build a road starting in at least 2000BC, you should complete it realativly in time for your legions. With their new found 3 moves, they can quickly mount, and subdue that dumb A.I.

Yes, you are ABSOLUTLY right. Going STRAIGHT with no DETOURS for calvary is veyr important if you have not yet established your dominance with Knights. Calvary makes even the might rifleman cowar to the corner, given you have cannons. Also, Calvary is worthless ounce infantry are made, that defence they have is way to overpowering, even if you do use cannons.

One more thing...

The Irouqios are among the most dangerous civ ever. Their UU dominates you if you do not take proper steps. Sacrfices units just to knock out a city or colony of horses. Losing units then is better then losing cities later because you did not destroy their horse routes. And the cheapness of their UU makes it easy for the A.I. to produce them fast.

Here is an odd tidbit I found when looking over the editor...

While looking at city defence values, I noticed a very strang thing...It told me that city defence also includes CITY IMPROVEMENTS. Their defence bonus adds about 18+ to defence. This interestign when considering to attack A.I. cities. Try and look at how many improvements they have. And remeber, do your math, and add up what chance you have at winning, half guessing is bad for you, and for your troops.

-ronnie

[Arrian]

The city improvements "defense" value is only for bombardment, with walls being the exception.

-Arrian

[Strakorfsky]

EH, thank you Arian.

That was interesting to think though. Never ever noticed it.

Making Chariots and then upgradings is pretty smart, never guessed. I guess I am too conservative wiht my road and swordsman approach.

-ronnie

[Theseus]

Too much to read for tonight, but: Great title. Looks interesting, will be my wake-up reading. Lastly, Glukenstoup and Kalashnikov, last of the great tinkerers (for those that don't know, Russia builds with loose tolerances for endurance, and it works). Good quotes again.

[Strakorfsky]

Yes, I did type a lot...made my hands sting. And the paragraphs will really help my ratings eh? Also, putting in little quotes and intrigue help spice up the thread, make it more readable. One big blob of words would have turned people away. But, it is in nice sentences, littered by the occasional typo but still readable.

Enjoy what knowledge I have compacted. Oh yea, thanks, the title really makes you want to peak in and see what is up.

-Ronnie

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Strakorfsky
Well, the Indian special unit was not very well planed out, every game I can secure at least one source of iron and horses, unless you play a map void of them.

Thanks for the reply, I am thinking about doing more testing stratagies. As you all know, multiplayer on PTW will ber very interesting considering all the stratagies people know.

-Ronnie

Immortals are nice, but they can't hold their own from a counterattack. If you look around here, there is a thread that I said that speed is not an issue for the bottom line, winning the battle. I don't build horsemen because they are like archers, and archers become obsolete quickly with the spearman. Also, if any of my men retreat, I call that treason, and they will be delt accordingly.

I was thinking about ways to improve on the Indian UU. I was thinking that it would require iron, but have a movement of 1 and all terrain as road. Everything else stays the same.


As with PTW, there was a thread about this, it's going to look like the ICS way of playing is going to be the way to go. I'm not worried, my 56K dial-up that is always connecting at 12k because of cruddy phone lines prevent me from MPing, and I that's a good thing.

[Traelin]

I agree WRT Mounted Warriors, Straf. I hadn't tried the Iroquois until a few days ago. I'm still in the midst of that game, and WOW, am I impressed! I'd almost thought I'd be stuck playing the Aztecs for a couple more games, but decided to see what the MWs were like. The nicest two things about them is the movement rate and low cost. They certainly help to ease the pain of a two-front war.

[Strakorfsky]

Thrawn, good point. Horsemen are not affective for for fighting spearman, in small numbers that is. ALso, retreating saves 1/2 of your forces, making it possible to jsut retreat back and heel three turns. Yes, using swordsman is MUCH more reliable then horseman, but investing in horseman if you have a long way to travel is effective. As for speed, I maintain my thoughts on speed. And as for Immortials, keeping several catapults on defend should make most attacks futal.

-Ronnie

[coryl]

I've never understood why Cavalry has a movement of 3 while every other standard mounted unit has 2. Better breeds of horses compared to ancient times?

It makes them too strong IMHO. I can only assume it is to enable them to run away from Knights, which would be slowed down by the weight of armor.

I would give India's UU better attack or defense rather than improve their mobility. Hannibal had a heck of a time moving them around.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Strakorfsky
Thrawn, good point. Horsemen are not affective for for fighting spearman, in small numbers that is. ALso, retreating saves 1/2 of your forces, making it possible to jsut retreat back and heel three turns. Yes, using swordsman is MUCH more reliable then horseman, but investing in horseman if you have a long way to travel is effective. As for speed, I maintain my thoughts on speed. And as for Immortials, keeping several catapults on defend should make most attacks futal.

-Ronnie

I don't want my units to retreat, I rather them just kill.

As for those immortals, any bombarding unit (and air units as well) are usless, even with the lethal bombardment option on. For those shields I rather have a better unit.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by coryl
I've never understood why Cavalry has a movement of 3 while every other standard mounted unit has 2. Better breeds of horses compared to ancient times?

It makes them too strong IMHO. I can only assume it is to enable them to run away from Knights, which would be slowed down by the weight of armor.

I would give India's UU better attack or defense rather than improve their mobility. Hannibal had a heck of a time moving them around.

Part 1: I believe by that time there was controled breeding. It was understood in the game I think.

Part 2: Ever since Napoleon used them, the Cavalry was hard to retire since they were so good. It wasn't until the advent of machine guns and trench warfare that they had to go. They moved fast because of controled breeding. They were faster than tanks because Tanks (particular the early ones) required either a road or an open, flat feilds.

Part 3: I only suggested this because and Samuri already covers Defense bonus. I think that an attack bonus would serously unbalance the game during this time period.

[Strakorfsky]

Thrawn, consider this...

You say to invest everything into swordsman. So, ounce I reach Chivalry, I just obsaleted almost my whole army. And the beutiful thing about horseman is, ta da, I can upgrade to knights. And ounce again be on the offensive against your massive swordsman.

Investing everythng in swordsman is bad in the long run. No upgrade. And ounce knights come along, you'll be happy that you invested in those horseman when you can upgrade, and be on easy street.

I guess that swordsman are great early attackers, but are a waste of shields in the long run. When you could have made a bunch of horesman and then upgraded them until the calvary.

Leave your stratagies to your best function though. it is simply a matter of opinion.

-Ronnie

[planetfall]

A few swords are good. Their advantages are:

1. Good fooder for weaking spearmen in walled city prior to horse attack, and

2. cheap military police.

Other than that they are not worth much.If you don't need defense, the archer is even cheaper.

--PF

[Gen.Dragolen]

Strakorfsky,

Building swordsmen in quantity isn't a waste: I usually recycle them into improvments or newer units as possible/needed.

I have used large numbers of horsemen before, but they take too great a beating so you are forced to stop your advances to rest them thereby loosing a good deal of the movement advantage.

The best uses I've found for them is in their traditional roles: scouting, harassing, pillaging, and keeping the enemies units tied up chasing them. There is something about the coding in the game that when a lone horseman is wandering around the middle of an AI Civ's cities it makes the AI Civ's stop all other actions and try to kill the horseman.

Usually, I can move up a strong force of swordsmen and take out the cities in the time the horsemen buy for me. And considering I can build a swordsman for what a horseman costs, and I know I will loose fewer swordsmen in an enemy counter attack, I will take a ground pounder and hold the enemies land where as a horseman army could be pushed out.

If casualties were no concern, yes horsemen would be a great option, but considering early in the games I play, high casualty rates are a huge problem. I use a mix of units to get the flexibility I feel I need to win a war. A few cheap archers as shock troops, a few spearman for holding the line, a couple of horsemen and lots of swordsmen to do the human tide assault.

Loosing a couple of archers is preferable to loosing a large number of better units you were counting on to use later. Relying on just swordsmen or horsemen is going to fail eventually too. Like when facing another person in PTW springs to mind...

It's all a matter of adapting to the terrain on which you are fighting. Wheels go best on roads while feet can cross mountains.

D.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Strakorfsky
Thrawn, consider this...

You say to invest everything into swordsman. So, ounce I reach Chivalry, I just obsaleted almost my whole army. And the beutiful thing about horseman is, ta da, I can upgrade to knights. And ounce again be on the offensive against your massive swordsman.

Investing everythng in swordsman is bad in the long run. No upgrade. And ounce knights come along, you'll be happy that you invested in those horseman when you can upgrade, and be on easy street.

I guess that swordsman are great early attackers, but are a waste of shields in the long run. When you could have made a bunch of horesman and then upgraded them until the calvary.

Leave your stratagies to your best function though. it is simply a matter of opinion.

-Ronnie

I changed the upgrade path for the AI's sake, so that I don't see swordsmen and longbowmen in modern age (I don't think the AI knows how to disband a unit). Swordsmen and longbowmen upgrade to riflemen, but this tends to be so expensive I disband most of them and rebuild from scratch.

Why build Knights? Your not that far from Cavalry. You can even skip pikemen and head for Musketmen on the way.

I used to head for domocracy first, and pick up the two major happy wonders on the way, but b-lining to Cavalry instantly makes those knights usless, and even can defend against knight attacks. I suggest you try this at least once, as soon as you get into the middle ages, select military traditions and ride to the road of victory. Most people skip upgrading to musketmen and wait for riflemen, but I tell you if you play as rome, you can skip pikemen and head for musketmen, and use them while you research the rest of the middle age.

[Strakorfsky]

Hm...

Well, calling Knights "inaffective" is not a very good decision considering all the techs you must first research to get calvary. By the time you get calvary, the A.I. will be overgrown, and will sign alliances because they will not have had their growth stunted. Skipping knights would ruin a warmongers whole plan. But then again, you are the builder type, so you would probably just concentrate on defence, rather then active offense.

Either way, like I said, use methods most affective to your playing type. I will try what you have said. But I consider Democracy ntil you can make a great economy to support units, and a LOT of happiness to counter-act war.

-Ronnie

[Strakorfsky]

Oh yes, I do not change the game rules. That is a bit ignorant to do so, considering that I find it hard enough in monarch-diety levels with the A.I. outnumbering me in units .

Also, I am already concerned that when multiplayer comes out, people will change the rules to make it easier for them to win. Obviously n00bish, but, all to obvious, considering some of the exeriances I had in CTP where they would give themselves twenty settlers, and me one.

Well anyways, on subject. Playing the original game rules in my thoughts is the best way to play, not with any of those MODs that confuse concepts and make it more unballanced. Wel anyways, those are my thoughts.

-Ronnie

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Strakorfsky
Well anyways, on subject. Playing the original game rules in my thoughts is the best way to play, not with any of those MODs that confuse concepts and make it more unballanced. Wel anyways, those are my thoughts.

I don't consider my mod unbalance, I'm tying to help out the AI and make the game better. I'll consider reverted back to the original upgrade paths if the AI had a better concept of when to disband a unit.

Until then, I'll stick to my rules. Because being able to build Carriers before learning how to fly makes me cry.