Cavalry or cav+cannon/arty??

[tinyp3nis]

What is better for conquering, just plain cavalry or cavalry+ cannon (later artillery support). I'm at the beginning on of the industrial age, so it's long way to tanks. The enemy has nationalism, so they have riflemen in their cities and that is bad for my cavalry. I have never used cannons before, and I'm a bit skeptical about them since artillery is only bearly useful and only before tanks arrive, and cannons are even weaker. What way is the best to get the most cities in shortest time?
So, what would you do?

Damn typos.

[Harovan]

You should use a combined approach. Bring a main force of Infantries and Artilleries and some Cavalry stacks. Use the Infantries to gain space, steadily moving them in the enemy's territory. Attack in the following order:

- Bomb the hell out of the enemy. At least 10 arty hits per turn, better more.
- Attack with Cavalries. They may retreat if they lose.
- Mop up with Infantries.
- Rinse, repeat.

Don't forget to bring reinforcements for Infantry and Cavalry.

[DaveMcW]

Pure cavalry is the fastest way to take cities in the late middle ages/early industrial age. You'll need a minimum of 30 cavalry to invade riflemen, but the wounded ones retreat so your losses are small. The bigger your army the faster you can grab cities. A typical strategy is to upgrade a bunch of knights when you get military tradition so you don't waste time building cavalry.

Artillery support is not as simple as pure cavalry, since you need to balance cavalry, infantry, and artillery in your offensive (forget cannons, they are way too slow). You also need workers laying railroad to get your artillery into position. But a good arty stack allows cavalry to take out infantry or even mech infantry. If you lack the numbers for a pure cavalry assault, waiting for replaceable parts might be a good idea.

P.S. If you use Moonsinger's settler trick your combined arms can invade at the speed of pure cavalry.

[Arrian]

It kinda depends on several factors:

1) How many Cavalry do you have now?
2) How long until you will have replaceable parts?
3) How long until the enemy will have replaceable parts?

If you have a lot of Cavalry, or can quickly produce a lot of Cavalry, but you lack replaceable parts, I'd say go pure Cav, and just accept heavy casualties.

If you have replaceable parts, and they won't have it for a while, take your time and protect your Cav with Infantry and Artillery support.

If you face the prospect of the enemy having replaceable parts in the near future, go pure Cavalry - speed is everything. Because once they have infantry, OUCH.

-Arrian

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Arrian
It kinda depends on several factors:

1) How many Cavalry do you have now?
2) How long until you will have replaceable parts?
3) How long until the enemy will have replaceable parts?

If you have a lot of Cavalry, or can quickly produce a lot of Cavalry, but you lack replaceable parts, I'd say go pure Cav, and just accept heavy casualties.

If you have replaceable parts, and they won't have it for a while, take your time and protect your Cav with Infantry and Artillery support.

If you face the prospect of the enemy having replaceable parts in the near future, go pure Cavalry - speed is everything. Because once they have infantry, OUCH.

-Arrian

I wrote long reply, of course the internet starts to **** itself when I try to send it.
To make things short, I played and noticed:
cannons suck, arty is a waste too unless they have inf which they don't. Thanks for the replies and thank god apolyton is on such a fast servers
Not like the original reply I wrote was important or anything but it took lot of my time

editing stupid typos again

[nbarclay]

Good points, Arrian. Spoken like a true warmonger.

One other consideration: If you're in Republic or Democracy, there's a lot of advantage to keeping wars short. That could argue in favor of a pure cavalry approach if you can afford the losses even after getting Replaceable Parts. On the other hand, if you can't afford the losses, having to wait to replace dead units could really bog down an offensive too.

Nathan

[jshelr]

I almost always agree with SR, but maybe not this time. Just thinking back, I've hardly ever used cavs with a combined arms approach, at least not in the period right after military tradition is first discovered. In that period, cavs are for blitzing and Arrian's point about getting the job done before infantry is really the bottom line most of the time. Size 13 cities are about to appear as well. Upgrade those knights and rock while the time is ripe.

That's not to say cavs have a short shelf life. Far from it. Their 3-move 6-attack is handy all the way to MA. But they are not going to work as the front wave of an attack nearly as well after infantry show up.

[jshelr]

BTW.I was trying to push the settler trick the other day on another thread and people didn't seem to get it. It's a very powerful tool for the cav blitzer's strategy kit.

[Arrian]

I got into a war yesterday night with Cavalry and Muskets as the best units on both sides. Well, I should say that the opposition also had Samurai, and that made it hurt just a bit more. I did, however, have railroads, and was researching nationalism. I also had 3 cannon.

This is one thing I should have mentioned. Small numbers of bombard units are nice things to have around, for pounding attempted counterattacks.

I would capture a city, connect up the RR, move a settler into position (in city or one tile past), abandon the city, and rebuilt with my settler. Is that the "settler trick" you guys are discussing? If so, yeah, it works like a charm.

My forces would then either: 1) hole up in the new city, with the cannon and as many muskets (and later on, rifles) as I could muster; or 2) charge on to the next city. I went with option #1 in the beginning, #2 later on.

My Cavalry chewed up the opposition just fine, but it was the counterattack thing I was worried about. Not losing cities, mind you - losing my exposed Cavalry. So I had to make sure that I could capture a city and get my units inside it at the end of the turn.

Luckily, I had a 3xKnight army for escort duty. That definitely helped, because the AI is still scared of armies. Me, I would have hit that thing with a Cav at first opportunity. But I digress.

Tinymember - I hope things went well. Like I said, bombard support can be handy on defense, and artillery do a good job of beating up riflemen in cities (so long as you have a decent number of artillery... 10). The limitation is speed. If you're gonna use bombard support, you will have to take your time.

The war I fought directly after my showdown with Japan was vs. the Zulu. I had infantry & arty, they had rifles. So I marched in with a line of infantry, with 10 or 15 arty, and my Cav. Anything that came near them died horribly. I mashed up 1/2 their empire with almost no losses. It took time, however, and I eventually made peace because of WW and the fact that I didn't really want their empire.

-Arrian

[jshelr]

"Is that the "settler trick" you guys are discussing? If so, yeah, it works like a charm."

The settler trick goes like this:

During your blitz you take a city and it collapses to a 9-squre block.

You look around and there are no more cities within the 3 square striking range of your cavs.

But!!!!! You move your settler to the outside edge of the 9-square block you just captured, in other words, one square beyond the old city site. Then, you abandon city and rebuild with the settler closer to the enemy. Now you can continue your blitz.

Stretching the point further: Suppose you still can't get to another city. Then you can often push one square further by moving another settler into position and abandoning your just-created city. Theoretically, you could march across another civ without fighting, I suppose.

I've said it badly. Though I've used this technique for quite a while, I was impressed with the thread that is linked above.

[vmxa1]

inyp3nis, when I post and it fails here due to the server, I copy the post in the browser or even to notepad, so I can paste it back if things get ugly.

[vmxa1]

I have had very little success with bombarment units, so many misses and so slow. I do like them for defenders, I drop a few in the new city and punish counter attacks. I send some with invading rifles or what ever one move units I am sending, as they can be useful for hitting attackers and do some damage if they get to a city. The AI will often leave those stacks alone.

[tinyp3nis]

Tinymember - I hope things went well. Like I said, bombard support can be handy on defense, and artillery do a good job of beating up riflemen in cities (so long as you have a decent number of artillery... 10). The limitation is speed. If you're gonna use bombard support, you will have to take your time.

It went well, the impression what I had about cavalry sucking vs rifles was false, it was result of my experiment with cavalry attack on unlucky turn (I got really bad random seed). I guess I won't be making bombart units

inyp3nis, when I post and it fails here due to the server, I copy the post in the browser or even to notepad, so I can paste it back if things get ugly.

I keep that in mind.

[alva]

If you have a lot of Cavalry, or can quickly produce a lot of Cavalry, but you lack replaceable parts, I'd say go pure Cav, and just accept heavy casualties.

Alltough I do more or less the same thing, remember that heavy casualties increase War weariness!!
So the canon fodder thing is not really the best tactic in Republic or Democracy!!
But indeed, sometimes speed is all that counts

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by alva848


Alltough I do more or less the same thing, remember that heavy casualties increase War weariness!!
So the canon fodder thing is not really the best tactic in Republic or Democracy!!
But indeed, sometimes speed is all that counts

Hmmm ? I didn't know that. Allways figured attacking inside enemy borders is one of the only factors that matter after the war has begun.

[vmxa1]

The people are not happy when they lose units or cities, just like real life. A plane crashes, and it bring some unhappiness and if at war adds to the weariness of war. That is why governments tend to not give the people all of the bad news, until they at least have some good news.

[Golden Bear]

Hmmm... live and learn. I had not realized that war losses increase war weariness.

I wage war out of Republic all the time. After a while production slows down because workers have to be converted to entertainers. However, I can conduct some extremely long wars this way.

I am also now using the French as warmongers. In the current game (Monarch, Large, continents) I was stuck on a medium size continent with the Babylonians. They disappeared under attack from horsemen and spear. I figured that the continent was too small to share.

Then, the Germans had another continent only three squares away, so I attacked as soon as I had knights. Two down, five to go.

The Americans and the Russians shared a wide but short continent four squares to the south - conventiently I had err, borrowed Mags Voyage from the Germans. I attacked the Americans, took a couple of cities and got peace. After a quick conversion to Cav, I attacked again (less than 20 years on the treaty, too bad for them!) and wiped up the Americans.

Short interlude for building, etc. I have the tech lead and 100% wonder trail. Mass produce more cav and go knock on the Russians door. Four down.

Except for the Babyonians and maybe the Germans, none of this is "necessary." I could turtle up and count the turns to a space ship win. But... conquest is more fun in CivIII! BTW, the other civs will still trade with me a little. But they have less and less that I want. My goal is usually to possess all luxuries so I do not have to trade.

I will have to try a militaristic civ in the next go because I consider them to be crippled. Militarism does not give much benefit when compared to Rel, Ind, Com. Maybe the Chinese with their super horsemen?

Carlos

[Golden Bear]

In my long ramble, I forgot one of my points. I use cavalry swarms by themselves in attack. Arty mangles the buildings in cities and sometimes I can capture cool stuff - factories and whatnot. Of course, I have a certain number of Rifle/Inf travelling along with the Cav in order to hold cities. I do use Cav against Inf but only if there are few Inf. If there are lots, I wait for tanks.

Carlos

[Arrian]

Golden Bear,

Oh, trust me, militaristic isn't a "crippled" trait. If you use it as a dedicated warmonger, it rocks. Consider this: your battles will generate elite units at roughly double the rate your French are. So if you have 10 elite Cavalries now, you would have 20 as a militaristic civ. Now it's true that you are sacrificing the benifits of another trait to have this promotion bonus (and 1/2 cost barracks, walls & harbors, which is quite useful early in the game). But man oh man can you generate a lot of leaders.

China's Riders (a super knight, actually) do in fact rock - they very well may be the most powerful UU in the game, all things considered. Japan's Samurai are very good too.

-Arrian

[vmxa1]

Golden Bear, I war for a long time in Republic as well, but it does hurt production (WW). If it goes on long enough, you will have commit a large portion to lux/ent or face disorder.

[vmxa1]

I think the Rider is a very strong UU, it comes at a good time and can be used for a long time. That is why I am not so fond of Panzers, too late for me and are not super compared to tank, just better. When the AI gets panzers, you will soon have MA and are not so scary. China may show up with Riders at a point that will be down right frightening.

[nbarclay]

I regard panzers as vastly superior to normal tanks, in exactly the same way that I regard Riders as vastly superior to knights. A movement rate of three usually makes the difference in whether or not you can launch an attack directly from one city to the next without having to stop in between. Further, anywhere a normal tank can strike in a single turn, a panzer can strike and still have a move left over either to attack again or to go into a city to heal (assuming the city is captured). That difference is big enough that if I'm anyone but Germany, I'll usually wait for MAs to engage in mechanized warfare, but as Germany, I'm perfectly willing to use my panzers to strike.

Nathan

[nbarclay]

By the way, I have a hypothesis that being able to attack directly from one city to another is valuable for lessening war weariness. If having troops end a turn in enemy territory is the basis for calculating war weariness due to troops in enemy territory, but you always make the territory you attack yours by the end of the turn, you won't get war weariness from that source. The question is, is that how war weariness due to troops in enemy territory is calculated?

Nathan

[Golden Bear]

Aha! I thought that I might get a little response with my tweak about "crippled" militaristic. However... a little of my thinking. With Industrious, I upgrade my infrastructure with less effort - almost half the number of workers to achieve the same goal. That is extra population that can be building, err, troops maybe. Commercial gives me cash - lotsa cash. Cash turns in to faster science if I want or, under most governments, troops. Militaristic helps me build barracks and gives me more elites. Nothing wrong with elites, I want all I can get. But they are only good during wars - some of these other traits are good all the time. Religious also has 'round the clock benefits.

Having said that, I am still going to try to play a militaristic civ just to try and prove myself wrong! Besides, I am more and more convinced that the advocates of the dark side are correct - start fighting early and often!

Carlos

[vmxa1]

nbarclay, they are just too late for me to care about them. Yes if I am playing Germany, it allows me to get rolling faster, so what. My point is that by the time I get tanks, I do not care what kind they are, the AI's are going to suffer, even if they are Germans. In a hard game at say Emp, I would rather have an early UU that can save my butt, rather than panzer, when I win regardless. Yes, I said they were better than tanks, but it does not matter at that point. It does make it easier for me, that is all. Legionares have keep me from being put out of the game, when I am way behind and the AI shows up with Knights or even Calv. Legions or Immortals can survive in a forted up city, where the Germans spearmen would be history. Armies of Legions can take down a city that has Pikes, sometime even with better units. If I was Germany, I would only have spearmen at that time and archers, now what. Ok, maybe Horsemen, still rough. When I play Germany, it is not because of the panzers.

[Admiral PJ]

The panzer tank is better than the rider, as its a late Unique unit, so it gives better Golden Ages. Later GA's are much more preferable as you by then have factories as well as unis/banks etc, so the GA will produce many more resources, not to mention you should have conquered at least half the planet then, with lots of cities.
It was quite tough having to go against the chinese riders across a mountain range for my first civ game, Luckily it didn't take long to get Infantry by then, but destroying their military roads helped a lot.

The mounted warrior Iroquois unit is the most effective cavalry unit so far I think, (apart from the coming mongols equivalant ones possibly) though its early GA isn't to my liking. Its attack of 3 is equal to swordsmen and allows it to destroy any other cavalry with ease and quite cheaply.
Cossacks sound quite nice too, though i've not had experience with them.

Try putting these 3 movement units into armies.. 3 attacks ! that would make 4 units attacking 3 times.. a pretty good blitzkreig I believe.

[nbarclay]

I'll definitely agree that panzers come into play too late to be a decisive factor in most games, and that that seriously devalues the UU. As a result, I'll also agree that they are one of the less valuable UUs.

But that is the fault of the UU's timing, not of its relative capabilities compared with the unit it replaces. For a blitzing style of fighting that tries to take out enemies quickly without giving captured cities time to flip (which happens to be my preferred style), panzers are absolutely fantastic once they do become available.

Nathan

[nbarclay]

In most games, I regard a GA in the late industrial era as too late to make much of a difference. But there was one game where I made a big dent in one of my neighbors early and then played builder all the way until I got panzers (trying to get the fastest space race victory I could). Then I got panzers shortly after my better cities finished building all the city improvements they could. I used my GA to stomp all over my neighbors and then to rush some improvements, and that plus a palace move courtesy of one of numerous great leaders generated in the war gave me what I needed to maintian my fast tech pace in the modern era.

Nathan

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Admiral PJ [/SIZE]
"The panzer tank is better than the rider, as its a late Unique unit, so it gives better Golden Ages. Later GA's are much more preferable as you by then have factories as well as unis/banks etc, so the GA will produce many more resources, not to mention you should have conquered at least half the planet then, with lots of cities."

Yes, if you compare the gross output it is true. It is not true that a late GA is better. It is too late to mean much to me, I have already caught up and will surely win, by the time Panzers come into play. A well timed GA in late ancient or early midevial ages can make or break a game at high levels. To me at levels from Monarch and certainly below, you have the freedom to do many things.

"The mounted warrior Iroquois unit is the most effective cavalry unit so far I think, (apart from the coming mongols equivalant ones possibly) though its early GA isn't to my liking. Its attack of 3 is equal to swordsmen and allows it to destroy any other cavalry with ease and quite cheaply.
Cossacks sound quite nice too, though i've not had experience with them."

I have little use for either of those civs, but will concede the MW can be a problem. I tend to not have them as neighbors, so they are not much of an impact. Additonally I do not like expansion for a trait.

"Try putting these 3 movement units into armies.. 3 attacks ! that would make 4 units attacking 3 times.. a pretty good blitzkreig I believe."

Sorry I do not follow this point. Of course most people that make armies will make one for Calv and later for MA (3 moves). If you have Panzer, maybe them as well. Armies is a whole nother supject.

[tinyp3nis]

Imho, late GA is allways worse than early one, it's like rolling snowball, the early game also defines the late game. Also scoring likes early GA much more. If you have mw or immortal as UU you will like the production bonus which will allow you to build more of them and therefore take more cities. So yes, I agree with them about panzer being too late for GA. Btw in my current game I got random America so I'm still not sure if there even will be GA before it ends .

The people are not happy when they lose units or cities, just like real life. A plane crashes, and it bring some unhappiness and if at war adds to the weariness of war. That is why governments tend to not give the people all of the bad news, until they at least have some good news.

What is the best thread about ww? When I saw thread about ww last time ages ago it was only players opinions and conclusions, most of them were false so didn't bother to look any further into the thread.